Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17907; 26 Oct 91 3:13 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27660 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 26 Oct 1991 00:27:30 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10322 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 26 Oct 1991 00:27:08 -0500 Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1991 00:27:08 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199110260527.AA10322@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #851 TELECOM Digest Sat, 26 Oct 91 00:26:30 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 851 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Oakland Fire Question [Linc Madison] Re: Oakland Fire Question [Doug Faunt] Re: Oakland Fire Question [Arthur Rubin] Re: Oakland Fire Question [Mickey Ferguson] Re: Today's Phones Must Go!!! [Tim Gorman] Re: Today's Phones Must Go!!! [Doug Krause] Re: Today's Phones Must Go!!! [Robert L. McMillin] Re: Today's Phones Must Go!!! [John McHarry] Re: Today's Phones Must Go!!! [Seth I. Robson] Re: Switching System Model Numbers [David G. Lewis] Re: Switching System Model Numbers [Steven P. Mazurek] Re: Switching System Model Numbers [John Hobson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 25 Oct 91 01:04:26 PDT From: linc@tongue1.Berkeley.EDU (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Oakland Fire Question Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article boebert@SCTC.COM (Earl Boebert) writes: > What is the response if you call a number that has been destroyed in > the fire, and in particular, does a ring tone give one any cause for > hope that the house may have survived? I am trying to determine the > fate of an old family friend who lived right on the edge of the > destroyed area (on Ocean View, just a few houses up from Broadway). As of Sunday, the TV news was specifically telling people that getting a ring tone did not confirm that the residence was not destroyed. By now, they have probably got appropriate intercepts on all the lines, plus the people whose homes were damaged are being offered free voice-mail and call forwarding services. However, if you get ring-no-answer, you might do better to try a work number or other friends in the area. In your specific case, much of Ocean View Drive was devastated, so you are right to be concerned. Let me know if you continue to be unable to reach your friend, and I will try to get more information. As for the arson issue, there was an update on tonight's news. The reports that there is no evidence of any natural cause are correct; however, it looks more likely that a person ACCIDENTALLY started the fire than arson. One possibility being investigated right now is a construction crew illegally burning debris and/or brush. It seems to have been established now that Sunday's fire was a rekindling of a fire that started Saturday and then broke containment when the wind kicked up. The damage toll now, with 97% of the area surveyed, is 2691 homes destroyed, 54 with major damage, 441 with minor damage. 24 confirmed fatalities, including unidentified remains, about 30 still missing. Over 2000 acres were burned. The rain started this evening, but has remained a light drizzle. If it keeps this pace, it will help to cool the ground and identify hot spots; if it rains harder or for a prolonged period, mudslides are a major hazard. Linc Madison = linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu = ucbvax!tongue1!linc ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Oct 91 10:25:12 -0700 From: Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269 Subject: Re: Oakland Fire Question I evacuated a friend from Montclair Sunday noon, and cut off the power at her house before we left, so her answering machine didn't work. I got ringing until 3PM, fast busy three times in the next two hours, and then ringing again, although we have a reliable report that her house didn't burn until just after 5 PM, so there was some correlation between her house going and the ring tone, but it may have been coincidence. I live less than 3/4 mile from the edge of the fire in the direction the fire was moving Sunday morning, and it was a little nerveracking to evacuate our friend (who's deaf), and seeing fire on the ridge above the road out, while hearing on the radio that the authorities were considering evacuating my own neighborhood. 73, doug ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Oct 91 12:21:04 PDT From: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com Subject: Re: Oakland Fire Question Didn't PacBell set up free message center mailboxes for people with homes destroyed in the fire? In that case, it suggests that a ringing number is NOT hooked up, and hence not destroyed. 2165888@mcimail.com 70707.453@compuserve.com arthur@pnet01.cts.com (personal) a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (work) My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Oct 91 13:30:05 PDT From: fergusom@scrvm2.vnet.ibm.com (Mickey Ferguson) Subject: re: Oakland Fire Question Organization: Rolm Systems Earl Boebert writes: > What is the response if you call a number that has been destroyed in > the fire, and in particular, does a ring tone give one any cause for > hope that the house may have survived? Ringing tone unfortunately doesn't indicate anything at all. (However, if a person or an answering machine answers, it is a good sign! :) I just called PacBell to find out what the answers were, and this is what they told me they could do for those people who had lost their homes: o offer free Message Center mailboxes. o disconnect residence service and provide free referral number to the place for which the people could now be reached. o provide free call forwarding, where the calls would be forwarded to where the people could be reached. o provide remote call forwarding, where the residence service would be terminated, and then forward calls to a new number free, programmed from PacBell (and not from the home). What I forgot to ask was if these services were mutually exclusive (choose one only); if they were free for just the first month or for a year or some other length of time; and if the installation (programming) charge was waived. I'm pretty sure the installation charges are waived, but I really don't know about the other points. Mickey Ferguson Rolm Systems fergusom@scrvm2.vnet.ibm.com ------------------------------ Date: 25 Oct 91 18:11:54 EDT From: tim gorman <71336.1270@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Today's Phones Must Go!!! mmm@cup.portal.com writes in TELECOM v11, #848: > I think that now is the right time to force a change in the phone > system. ... The reason existing equipment is dangerous is the 48 > volts it uses for powering the bell and sensing the switch hook. I > got a shock from this a few times, once seriously. If all telephone equipment was locally powered from the power utility lines what would you do in an emergency when the power was off? It also seems to me that I remember reading that the "leakage" current on the cable (to ground I suppose?) provides a "sealing" function to splices in the cable preventing them from corroding to an open condition. This function would have to be replaced also. The shock you got from the line while ringing was from a much higher voltage source than the -48v line power. I believe most ringing today is 100v (or more) AC superimposed on the -48v. If I am not mistaken this would make the maximum potential across the conductors about 150v (or more). The cost to replace or remodel all telephone sets in the country would be tremendous, I am not sure most people would pay for it. Wouldn't it be cheaper to provide some kind of optoisolator based equipment to prevent the line voltages from entering the house for those people wishing to use it? Tim Gorman - SWBT * opinions are my own, any resemblence to official policy is coincidence* ------------------------------ From: Doug Krause Subject: Re: Today's Phones Must Go!!! Organization: University of California, Irvine Date: 25 Oct 91 09:48:45 GMT > [Moderator's Note: I was shocked to find out the Chicago Police were > obtaining confessions from people they arrested -- not, mind you using > the gentle art of persuasion -- but by using an old magneto crank-style > hone, circa 1910 or so which had been laying around the police > station for many years after being removed from regular service. "They" do this in the movie _Brubaker_. Douglas Krause University of California, Irvine Internet: dkrause@orion.oac.uci.edu BITNET: DJKrause@uci.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Oct 91 09:17:01 PDT From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) Subject: Re: Today's Phones Must Go!!! mmm@cup.portal.com (who is it?) writes on Sat, 19 Oct 91 17:26:03 PDT concerning telephone safety: > I think that now is the right time to force a change in the phone > system. All the old equipment should be obsoleted because it's > dangerous. Conversion kits could be made available at low cost for > owners of old Western Electric phones. > The reason existing equipment is dangerous is the 48 volts it uses for > powering the bell and sensing the switch hook. I got a shock from > this a few times, once seriously. And why is this dangerous, mmm? Could it be that the user was doing something to the phone that the manufacturer hadn't foreseen or intended? Apparently so: > Now admittedly I was doing something dumb, stripping the ends of the > phone wire with my teeth because I didn't have a wire stripper. I've > only done this a few times, and you wouldn't think I would receive a > phone call while doing it, but the last time I did it, I did. And I > got shocked. It wasn't bad, but it could have been. My tip to the > unwise is not to have both ends of the wire in your mouth while > stripping one end. > I've also noticed you can get a shock from contacting the wires with a > wet part of your body and flipping the switch hook on and off. This is almost as silly as the "protect us from dialing 900 numbers" thread that appeared a few months ago. Wake up and smell the electrons! EVERY telephone book I have ever read has warnings in the front saying that you should NOT work with or use a piece of electrical equipment while wet, telephones included. Your whining about the facts of life -- that a wet body, a quick route to ground, and a charge imbalance equals a good jolt -- is about as reasonable as complaining that inserting a dripping screwdriver into a wall socket delivers a fatal dose of current. Telephones are, PROPERLY used, one of the safest and most reliable pieces of technology we have yet invented. Grow up! Pat then adds: > [Moderator's Note: I was shocked to find out the Chicago Police were > obtaining confessions from people they arrested ... [stuff deleted about the police using magneto crank-style phones to extract jailhouse confessions from prisoners.] Pat, curiosity fills me: did you run this piece to tell that story? [Moderator's Note: No; I thought of the story while editing his piece, and I was reminded of the **** sting **** you can get from DC. PAT] ------------------------------ From: m21198%mwunix@linus.mitre.org (John McHarry) Subject: Re: Today's Phones Must Go!!! Organization: The MITRE Corporation Date: 25 Oct 91 17:34:14 GMT mmm@cup.portal.com writes: > The reason existing equipment is dangerous is the 48 volts it uses for > powering the bell and sensing the switch hook. I got a shock from > this a few times, once seriously. > I've only done this a few times, and you wouldn't think I would > receive a phone call while doing it, but the last time I did it, I > did. And I got shocked. Ringing is not 48 volts. It is nominally 86 volts superimposed on the 48 volts d.c. On frequency selective ringing lines it can be a bit more, perhaps 120 or so, depending on frequency. The 48 is normally about 52, and is always there when the phone is on-hook or unplugged. John McHarry (McHarry@MITRE.org) [Moderator's Note: But if you really want a thrill, try mousing around inside an RF linear amplifier after forgetting to first stick your screwdriver in there and discharge those capacitors! :) And for an exciting display for a young friend who has little or no knowledge of the characteristics of electricity, let him watch while you 'innocently' touch one end of your screwdriver to the (still) juiced-up capacitors while another part of the metal touches the metal case on the unit or some other source of ground ... bang! bang! pop! flash! No harm done, of course, and always good for a laugh as you watch them jump out of the way ... plus, for safety's sake you've insured the device is drained and won't hurt anyone who tampers around inside the unit. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Oct 91 12:55:49 -0700 From: srobson@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Seth I. Robson) Subject: Re: Today's Phones Must Go!!! The simple solution is to take one of your phones off the hook while you're working on the wiring. Just make sure no one else inadvertantly puts the phone back on-hook while you're working. :-) Doesn't seem like too much trouble to me. Maybe I missed a phone call or two, but I've never been shocked. Seth I. Robson; srobson@ucscb.ucsc.edu University of California, Santa Cruz [Moderator's Note: Another way to strip a little wire in a hurry when you don't have your tools is to use a cigarette lighter and burn off the appropriate amount of insulation. Hold the flame to it just long enough to start the insulation melting, then use your fingers to slide it forward and off the bit of wire you are working on. PAT] ------------------------------ From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) Subject: Re: Switching System Model Numbers Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1991 13:23:43 GMT In article haynes@cats.UCSC.EDU (Jim Haynes) writes: > I've heard of the #1 crossbar, and I guess #4 crossbar was a toll > tandem switch, and then there's #5 crossbar. What happened to 2 and > 3? > It looks as if AT&T is relating ESS model numbers to the crossbar > models, since I haven't heard of 2 or 3 ESS either. Well, I can supply a partial answer, but I don't have enough history at my fingertips for a full answer. Perhaps someone else can help out. #1 Crossbar (1XB): local switch designed for large metropolitan areas. First one went into service in 1938 in Brooklyn. #4XB: toll switch. First went into service in 1943 in Philadelphia. #4AXB: toll switch. Improved version of #4XB. Introduced in 1953. #5XB: local switch designed for suburban applications. (May have local/toll functions, I'm not sure.) First went into service in 1948. #1ESS: local/toll switch designed for metropolitan areas. First went into service in 1965 in Succasunna, NJ. #1AESS: local/toll switch. 1E with upgraded (#1A) processor. #2ESS: local/toll switch designed for suburban areas. Capacity 24,000 terminations per switch (compare to ~100k for a large 1A). First went into service in 1970 in Oswego, IL. #2BESS: local/toll switch. 2ESS with upgraded (3ACC) processor. #3ESS: local/toll switch designed for rural ("Community Dial Office") use. Capacity of 5760 terminals. Don't know first service date or location. #4ESS: toll switch. Big. First put in service in 1976. The heart of the AT&T long-distance network, which is has 114 of them. 5ESS: local/toll switch. First put in service in 1982. I don't know if there ever were a #2XB and #3XB, at least in production. By the way, ESS is a trademark of AT&T, and 5ESS is a registered trademark of AT&T. Just thought I'd let you know and make the lawyers happy. David G Lewis AT&T Bell Laboratories david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!houxa!deej ISDN Evolution Planning ------------------------------ From: smazu@ameris.ameritech.com (Steven P. Mazurek) Subject: Re: Switching System Model Numbers Organization: Ameritech, Hoffman Estates, IL Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1991 12:54:49 GMT In article , haynes@cats.UCSC.EDU (Jim Haynes) writes: [about various models of phone switches] Actually there was (is) a No. 2 ESS and No. 2B ESS besides the No. 3 ESS (and don't forget the venerable No. 101 ESS). The 2 ESS was primarily used in suburban and small town situations with a typical access line size of six to ten thousand. The 3 ESS was a machine designed for rural application and usually ran under five thousand lines. Both machines are analog designs. Steven P. Mazurek | Email: {...,uunet,bcr,ohumc}!ameris!smazu Ameritech Services | smazu@ameris.center.il.ameritech.com Schaumburg, IL USA 60010 | Phone : (708) 605-2858 ------------------------------ Reply-To: hobs@hcfeams.UUCP Date: Fri, 25 Oct 91 19:04:24 GMT From: hobs@hcfeams.UUCP Subject: Re: Switching System Model Numbers Well, I know that #2 ESS exists, because my home (in Bolingbrook, IL) is served out of one -- actually a 2A ESS. It is the same generation of technology as the 1A ESS, but smaller (only two NXXs served -- 708-759 and 708-368). I believe that I remember that the Number 3 is an even smaller version of the same -- and I'm pretty sure that my mother-in-laws' home town of Princeton, WI (population 1280) is served by one. John Hobson Ameritech Services 225 W Randolph HQ 17B Chicago, IL 60606 312-727-3490 hobs@hcfeams.chi.il.us ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #851 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18167; 26 Oct 91 3:18 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06606 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 26 Oct 1991 01:25:48 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31182 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 26 Oct 1991 01:25:37 -0500 Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1991 01:25:37 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199110260625.AA31182@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #852 TELECOM Digest Sat, 26 Oct 91 01:25:33 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 852 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Video Dial Tone: Bell TV? [Charlie Mingo] Notice on GEnie About FCC Action [Michael Nolan] Re: Prodigy's Latest Fiasco [Larry Appleman] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charlie.Mingo@p0.f716.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Charlie Mingo) Date: 25 Oct 91 16:34:50 Subject: Video Dial Tone: Bell TV? PHONE COMPANIES COULD TRANSMIT TV UNDER FCC PLAN -- Blow to Cable Industry -- Viewers Expected to Benefit From Many More Choices - New Lines Needed" By Edmund L. Andrews in {The New York Times}, October 25, 1991 at A1. In a surprising and controversial move to promote cable television competition, the Federal Communications Commission proposed today that local telephone companies be allowed to package and transmit television programming. The proposed rules, which were unanimously endorsed and are likely to be adopted within a year, would expose cable companies to the most threatening competition yet. But they could benefit cable television consumers, many of whom have seen their bills double and triple in recent years. The cable industry vowed to fight the proposals and threatened to challenge the rules in court if they are adopted. Telephone companies, eager to enter a lucrative new business, applauded. 'MORE CHOICES' FOR VIEWERS "Today's action will create competition and offer consumers more choices," said James R. Young, vice-president of regulatory and industry relations at the Bell Atlantic Corporation. "Let's hope it's a beginning to the end of turf wars." In essence, the commission recommended that telephone companies be allowed to offer "video dial tone" over telephone lines that would carry programming produced by outside companies. Consumers could view whatever programs they pleased and would be charged accordingly. Initially, telephone companies would serve promarily as a pipeline, not producing the programs. But the commission said telephone companies should also be allowed to organize and package video services, as long as they make their networks available to all programmers. The commission also opened an inquiry on whether to let telephone companies produce programs. CONGRESS HAS AVOIDED ISSUE The idea of allowing so-called video dial tone service has long been a favorite of the F.C.C.'s chairman, Alfred C. Sikes. Congress, which is weighing regulatory legislation to rein in cable proces has shied away from the issue. Today's action makes it more likely that lawmakers will have to reconsider the role of telephone companies in television. Before cable companies would feel much impact from today's F.C.C. proposal, however, most telephone companies would have to spend billions of dollars to install new fiber-optic transmission lines and switching equipment that could carry large volumes of television material. Analysts have estimated that the cost of converting every home in the country to a fiber-optic line would be $100 billion to $200 billion and that it would take at least five years. Most large telephone companies, including all of the regional Bell companies, already plan to replace their copper wires with fiber over the next two decades. The immense business opportunity posed by the $18 billion cable television market is likely to accelerate those plans. High-capacity communications lines that reach every home in America could radically alter the distribution of entertainment and enable people on home computers to tap distant libraries and obtain information in seconds. "Both program providers and consumers would have chances they don't have today, without the bottlenecks provided by cable companies and without the bottlenecks of broadcasting," said Richard Firestone, chief of the F.C.C.'s common carrier bureau. The move was immediately attacked by the National Cable Television Association, which threatened to challenge any new rules in court. "Until and unless the telco's monopoly in voice telephone is ended, no level of Government safeguards against cross-subsidies will be effective," said James P. Mahoney, president of the cable association. QUESTION OF TV PRODUCTION The most controversial issue, which the F.C.C. raised for discussion without recommendation, is whether telephone companies should be allowed to produce programming, a much bigger business than transmission. Many Bush Administration officials favor such a move, but television boradcasters and producers bitterly oppose it. Officials noted that such a shift would require changes in the Cable Television Act of 1984. "Among the top two or three concerns of ever cable operator has always been head-to-head competition against local telephone companies," said John Mansell, a senior analyst at Paul Kagan Associates, a marketing-research firm that monitors the cable industry. For telephone companies, the move could be a windfall. Steven R. Sieck, vice president of Link Resources Inc., a market-research firm in New York, said, "It's by far the largest market opportunity among the whole collection of information services" for telephone companies. It remains unclear, however, whether the new rules will survive in court. Teh Cable Television Act of 1984 bars a telephone company from owning a cable television franchise in the same market. The F.C.C. ruled today, however, that the law does not prevent a local telephone company from transmitting programs produced by other companies and that it does not bar long-distance carriers in any way. The Bell companies have lobbied strongly for legislation that would allow them to enter the cable business, and several companies have invested in European cable franchises. In addition, Pacific Telesis Group, which provides local phone service in California, already holds an option to buy a controlling interest in a Chicago cable franchise, which could be [sic] permissible since it is outside the company's telephone area. RULING ON FRANCHISE FEES The commission also handed down a ruling that could give telephone companies an important price advantage in future competition with cable operators and could prompt protests from local governments, ruling that neither a telephone company nor a video programmer needs to pay franchise fees to local governments. Under the cable act, by contrast, local governments can charge cable operators a franchise fee as high as five per cent of revenues. Explaining today's ruling, Mr. Sikes said, "We have segregation laws, and these segregation laws should be ended." He added that some cable companies were already installing optical fibers in their own networks, and that some were exploring the option of using their netowrks to offer telephone service. The proposals mark the second major change in longstanding restrictions on the telephone companies' ability to move into new services. Less than three weeks ago, a Federa appeals court cleared the way for the regional Bell companies to begin providing information services, like news, stock and sports tables, immediately. ------------------------------ From: nolan@tssi.com (Michael Nolan) Subject: Notice on GEnie About FCC Action Reply-To: nolan@tssi.com Organization: Tailored Software Services, Inc. Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1991 04:23:35 GMT The following showed up the other day on GEnie in the unix roundtable (and possibly elsewhere as well), and is now part of the messages you can display at signon time. I can't exactly figure out what this really means, can comp.dcom.telecom readers? The Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") has adopted rules that will increase by up to five-fold the price of local telephone lines that use new network features to provide access to information services. The new rules could have as serious an impact as the FCC's 1987 access charge proposal, which was successfully defeated through a massive letter-writing campaign. Any information service provider that wishes to take advantage of new network features -- which are to be made available as part of the FCC's Open Network Architecture ("ONA") -- must start paying the higher charges. Although the FCC would allow information service providers to continue using their existing lines at current rates, providers choosing this option would be denied the use of much existing and future network functionality. Many state regulators are compounding this problem by following the FCC's lead. These pricing rules will needlessly inflate the costs of providing information services. Information service providers will have no option but to pass these added costs on to their subscribers in increased prices. This is bad for the information service providers, bad for subscribers, and bad for the United States. At a time when the FCC should be encouraging the widest possible use and availability of information services, the FCC has adopted rules that will have precisely the opposite effect. It's not too late to stop the FCC from implementing its new ONA pricing rules. GEnie (through its trade associations ADAPSO and IIA), CompuServe, Prodigy, BTNA (formerly Tymnet) and others have petitioned the FCC to reconsider its rules, and the FCC is now considering whether it should grant those petitions. You can help by writing to Al Sikes, Chairman of the FCC, and sending copies of your letter to his fellow Commissioners. You should also write to Congressman Ed Markey and Senator Daniel Inouye, the Chairmen of the House and Senate Subcommittees that have jurisdiction over the FCC. (You may also wish to send copies of your letters to your own U.S. Senators and Representative). Tell them that: - You use information services and how you use them. - You will curtail your use of these services if prices increase as a result of the FCC's new ONA pricing rules. - The FCC's new ONA pricing rules will create the wrong incentives by discouraging information service providers from taking advantage of new network features. - The FCC should reconsider the rules it adopted in Docket 89-79 and allow information service providers to use new network features without being required to pay usage-sensitive access charges that are three to five times higher than existing rates. Write to: Honorable Alfred C. Sikes Chairman Federal Communications Commission 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 814 Washington, D.C. 20554 Honorable Sherrie P. Marshall Commissioner Federal Communications Commission 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 826 Washington, D.C. 20554 Honorable Andrew C. Barrett Commissioner Federal Communications Commission 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 844 Washington, D.C. 20554 Honorable James H. Quello Commissioner Federal Communications Commission 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 802 Washington, D.C. 20554 Honorable Ervin S. Duggan Commissioner Federal Communications Commission 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 832 Washington, D.C. 20554 Honorable Edward J. Markey Chairman, Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance U.S. House of Representatives 2133 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515-2107 Honorable Daniel K. Inouye Chairman, Subcommittee on Communications United States Senate 722 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510-1102 Fax Numbers: Federal Communications Commission 202-632-7092 Senator Daniel K. Inouye 202-224-6747 Congressman Edward J. Markey 202-225-8689 To the best of our knowledge, the FCC has only one fax number. If you send your letter via fax (standard fax or GE Mail-to-FAX), the body of your message should indicate that it is intended for Mr. Sikes and that copies should be provided to the other Commissioners. Michael Nolan, nolan@tssi.com Tailored Software Services, Inc. Lincoln, Nebraska (402) 423-1490 ------------------------------ From: larry@world.std.com (Larry Appleman) Subject: Re: Prodigy's Latest Fiasco Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1991 18:41:12 GMT Here is the text of Prodigy's press release responding to the recent controversy about anti-Semitic messages: "PRODIGY DID NOT PUBLISH OFFENSIVE MESSAGE CITED BY MEDIA; AFFIRMS STANDARDS AND FREE EXPRESSION ON BULLETIN BOARDS "NEW YORK, October 23 -- The Prodigy service, a personal computer network, never published a virulent anti-Semitic note widely cited by the news media as having appeared on its public bulletin boards, its management said at a press conference in New York today. "The offensive note was distributed to the media by the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith as an example of vitriolic material it claims Prodigy allows its members to post for general viewing. In fact, Prodigy has determined that the note was submitted to the service for public posting 15 times in October 1990, and was rejected each time. "Prodigy said the Anti-Defamation League was misled into believing the hate- mongering note appeared on its bulletin boards. Henry Heilbrunn, senior vice president of Prodigy, said, 'The truth is we didn't post it then and we wouldn't post it now.' "Mr. Heilbrunn underscored Prodigy's commitment to free expression on its electronic on-line service. 'The free and open nature of our bulletin board system means that we will post notes on controversial subjects to which some people may object at times. That is at the essence of the lively and vital exchange of views which have come to characterize interactive electronic media. But we will NOT post notices containing language so scurrilous that it is grossly repugnant to society's standards of decency. Obviously, the anti- Semitic statements cited by the Wall Street Journal and others are grossly repugnant, and that is why they did not appear on the Prodigy service.' "Prodigy President Ted Papes said, 'It is a difficult balancing act. But we intend to offer this open forum to our members by following the principles of freedom of expression while remaining true to our role as a family service that reaches a very broad audience with diverse viewpoints. We were particularly distressed by the implication that Prodigy might condone anti-Semitism.' "Prodigy said its guidelines for posting bulletin board notes have broadly stated that it does not permit notes that are 'offensive.' Mr. Papes said, 'While our policy has not changed, we now have amplified these guidelines to define offensive as notes that are grossly repugnant to community standards. This would encompass notes that are blatant expressions of bigotry, racism and hate.' "'Indeed,' said Mr. Papes, 'We condemn anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry. They are repugnant and we would never encourage them. What we do encourage is the free exchange of ideas. To the extent that a handful of the five million notes posted in the past year may be thought of as intemperate, we think that the sunshine of free expression is the best cure for the cancer of bigotry.' "Bulletin board on the Prodigy service are public forums, where each note can be accessed and read by other members interested in particular subjects. Prodigy screens incoming bulletin board notes electronically for specific vulgar words; it asks its members to identify notes they feel violate the guidelines so they can be reviewed; and it post-audits bulletin board notes for appropriateness. Public bulletin board notes that violate guidelines, or are irrelevant to the designated bulletin-board topic, are returned unedited to the sender for modification and resubmission. Bulletin boards are not related to private messaging, which is the one-to-one exchange of correspondence between individual members. Prodigy does not see private messages, which are the sole concern of the sender and receiver. "The Prodigy service enables families with personal computers to save time and money on shopping, securities trading, banking and bill paying; to find and book solid values in travel and leisure activities; to select a broad range of information, education and entertainment; to search an encyclopedia; to place and respond to classified ads; and to exchange personal messages from their homes and offices. Each household connects to these services through its regular telephone line attached to a home computer with a simple, inexpensive device called a modem." Larry Appleman P.O. Box 214, Cambridge B, Mass. 02140 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #852 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03283; 26 Oct 91 17:18 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25205 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 26 Oct 1991 15:33:04 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA32149 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 26 Oct 1991 15:32:52 -0500 Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1991 15:32:52 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199110262032.AA32149@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #853 TELECOM Digest Sat, 26 Oct 91 15:32:10 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 853 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: SWB "Modem Tax" Tariff: This Time Its For Real! [Bob Izenberg] Re: Interesting Pac*Bell Response [Tad Cook] Re: Pac*Bell Doubles Its Rates [Linc Madison] Re: SHF or UHF SATCOM Transponder Rates [Harold Hallikainen] Re: 56 KBps Dial Up Wanted in Canada [Lars Poulsen] Re: 56 KBps Dial Up Wanted in Canada [Chuck Grandgent] Re: Friends and Family (was LD Savings Plans) [Scott Hinckley] Re: Rude Operators [David Leibold] Re: AT&T Advertising [John Hobson] Re: Video Network/Compression [Lee Castellion] Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card [Jack Decker] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: bei@dogface.austin.tx.us (Bob Izenberg) Subject: Re: SWB "Modem Tax" Tariff: This Time Its For Real! Date: Thu, 24 Oct 91 2:39:15 CDT In TELECOM Digest #845, "J. Brad Hicks" wrote: > Finally, they want to amend the tariff so you can mix ITS, flat-rate, > and measured service at a single site. Who could oppose this? The Southwestern Bell of more than two years ago would have. When I ordered several additional phone lines, I requested measured service for the lines that I expected to be used for incoming-only calls. I was told that measured service couldn't be had for only some of the lines at my location. Another clerk might have interpreted things differently in writing the order, but I would have to watch by phone bill each month to be sure that those lines hadn't "accidentally" been taken off of measured service. Has anyone tried to split measured and flat rate service in a residence in Texas more recently than I have? Bob DOMAIN-WISE: bei@dogface.austin.tx.us BANG-WISE: ...cs.utexas.edu!dogface!bei ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Interesting Pac*Bell Response From: hpubvwa!tad@ssc.wa.com (Tad Cook) Date: 18 Oct 91 22:57:44 GMT john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > The inescapable conclusion: Call Waiting is NOT possible on the 5ESS > while a Three-Way call is in progress. This is personally verified > and I have witnesses. > For the record, let me restate that ALL of the people whose knowledge > and opinions that I trust in this business tell me that UNDER NO > CIRCUMSTANCES and contrary to other claims in this forum, the 5ESS > does NOT, on an ordinary POTS line, allow Call Waiting on a Three Way > call. For those of you who claim that it does, I would suggest that > you recheck your data, or find out what switch you are REALLY served > by. (stuff deleted) > Just got the "final" word from a 611 repair supervisor. No, the 5ESS > does not allow CW on 3W, period. No, there are no plans to enable > this feature implementation. Now what was that about the superiority > of the 5ESS? Wrong. As I wrote on this forum before, I am served by a 5ESS (the LAkeview exchange in Seattle). Call Waiting works great on a three-way call. I have personally verified this. I have two lines at home, and one used to be on a #5 Crossbar, while the other was a #1AESS, both housed in the same building. About five years ago all lines in the LAkeview CO were switched to a new #5ESS. I would offer to place a three-way call to Mr. Higdon, and then let him call me back and I would answer his third line with Call Waiting, but no doubt at this point he would claim that I was a complete idiot who obviously doesn't know what flavor of switch is in the C.O. Again, the LAkeview exchange (US West) is a 5E, and Call Waiting works fine on three-way calling. My guess is that someone at PacBell is assuming that their version of software is the same as on 5ESS switches everywhere. Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP or, kt7h@polari.uucp or, 3288544@mcimail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Oct 91 03:08:04 PDT From: linc@tongue1.Berkeley.EDU (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Pac*Bell Doubles Its Rates Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article John Higdon writes: > Didn't anyone else notice what bombshell was buried in Pac*Bell's rate > restructuring? > Local Measured Usage (Daytime Rate) > Initial Minute increases from $0.04 to $0.05 > Each Additional Minute increases from $0.01 to $0.02 Yup, they're proposing to double the rates. Another way of looking at it is that when they eliminated the distinction between Zone 1 and Zone 2 calls, they eliminated Zone 1 instead of Zone 2. Old system (before 6/1/91): Zone 1 (0-8 miles) .04/.01 (free from unmeasured lines) Zone 2 (8-12 mi.) .08/.02 Proposed new system: Zones 1 & 2 (0-12 mi.) .05/.02 (free from unmeasured) So much for expanding the local calling area, if you have measured service. Furthermore, Zone 2 calls used to be itemized, but no longer are, irrespective of class of service, so you can't even see where they're nickel-and-diming you. (The above rates are discounted 30% for evening and 60% night/weekend) Linc Madison = linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu = ucbvax!tongue1!linc ------------------------------ From: hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Re: SHF or UHF SATCOM Transponder Rates Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1991 16:49:06 GMT In article gbass@mitre.org (Jerry Bass) writes: > Can anyone give me a ballpark cost for leasing a UHF or SHF SATCOM > transponder channel (around 56Kbps) by the minute, day or month? You might try calling Bill Sepmeier at National Supervisory Network. He has a national VSAT data network for the control of broadcast transmitters, email, and digitized audio distribution. You can reach him at 800 345 VSAT or 303 949 7774. Harold ------------------------------ From: lars@spectrum.cmc.com (Lars Poulsen) Subject: Re: 56 KBps Dial Up Wanted in Canada Organization: CMC (a Rockwell Company), Santa Barbara, California, USA Date: Thu, 24 Oct 91 17:13:57 GMT In article TAMIL@QUCDN.QueensU.CA writes: > Is there any 56 (or higher) Kbps dial up service available in Canada? > I send and recive files between New York City and Toronto using 19.2 > Modem. Someone told me that there are 56 (or 64) Kbps dial up services > available. How much does it cost (a ball-park figure will be fine) and > what type of hardware do I need? Is there some kind of spcial modem > required? Where can I get more info on this? There are two kinds of dial up services for 56-64 kbps use: (1) ISDN. Provided by your local exchange carrier. Extends the 64kbps long-distance signaling channel right into your telephone handset. Computer terminal equipment can be attached to special terminal adapter modules. Recent messages have discussed rates for ISDN service. (2) Switched 56 data service. In the US, this is offered by the interexchange carriers as an option on their bypass services. I don't think it is offered on anything but T1 access lines, so at a minimum, your customer premises equipment must include a T1 multiplexer, even if you only subscribe to one line. (The T1 can carry 24 lines). I have heard a usage-sensitive rate component of 16 cents per minute for switched-56 data service. I don't know what the fixed component runs to, but I am sure you would pay a monthly mileage charge for the T1 access, plus rent for the CPE. In Europe, there are separate circuit-switched data networks, which are as separate from the voice network as the TWX network is in the US. These only to connect to others of their kind, and are quite expensive to attach to. What is your application for this ? (Business, Educational, Hobby) and what is the call volume ? Maybe you can use the Internet file transfer mechanisms rather than dial-up (async ?) ? Maybe you need to look into X.25 services? Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer CMC Rockwell lars@CMC.COM ------------------------------ From: chuck@roadrunner.pictel.com (Chuck Grandgent) Subject: Re: 56 KBps Dial Up Wanted in Canada Date: Fri, 25 Oct 91 9:59:48 EDT TAMIL@QUCDN.QueensU.CA writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 847, Message 14 of 14 > Is there any 56 (or higher) Kbps dial up service available in Canada? > I send and recive files between New York City and Toronto using 19.2 > Modem. Someone told me that there are 56 (or 64) Kbps dial up services > available. How much does it cost (a ball-park figure will be fine) and > what type of hardware do I need? Is there some kind of spcial modem > required? Where can I get more info on this? AT&T has ACCUNET switched-56 service, $10 - $20 per hour typically; MCI and Sprint have similar services ... ACCUNET gives you 700 exchange numbers that you dial. You'll need a CSU (like a modem), often with V.35 connectors. There are V.35 boards for PC's. Chuck Grandgent, K1OM chuck@pictel.com PictureTel Corporation Peabody, Massachusetts Voice: 508 977 8314 ------------------------------ From: scott@hsvaic.boeing.com (Scott Hinckley) Subject: Re: Friends and Family (was LD Savings Plans) Date: 24 Oct 91 19:11:11 GMT Reply-To: scott@hsvaic.boeing.com In john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > but that is another can of worms.) For instance, MCI's "Around Town" > evaporated without a peep and Sprint Plus became the "standard" rate. > People will discover that there is no longer any 20% discount and > calls to the business office will reveal that for some Good Reason MCI > has discontinued the plan. This is just not true. While I was very unhappy with MCI discontinuing their "Around Town" feature, they did not do so without notice. I recieved my first notice three months before they discontinued it, then another on the last "Around Town" bill. Apparently many people just never bother to read the literature that is sent with their bills. (BTW, MCI is losing a lot of money off of me. With "Around Town" I was $60 - $100/month, now I only send them $5 - $20/month. Scott scott@hsvaic.boeing.com ------------------------------ From: djcl.bbs@shark.cse.fau.edu Subject: Re: Rude Operators Organization: Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1991 21:16:20 GMT chris@nike.calpoly.edu (The Squire, Phish) writes: > Okay, I may be picking nits here, but I just got off the line with a > very rude operator. It's 5am here, and I'm finishing a program. I Most operators I come across are good, or at least mostly harmless. However, I've had some bizarre experiences with some Bell Canada operators in past years: - One loser operator gave me a rough time when I was phoning out to British Columbia one time ... she threatened to charge person-to- person rates on me and was a nasty case; after the call was over at the three minute mark, she dared to phone back and demand 75 more cents from me. Since I didn't have the change, I hung up, and eventually phoned back to another, more reasonable, operator who explained that the operator who placed the BC call was acting in violation of Bell policy, namely that there is never supposed to be a call back and if no change is available from the calling party's end, the called party is to be asked to accept any further charges (like a partial collect call). This was back in the mid-80's, and certainly a finalist in the bogus Bell employee awards for that year. - A more recent example of a loser operator at Bell Canada: I call an operator to ask for a location for a given area code/exchange (commonly known as a "name place" request); in the normal, proper case, the operator will phone up a rate and route operator in Montreal (if outside the home area code; with all that TOPS technology, they could have that on the keyboard, but that's not the operator's fault); the request is made and the answer given. The loser operator, unlike the normal operators, cuts the voice path when calling rate and route; she comes back, gives little more than a non-answer (for instance, she would likely respond to a request for 313-822 by saying "Michigan" or perhaps "United States", or some such generality, but never the specific place name). Strategies to report such operators seem to escape me; in the former case, the second operator who told me about the real Bell policy said he couldn't trace down the operator. Perhaps in retrospect, the supervisor should be called back with all relevant information, or maybe a top level type in the business office. Or you could try again, and the next time get a better operator. I have this feeling the Moderator is under a deluge on this topic... Replies: dleibold@attmail.com djcl@sol.cse.fau.edu ------------------------------ Reply-To: hobs@hcfeams.UUCP () Date: Mon, 21 Oct 91 16:06:56 GMT From: hobs@hcfeams.UUCP () Subject: Re: AT&T Advertising In comp.dcom.telecom andrew@frip.wv.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) writes: > Indeed. Jerry Pournelle once wrote that AT&T couldn't market Eternal > Life. I have a friend who works in AT&T Technologies (what used to be Western Electric) in Montgomery, IL. Her department makes modems. She had to go to a meeting at AT&T Bell Labs in Naperville, IL (about 10 miles away), and while she was there, she did a bit of wandering around, looking into peoples' offices. She saw modems on most desks, but not one of them was an AT&T modem. Most of the people she spoke to were at best vaguely aware that AT&T even made modems. In other words, they apparently can't even sell to themselves. John Hobson Ameritech Services 225 W Randolph HQ 17B Chicago, IL 60606 312-727-3490 hobs@hcfeams.chi.il.us ------------------------------ From: Lee Castellion Subject: Re: Video Network/Compression Date: 24 Oct 91 20:08:46 GMT Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA The IEEE Magazine "Spectrum" had an article about video compression in it sometime this year. Lee Castellion ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Oct 91 19:11:39 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card >> 800- The most universally accessible, but in some cases even the 800 >> access numbers were not available in some areas. > You might be interested to know that Sprint's 800 number access > REQUIRES that FGD be available in the serving office. That's right: if > an office can give you FONCARD dialtone, it can provide 10XXX. That is > the technical reality. That is simply not true, at least not in the 906 area code of Michigan. I can take you to step-by-step exchanges served by independent phone companies (obviously NOT FGD capable) and dial Sprint's 800 access number and it will go through. I know of no place that around this area where it will NOT work now, and the majority of exchanges in my area (especially to the west of me) are either still not converted to equal access or are just being converted this year. > It is well within your right to make product decisions based on > emotion and grudges, but please, at least get your technical facts and > regulatory histories straight. But then if you did that, you might > come to different conclusions. C'mon, John, you're telling me that your decisions are based solely on "technical facts" and not at all on emotion or "gut feeling"? One would never get that impression from your posts, which seem to just look for reasons to claim superiority for AT&T. The only problem I have with this is that given that AT&T ALREADY has a substantially larger market share than ALL of their competitors, I still feel that there is some danger of them becoming a "defacto monopoly" again. They already have the largest piece of the pie but they want the whole pie, and one of the primary ways they try to get it is by attacking the competition in their advertising. I agree with the person who, in a recent article, stated in effect that AT&T must have one of the most inept advertising agencies in the country (my words, not his). The image of the big company picking on the little companies is not one that plays well in the mind of the American public (stated succinctly, "nobody loves a bully"), but it's strange how those in big companies are often blind to this. Jack Decker : jack@myamiga.mixcom.com : FidoNet 1:154/8 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #853 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06947; 26 Oct 91 18:26 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29173 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 26 Oct 1991 16:30:11 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31819 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 26 Oct 1991 16:30:00 -0500 Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1991 16:30:00 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199110262130.AA31819@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #854 TELECOM Digest Sat, 26 Oct 91 16:29:46 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 854 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Why Separate Business and Residence Rates? [David Marks] Re: Why Separate Business and Residence Rates? [Chris Johnston] Re: Call Parking (Was Why Can't I Pickup This Call?) [Jeff Carroll] Re: Call Parking (Was Why Can't I Pickup This Call?) [Scott Hinckley] Re: Video Dial Tone: Bell TV? [yarvin@cs.yale.edu] Re: AT&T/SkyTel Venture [Mark Seiden] Re: Switching System Model Numbers) [Robert McMillin] Re: Oakland Fire Question [Alan Sanderson] Re: Very Nice Motel Telecom Policy [Joel Upchurch] Re: 950/800 and AT&T [Steven S. Brack] Re: 510 Cutover Annoyance [Linc Madison] Re: 800 Backdoor: No Accident [Alan Toscano] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: tijc02!djm408@uunet.uu.net (David Marks) Subject: Re: Why Separate Business and Residence Rates? Organization: Siemens Industrial Automation, Johnson City TN Date: Fri, 25 Oct 91 13:18:53 GMT TELECOM Moderator noted: > [Moderator's Note: ... there is another form of low-usage service in > many communities. Here in Illinois it is called "Life Line", and it is > intended to provide a very minimal, very basic connection to the > network with no bells or whistles. It costs about five dollars a month > and is intended for people on welfare or otherwise with a limited > income. PAT] Here where I live (Johnson City, TN) the "minimal" service is similar, but it is not JUST FOR PEOPLE ON LIMITED INCOMES. I pay $6 a month for my phone connection and $0.10 a call ("Pay per Call" Service). I am NOT on a limited income, but I am SINGLE and live alone. I would have to make over 90 calls a month (that's over three calls a day) to make it worthwhile paying for Flat Rate Residential service which costs $15/month. In addition I have ROTARY (pulse) service, to avoid paying the $1/month touch tone premium. I still have access to touch tone services, as I have a phone that can become touch tone in the middle of a call. I don't see paying $1 for an extra five seconds saved when dialing a call, since I make so few calls each month. So, it doesn't always make sense to pay for all that phone service when your not really using it. Now, if I was married and had several teeenage kids ... David J. Marks | UUCP: ...!uunet!tijc02!djm408 Siemens Industrial Automation, Inc. | Internet: djm408%tijc02@uunet.uu.net P.O. Drawer 1255 Johnson City, TN 37605-1255 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Oct 91 14:36:14 CDT From: Chris Johnston Subject: Re: Why Separate Business and Residence Rates? Organization: Department of Computer Science Most businesses, including most telephone companies, give volume discounts to encourage purchases. Of course the caller usually pays anyway. Perhaps SWB, being a monopoly, beleives BBS operators have inelastic demand curves and is trying to set rates that follow the demand curve. I sure don't understand why a company would want to discourage use of its product ... cj ------------------------------ From: ssc-bee!ssc-vax!carroll@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Carroll) Subject: Re: Call Parking (Was: Why Can't I Pickup This Call?) Date: 24 Oct 91 21:12:31 GMT Reply-To: ssc-vax!carroll@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Carroll) Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics In article rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller) writes: > In article Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1. > fidonet.org (Nigel Allen) writes: >> I suspect that almost nobody but a switchboard operator would >> routinely use this feature, which may explain why Boeing either hasn't >> implemented it on its 5ESS, or hasn't bothered to tell all its >> employees about it. > I find this not to be the case. We have call parking on our SL-1[00?] > PBX. Our department uses it very heavily since we operate two machine > rooms and have console positions at any number of telephone locations. > It is much easier to park a call and move to the correct location and > retrieve it. This is true since most of the instruments only have one > real number [or in some ases a pseudo-number since they are not > direct-dialable] so we can't place the call on hold. Call parking is not advertised in the little brochure that Boeing circulates to authorized telephone users. Camp-on (aka automatic callback) is advertised and doesn't work, and (at least at my location) group pickup works and is not advertised. Rumor has it (from a friend who works for Boeing's internal Network Services Group) that the internal network is in a state of bureaucratic crisis. The one time I've had opportunity to make a call to NSG since we went to 5ESS, it took them overnight to restore dial tone to a block of phones that had apparently been inadvertently turned off. Jeff Carroll carroll@ssc-vax.boeing.com ------------------------------ From: scott@hsvaic.boeing.com (Scott Hinckley) Subject: Re: Call Parking (Was: Why Can't I Pickup This Call?) Date: 25 Oct 91 17:52:55 GMT Reply-To: scott@hsvaic.boeing.com In article Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1. fidonet.org (Nigel Allen) writes: > I suspect that almost nobody but a switchboard operator would > routinely use this feature, which may explain why Boeing either hasn't > implemented it on its 5ESS, or hasn't bothered to tell all its > employees about it. On our Boeing phones the * and # functions of each key are painted on the plate around the keys. *9 is call park, and it works quite well for me. VoiceNet:Scott Hinckley | ATTnet:+1 205 461 2073 Internet:scott@hsvaic.boeing.com | UUCP:...!uw-beaver!bcsaic!hsvaic!scott US snail:110 Pine Ridge Rd / Apt# 608/ Huntsville / AL / 35801 DISCLAIMER: All contained herein are my opinions ------------------------------ From: yarvin@CS.YALE.EDU Subject: Re: Video Dial Tone: Bell TV? Organization: H. L. Mencken Fan Club Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1991 07:42:39 GMT Charlie.Mingo@p0.f716.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Charlie Mingo) writes: [excerpting an {NY Times} article] > "Until and unless the telco's monopoly in voice telephone is > ended, no level of Government safeguards against cross-subsidies will > be effective," said James P. Mahoney, president of the cable > association. This part of the article perhaps deserves extra note. If this quote is to be believed, then the cable companies would not at all mind the telcos carrying video if they could in turn provide voice service. The possibility and possible lucrativeness of this are familiar topics to TELECOM Digest readers, but as an official policy of the cable companies it is something new. ------------------------------ From: mis@seiden.com (Mark Seiden) Subject: Re: AT&T/SkyTel Venture Date: 25 Oct 91 15:38:02 GMT Organization: Seiden and Associates, Inc, Stamford, CT ED.HOPPER@ehbbs.hou.tx.us (ED HOPPER) writes: > AT&T ANNOUNCES *** AT&T and SkyTel Corp. yesterday (10/14/91) > announced the industry's first international "wireless mailbox" > enabling business people on-the-move to link electronic mail and > paging capabilities with a notebook computer. > The interface in the SkyTel Link package connects the receiver to the > Safari notebook computer so messages can be downloaded for viewing. trebor@foretune.co.jp (Robert J Woodhead) writes: > One wonders what provisions for encryption are provided by the system; > if the messages are delivered "in the clear" then anyone with a little > bit of technical skill can read any mail delivered via this method. The answer is: Skytel designed an interface for a specific Motorola alpha pager so you can poll it, and download its buffer from the safari serial port. (They hemmed and hawed about how it would *only* work with a Safari at the Comdex press conference I went to ... only *tested* on a Safari). The messages are transmitted in the clear, although they could be encrypted in software by the sender and decrypted on the Safari (in this case, the pager could not be used to view the message contents because it can't decrypt). There are some other problems: There are current limitations on what the pager can store. As I remember, 6k in aggregate data, 2k max per message, max 20 messages. skytel at the moment sends max length 240 byte messages, so it doesn't take advantage of the full capacity of the pager, and you'd have to break your messages up into 240 byte packets. There is hardware crc on the message (validated by the pager), but a crc error shows up as { } rather than an out-of-band tag on the message, so there isn't an 8 bit transparent path. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Oct 91 12:28:17 PDT From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) Subject: Re: Switching System Model Numbers David G. Lewis writes in response to Jim Haynes' request for information on crossbar and electronic switches: > In article haynes@cats.UCSC.EDU (Jim > Haynes) writes: >> I've heard of the #1 crossbar, and I guess #4 crossbar was a toll >> tandem switch, and then there's #5 crossbar. What happened to 2 and >> 3? >> It looks as if AT&T is relating ESS model numbers to the crossbar >> models, since I haven't heard of 2 or 3 ESS either. [much stuff deleted about old switches, crossbar and otherwise] > #4ESS: toll switch. Big. First put in service in 1976. The heart of > the AT&T long-distance network, which is has 114 of them. ONLY 114? How many switches do they have overall, one wonders? Does anybody reading know where one can see these? If there's anybody in the Los Angeles area who knows of some local museums that might have such things laying about, I'd be most appreciative. [Moderator's Note: Museums? These are switches in service around the USA, not museum relics! Ask at your local AT&T office for a tour if you want to see one. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Alan Sanderson Subject: Re: Oakland Fire Question Date: 25 Oct 91 20:43:44 GMT Organization: HP Pacific Technology Park - Sunnyvale, Ca. Pacific Bell has offered free voicemail service or call forwarding to victims of the tunnel fire. Your friends may have one of these services if they were unfortunate enough to lose their house. Otherwise, normal telephone and electrical service was expected to be restored by this weekend. Alan Sanderson Hewlett-Packard AMSO alans@hpams0a.HP.COM US Snail: 1266 Kifer Rd. MS101S MaBell: 408-746-5714 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 FAX: 408-746-5890 Disclaimer: ------------------------------ From: joel@peora.sdc.ccur.com (Joel Upchurch) Subject: Re: Very Nice Motel Telecom Policy Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1991 05:11:30 GMT Organization: Upchurch Computer Consulting, Orlando FL When I stayed at the Crystal Lodge in Eatontown NJ, they also had AT&T as their default long distance carrier and no charge for local calls. Also they had modular jacks in the room and my modem worked fine. I thought about them a lot when I was staying at Caesar's Palace in Las Vegas last week (the week BEFORE COMDEX, thank god). I never figured out a way to place a LD call through AT&T from the room without paying operator assisted rates. And they still added a buck per call to my bill even when I charged the call to my credit card. And they charged a buck per call for LOCAL calls. I ended up making most of my calls from the pay phones in the lobby. Even though the pay phones were COCOTs, at least 10ATT worked on them. And to top it off information on these excessive phone charges is information is buried in the service directory. Joel Upchurch/Upchurch Computer Consulting/718 Galsworthy/Orlando, FL 32809 joel@peora.ccur.com {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd,ucf-cs}!peora!joel (407) 859-0982 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: 950/800 and AT&T From: sbrack@bluemoon.rn.com (Steven S. Brack) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 91 23:26:05 EDT Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024]) I called ATT last night, and was told to call 1-800-225-5288 (CALL ATT) and they would connect me with an ATT operator for calling card calls without a surcharge for OA. THey've moved calling card enquiries to a new number, so my hunch is that CALL-ATT will be ATT's 800 access number. Steven S. Brack | sbrack%bluemoon@nstar.rn.com Jacob E. Taylor Honors Tower | sbrack@bluemoon.uucp The Ohio State University | sbrack@nyx.cs.du.edu 50 Curl Drive | sbrack@isis.cs.du.edu Columbus, Ohio 43210-1112 USA | brack@ewf.eng.ohio-state.edu +1 614 293 7383 or 419 474 1010 | Steven.S.Brack@osu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Oct 91 01:24:44 PDT From: linc@tongue1.Berkeley.EDU (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: 510 Cutover Annoyance Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article I wrote: > Well, perhaps Pacific*Bell should inform some of its own employees > that there is a new area code in place hereabouts. > [from area 510 dialed 1-415-555-1212 for San Francisco directory > assistance, operator incorrectly told me I should have dialed 411.] PAT adds (elided for brevity): > [Moderator's Note: Are you positive about this? ... > [[call 411 from 708 and 312 for numbers in either area code; the > computer voice prepends the area code if it's the opposite]] Yup, I'm sure. Page A3 of the Oakland directory says to dial 411 for directory assistance, but to dial 1 + Area Code 555-1212 for D.A. Outside Your Area Code. My impression is that the geographic area covered by 312/708 is rather smaller than 415/510, and the line between the two is much more neatly drawn here (east or west of the puddle), which may explain why they combine them. I wouldn't be surprised if, even after the final cutover, dialing 411 would access numbers in either area code, but the prescribed method is to dial 411 only for numbers within your own area code. Of course, in Texas, you dial 1 + 411 (1+ because there's a charge) for local numbers within your area code, 1 + 555-1212 or 1 + NPA + 555-1212 for non-local numbers within your area code, and 1 + NPA + 555-1212 for any number in another area code. Your vileage may marry. Linc Madison = linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu = ucbvax!tongue1!linc ------------------------------ Subject: Re: 800 Backdoor: No Accident Date: Fri, 25 Oct 91 13:48:12 CDT Reply-To: atoscano@attmail.com From: atoscano@taronga.com (Alan Toscano) In TELECOM Digest V11 #848, (Martin McCormick) writes: > Yesterday, I finally let curiosity get the better of me and called > that {USA Today} 800 backdoor from Oklahoma State University's > PBX... After about five or so minutes, an interesting thing > happened. As I was about to try to get the weather for Hawaii, > the recorded female voice which is used for the main menu said, > "Please stand by." After about 10 to 15 seconds of dead air, the > background noise increased slightly and I thought another menu was > coming on. Instead, I heard the familiar three-note sequence for > a non-working number and a recording that said, "Your call can not > be completed as dialed." There was an area code of 417 tacked on > as an identifier and that was that... The "Please stand by." is normal when selecting the menu option for weather. At this point, you should have been connected to WeatherTrak, a service provided out of Dallas, TX, by a company called AirData. Apparently, something went wrong in the call setup. I doubt it had anything to do with the length of the call. You can also reach WeatherTrak directly by calling 1 900 370-8728, again for 95 cents per minute. In its early days, WeatherTrak had local "free" numbers in many US cities. These numbers had local sponsors, with brief advertisements. After listening to the ad, you could select any available city's weather with your DTMF phone, or just hold on for the local city's info. As sponsors dropped out, some of these "free" numbers were converted to 976 numbers. I think these local ("free"/976) numbers have now all gone away, replaced by the direct 900 number above, or through "gateways" from other pay services generally accessed via 900 or 700 numbers. In fairness, let me say that the current "pay" version of WeatherTrak provides far more extensive information than the earlier "free" version did. A Alan Toscano Internet : atoscano@taronga.com P O Box 741982 AT&T Mail: atoscano ELN: 62306750 Houston, TX CIS: 73300,217 Prodigy: BHWR97A 772741982 USA Work: +1 713 236 6616 Home: +1 713 993 9560 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #854 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09432; 26 Oct 91 19:12 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09177 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 26 Oct 1991 17:24:04 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30740 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 26 Oct 1991 17:23:52 -0500 Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1991 17:23:52 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199110262223.AA30740@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #855 TELECOM Digest Sat, 26 Oct 91 17:23:33 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 855 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: 510 Cutover Annoyance [John R. Levine] Re: 510 Cutover Annoyance [John Higdon] Re: Registration/Test by Phone on Campus [David Lemson] Re: Oakland Fire Question [Alan Sanderson] Re: Today's Phones Must Go!!! [Chuck Forsberg] Re: How Are 900 Calls Delivered? [Stephen Friedl] Correction: Re: ISDN Terminal Equipment [Carl Moore] Re: IBT ISDN Pricing [Jeff Wasilko] Re: IBT ISDN Pricing [Robert L. McMillin] Re: Pending "Modem Tax" in Portland, Oregon [Alan R. Gross] Contacting Survivors of the Oakland Fire [Earl Boebert] Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card [Arthur Rubin] Sexist Mnemonics [John Hobson] Life, the Universe and the Telephone [Adam M. Gaffin] What is the ANI Code For Fremont, CA? [Chuck Hein] Internet Address Wanted For NYNEX [S.E. Williams] Same Phone Number For Two Cellular Phones [Jeff Sicherman] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: 510 Cutover Annoyance Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 25 Oct 91 12:10:42 EDT (Fri) From: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) Linc Madison reports that directory assistance in 510 and 415 are still handled by the same bureau, and he has to dial 411 for either, with 1-415-555-1212 being intercepted. This first part turns out to be quite common. The 201 and 908 areas in New Jersey, 617 and 508 areas in Massachusetts, and (I think) 212 and 718 in New York City still have common D.A. bureaus. But at least they do something reasonable with (other area)-555-1212. The relationship between local/toll, intra/inter-NPA and D.A. bureaus has always been rather approximate. For example, even though the 609 NPA in New Jersey is two separate LATAs with toll rates from anywhere in one of the LATAs to the other (in between are the sparsely populated Pine Barrens) the local free 411 directory assistance gives numbers for anywhere in 609. On the other hand, here in Boston, I dial 411 for numbers local to Boston while 1-555-1212 has all numbers in 617 and 508. I don't know why they make this distinction. All residential D.A. calls within Massachusetts were free until recently and are still free for the first ten calls per month. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ Subject: Re: 510 Cutover Annoyance Date: 25 Oct 91 01:29:12 PDT (Fri) From: john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) linc@tongue1.Berkeley.EDU (Linc Madison) writes: > Then again, I sometimes wonder if Pac*Bell isn't just one giant PBX. As the administrator for several PBXes, I am offended :-) > [Moderator's Note: Are you positive about this? The reason I ask is > that even though we have both 708 and 312 exclusively for the Chicago > and suburban area, we dial 411 from either area for information about > both. Without exception in California, the standard procedure to obtain information in another area within the state is to dial AC + 555-1212. Yes, there are places where the 411 operator will give you numbers across area code lines (such as 818/213), but Linc should have expected the method that he used to have worked. Under current tariffs (soon to possibly be changed), it is very much to your advantage to use the area code rather than 411. Calls to 411 are measured and charged for over an allowance. Calls to DA within the LATA, but in another AC are free. For instance, even if I could get 411 to give me a listing in Mountain View, it would count against my 411 allowance. If I (correctly) dial 415-555-1212, the call is free. John Higdon (hiding out in the desert) ------------------------------ From: lemson@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (David Lemson) Subject: Re: Registration/Test by Phone on Campus Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1991 05:23:31 GMT hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) writes: > The use of DTMF/voice to handle class registration seems a bit > inefficient to me. A school is going to have to buy lots of new > equipment and pay for lots of DTMF/voice phone lines. It seems to me > that it'd be better handled through the existing computer systems. The University of Illinois was planning for some time to go to a DTMF system of class registration in about two or threee years. I've seen indications that the administration has decided that maybe it would be better to go to computer-based (from PC's that have Telnet -- we have about 700 on campus) registration. Just to let you know that some universities are thinking about this. (Our current registration system is pre-enrollment on scantron forms, and standing in line two days before classes for everything else.) David Lemson (217) 244-1205 University of Illinois NeXT Campus Consultant / CSO NeXT Lab Sys Admin Internet : lemson@uiuc.edu UUCP :...!uiucuxc!uiucux1!lemson NeXTMail : lemson@sumter.cso.uiuc.edu BITNET : LEMSON@UIUCVMD ------------------------------ From: Alan Sanderson Subject: Re: Oakland Fire Question Date: 25 Oct 91 20:43:44 GMT Organization: HP Pacific Technology Park - Sunnyvale, Ca. Pacific Bell has offered free voicemail service or call forwarding to victims of the fire. Your friends may have one of these services if they were unfortunate enough to lose their house. Otherwise, normal telephone and electrical service was expected to be restored by this weekend. Alan Sanderson Hewlett-Packard AMSO alans@hpams0a.HP.COM US Snail: 1266 Kifer Rd. MS101S MaBell: 408-746-5714 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 FAX: 408-746-5890 Disclaimer: ------------------------------ From: omen!caf@uunet.uu.net (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) Subject: Re: Today's Phones Must Go!!! Organization: Omen Technology INC Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1991 21:09:00 GMT [stuff deleted about the police using magneto crank-style phones to extract jailhouse confessions from prisoners.] [Moderator's Note: No; I thought of the story while editing his piece, and I was reminded of the **** sting **** you can get from DC. PAT] In grade school our science teacher had our entire class of 30 join hands and then "charged" us with a telephone magneto. In preparation for this everyone rubbed their hands on their clothes to get them as dry as possible. I wetted mine, and was the only one not to feel a shock. As I relive the experience I shudder to think what would have happened if someone had a heart problem. The circuit path was certainly optimized. Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX ...!tektronix!reed!omen!caf Author of YMODEM, ZMODEM, Professional-YAM, ZCOMM, and DSZ Omen Technology Inc "The High Reliability Software" 17505-V NW Sauvie IS RD Portland OR 97231 503-621-3406 ------------------------------ From: friedl@mtndew.Tustin.CA.US (Stephen Friedl) Subject: Re: How Are 900 Calls Delivered? Date: 25 Oct 91 16:41:20 GMT Organization: V-Systems, Inc / Santa Ana, CA Harold Hallikainen writes: > Which reminds me, I think there is a modem line for the NIST > that gives you the time of day. Anyone know the number and the format > of the data? The phone number is +1 202 653-0351 at 1200bps, and the format of the output is: *^M^J jjjjj ddd hhmmss UTC^M^J jjjjj Julian date modulo 2400000 ddd days since beginning of year hhmmss time of day in Universal Time Coordinated (aka "GMT") Stephen Friedl, Resident Wizard / friedl@vsi.com / {uunet attmail}!vsi!friedl V-Systems, the VSI*FAX people / Santa Ana, CA / +1 714 545-6442v 545-7653 fax ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Oct 91 10:41:34 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Correction: Re: ISDN Terminal Equipment Please change 201 to 908 in the listing you provided for Eatontown, NJ. You gave the number as 201-389-5700. ------------------------------ From: jjwcmp@ultb.isc.rit.edu (Jeff Wasilko) Subject: Re: IBT ISDN Pricing Date: Fri, 25 Oct 91 13:37:29 EDT Organization: RIT Communications, Rochester, NY David E. Martin wrote: > I am setting up an ISDN connection into my home as a trial. Illinois > Bell Telephone gave me the following prices for ISDN: > $13.14 ISDN Direct Base Price > 3.00 Per Activated B-Channel Voice-Only > 8.00 Per Activated B-Channel Data-Only > 9.00 Per Activated B-Channel Voice or Data > 0.25 Additional Dialable Number for 2nd B-Channel I was able to get some info on the residential pricing here in RochTel land. The basic price is around $26.00 for 1B+D. To add packet data over the D channel it's an additional $1.50 or $2/month. The person I talked to wasn't sure about adding a second B channel for voice or data. There is no unmeasured service for residential ISDN service. Each voice call is 8 cents. Packet-switched data in the D channel is billed at 8 cents for 1000 packets (a packet is 128 bytes). Jeff ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Oct 91 12:52:32 PDT From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) Subject: Re: IBT ISDN Pricing David E. Martin writes: > I am setting up an ISDN connection into my home as a trial. Illinois > Bell Telephone gave me the following prices for ISDN: [rates and subsequent gripes about Illinois Bell's ridiculous ISDN policies deleted] > Have others found such nutso prices from their RBOC's? Is there some > way to fool the equipment into thinking you're making a voice call? I > assume something in the call setup packet tells the switch you're > using the channel for data, but otherwise the bandwidth is exactly the > same. I'm really upset that IBT decided to screw people for the same > bandwidth with a different use. David, I must admit I would like to be able to complain about GTE California screwing me on ISDN, but I can't. Why? Because ALL of the people there that I talked to couldn't even spell ISDN, nor did they even know what it was. I sympathize with your plight, but at least you're getting ISDN into your home. Out here, only business class lines running Centrex get ISDN (so far as I know). Robert L. McMillin | Voice: (213) 568-3555 Hughes Aircraft/Hughes Training, Inc. | Fax: (213) 568-3574 Los Angeles, CA | Internet: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com ------------------------------ From: locke@tree.uucp (Alan R. Gross) Subject: Re: Pending "Modem Tax" in Portland, Oregon Reply-To: locke@.PacBell.COM (Alan R. Gross (1-1-90)) Organization: TREE BBS (916)332-4930 Sacramento, CA Date: Fri, 25 Oct 91 05:36:08 GMT qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) wrote: > Two Portland Fidonet systems have been sent *official letters from US > West informing them that since they have modems on some of their phone > lines, *all* of their phones *must* be converted to business lines. I wonder like John Higdon, if we have the whole story here -- Are the BBS's in question pay boards? Do they advertise in local rags, or on other boards? Does it matter? The telco I worked for once won a case at the PUC by walking the board members out to the defendent's truck, to see the sign on the side which advertised the number in question. Randall A. Gross csusac.ecs.csus.edu!tree!locke The UNIX Tree BBS, Sacramento, CA ucbvax!ucdavis!csusac!tree!locke Sprintmail: A.R.Gross DISCLAIMER: Ego loquito ------------------------------ From: boebert@SCTC.COM (Earl Boebert) Subject: Contacting Survivors of the Oakland Fire Organization: SCTC Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1991 22:32:14 GMT I now have sad confirmation from eyewitnesses that my friend's house is indeed lost and I am trying to make contact with the family. When I call their old number (old 415 area code, which I presume is now 510) I get a steady ring. When I call the number that was posted here for messages to survivors (1-800-427-7715) I get a "This number is not reachable from your calling area." I am calling from the 612 area code. Any suggestions? Earl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Oct 91 12:26:54 PDT From: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com Subject: Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card In article Steve Baumgarten writes: > It turns out that the MCI computer had noticed a large number of call > attempts to a single number and decided that that constituted possible > fraud. On the other hand, Sprint just turned off one of my FONCards for fraud (six simultaneous calls from San Fernando, CA to Mexico), and let me know when I used one of my other FONCards (it wasn't locked, but it transferred me to Sprint security to let me know.) 2165888@mcimail.com 70707.453@compuserve.com arthur@pnet01.cts.com (personal) a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (work) My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer. ------------------------------ Reply-To: hobs@hcfeams.UUCP () Date: Fri, 25 Oct 91 17:49:33 GMT From: hobs@hcfeams.UUCP () Subject: Sexist Mnemonics > We Rape Beautiful Young Virgins, But Only Girls Beyond Sixteen. (And > to all the radicals out there ... NO, I am not promoting violence > toward women ...) You can't be too careful these days ... Hope this > helps you to remember, it worked for me. > [Moderator's Note: He's right, of course ... as awful as the code is, > given our present sensibilities, that is the way it was taught to new > installers for many, many years. PAT] I remember "Bad Boys Rape Our Young Girls, But Violet Gives Willingly" for the bands on resistors. And there is the old astronomical one of "Oh Be A Fine Girl, Kiss Me Right Now, Smack!" (the spectral classes of stars in descending order of heat). (BTW -- If anyone would like the text for a poem which gives the English monarchs from William the Conqueror on, send me e-mail). John Hobson Ameritech Services 225 W Randolph HQ 17B Chicago, IL 60606 312-727-3490 hobs@hcfeams.chi.il.us ------------------------------ From: adamg@world.std.com (Adam M Gaffin) Subject: Life, the Universe and the Telephone Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1991 14:30:39 GMT I am working on a couple of stories for the fine suburban daily where I work about the future of telephones, both from the gee-whiz angle (wow! you mean Picturephones are coming back?!?) and in terms of potential policy and societal changes. So far I've got PCNs, ISDN, fiber-optics and caller-ID (and related "smart phone" services) for the gee-whizy things, and privacy, cable vs. telco, the potential for network collapses and universal access for the policy and societal issues. Are there any other new technologies or issues I should be looking at? Many thanks! Adam Gaffin Middlesex News, Framingham, Mass. adamg@world.std.com Voice: (508) 626-3968. Fred the Middlesex News Computer: (508) 872-8461 ------------------------------ From: chein@cisco.com (Chuck Hein KC6SOZ 415-688-4465) Subject: What is the ANI Code For Fremont, CA? Organization: cisco Systems, Incorporated Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1991 21:52:11 GMT I am in the Fremont, CA. area = (510)-797-xxxx. Does the East Bay have an ANI code ??? C.Hein ------------------------------ From: sew7490@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.E. Williams ) Subject: Internet Address Wanted For NYNEX Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology Date: Fri, 25 Oct 91 22:23:23 GMT Does anyone know the internet node-name for NYNEX in Buffalo, NY? Sean E. Williams (sew7490@ultb.isc.rit.edu) Rochester Institute of Technology - Telecommunications Technology (ITFT) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Oct 91 01:36:30 -0700 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: Same Phone Number For Two Cellular Phones Organization: Cal State Long Beach What are the technical and regulatory ramifications of programming two or more cellular phones with the same phone number? [Moderator's Note: Technically it is not possible, or at least very unusual and difficult to accomplish. The 'regulations' say it is not to be done. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #855 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12405; 26 Oct 91 20:16 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07169 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 26 Oct 1991 18:29:23 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31290 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 26 Oct 1991 18:29:11 -0500 Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1991 18:29:11 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199110262329.AA31290@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #856 TELECOM Digest Sat, 26 Oct 91 18:28:57 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 856 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" [TELECOM Moderator] Call For Papers: Lightwave Technology Conference [Firat Uludamar] Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [Dave Platt] Minitel and US West: <> Reports Joint Venture [Fred Linton] AT&T Equipment Contracts [John Higdon] Test Marketing TV-by-Phone [Jeff Fires] Help Needed With Odd Type of LAN [Douglas Scott Reuben] Halting 900-Lines From Sharing Info in NY [Newsday via Dave Niebuhr] Centrex Makes [U.K.] Public Debut [Electronics Weekly via Adam Ashby] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1991 17:35:14 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" This is just a reminder to all our USA readers that we discontinue "Daylight Savings Time" as of tonight and resume "Standard Time" beginning at 2 AM your local time Sunday morning. Tonight you get that extra hour to make up for the one we lost last April when clocks were advanced the same amount of time. At 2 AM (or really, at your convenience anytime Saturday overnight / Sunday morning) set your clock back one hour. If calling the talking clock (202-653-1800) to hear what it has to say, you'll note it doesn't miss a beat: after 'at the tone, Eastern Daylight Time, one hour, fifty nine minutes, fifty seconds', (and the GMT/UCT offset) it will announce the time as 'Eastern Standard Time, one hour, zero minutes exactly'. If you need to set your computer clock, dial 202-653-0351 at 1200 baud, and note the final six digits in the continuous printout. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 25 Oct 91 13:37:00 EDT From: Firat (F.) Uludamar Subject: Call For Papers: Lightwave Technology Conference BILCON'92 Call for Papers 1992 Bilkent International Conference on Lightwave Technology and Communications July 27-28, 1992 Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey Theme: The goal of the conference is to provide a forum to discuss new and emerging trends and topics in lightwave technology and communications. Paper Topics: Theory: Systems: Basic Optical Phenomena Fiber Optic Broadband Networks Optical Waveguide Theory LAN/MAN Fiber Optic Networks Nonlinear Optics and Devices Optical Image/Data Processing Quantum Optics Optical Imaging Optical Distribution Systems (PON, FTTH, FTTC) Transmission/Switching: Components and Devices: Photonic Switching Fiber Sensors Coherent Systems Lasers, Fibers and Cables Soliton Transmission Integrated Optics Transmitter/Receiver Design Active and Passive Fiber Components and Performance Optical Amplifiers and Applications Papers in other related areas are also welcome. Invited Speakers: The conference will feature a number of invited presentations, as well as contributed papers. Invited speakers include: P.L. Chu, (NSW, Australia), L.G. Kazovsky (Stanford, USA), J.D. Love (ANU, Australia), F.P. Payne (Cambridge, UK), J.H. Shapiro (MIT, USA). Conference proceedings: All papers presented at the conference will appear in a proceedings volume, which will be published after the conference by a major publishing company. The conference language is English. Authors schedule: 400-800 word summary due : April 15, 1992. Notification of acceptance mailed : May 1, 1992. Camera ready copy must be submitted during the conference. There will also be optional tours to major cultural and historic centers in Turkey. Send all correspondence to the following address. Include an e-mail address if possible. BILCON'92, Bilkent University, Bilkent, 06533 Ankara, TURKEY. Tel: (90) 4-266-4307, Fax: (90) 4-266-4127, E-mail: bilcon@trbilun.bitnet or bilcon%trbilun.bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu (in some places). The conference is organized by Bilkent University, in cooperation with IEEE Turkey Section. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Oct 91 10:16:28 PDT From: dplatt@ntg.com (Dave Platt) Subject: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls I recently heard a DJ on a local radio station urging people to tune in the next morning to another DJ's show. He said something to the effect of "We're going to call Zaza Gabor ... we've got her phone number. We know she likes to sleep late ... so we're going to call her as early as we can. Tune in to hear the fun." I've heard these sorts of "celebrity" phone calls on both AM and FM radio for many years (back to the '60s, certainly) ... they seem to be a staple gimmick for DJs on some talk-oriented shows and some rock stations. The people being called aren't always celebrities in the usual sense ... sometimes they're somebody-or-other's boyfriend or mother. The DJ making the call sometimes identifies himself ... but sometimes doesn't, and sometimes makes up a cock-and-bull story about why the person is being called. This is supposed to be funny, I guess, or good for the ratings, or for the DJ's ego. My own reaction is that these sorts of calls are in the same category as rubber-crutch jokes. The call which was going to be placed to Zaza Gabor is an extreme example ... the DJ made it clear that the call was going to be placed at a time when the callee was expected to be asleep and would not normally want to receive phone-calls. From my readings of the wording in our local phone book, I can't be sure whether placing a _single_ call of this sort to an individual would constitute harrassment (multiple calls almost certainly would). A few questions for the readership: - Is this sort of yuck-it-up unsolicited phone call from a radio-station DJ a common practice in other parts of the country? - Do you think that a single such call constitutes harrassment? - To your knowledge, has any DJ, or radio station ever been disciplined for this sort of practice? Dave Platt VOICE: (415) 813-8917 Domain: dplatt@ntg.com UUCP: ...apple!ntg!dplatt USNAIL: New Technologies Group Inc. 2468 Embarcardero Way, Palo Alto CA 94303 ------------------------------ Date: 25-OCT-1991 15:05:50.38 From: "Fred E.J. Linton" Subject: Minitel and US West: <> Reports Joint Venture The French daily <>, in an issue appearing on (or not long before) 18 October 1991, had the following to say under the banner "Minitel Begins Thrust into United States" (translation here may be more free than you'd like, but I think it captures the salient points faithfully enough): After having conquered France, Minitel is beginning a thrust into the American market. France Telecom, along with the American operation US West, has created a joint video-text subsidiary named Community Link Minitel (CLM) Associates, representing a total investment of 75 million dollars. Of its capital, 40% is held by Intelmatique, a subsidiary of France Telecom, while 60% is held by US West. CLM Associates will use the video-text network of US West known as Community Link, already operational in Omaha, NE, and soon to begin operation in Minneapolis-St.Paul, MN (during October), and in Seattle, WA (before the end of 1992). Ultimately, Community Link will be extended to other metropolitan regions in US West's territory, such as Denver, CO, and Phoenix, AZ. CLM Associates will take an approach similar to that of the French Minitel system, including support of the Teletel standard, low cost distribution of Minitel terminals, and "kiosk" billing, according to France Telecom. The potential market of CLM extends over 14 states with a combined population of 25 million. Further down the road, it is foreseen, the France Telecom/US West partnership may extend beyond the North American borders. US West, a result of the dismantling of AT&T, is one of the seven [sic] American telephone companies. Its value rose in 1990 to 1.2 billion dollars. It has recently begun operations in Easter Europe. France Telecom, for its part, is the fifth largest telecommunications operation in the world. Its 1990 consolidated "business figure" was 115 billion French francs [roughly 20 billion dollars -- Tr.]. ----------- Thanks to my nice Nice cousin Irene for sending this clipping my way :-) . Fred E.J. Linton Wesleyan U. Math. Dept. 649 Sci. Tower Middletown, CT 06459 E-mail: ( or ) Tel.: + 1 203 776 2210 (home) or + 1 203 347 9411 x2249 (work) ------------------------------ Subject: AT&T Equipment Contracts Date: 25 Oct 91 12:06:32 PDT (Fri) From: john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) In the process of consulting with business who have AT&T equipment leases, a pattern is beginning to emerge. It has been mentioned on this forum and elsewhere that AT&T lease contracts are air-tight and that it is practically impossible to get out of them. This is not necessarily true. On a number of occasions lately, I have been involved with business owners who have some miserable AT&T telephone system (usually a Merlin) and have dismissed the idea of moving up to something useful because of some long-term lease with AT&T that is "not cancellable by the customer". On close inspection of the contracts, however, it has been determined that AT&T neglected to dot an 'i' or cross a 't'. In one case, AT&T neglected to properly transfer the contract to the new owners of a business. In another, AT&T actually neglected to get the customer's signature on ITS copy. In both cases, the Miserable Merlins found themselves in a box outside the front door. The reason I bring this up is that I know there are people who are suffering under an AT&T "air-tight" contract who would give some part of the anatomy to be free of it. My suggestion is that you examine it carefully from top to bottom for errors and omissions. Make sure the correct customer is named; that AT&T actually has your signature; or that some other mistake has not occurred. You can bet that AT&T would hold you to every letter of the contract; you are just as entitled to use any missed detail to get out of it. As an aside, I spent a day on the premesis of a client going over his phone charges. After making a number of calls on HIS Merlin, I thought that I would go nuts. It became very clear why he wanted OUT of that system. After examining his AT&T lease, I cheerfully accomdated him. John Higdon (hiding out in the desert) ------------------------------ From: jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Jeff Fires) Subject: Test Marketing TV-by-Phone Organization: University of Washington Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1991 19:03:30 GMT Does anyone know if TV by phone wires is being tested??? Please e-mail any info. [Moderator's Note: Please see the 'video dial tone' articles in previous issues of the Digest today. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 25-OCT-1991 04:29:34.06 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Help Needed With Odd Type of LAN We're trying to set up a new and/or modify our present computer system, and could use some advice and suggestions. Specifically, we are trying to set up a system so that we can communicate more readily with other "outside" systems (DEC, IBM, Wang, etc.) other than our own. We have more or less decided to set up our own system on a Banyan or Novell Netowrk, with IBM 386s, and possibly a Wang VS-100 as one of the nodes in this network. Does anyone have experience setting up such a system with the Wang as a node? How well does this proposed system function in terms of communicating with the outside world? I *believe* the people purchasing the system were suggesting an X.25 link to any and all outside systems, and (I'm a bit hazy here) an x.12 protocol which all the data must conform to which will run over the links. This is supposedly going to allow us to share IBM PC (or IBM clone) based files, such as WordPerfect files, with the Wang and the other nodes on the network. I've posted aspects of the above in other forums, and although I got some good responses, I'd like some input on the proposed system overall and/or the X.25/X.12 protocols, which I know very little about. Any references to a few good texts would also be greatly appreciated! Please reply by mail, and I'll summarize to those who are interested. Thanks in advance for any help you can offer. Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1991 7:50:19 -0400 (EDT) From: NIEBUHR@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) Subject: Halting 900-Lines From Sharing Info in NY This appeared in today's {Newsday}. "Callers to dating hotlines might be giving up more than their 'innermost secrets.' They and others who call 800 and 900 numbers also might be helping to provide their credit histories and other informatin that could later be used to pitch products, the state's top consumer official says." "Richard Kessel, executive director of the state Consumer Protection Board, asked the FCC in a letter sent yesterday to require that callers be told if their telephone numbers are being displayed on the other end of an 800 or 900 call." The article is quite lengthy but goes on to state that the service pays the telephone company to provide ANI. "These (I chopped down on the text while attempting to maintain the thread) companies subscribe to data bases maintained by other than telephone utilities and it can be cross-checked to obtain the caller's name, address, neighbors' names, credit histories and the number of people in the household." "Kessel ... wants the ANI service suspended until the FCC requires some notification to the caller that their number is being displayed. The issue, as he sees it, is similar to the Caller-ID controversy about displaying the calling number on the other end." The FCC hasn't commented as yet. "AT&T, which offers ANI in 400 markets, said that it opposed suspension of ANI but was in favor of 'safeguards that balance the consumer's right to privacy with out commitment to enable consumers to reap the benefits of information technology'." Here we go again. Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Oct 91 15:25:09 BST From: ashbya@zeus.swindon.rtsg.mot.com (Adam Ashby) Subject: Centrex Makes [U.K.] Public Debut Copied varbatim from {Electronics Weekly}, 10/23/91 "After a four year delay, BT has launched its centrex service, which allows large customers to hive off part of a public exchange. Last week, Barclays Bank became the first customer of the new BT service which will enable the compnay to save money on its private telephone network through the use of BT's exchanges for call routing. John Grimmett, head of Barclays Network Services estimates the company will save L5m (five million pounds) on capital investment. BT first talked of a centrex service in 1987 which was to be based on intelligent exchanges provided by AT&T. A lukewarm response to Mercury's 2110 centrex service launched in 1987 prompted BT to indefinitely postpone its plans. The first centrex services based on US protocols were believed to be difficult to use and expensive. the service BT has launched is significantly different from the earlier version. It will use five intelligent exchanges supplied by Northern Telecom last November and will support virtual private networking over a national network. The Barclays Bank network will initially link 900 offices around the country and this will rise to 1,400 by 1993." ----------------- Not a very informative article, but a little piece of UK telecom history being made. A bit more meaningful to me as I spent some time working on the Mercury Centrex, a DMS250, basically a hotchpotch of DMS100 and SL100. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #856 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21124; 26 Oct 91 22:03 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05278 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 26 Oct 1991 20:17:58 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25890 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 26 Oct 1991 20:17:45 -0500 Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1991 20:17:45 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199110270117.AA25890@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #857 TELECOM Digest Sat, 26 Oct 91 20:17:24 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 857 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson MCI Friends and Family Privacy Concerns [Rob Knauerhase] Maximum Output for Canadian Handheld Phones? [Douglas Scott Reuben] Concord Data Systems Help Needed [mute@wpi.wpi.edu] New England Tel Messes up Non-Pub Listing [Dale Trotter] Higher Rates For Modems? [Jamie Mason] AT&T Ads Promote Motel 6 [Harold Hallikainen] Station Message Detail Recorder [Tim Gorman] US 0800 From UK [Graham Toal] Philippines AT&T Credit Card [Herb Jellinek] Re: Interesting Pac*Bell Response [John Higdon] Re: Today's Phones Must Go!!! [Patton M. Turner] Adult Time and Temperature Service [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 24 Oct 91 19:34:14 -0500 From: Rob Knauerhase Subject: MCI Friends and Family Privacy Concerns There was mention in the most recent comp.risks that MCI uses an 800-number to make available the Friends and Family circle (a list of numbers which are 20% discounted for the F&F subscriber). Being a suspicious type, I fingered the account of a friend of mine (to get his zipcode, which is the only password protection in the system) and called the MCI number. Surely enough, it spewed out for me all the people he lists as "friends and family." I was gratified to find myself on the list as a "nominee" (which I think means he has given MCI my number to solicit to join, though I haven't been contacted by them). What's even more annoying about this is that for the people in his circle, it lists the relation -- "Your sister at xxx-xxx-xxxx. Your cousin at xxx-xxx-xxxx" and so on. I thought it was bad that Sprint offered your balance and payment status to the world, but this is worse. If I decide I hate you, and you're in F&F, I can not only harass you, but your mom and sister as well; from a phone number I can use a criss-cross directory and move on from there. Or, if my friend is investigated (on drug charges or some such), I (or my phone number) *without my permission* am now linked as somehow affiliated with him. The morals of the story? 1) Why not use account number (so it's harder to remember, but it IS at least a bit more secure, if different from phone number)? Better yet, why not let people choose n-digit passwords? It's a fine line between "user-friendly" and "amazingly invasive of privacy." 2) The bigger concern: This is arguably not the end of the world, since it's not highly sensitive data. But when we do end up with phone/ISDN/network access to important data/files/whatever, it would be nice to have an established precedent of security in today's systems, rather than lull the general populace into permitting trivally-acquired access to their information. Current or past offenders include Sprint, MCI, Discover, Chas. Schwab, and a host of others. It would be nice to see Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (if that's the right name), ACM, or _any_ group with a modicum of authority take a formal stand against dialup systems that use zipcode or the like as access codes ... Rob Knauerhase University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign knauer@cs.uiuc.edu Dept. of Computer Science, Gigabit Study Group [Moderator's Note: This message has also been forwarded to the Telecom Privacy mailing list where discussion can continue as desired. I would like to comment though and point out that as long as it is possible to call a live customer service representative of any utility (telco, electric, etc) and discuss one's account with a minimum of identification required, it seems only logical to be able to do the same thing using an automated system. And what telco do you know that -- unless you specifically ask them to password the account -- asks for anything further than 'your' name and 'your' phone number when you call to make an inquiry? The fact that inquries are made with touch tone buttons (or a computer keyboard) instead of your mouth does not make the former a tool to violate someone's privacy. Instead of worrying about this, maybe time would be better spent insisting that the telcos -- and all utility services -- password all accounts and require the password to be presented before 'discussing' anything. Or is it simply easier for people to blame the computer because it does the customer service rep's job faster and more effeciently? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 26-OCT-1991 15:41:15.88 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Maximum Output For Canadian Handheld Phones? Is there a different maximum output for Canadian handheld cellular phones? In the U.S., the maximum output is 0.6 watts I believe. Since Canadian full-powered cell phones can put out four watts instead of three as is the limit in the US, I was wondering if there was any concomitant increase in the maximum output in the handhelds. You can bring any Canadian cell phone into the US, but the US tower will order the phone to power down to three watts (or less), but perhaps if the Canadian handhelds had a maximum output of one watt or something they may be more useful than the 0.6 watt ones in some of the more rural areas were coverege isn't so great. This would of course still comply with the US Max output of three watts, unless there are separate standards for handhelds (although I doubt many switches -- especially older ones -- can tell if you are using a handheld or not, and thus it would seem a bit difficult to set a separate 0.6 watt handheld limit which is imposed by the tower.) I realize that too much RF near my brain isn't a good idea, etc.. :) Thanks for any info, Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ From: mute@wpi.WPI.EDU (Existentialist Man) Subject: Concord Data Systems Help Needed Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1991 21:50:45 GMT I recently acquired a modem made by Concord Data Systems. I did not, however, acquire any documentation along with it ... if anyone can help, I would be vastly grateful. It is: CCD 224/AD. It is a white plastic box about the size of two bricks side by side. It has what looks like an RS232C port on the back labelled DTE. It has a membrane keypad-type front panel, with quite a few indicator LEDs. The interior has 32 DIP switches, in four clusters of eight. Any help anyone can give me would be welcome. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Oct 91 06:35:22 PDT From: trott@parity.enet.dec.com Subject: New England Tel Messes up Non-Pub Listing I thought I might be able to solicit some ideas and comments about an interesting problem that a friend of mine has encountered. He has had the same unpublished telephone number for the past eight years and has been paying New England Telephone (NET) for that service the entire time. Recently new telephone books were distributed in my friend's neighborhood and yes -- you guessed it -- his name, address and phone number are in the book! Needless to say, he's upset over this and would like to take some action to correct this problem. What he's not so sure about is what is rights are in a situation like this. He's more upset by the fact that his address was included since has some good reasons to want to keep that kind of info out of the book. Obviously they could change his telephone number but that is a minor hassle when compared to changing his address! Anyone got any suggestions on a course of action? He's really quite upset about this and would like to take NET to task over this issue. Thanks in advance for any information. Dale ------------------------------ From: Jamie Mason Subject: Higher Rates For Modems Organization: University of Toronto Computer Services Advisor Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1991 19:09:33 -0400 In article Chris Johnston writes: > demand curve. I sure don't understand why a company would want to > discourage use of its product ... You are assuming that the telephone company's 'product' is phone service, i.e. providing dial tone and local calling service. That is a reasonable assumption to make. A phone company provides phone service. Totally sensible. Since when were telcos sensible? If you remember a thread of a few months back, the Baby Bells were grated permission to offer 'Information Services'. And they want to make money of course. It should be easy to undercut the competition. They are the phone company, right? They can do what they always do (even though it is not allowed), which is being able to sell 'information services' by not charging themselves for access to the phone network. In other words, they give themselves an unfair advantage over competing commercial providers of 'information services'. Unfortunately, there are some hobbyists who are also providing 'Information Services', for FREE. They are called BBS Sysops. Now the phone company has a problem: they can't sell cheaper than free. So how can they get rid of this pesky free competion, so they can get their monopoly? Oh yeah, they're the PHONE COMPANY. They can just raise the phone rates for their competion until they are driven out of 'business'. NOW do you see why they want to charge modem users more? Jamie ------------------------------ From: hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: AT&T Ads Promote Motel 6 Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1991 22:19:02 GMT A recent posting complained about the TERRIBLE telephone policies at fancy hotels (typically evidenced by very high prices for telephone calls). Several of us replied with the great telephone policies of Motel 6 (free local calls, no call surcharge, etc.). Today, I started hearing on the radio an ad for AT&T that tells how great the telehone service is at Motel 6 (free local calls, no call surcharge, AT&T long distance, etc.). So, does AT&T marketing read comp.dcom.telecom? Harold [Moderator's Note: Everyone reads TELECOM Digest, including me most of the time. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 25 Oct 91 18:12:02 EDT From: tim gorman <71336.1270@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Station Message Detail Recorder Horacio T. Cadiz cadizht@csgrad.cs.vt.edu writes in TD v11, #849: > What is an SMDR? SMDR is typically used with a Centrex service. The customer can get detailed calling records on all stations in the Centrex rather than a summary bill against the main billing number for the Centrex. It is a software function in the central office switch that has to be applied. Tim Gorman - SWBT * opinions are my own, any resemblence to official policy is coincidence* ------------------------------ From: gtoal@gem.stack.urc.tue.nl (Graham Toal) Subject: US 0800 From UK Date: 25 Oct 91 23:08:07 GMT Reply-To: gtoal@stack.urc.tue.nl Organization: MCGV Stack @ EUT, Eindhoven, the Netherlands I read in some article here recently that you can call US 0800 numbers from the UK by going via AT&T if you have an AT&T credit card. This sounds good, I said, so I phoned AT&T London today to ask for a fact sheet on their credit-card service and an order-form. I'll let you know if I can get away with never using the card for pay-calls... :-) The real reason I'm posting is to tell you that London directory enquiries *had never heard* of AT&T! (Or American Telephone & Telegraph ...). It took me *ages* to find their number, under a non-obvious subject heading in the business directory. I wonder whether this is deliberate on the part of BT? [Moderator's Note: Actually, we call them '800' numbers rather than '0800' and you *will* pay for the call between the UK and the USA. It is only the second part of the connection -- from Pittsburgh in the USA to the place where the 800 subscriber is located that you will get without charge -- and then, only if the subscriber uses AT&T 800 service. You didn't assume AT&T would connect you free to the 800 numbers of MCI subscribers or give you a free call across the ocean, did you? :) Regards the listing, it is probably incompetence on the part of BT (or the way AT&T chose to be/not be listed) rather than a deliberate action by BT with malice aforethought. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Oct 91 20:06:19 PDT From: herb@frox.com (Herb Jellinek) Subject: Philippines AT&T Credit Card Full page ad in the Oct. 25, 1991 issue of {Asiaweek Magazine}, p. 30: A dollar saving idea for frequent travellers to the US. Call in the US ... but pay in pesos in the Philippines. The PLDT Telecharge Card lets you make calls in the US and charge them to your telephone number in the Philippines. That means you pay in pesos, in the Philippines! What's more, the Telecharge Card can be used for both domestic and overseas calls made in the US. Save your dollars in the US. Apply for a PLDT Telecharge Card today! [Ordering information deleted] ------------ The ad features a picture of a PLDT Telecharge Card, which bears both the PLDT and AT&T logos. Is anyone aware of similar foreign-issued US phone cards? Herb Jellinek, herb@frox.com [Moderator's Note: I think you can use the British Telecom card here. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Interesting Pac*Bell Response Date: 26 Oct 91 16:07:17 PDT (Sat) From: john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) hpubvwa!tad@ssc.wa.com (Tad Cook) writes: > Wrong. As I wrote on this forum before, I am served by a 5ESS (the > LAkeview exchange in Seattle). Call Waiting works great on a > three-way call. To parphrase a line used recently in this forum: "Gee, who am I supposed to believe -- two AT&T engineers, a Pac*Bell senior switchman, about ten correspondents, MY own experience on three separate 5ESS switches, and the published feature description, OR Mr. Cook?" In all fairness, more than one person has suggested that CW on 3W MIGHT be possible if the line is equipped with some flavor of Centrex or "mini-Centrex" such as Commstar or Starline or whatever. Is this the case, Tad? > My guess is that someone at PacBell is assuming that their version of > software is the same as on 5ESS switches everywhere. And is there some reason why it should be any different? As far as I know, AT&T is still responsible for all the generics. John Higdon (hiding out in the desert) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Oct 91 18:47:22 CDT From: Patton M. Turner Subject: Re: Today's Phones Must Go!!! Tim Gorman <71336.1270@CompuServe.COM> writes: > It also seems to me that I remember reading that the "leakage" current > on the cable (to ground I suppose?) provides a "sealing" function to > splices in the cable preventing them from corroding to an open > condition. This is true. The cable is at -48 V so it presents a negative charge to ions that would otherwise corrode the metal. This is a common technique called cathodic protection and is often used on bridges and pipelines as well. Patton Turner pturner@eng.auburn.edu KB4GRZ @ K4RY.AL.USA.NOAM ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1991 20:03:16 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Adult Time and Temperature Service In case you want something other than the standard messages to set your clock by tonight, you might try the "Adult Time and Temperature Service", a free program heard at 312-489-1505. In addition to the aforementioned information, as it relates to Chicago, you get a choice of voicemail advertisements wherein people describe their special interests. You also get to place your own personal message on the service if desired, subject to review before it is heard by others. It would be a bargain at twice the cost ... or half the cost for that matter ... and certainly more interesting to listen to than the one sponsored by the First National Bank. Don't forget to set your clocks back one hour tonight! PT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #857 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29324; 27 Oct 91 12:57 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29678 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 27 Oct 1991 11:15:35 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14219 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 27 Oct 1991 11:15:20 -0600 Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1991 11:15:20 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199110271715.AA14219@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #858 TELECOM Digest Sun, 27 Oct 91 11:15:17 CST Volume 11 : Issue 858 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [Harold Hallikainen] Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [Graham Toal] Switched 56 [Steve Forrette] Re: 56 KBps Dial Up Wanted in Canada [Vance Shipley] Re: 56 KBps Dial Up Wanted in Canada [Ted M. A. Timar] Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card [John Higdon] Re: Life, the Universe and the Telephone [Jeff Sicherman] Re: Today's Phones Must Go!!! [Julian Macassey] Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" [roeber@vxcrna.cern.ch] Re: Color Codes on Cable Pairs [Roy M. Silvernail] Re: AT&T Ads Promote Motel 6 [Chuck Forsberg] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1991 00:54:04 GMT I've also heard several calls that I don't think would get past the FCC, but the FCC generally works on a complaint basis. For reference, you can check 47CFR73.1206, which says: 73.1206 Broadcast of telephone conversations. Before recording a telephone conversation for broadcast, or broadcasting such a conversation simultaneously with its occurrence, a licensee shall inform any party to the call of the licensee's intention to broadcast the conversation, except where such party is aware, or may be presumed to be aware from the circumstances of the conversation, that it is being or likely will be broadcast. Such awareness is presumed to exist only when the other party to the call is associated with the station (such as an employee or part-time reporter), or where the other party originates the call and it is obvious that it is in connection with a program in which the station customarily broadcasts telephone conversations. This section adopted by FCC Docket 18601, effective 22 June 1970. The Report & Order is in the Federal Register, volume 35, page 7732 and FCC Report Second Series, volume 19, page 1504. This question was also brought up on a panel discussion (where I was a panel member) at the National Association of Broadcasters Radio Convention in September in San Francisco. I think the rule is quite clear (as opposed to many FCC Rules), but it is violated frequently. A station here in San Luis Obispo was fined for violating this rule somehwere between 15 and 20 years ago. I have not heard of anyone getting fined for this recently. I've read all the FCC violation notices issued to radio and TV stations in 1988 and 1989, and there were none for that violation (the violation notices and related correspondence runs about 3,000 pages per year). In August, the FCC released a new "fine schedule" that specifies fines of up to $25,000 per violation/day for various violations. This one is not on the list. Harold ------------------------------ From: gtoal@gem.stack.urc.tue.nl (Graham Toal) Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls Date: 27 Oct 91 13:20:51 GMT Reply-To: gtoal@stack.urc.tue.nl Organization: MCGV Stack @ EUT, Eindhoven, the Netherlands In article dplatt@ntg.com (Dave Platt) writes: > A few questions for the readership: > Is this sort of yuck-it-up unsolicited phone call from a > radio-station DJ a common practice in other parts of the country? Noel Edmonds used to call people at random on his UK TV show. It appeared to be live -- hence the following: one call was answered by a very determined woman who insisted on knowing how he got her ex-directory number. "But but but I'm *NOEL EDMONDS* from BBC's Swap Shop" he spluttered; "Never heard of you. Please tell me how you got my ex-directory number." Haven't heard much of N.E. since someone got killed in one of his stunts a few years back. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Oct 91 22:18:29 pdt From: Steve Forrette Subject: Switched 56 Does anybody know if there is interconnection between AT&T's "Switched 56" and the similar products offered by MCI and Sprint? i.e. can someone with a T1 to AT&T connect a 56Kbps channel to someone with a Sprint T1? If this is not possible today, is it something that is likely in the future? I realize that ISDN will do this, but I'm interested in something that's generally available today. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ From: vances@xenitec.on.ca (Vance Shipley) Subject: Re: 56 KBps Dial Up Wanted in Canada Organization: SwitchView Inc. Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1991 15:34:43 GMT In article lars@spectrum.cmc.com (Lars Poulsen) writes: > I don't think it is offered on anything but T1 access lines, so > at a minimum, your customer premises equipment must include a > T1 multiplexer, even if you only subscribe to one line. (The T1 > can carry 24 lines). This is simply not true. Switched 56 service san be obtained on Datapath lines which are functionally similiar to modems. AT command set, RS-232 and ringback through the speaker. (Datapath is a Northern Telecom product.) Vance Shipley vances@xenitec vances@ltg ..uunet!watmath!xenitec!vances ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1991 00:27:51 -0500 From: tmatimar@nff.ncl.omron.co.jp (Ted M A Timar) Reply-To: tmatimar@nff.ncl.omron.co.jp Organization: Omron Computer Systems R&D Labs Subject: Re: 56 KBps Dial Up Wanted in Canada In article , lars@spectrum.cmc.com (Lars Poulsen) writes: > Switched 56 data service. In the US, this is offered by the > interexchange carriers as an option on their bypass services. > I don't think it is offered on anything but T1 access lines, so > at a minimum, your customer premises equipment must include a > T1 multiplexer, even if you only subscribe to one line. (The T1 > can carry 24 lines). An alternative to a full T1 channel bank would be a drop/add multiplexer capable of just dropping one line from a T1. Bayly Telecom in Ajax, Ontario sells a device called the T1 Omniplexer, which does this. Ted Timar - - - tmatimar@nff.ncl.omron.co.jp Clearly, this has nothing to do with my present employer. I have not affiliation with Bayly Telecom, though I did work for their predecessor two years ago. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card Date: 26 Oct 91 16:38:28 PDT (Sat) From: john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) Jack Decker writes: > That is simply not true, at least not in the 906 area code of > Michigan. I can take you to step-by-step exchanges served by > independent phone companies (obviously NOT FGD capable) and dial > Sprint's 800 access number and it will go through. I know of no place > that around this area where it will NOT work now, and the majority of > exchanges in my area (especially to the west of me) are either still > not converted to equal access or are just being converted this year. Just because an office does not offer the end user PIC or 10XXX dialing does not mean that the FGD mechanism is not in place. The equipment and protocols that make up the FGD capability are described in a book two inches thick. Did a switchman tell you that the office was not FGD capable or did you just assume that because it does not APPEAR to be fully implemented? > C'mon, John, you're telling me that your decisions are based solely on > "technical facts" and not at all on emotion or "gut feeling"? One > would never get that impression from your posts, which seem to just > look for reasons to claim superiority for AT&T. I don't have to look for them. Over the past fifteen years, the OCCs themselves have proved time and time again that the only consistent performer in the IEC market is AT&T. Slick ads, "pins dropping", "office-speak commercials", and Candice Bergen do not a long distance company make. AT&T is STILL the only long distance company in the country that can: 1. Provide the finest sounding international connections; 2. Reliably connect you with virtually any internal technical department in almost any telco in the nation; 3. Correct a billing mistake with one call to a rep that takes less than one minute from dialing to hanging up; 4. Require fewer of those calls than any other company because its billing is remarkably accurate; 5. Reliably and quickly give a caller "route and rate" info as well as place name. I have said it before: if all you need out of your long distance company is casual residential service, then any of them will probably do. If your needs are somewhat more complex, then you had better examine how important reliable and capable service is to your operation. > The only problem I have with this is that given that AT&T ALREADY has > a substantially larger market share than ALL of their competitors, I > still feel that there is some danger of them becoming a "defacto > monopoly" again. They already have the largest piece of the pie but > they want the whole pie, and one of the primary ways they try to get > it is by attacking the competition in their advertising. I agree with > the person who, in a recent article, stated in effect that AT&T must > have one of the most inept advertising agencies in the country (my > words, not his). The image of the big company picking on the little > companies is not one that plays well in the mind of the American > public (stated succinctly, "nobody loves a bully"), but it's strange > how those in big companies are often blind to this. We disagree here. Granted, AT&T had a major head start, but if the OCCs really provided such wonderful service with major savings all the advertising in the world would not help AT&T. Also, I have not noticed that MCI and Sprint are silent in the Madison Avenue arena. And furthermore, if AT&T's agency is so inept, why has this not hurt them even more? The truth of the matter is that the OCCs are simply "me too" players that would like to have the image of AT&T while appearing to be bargain priced. What do the OCCs offer that you cannot get with AT&T? In my experience, nothing on a consistent basis. For instance, not one of the major OCCs offer alternative billing (calling card, etc.) without a surcharge. Why? Because that is the way AT&T has always done it? If you recall, the historical reason for a surcharge was that such calls required operator assistance. That is no longer the case, and yet AT&T and all the rest still tack on that ridiculous charge. Why hasn't Sprint or MCI scooped AT&T on this? A final point: if you are so concerned about monopolies, you need look no further than your local telco. The FCC, the congress, and the courts seem hell-bent on giving telcos more and more power and influence over your life. They are now permitted to provide information and video services in addition to local dial tone. And just how do you think that they will finance these ventures? Hint: by draining those people served by the only monopoly left -- local exchange service. Just look what is happening in California. John Higdon (hiding out in the desert) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Oct 91 20:56:00 -0700 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: Re: Life, the Universe and the Telephone Organization: Cal State Long Beach In article adamg@world.std.com (Adam M Gaffin) writes: > I am working on a couple of stories for the fine suburban daily where > I work about the future of telephones, both from the gee-whiz angle > (wow! you mean Picturephones are coming back?!?) and in terms of > potential policy and societal changes. So far I've got PCNs, ISDN, > fiber-optics and caller-ID (and related "smart phone" services) for > the gee-whizy things, and privacy, cable vs. telco, the potential for > network collapses and universal access for the policy and societal > issues. Are there any other new technologies or issues I should be > looking at? Well, you might want to examine how the miniaturization of cellular phones and the ubiquitousness of the service will eventually make us all available electronically. Seems like this has many implications for security, privacy, and efficiency in our lives. BTW, speaking of "smart phones", has any one put one of the smaller new ones in a shoe yet? ------------------------------ From: julian%bongo.UUCP@nosc.mil (Julian Macassey) Subject: Re: Today's Phones Must Go!!! Date: 27 Oct 91 02:40:29 GMT Reply-To: julian@bongo.info.com (Julian Macassey) Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood California U.S.A. In article mmm@cup.portal.com writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 848, Message 1 of 9 > I think that now is the right time to force a change in the phone > system. All the old equipment should be obsoleted because it's > dangerous. Conversion kits could be made available at low cost for > owners of old Western Electric phones. > The reason existing equipment is dangerous is the 48 volts it uses for > powering the bell and sensing the switch hook. I got a shock from > this a few times, once seriously. This is joke right? All equipment using electricity can kill you, especially if you put it in your mouth. Also, any conversion kit would still have to convert the steam or other system to electricity to let your old phone work. I would say you are not competant to work with electricity and should maybe call in someone with the training and tools to do it. Perhaps you should stay away from all machinery. By the way, the bell is not powered with 48V DC, it is powered with AC up to 150 V. Julian Macassey, julian@bongo.info.com N6ARE@K6VE.#SOCAL.CA.USA.NA 742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue Hollywood CA 90046-7142 voice (213) 653-4495 ------------------------------ From: roeber@vxcrna.cern.ch Subject: Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" Date: 27 Oct 91 14:47:55 GMT In article , telecom (TELECOM Moderator) writes: > This is just a reminder to all our USA readers that we discontinue > "Daylight Savings Time" as of tonight and resume "Standard Time" > beginning at 2 AM your local time Sunday morning. [...] At 2 AM > (or really, at your convenience anytime Saturday overnight / Sunday > morning) set your clock back one hour. Several years ago France introduced daylight savings time (or "Summertime"). It was a new concept, so there was a bit of effort expended to explain the idea, and how it worked. I am told that in every explanation it was carefully pointed out that "Now, this does *not* mean that you have to get up at 2:00 AM to change your clock! Any time Saturday night or Sunday morning is fine!" Frederick G. M. Roeber | CERN -- European Center for Nuclear Research e-mail: roeber@caltech.edu or roeber@cern.ch | work: +41 22 767 31 80 r-mail: CERN/PPE, 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland | home: +33 50 42 19 44 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Color Codes on Cable Pairs From: cybrspc!roy@cs.umn.edu (Roy M. Silvernail) Date: Sun, 27 Oct 91 03:52:27 CST Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN Jim.Redelfs@ivgate.omahug.org (Jim Redelfs) writes: >> We Rape Beautiful Young Virgins, But Only Girls Beyond Sixteen. > Gee! That's a NEW one on me! A kindly, old installer (now retired) > trained me with "Why Run Backwards You Varmint"!! Sounds like the way I was taught the resistor color code, way back when... "Bad Boys Rape Our Young Girls, But Violet Gives Willingly. Sometimes for Gold, sometimes for Silver, but usually for Nothing." (The second part? The tolerance coding, of course) > I'm sure the former example would NEVER fly in today's environment. Likewise my example, but I don't recall hearing a more politically correct version. Anyone else have a "clean" mnemonic for resistor codes? Roy M. Silvernail |+| roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu ------------------------------ From: omen!caf@uunet.uu.net (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) Subject: Re: AT&T Ads Promote Motel 6 Organization: Omen Technology INC Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1991 11:46:20 GMT I stayed at a Motel 6 (once upon a time it really was $6/night!) in Las Vegas over COMDEX. The good news is: There is no charge for phone calls. The bad news is: There is no way to charge phone calls to your room. No problem for local calls, but you must use a credit card, call collect, or whatever you'd have to use at a public phone. That's not as convenient as just dialing the number already. Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX ...!tektronix!reed!omen!caf Author of YMODEM, ZMODEM, Professional-YAM, ZCOMM, and DSZ Omen Technology Inc "The High Reliability Software" 17505-V NW Sauvie IS RD Portland OR 97231 503-621-3406 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #858 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02267; 27 Oct 91 14:18 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11917 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 27 Oct 1991 12:26:16 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05430 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 27 Oct 1991 12:26:04 -0600 Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1991 12:26:04 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199110271826.AA05430@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #859 TELECOM Digest Sun, 27 Oct 91 12:25:13 CST Volume 11 : Issue 859 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Why Separate Business and Residence Rates? [Fred R. Goldstein] Re: SWB "Modem Tax" Tariff: This Time Its For Real! [Colin Plumb] Residential vs. Business Rates: The Flip Side [Nick Reid] Re: AT&T Advertising [Mark Held] Re: 510 Cutover Annoyance [Al L. Varney] Re: New England Tel Messes up Non-Pub Listing [David Lesher] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) Subject: Re: Why Separate Business and Residence Rates? Date: 25 Oct 91 17:43:55 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA In article , crowfix.crowfix!felix@ uunet.uu.net (Felix Finch) writes... > This talk of yet another modem tax has me curious. Why > separate business and residence rates? If it's because residences > don't make many calls, why not just a low usage category? Is there > some interesting history behind it? And, last but not least, I > suppose since the self-appointed consumer watchdogs don't gripe, it > must be the businesses that subsidize the residences. What is the > real cost of phone service, say in the areas of cost to just have a > phone, cost to initiate a call, and cost per time and distance? Great set of questions! I'll try to answer as best as *I* can, but of course it's all personal opinion (how's that disclaimer?). As guessed, it's a subsidy. The "real" cost of typical phone service, as revealled in tariff-support filings over the years, for the average urban line, is about $13/month fixed and $7/month for local usage. That is, the phone company needs to average $20/month per line. Note: Rural costs more to serve, urban less. Residential basic rates are held low to make service affordable. It's the "universal service" principle: If everybody has a phone, every phone is worth more. (Magazine ads in the '30s had postal addresses, but rarely phones. Mail order meant mail order, not phone/UPS!) So they intentionally lose a little on basic residential service. Nowadays, toll usage is extraordinarily cheap to provide, compared to price. Few intra-LATA calls cost telco more than about $.03/minute; most cost much less, based upon fully distributed cost. The rest goes to make up the losses on residential service. Likewise, business line rates range from "compensatory" (pay their own way) to "contributory", based upon state policy. So reclassifying modems as "business" will remove them from the subsidized residential class and, in the case of SWB, move them into the "contributory" (overpriced) class. If everybody paid true cost, with a limited subsidy for the needy with an identified source, things would be a lot easier. But the politics are against it. Fred R. Goldstein Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 952 3274 Do you think anyone else on the planet would share my opinions, let alone a multi-billion dollar corporation? ------------------------------ From: colin@array.uucp (Colin Plumb) Subject: Re: SWB "Modem Tax" Tariff: This Time Its For Real! Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1991 18:52:58 -0400 Organization: Array Systems Computing, Inc., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA In article William.Degnan@p0.f39. n382.z1.FidoNet.Org (William Degnan) writes: > The tariff filing states: > "Southwestern Bell Telephone Company proposes to revise the Missouri > Local Exchage Tariff, P.S.C. Mo.-No. 24 and P.S.C. Mo.-No. 35, General > Exchnage Tariff, Section 17, Rules and Regulations Applying to all > Customers' Contracts. > This revision would change Information Terminal Service to an optional > service offering. We believe changing this service to an optional > offering will result in greater equity to the customer. In other words, *nobody* gets it unless they ask (and pay!) for it. H'm... that's a pretty big change hidden in three lines of text! > The tariff defines Information Terminal Service as the communications > link between cusotmer-provided data transmitting and receiving > equipment that processes data and/or performs calculations and the > Telephone Company's central office. In other words, any modem above 2400 baud counts (all use DSP techniques), never mind every fax machine, terminal, terminal emulator, or printer made since the days of genuine TTY's. I suggest that the fact that fax decompression is a non-trivial amount of computation (which is germane to the telco -- without compression, phone usage would be a lot higher) would let you provoke some wrath from the business community. Come to think of it, PBX's and most key systems (not A/A1) come under this category. What is my phone doing when I hit speed dial if not processing data and/or performing calculations? *Answering machines* process data and perform calculations. (Was that the security code? What does that remote signal mean? How many rings has it been? Is the OGM over yet? Etc.) I guess people don't count as "equipment," or it would cover *all* phone usage. Data = information, and you don't send much else over a phone line. > While the tariff requires the application of Information Terminal > Service when data transmitting and receiving equipment is processing > data and/or performing calculations, in many cases succesful data > transmission is possible using a voice grade communications offering > such as a single-line business. > The business office depends on the customer's description of how > service will be used when quoting the approriate rates for service. If > the customer informs us the service will be used for data > transmission, he/she would be required to pay the applicable > Information Terminal Service rate. However, if the customer does not > disclose their intentions to transmit data, they may order a > lower-priced service which provides completely satisfactory data > transmission. Is that disclose *directly*, or advertise? It seems like an attempt to directly attack BBS's whose numbers get spread around. This is a bit fussy, because "informs us" is compared (presumably as an opposite) with "disclose." Since they leave it as a possibliity, and a phone line is not very useful unless someone else knows the number, I have to assume they mean discloses directly to the phone company. This, then, is fine ... few BBS operators do more to publicize their numbers than get the ball rolling by telling a few friends. Companies which advertise directly (business cards, oir whatnot) their fax numbers are in more jeapordy. If this means "if we (the phone company) find out," then nobody has any defense, as the phone company can always call the number and see what answers. > Currently, a local measured service business line is precluded from > use with data transmitting and receiving equipment that processes data > and/or performs calculations. The reason for this restriction is local > measured service was designed as a lower-priced service option for > customers with low outgoing usage. It was not designed to accomidate > cusotmers with high volume incoming calls as is the case when service > is used with data transmitting and receiving equipment. This same > restriction has been added to message rate one-party business service > since the same "intent of the service" logic would apply. Funny, they're getting paid for the calling end ... > End of quote. > Essentially the way I read it is you have a modem hooked up the line > (like a BBS) and take incoming data calls, you must pay flat rate > business rates on each line. This is even if you make little or no > outgoing calls. If anyone else reads it differently, please correct > me. The way I read it, there's a special "Information Terminal Service" rate, which is higher than other available services which "provide completely satisfactory data transmission." It is not stated anywhere how this rate compares with residential or business flat rate or measured service. It seems safe, however, to assume it's more expensive than what most customers are using now. Basically, the phone company is trying to charge for using the phone line for anything other than people talking to people, which is a rapidly growing field these days. I suggest you alert everyone else who has something hooked up to a phone line. Regardless of assurances the telco might make about my memory-dialer phone I got for $9.99 at K-mart, once the tarriff is in force, thay can enforce it. (I'm reminded of certain Canadian computer-law statutes that define a computer as a collection of components some of which do computer-like things. So the whole country is a computer, as well as most subsets.) Colin ------------------------------ From: reidn@jacobs.cs.orst.edu (Nick Reid) Subject: Residential v Business Rates: The Flip Side Organization: C.S. Dept, Oregon State University, Corvallis Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1991 10:35:58 GMT In an article on page 39 of {Communications News} for October 1991 (ISSN 0010-3632, Nelson Publishing, 2504 North Tamiami Trail, Nokomis, FL 34275-3482) entitled "Collocation with rate parity an important goal", August Blegen, Contributing Editor, notes that: "Parity with residential rates, as collocation charges are established, should be the next goal of business users." and, "For example, the tier I, basic, residence, one-party service rate from the local exchange carrier in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area is $14.16. The comparable business rate is $42.48 or 200% higher. The only data with which this writer is familiar that supports any disparity is a claim business lines, on the average, carry 60% more traffic than comparable residential lines." The disparity in rates is attributed to the fact that "State public service commissions historically have approved loading business rates to pay for residential services. It's a political, populist ploy that plays well in most local governments" and the thrust of the article is "Why? Because its been going on for years? That's a review of history, not a justification!" Clearly, in a pressured economy, this will be the viewpoint of many businessmen, comprising a powerful lobby persuading the telcos not only to reclassify bulletin boards from residential rates to business rates, but also to raise residential rates and lower business rates across the board - one which the telcos, without specific political intervention, will find very hard to resist. Which may be something worth considering at this time ... ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1991 10:13:06 -0500 (EST) From: Mark Held Subject: Re: AT&T Advertising It is very true that AT&T cannot market to themselves. I was working for AT&T Technologies (Reading Works) in late 1983 or early 1984 when I was given a new 3B2 as a development machine. The stock set of software provided did not include a C compiler. I attempted unsuccessfully over the next eight months to purchase a compiler. I called the advertised internal number at least two dozen times, never getting anywhere. Always the person who answered would "forward my message to the correct person" but I never recieved any return calls. Finally I noticed a huge two page spread in some trade magazine advertising the 3b line of products including software. It featured an 800 number. In desparation I called that number and explained what I wanted. I was sent to four more numbers in succession and the last number I called connected me to someone who had no idea why I was given their number. I was dumbfounded at the ineptitude and the 3b2 was never used for the project. This little set of frustrations contributed to my decision to leave as I felt that AT&T would surely go under before they could support themselves by selling computers. Mark Held (markh+@andrew.cmu.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Oct 91 09:20:42 CST From: varney@ihlpf.att.com (Al L Varney) Subject: Re: 510 Cutover Annoyance Organization: AT&T Network Systems It's not exactly "510 Cutover" related, but I'm confused about the whole intra-NPA and inter-NPA Directory Assistance issue. I've excerpted some relevant comments below: > Without exception in California, the standard procedure to obtain > information in another area within the state is to dial AC + 555-1212. > Yes, there are places where the 411 operator will give you numbers > across area code lines (such as 818/213) ... > Under current tariffs (soon to possibly be changed), it is very much > to your advantage to use the area code rather than 411. Calls to 411 > are measured and charged for over an allowance. Calls to DA within the > LATA, but in another AC are free. For instance, even if I could get > 411 to give me a listing in Mountain View, it would count against my > 411 allowance. If I (correctly) dial 415-555-1212, the call is free. > Of course, in Texas, you dial 1 + 411 (1+ because there's a charge) > for local numbers within your area code, 1 + 555-1212 or 1 + NPA + > 555-1212 for non-local numbers within your area code, and 1 + NPA + > 555-1212 for any number in another area code. > Moderator's Note: > ... we have both 708 and 312 exclusively for the Chicago > and suburban area, [but] we dial 411 from either area for information > about both. > Linc Madison reports that directory assistance in 510 and 415 are > still handled by the same bureau, and he has to dial 411 for either, > with 1-415-555-1212 being intercepted. This first part turns out to > be quite common. The 201 and 908 areas in New Jersey, 617 and 508 > areas in Massachusetts, and (I think) 212 and 718 in New York City > still have common D.A. bureaus. But at least they do something > reasonable with (other area)-555-1212. > The relationship between local/toll, intra/inter-NPA and D.A. bureaus > has always been rather approximate. For example, even though the 609 > NPA in New Jersey is two separate LATAs with toll rates from anywhere > in one of the LATAs to the other (in between are the sparsely > populated Pine Barrens) the local free 411 directory assistance gives > numbers for anywhere in 609. On the other hand, here in Boston, I > dial 411 for numbers local to Boston while 1-555-1212 has all numbers > in 617 and 508. I don't know why they make this distinction. All > residential D.A. calls within Massachusetts were free until recently > and are still free for the first ten calls per month. Here is the reason for my confusion: There seems to be an underlying assumption that, when calling 411, et al, one knows the NPA of the desired party. Is that a reasonable assumption? Does 411 look up the number, then determine you have accessed the DA bureau incorrectly? So then you can call the same center again, using the required dialing sequence? Aren't there many cases where either the location spans two NPAs or the specific location is unknown (the number for a restaurant along a sparsely populated Interstate highway, for instance)? It would seem to me that the billing issues could be resolved by the DA system, not the customer. Al Varney, AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL [Moderator's Note: What you are suggesting is the way it is done here. We just dial 411, give the general region (north suburban, west area, Chicago, etc) where the information is desired, and the name. The system does the rest, including prepending the area code. PAT] ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Re: New England Tel Messes up Non-Pub Listing Date: Sun, 27 Oct 91 10:28:17 EST Reply-To: wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (David Lesher) Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex {Friend paid for unlisted, SlimeBell listed it anyhow. What's his recourse?} This is exactly why I refuse to pay any LEC to have non-pub service. "Unlisted" really means "unlisted until we decide to screw up, or someone here sells it , or ALD sells it, etc." In fact, Ohio Bell had such a rotten record of such, they made you sign a disclaimer/waiver that said basically "We guarantee to CHARGE you for non-pub, not deliver it." However, such disclaimers are typically used to scare off the legally naive. I settled my case for a trivial amount of money. An attorney I know collected far more. The irony is I suspect you would have a far weaker case if the LECs did not charge for non-pub. Have your friend retain an attorney. Start negotiations at the price to buy and move to another house. Given that case in LA where some suspect allegedly got the actress's address from DMV and then killed her, you might find SlimeBell ready to talk. Oh, and my long-term solution against future SlimeBell screw-ups is simple: Never order service in your name. When you get service, demand an unlisted ADDRESS. This is typically free! wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #859 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17509; 27 Oct 91 20:53 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04944 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 27 Oct 1991 19:05:51 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02545 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 27 Oct 1991 19:05:38 -0600 Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1991 19:05:38 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199110280105.AA02545@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #860 TELECOM Digest Sun, 27 Oct 91 19:05:27 CST Volume 11 : Issue 860 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Accelerated Index for Back Issues [TELECOM Moderator] AT&T Data for HyperCard [David Newman] Speaking of Telco Security ... [is@nike.calpoly.edu] Snoopy Phone Wanted [David Dodell] Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [Paul Schleck] Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [Robert L. McMillin] Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [Harold Hallikainen] Re: Color Codes on Cable Pairs [Patton M. Turner] Re: Color Codes on Cable Pairs [Jacob R. Deglopper] Re: Today's Phones Must Go!!! [David Lesher] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1991 15:42:43 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Accelerated Index for Back Issues I spent much of this weekend working on an accelerated index for the back issues of TELECOM Digest, and have the following now complete: Volume 11 to date Volume 10 complete Volume 9 mostly there What I did was go through the archives files and grep the subject lines from the headers of the past issues. I then sorted these in alphabetical order, leaving the 'Re:' in place where it appears but ignoring it in the sort. A typical line in the accelerated index reads like this: 11/251-300: Subject Title Here [Author's Name] 11/251-300: Re: Subject Title Here [Author's Name] The digits mean to look in volume 11 at the file of back issues (in this case) 251-300. The first two digits will be 09, 10, or 11. The next group of six digits will be 001-050, 051-100, 101-150 .... up to 801-850 in the case of volume 11. You'll find these in their own directory within the Telecom Archives. You can grep any meaningful part of this file. I strongly suggest using 'grep -i' since there are instances of the wrong case used in the titles, and other typographical errors. Where there are duplicate titles such as an original message and many other 'Re:' messages following, then all the messages of that title are further sorted alphabetically by the author's entire name -- not just his/her last name. For example, two articles with identical titles, one by John Higdon and one by Fred Smith would have the one by Fred Smith filed first. You can grep-i for author's names, i.e. Higdon; you can grep -i for single words if desired, or entire phrases. Only the headers of each subject are in the index. From there you have to go to the referenced file and pull the block of issues mentioned. Remember when you use grep -i, the arguments go like this: grep -i keyword index >> output of choice grep -i "more than one word" index >> output of choice A 'keyphrase' then, or complete article title, must be in quotes. A single keyword does not have to be. You will have to experiment with this and find the right keywords to use to narrow your search. For example, the keyword 'cellular' would produce screen after screen of listings. Likewise, to search for 'MCI' or "AT&T' would be futile. You'd have more than you could ever deal with. Yet if you get too specific, then you might not get a hit at all ... so play with it until you get it as you like it. This file (called 'index-vols.9-10-11.Z') is *so* huge. Of course, it is but a mere fraction of the files it represents, yet the size of the file is 1305005 if that tells you anything. Take it from the archives back to your site via ftp at your risk! It is compressed in the Archives with a size of 400000+, making it easier to move by ftp back to your site. You'll need to uncompress it when you get it to your machine. This index starts in March, 1989 and runs through mid-October, 1991. Later on, I'll figure out how to add issues after V11 #850, which is where it stops presently. Furthermore .... this is just a starter. A couple readers are working hard on getting a WAIS (wide area information server) up and running for the archives. We are hoping this will soon be available also. But for now, if you can handle a file the size of the index, go to it! Enjoy! Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: dnewman@emx.utexas.edu (David Newman) Subject: AT&T Data for HyperCard Date: 27 Oct 91 21:59:42 GMT Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas I just got an interesting pamphlet in the mail. I thought that the people here on C.D.T might be interested. Here are a couple of excerpts: "... what time is it in Paris, France? Find out with the new Area Code & Time Finder HyperCard Stack. This 3 1/2" Macintosh disk puts the world in your hands. Enjoy the benefits of having the area code and time for over 8,400 domestic and foreign cities at your fingertips filed neatly in the easy-to-use Area Code and Time Finder HyperCard stack. This time-saver can be a huge asset to you or you business, and it is as clos as your computer: Order this valuable HyperCard stack today!" "o Lists area code and current time for more than 7,000 listed U.S. and Canadian cities (with direct dialing access). o Lists area code and current time for more than 1,400 foreign cities from nearly 60 countries (with direct dialing access). o Designed for use with HyperCard 1.2, but can be easily converted to HyperCard 2.0. Simply click on Help/Instructions button of Title Card for information." The Ordering information indicates that you should call 800 432-6600 and ask for #999-600-111D. The price is $19.95, and the product will ship in mid-November. Oh, and by the way, the product is from AT&T. Dave [Moderator's Note: I assume all our USA readers got their clocks moved back an hour over the weekend. PAT] ------------------------------ From: chris@nike.calpoly.edu (The Squire, Phish) Subject: Speaking of Telco Security ... Organization: Fantasy, Incorporated: Reality None of Our Business. Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1991 05:23:40 GMT The discussion of security got me to thinking about something I did just the other day. One of the four roommates here decided that she didn't like having all seven of our phone lines (we're all computer-types and I run a BBS) in her name (It was for convienience). So I arranged with another of the roommates to put in his name his one line and my three. I called the service number one afternoon and had them changed. They asked me his SSN and DLic, and that was all it took to make changes. I could just as well have used the SSN and DLic of someone I'm not too keen on and given them every COMSTAR feature (at $5+ a pop...), changed their DX carrier, or even disconnected their lines. Things that make you go Hmmm... chris@zeus.calpoly.edu | Fubar Systems BBS | (805) 54-FUBAR 3/12/24, MNP5, 8N1 | FSBBS 2.0, FSUUCP 1.2 [Moderator's Note: The experience you describe is all too common, and its one reason I can't get too excited if MCI or others want to put all the data at your fingertips via touchtone buttons. Either secure the data however it may be transmitted, or leave it all open. People are either honest or they are dishonest. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Oct 91 10:48:21 mst From: ddodell@stjhmc.fidonet.org (David Dodell) Subject: Snoopy Phone Wanted My wife's birthday is coming up, and she mentioned at one time that she missed the "Snoopy" telephone she had as a kid. I called the local AT&T store, and confirmed that they did make one at a time, but no longer. Anyone have any suggestions where I might find one of these in working order? David uucp: {gatech, ames, rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!ddodell Bitnet: ATW1H @ ASUACAD FidoNet=> 1:114/15 Internet: ddodell@stjhmc.fidonet.org FAX: +1 (602) 451-1165 Amateur Packet ax25: wb7tpy@wb7tpy.az.usa.na ------------------------------ Date: 27 Oct 91 11:42:00 CDT From: "Paul Schleck" Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls In dplatt@ntg.com writes: > I recently heard a DJ on a local radio station urging people to tune > in the next morning to another DJ's show. He said something to the > effect of "We're going to call Zaza Gabor ... we've got her phone > number. We know she likes to sleep late ... so we're going to call > her as early as we can. Tune in to hear the fun." > I've heard these sorts of "celebrity" phone calls on both AM and FM > radio for many years (back to the '60s, certainly) ... they seem to be > a staple gimmick for DJs on some talk-oriented shows and some rock > stations. The people being called aren't always celebrities in the > usual sense ... sometimes they're somebody-or-other's boyfriend or > mother. The DJ making the call sometimes identifies himself ... but > sometimes doesn't, and sometimes makes up a cock-and-bull story about > why the person is being called. Your post reminded me of a (IMHO) hilariously funny DJ Doug Tracht, AKA "The Greaseman" back when I lived in Washington, DC. The telephone was his tool of choice during his morning show. I don't recall if he specifically called any celebrities unsolicited (although celebrities called him, including Ned Beatty and the guy with the missing teeth in "Deliverance", you get the picture of the tone of the show), but listeners would call in about one problem or another, complaining about their parents, their boyfriends/girlfriends, the company they work for, etc. Greaseman would punch them up on the phone (the PBX at the station was a "Telos" or at least that's what he referred to it as, always had a lot of trouble with it, too), and talk to the "other party", sometimes about the details of last night's date, or just to ball them out. Sometimes he would actually call the person, other times he would call someone else. One time (I don't know if this was staged or not), he called some women in Arizona, harrassed her, and said "This is ADAM SMASHER from DC-101" (the afternoon DJ). That afternoon, Adam got on the air and said, "does anyone know anything about this letter I got from some woman's lawyer in Arizona?" I am at least convinced that the calls to his "ex-wife" are staged. > - Do you think that a single such call constitutes harrassment? Well, there were some legal actions (which I don't know were successful, probably were settled out of court) against Mr. Tracht, including a woman who called him and asked for him to talk to her boyfriend. He staged the call to another individual, and the conversation about the "date" were fabricated, and quite libelous. There was another incident which involved a girl who was underage. Rumor has it Mr. Tracht spent the weekend in a DC jail. That Monday, he declined to go into details, but said that "I will never again make fun of Stacey Keach!" (TV actor who spent some time in an English penn for cocaine possession). To this day, when talking with women he always asks, "how old are you?" > - To your knowledge, has any DJ, or radio station ever been disciplined > for this sort of practice? Grease would occasionaly be suspended, but would always get back on the air. My feeling on the matter is that he generates millions in revenue for the station, which can afford high-priced attorneys, and can do almost anything he wants, despite his foot-thick file at the FCC. He also has a big following, from all ages and economic groups, according to Arbitron. Community Standards, go figure ... Paul W. Schleck ACM005@zeus.unomaha.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Oct 91 10:51:53 PST From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) Subject: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls Dave Platt writes: > I recently heard a DJ on a local radio station urging people to tune > in the next morning to another DJ's show. He said something to the > effect of "We're going to call Zaza Gabor ... we've got her phone > number. We know she likes to sleep late ... so we're going to call > her as early as we can. Tune in to hear the fun." KROQ, once the leading anarchist's radio station, used to do cute things like call ordinary people up at 5:30 in the morning with all kinds of obnoxious things, some of them pretty nasty -- "Your mother's in the hospital", that kind of stuff. The worst was a stunt they pulled on a call-in show once, where the subject of the show was "The Worst Thing You've Ever Done". Naturally, somebody called in to confess a Murder. Unsurprisingly, LAPD wanted to investigate. After six months, the whole thing was found out to be a hoax, and the offending Disk Jerkeys were kicked off the air for some piddling period of time -- two weeks or so, as I recall. Hey, I guess it's hard to beat good ratings. Robert L. McMillin | Voice: (213) 568-3555 Hughes Aircraft/Hughes Training, Inc. | Fax: (213) 568-3574 Los Angeles, CA | Internet: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com ------------------------------ From: hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1991 07:14:55 GMT As a followup to my previous posting on this subject ... I just found the suggested FCC fine for broadcasting telephone conversations without authorization. It is $5,000 per violation or per day when the violation is continuous for more than one day. This is in FCC91-217 Policy Statement releasted 1 August 1991. Harold ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Oct 91 15:55:19 CST From: Patton M. Turner Subject: Re: Color Codes on Cable Pairs cybrspc!roy@cs.umn.edu (Roy M. Silvernail) writes: > Anyone else have a "clean" mnemonic for resistor codes? The way I heard it: Big boys race our young girls, but violet generally wins. Patton Turner pturner@eng.auburn.edu KB4GRZ @ K4RY.AL.USA.NOAM ------------------------------ From: jrd5@po.CWRU.Edu (Jacob R. Deglopper) Subject: Re: Color Codes on Cable Pairs Reply-To: jrd5@po.CWRU.Edu (Jacob R. Deglopper) Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Date: Sun, 27 Oct 91 22:50:25 GMT In a previous article, cybrspc!roy@cs.umn.edu (Roy M. Silvernail) says: >>> We Rape Beautiful Young Virgins, But Only Girls Beyond Sixteen. >> Gee! That's a NEW one on me! A kindly, old installer (now retired) >> trained me with "Why Run Backwards You Varmint"!! > Sounds like the way I was taught the resistor color code, way back > when... > "Bad Boys Rape Our Young Girls, But Violet Gives Willingly. Sometimes > for Gold, sometimes for Silver, but usually for Nothing." > (The second part? The tolerance coding, of course) >> I'm sure the former example would NEVER fly in today's environment. > Likewise my example, but I don't recall hearing a more politically > correct version. Anyone else have a "clean" mnemonic for resistor > codes? A little cleaner, but not much: Bad Beer Rots Our Young Guts, But Vodka Goes Well. I don't recall where I learned this. _/acob DeGlopper, EMT-A, Wheaton Volunteer Rescue Squad jrd5@po.cwru.edu -- Biomedical Engineering '95, Case Western Reserve Opinions my own... ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Re: Today's Phones Must Go!!! Date: Sun, 27 Oct 91 13:14:06 EST Reply-To: wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (David Lesher) Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex > I think that now is the right time to force a change in the phone > system. All the old equipment should be obsoleted because it's > dangerous. Conversion kits could be made available at low cost for > owners of old Western Electric phones. Somehow this reminds me of Ma's attitude during the closing arguments of the MFJ. Having lost resoundingly on the "primary instrument concept" idea, Ma was fighting against "grandfathering." Ma insisted it was not SAFE to have all those inferior,'foreign' AE, Kellogg, GTE, etc. phones on HER lines. She wanted a fixed, period of a year or so, then they HAD to be removed. After much squabbling, ISTM the FCC said: FCC: You win - no grandfathering after Jan 1, 198x. Ma: {smugly} We knew you'd see the error of your thinking. FCC: Oh, and that includes all of your phones, too - of course. Ma: NO! Grandfathering is a GOOD idea.... wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #860 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03179; 28 Oct 91 3:27 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27016 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 28 Oct 1991 01:38:12 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27504 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 28 Oct 1991 01:38:01 -0600 Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 01:38:01 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199110280738.AA27504@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #861 TELECOM Digest Mon, 28 Oct 91 01:37:56 CST Volume 11 : Issue 861 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [S. Spencer Sun] Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [Jeff Hibbard] Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [chris@nike.calpoly.edu] Re: Interesting Pac*Bell Response [Vance Shipley] Re: Directory/*Dialer* Cards? [Ron Bean] Re: Station Message Detail Recorder [John Higdon] Re: Life, the Universe and the Telephone [Robert J. Woodhead] Re: Video Dial Tone: Bell TV? [Tom Streeter] Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T [Tim Gorman] Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" [S. Spencer Sun] Re: MCI Friends & Family & Anyone Else With a TT Phone [S. Spencer Sun] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: spencer@set.princeton.edu (S. Spencer Sun) Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls Date: 28 Oct 91 05:07:42 GMT Organization: Princeton Class of '94 In article , dplatt@ntg.com (Dave Platt) writes: > I recently heard a DJ on a local radio station urging people to tune > in the next morning to another DJ's show. He said something to the > effect of "We're going to call Zaza Gabor ... we've got her phone > number. We know she likes to sleep late ... so we're going to call > her as early as we can. Tune in to hear the fun." 98 Rock in my hometown of Baltimore (WIYY 97.9 FM) often broadcasts phone calls to "celebrities" which are really just people doing impersonations of varying quality. Is this possibly the case where they claimed to call Zsa Zsa? On the other hand, B104 (WBSB 104.3) often does this thing in the morning where someone calls in and arranges for the DJ to call someone else (usually spouse/significant other/good friend) and tell them something outrageous ("Your wife just died" or something else to cause a really heated/hysterical reaction) before telling them it's all a joke. I suppose in this circumstance they're ok because they're doing what they're doing with permission from someone with a more than casual relationship to the victim (although I additionally suppose that this is on very very thin legal ice.) S. Spencer Sun '94 - Princeton Univ. - spencer@phoenix.princeton.edu WWIVnet #1 @6913 - The Corner Pocket 609-258-8647 - 38.4k/DS/v.32bis ------------------------------ From: jeff@bradley.bradley.edu (Jeff Hibbard) Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls Organization: Bradley University Date: Mon, 28 Oct 91 04:53:45 GMT > I just found the suggested FCC fine for broadcasting telephone > conversations without authorization. It is $5,000 per violation or > per day when the violation is continuous for more than one day. Interesting, but apparently stations in this area aren't afraid of someone actually enforcing it. What's the fine for broadcasting obscenities? The morning clowns on this area's top-rated rock station used to call some unsuspecting local person every day, falsely identify themselves and give the callee a hard time about something, hoping for humorous reactions. The conversations were all broadcast live. Once they called a woman I used to live with, purporting to be from the Decatur (Illinois) Park District, having been tipped off by someone else (not me) about a little problem she had with them. I didn't know about this in advance (and don't normally listen to that station), but I heard the tape a friend of hers made off the air. The conversation started out politely enough, and the DJ really had no way to anticipate her sudden obscene response a couple of minutes into the conversation when he pressed her a little too hard on something. What followed was two horrified gasps near the microphone (presumably the DJ and his sidekick), several seconds of silence, then a bunch of people laughing in the background, followed by the (struggling to compose himself) DJ imploring my friend not to say that again, and her demanding to know who this REALLY was (they never did cut the path from her phone to the transmitter). She tells me the DJ talked to her later off-the-air enough to make sure she wasn't really angry with him. As far as I know, nothing ever came of it, and they continued making such calls. Jeff Hibbard, Bradley University, Peoria IL [Moderator's Note: About 30+ years ago, station WLS in Chicago had a DJ by the name of Dick Biondi. He let some profanity go out over the air and the FCC ordered the station to go off the air about ten minutes later. They remained off the air for several hours, apparently while their attorney argued with the FCC about it. And it was fairly mild as those things go today. Times and attitudes change. PAT] ------------------------------ From: chris@nike.calpoly.edu (The Squire, Phish) Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 04:20:06 GMT hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) recently informed us: > I've also heard several calls that I don't think would get > past the FCC, but the FCC generally works on a complaint basis. For > reference, you can check 47CFR73.1206, which says: Yup. When I was working for KXFM, Santa Maria, we would routinely put callers on the air during late-night. One night the tape machine broke, so I just put them on live. Mistake. The word "masturbation" actually generated complaints and got me a talking-to. On the other hand, would the FCC ruling about having to notify callers that they're being recorded for boradcast cover n-th caller contests? It's obviously standard practice to put the screaming 16-year-old who just won the Madonna tickets on the air, and to even make a promo that will run for weeks. I've *never* asked a caller's permission to put their win on the air. I would THINK that this would be covered under the "obviously intended for broadcast" clause. Hey Harold, seems we're both poly-ites. We should meet for lunch and swap radio war stories :-) chris@zeus.calpoly.edu | Fubar Systems BBS (805) 54-FUBAR 3/12/24, MNP5, 8N1 FSBBS 2.0, FSUUCP 1.2 ------------------------------ From: vances@xenitec.on.ca (Vance Shipley) Subject: Re: Interesting Pac*Bell Response Organization: SwitchView Inc. Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1991 16:36:49 GMT In article john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > "Gee, who am I supposed to believe -- two AT&T engineers, a Pac*Bell > senior switchman, about ten correspondents, MY own experience on three > separate 5ESS switches, and the published feature description, OR Mr. > Cook?" Of the above I would believe the "published feature description" first, the two AT&T engineers second and personal observations of the feature actually working third. Anything said by a telephone company employee should be taken with a grain of salt as they are notoriously good at equating their world (their company) with the world. If you ask if a feature is available their answer will be based more on company policy toward feature provisioning. The next-to-final word is always the official documentation. The final word is empirical testing on your own machine. (The preceding was taken from a Unix manual and applies to everything :)) Everthing else is hearsay. Of course once your testing has determined that a feature operates a certain way you have only proven how YOUR machine operates TODAY based on current configuration. Vance Shipley vances@xenitec vances@ltg ..uunet!watmath!xenitec!vances ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Directory/*Dialer* Cards? Date: Fri Oct 25 19:21:09 1991 From: astroatc!nicmad!madnix!zaphod@spool.cs.wisc.edu (Ron Bean) In article , reidn@jacobs.cs.orst.edu (Nick Reid) writes: > In article lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird > P. Broadfield) writes: >> There are any number of those little electronic-phone-book gadgets >> available out there, from the Sharp Wizard (?) things down to the >> credit-card-size (and credit-card-thickness) gadgets in the airport >> shops. What I haven't found yet is one that actually generates the >> tones itself. > There are many, from about $10 up. I've seen a few here and there, but I've had a hard time finding them. Most sources I've checked seem to only carry one or two models, as if that's all there were. Is there any place to find a more comprehensive selection? Or, can we compile a list of specs here? > I use a calc-sized Sharp (EL-6250) and a Casio wrist watch (555 > DBA-80). Around $50 each. By "calc-sized", I assume you mean roughly 2.5"x6", right? How many numbers can the watch store? zaphod@madnix.UUCP (Ron Bean) {harvard|rutgers|ucbvax}!uwvax!astroatc!nicmad!madnix!zaphod ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Station Message Detail Recorder Date: 26 Oct 91 23:01:03 PDT (Sat) From: john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) tim gorman <71336.1270@CompuServe.COM> writes: > SMDR is typically used with a Centrex service. But when one talks about SMDR he is usually referring to a normal function of a PBX. Virtually every PBX made provides call detail to a printer or call accounting computer so that a customer has his own local record of calls and who made them. At home, my Panasonic feeds its SMDR output into a serial port of my UNIX system where the data is captured for use later. This information can be sorted to determine the effectiveness of my various lines and calling plans. BTW, in Pac*Bell territory, getting SMDR on Centrex is a very complex and VERY expensive proposition. One might get the idea that PB is not too keen on the customer really finding out where his money goes. John Higdon (hiding out in the desert) ------------------------------ From: trebor@foretune.co.jp (Robert J Woodhead) Subject: Re: Life, the Universe and the Telephone Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 02:35:39 GMT sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes: > BTW, speaking of "smart phones", has any one put one of the smaller > new ones in a shoe yet? Yep. Special order for Maxwell Smart, Agent 86 of CONTROL. BTW, you can get a recorded listing of CONTROL's 10-most-wanted KAOS agents by calling 1-900-CONTROL ($1.95 for the first minute, 95 cents each additional minute; all proceeds go to help CONTROL weather the latest round of budget cuts.) KAOS, of course, has their own retaliatory 900 number, 1-900-FORKAOS. The price is huge, they don't tell you how much it is, and if you complain to the phone company, Schtarker pays you a visit and gives you his version of a "Modified Final Judgement ..." Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp ------------------------------ From: streeter@cs.unca.edu (Tom Streeter) Subject: Re: Video Dial Tone: Bell TV? Organization: University of North Carolina at Asheville Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 02:13:45 GMT In article yarvin@CS.YALE.EDU writes: > Charlie.Mingo@p0.f716.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Charlie Mingo) writes: [excerpting an {NY Times} article] >> "Until and unless the telco's monopoly in voice telephone is >> ended, no level of Government safeguards against cross-subsidies will >> be effective," said James P. Mahoney, president of the cable >> association. > This part of the article perhaps deserves extra note. If this quote > is to be believed, then the cable companies would not at all mind the > telcos carrying video if they could in turn provide voice service. > The possibility and possible lucrativeness of this are familiar topics > to TELECOM Digest readers, but as an official policy of the cable > companies it is something new. Actually, it's really not so new -- things like this have been said for at least the last two years (and probably longer). It's just that I think a large number of people have a hard time taking the concept of a cable company providing *reliable* phone service seriously, and so it's not seen much play in the press. The NCTA has been on record for some time as supporting the idea of cable entry into the telephone business. Tom Streeter | streeter@cs.unca.edu Dept. of Mass Communication | 704-251-6227 University of North Carolina at Asheville Opinions expressed here are Asheville, NC 28804 | mine alone. ------------------------------ Date: 27 Oct 91 22:41:27 EST From: tim gorman <71336.1270@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Jack Decker writes: > That is simply not true, at least not in the 906 area code of > Michigan. I can take you to step-by-step exchanges served by > independent phone companies (obviously NOT FGD capable) and dial > Sprint's 800 access number and it will go through. I know of no place > that around this area where it will NOT work now, and the majority of > exchanges in my area (especially to the west of me) are either still > not converted to equal access or are just being converted this year. john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) replies in TELECOM Digest V11 #858: > Just because an office does not offer the end user PIC or 10XXX > dialing does not mean that the FGD mechanism is not in place. The > equipment and protocols that make up the FGD capability are described > in a book two inches thick. Did a switchman tell you that the office > was not FGD capable or did you just assume that because it does not > APPEAR to be fully implemented? This all seems to be in reference to the ability to access Sprint (or another carrier) via 800 from any office. Technically, this capability is available anywhere. The carrier, however, must order it. A carrier can order 800 FG B access, FG D access, both, or neither. This is why there is such divergence of access ability in different areas of the country for different carriers. It was my understanding that Sprint had access available in most parts of the country from any office. This may be a misunderstanding on my part. There are a few other carriers that have pretty well established ubiquitous access, but there are many that have not. I suspect this may be what causes some of the confusion. Tim Gorman - SWBT * opinions are my own, any resemblence to official policy is coincidence* ------------------------------ From: spencer@set.princeton.edu (S. Spencer Sun) Subject: Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" Date: 28 Oct 91 05:01:33 GMT Organization: Princeton Class of '94 In article , roeber@vxcrna.cern.ch writes: > Several years ago France introduced daylight savings time (or > "Summertime"). Speaking of which, don't various countries go on/off savings time at different dates in the year? And is there any good reason why this isn't synchronized? (Seems it would make the most sense to me ...) S. Spencer Sun '94 - Princeton Univ. - spencer@phoenix.princeton.edu WWIVnet #1 @6913 - The Corner Pocket 609-258-8647 - 38.4k/DS/v.32bis [Moderator's Note: We are not even standardized in the USA. There is one town in Arizona (in an AP story the other day) which has two time zones *in the same town*. And Indiana is a case of its own during the summer also, with three different possibilities: Eastern Daylight in the eastern part of the state where observed; Eastern Standard (aka Central Daylight) in other areas, and Central Standard in the rest. PAT] ------------------------------ From: spencer@set.princeton.edu (S. Spencer Sun) Subject: Re: MCI Friends & Family & Anyone Else With a TT Phone Date: 28 Oct 91 04:33:15 GMT Organization: Princeton Class of '94 In article , phil@wubios.wustl.edu (J. Philip Miller) writes: > This was posted on RISKS. It clearly is yet another reason to stay > away from the MCI gimicks. > [upon dialing 1-800-FRIENDS ...] > Anyone who knows your phone number and ZIP code can get a complete > list of your Calling Circle. You don't need to know a number to check > its status; the computer lists them all. Not sure I follow you here. Are you (I realize the original post wasn't yours but you seem to agree with it) complaining that people can call this number and find out who's on your F&F list? > In the meantime, I'm not adding any more people to my list, and I'm > considering switching to a company that doesn't make my monthly bill > public information. They aren't making your monthly bill known to the general public. It so happens that anyone who knows your phone number and your zip code can find out who's on your F&F list but this has nothing to do with the contents of your monthly bill (beyond listing a few numbers which are likely to show up on it). I also don't see what's so horrible about someone POTENTIALLY finding out who's on your F&F list. S. Spencer Sun '94 - Princeton Univ. - spencer@phoenix.princeton.edu WWIVnet #1 @6913 - The Corner Pocket 609-258-8647 - 38.4k/DS/v.32bis ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #861 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26589; 28 Oct 91 23:54 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24628 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 28 Oct 1991 21:35:59 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22712 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 28 Oct 1991 21:35:45 -0600 Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 21:35:45 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199110290335.AA22712@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #862 TELECOM Digest Mon, 28 Oct 91 21:35:30 CST Volume 11 : Issue 862 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: 56 KBps Dial Up Wanted in Canada [Peter Sleggs] Re: Switching System Model Numbers [Ronald T. Crocker] Re: Today's Phones Must Go!!! [S. Spencer Sun] Re: Switching System Model Numbers [Jack Winslade] Re: Rude Operators [S. Spencer Sun] Re: Prodigy's Latest Fiasco [Bill Martens] Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [Harold Hallikainen] Re: Speaking of Telco Security ... [John Higdon] Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [John Higdon] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: 56 KBps Dial Up Wanted in Canada From: peters@beltrix.guild.org (Peter Sleggs) Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1991 23:21:26 -0500 Organization: Bellatrix Systems Mississauga, ONT Canada chuck@roadrunner.pictel.com (Chuck Grandgent) writes: > AT&T has ACCUNET switched-56 service, $10 - $20 per hour typically; > MCI and Sprint have similar services ... ACCUNET gives you 700 > exchange numbers that you dial. How well does this service cross the border? Anyone with experience? > You'll need a CSU (like a modem), often with V.35 connectors. There > are V.35 boards for PC's. Tell me more please. What little I have been able to find out, [admittedly I haven't bugged BELL CANADA yet] from those who claim to have some info locally. [NOTE: toronto area! ] _implies_ that its a fixed cost for local service. Also from the local toronto tor.general > You can buy this now. It costs $85/month for the telephone line plus another > $30 or $40/month rental for the data unit. The data units call themselves > Datapath, or sometimes Datalink, one of these might be the name of the > service as Bell knows it. The 56 kbps units are synchronous only, with > a V.35 interface. It isn't clear to me whether these can be dialed from > the computer or not (the manual mentions something called V.25bis, which > might or might not be a protocol for dialing through the synchronous > interface). I'll mail the poster for further details on rates, can anyone elaborate on the hardware? peter peters@beltrix.guild.org or torag!beltrix!peters ------------------------------ From: motcid!crocker@uunet.uu.net (Ronald T. Crocker) Subject: Re: Switching System Model Numbers Date: 28 Oct 91 15:10:01 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL In article haynes@cats.UCSC.EDU (Jim Haynes) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 847, Message 6 of 14 > I've heard of the #1 crossbar, and I guess #4 crossbar was a toll > tandem switch, and then there's #5 crossbar. What happened to 2 and > 3? > It looks as if AT&T is relating ESS model numbers to the crossbar > models, since I haven't heard of 2 or 3 ESS either. No, I think it is totally coincidental that the 4ESS electronic switching system is for toll, and the 5ESS electronic switching system is for class 5 use. From my days at the labs, I seem to recall the old-timers discussing 1ESS, 2ESS (and 2BESS) and 3ESS. The numbers for AT&T switching equipment are allocated sequentially from 1, with the 1ESS electronic switching system being the first, and the 1AESS being its replacement. The 2ESS and 3ESS switches were built for suburban and rural areas respectively and, I believe, there are still some in service. I don't believe there is any active development for either of those switches, since the 5ESS is intended to be a replacement for all the prior systems, including the 4ESS. Of course, since I don't think a 5ESS can handle 1,000,000 BHCA like the 4ESS, it may not actually ever replace the 4ESS. This sequential numbering trend includes the STP, NCP, and operations support systems that AT&T builds. Ron Crocker Motorola Radio-Telephone Systems Group, Cellular Infrastructure Group (708) 632-4752 [FAX: (708) 632-4430] crocker@mot.com or uunet!motcid!crocker ------------------------------ From: spencer@set.princeton.edu (S. Spencer Sun) Subject: Re: Today's Phones Must Go!!! Date: 28 Oct 91 04:52:23 GMT Organization: Princeton Class of '94 In article , m21198%mwunix@linus.mitre.org (John McHarry) writes: > mmm@cup.portal.com writes: >> [person mucking with phone in stupid way gets shocked] > [Moderator's Note: ... And for an > exciting display for a young friend who has little or no knowledge of > the characteristics of electricity, let him watch while you 'innocently' > touch one end of your screwdriver to the (still) juiced-up capacitors > while another part of the metal touches the metal case on the unit or > some other source of ground ... bang! bang! pop! flash! No harm done, > of course, and always good for a laugh as you watch them jump out of > the way ... plus, for safety's sake you've insured the device is > drained and won't hurt anyone who tampers around inside the unit. PAT] Reminds me of a section from The Straight Dope by Cecil Adams (should be the second book after the Bible that a family buys, and the third book is More of the Straight Dope) where he explains the need for polarized plugs ... the following is more or less a quote (I'm not in my room when I read news so I can't type it exactly): Take a plug and strip the ends off the wires leading from it and plug in the wire. Now take an obnoxious little child and put him in a bathtub full of water and tell him you're going to show him an experiment called "Shaking hands with Jesus." Show him how nothing happens when you grab the dead/grounded wire, then hand him the wires, surreptitiously substituting the live wire for the neutral one -- big laffs! S. Spencer Sun '94 - Princeton Univ. - spencer@phoenix.princeton.edu WWIVnet #1 @6913 - The Corner Pocket 609-258-8647 - 38.4k/DS/v.32bis ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Oct 91 17:52:58 cst From: Jack.Winslade@ivgate.omahug.org (Jack Winslade) Subject: Re: Switching System Model Numbers Reply-To: jack.winslade@drbbs.omahug.org Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha > and don't forget the venerable No. 101 ESS ... AAAARGH! That one has to be the 'black sheep' of Ma Bell's ESS family! When I first joined our department back in 1979, our Centrex came off of one of these monsters. It was quirky as heck. It was supposed to have all kinds of features such as call transfer (we referred to it as 'call cutoff') and conference calling, but they seldom if ever worked properly. What bugged me the most was the 'mickey mouse' ring tone. As a telephone 'buff' I was accustomed to either the 2-on/4-off or the shorter 'pbx' ringing cadences, but this was ridiculous. The first ring was always long but never consistent, varying between two seconds or so and about four or so. It then settled down to a somewhat regular 1-on/2-off cadence. Sometimes the initial ring would blend in to the first normal ring, giving a whopping six second or so ring. I used to speculate that the ring tone was generated with 555 timers, but when I thought about it, I realized that 555 timers are far more stable. ;-) (No, the ring cadence was not some type of special signalling. I asked about that and was told that all of the 101's were like that.) There was a low, but audible buzz during conversation (no, it was not a ground hum -- definitely coming from the equipment) but it was not really objectionable. In '80 or '81 (I forget exactly when) they cut to a #1A ESS. All of the quirks suddenly disappeared. Amazingly, there were no problems with data, but remember that in these days, 110 bps was common and 300 was the 'new high-speed'. ;-) Good Day JSW Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.13 r.5 DRBBS, Keep On WOC'n in the Free World (200:5010/666.0) ------------------------------ From: spencer@set.princeton.edu (S. Spencer Sun) Subject: Re: Rude Operators Date: 28 Oct 91 04:56:45 GMT Organization: Princeton Class of '94 In article , djcl.bbs@shark.cse.fau.edu writes: > chris@nike.calpoly.edu (The Squire, Phish) writes: >> Okay, I may be picking nits here, but I just got off the line with a >> very rude operator. It's 5am here, and I'm finishing a program. I > Strategies to report such operators seem to escape me; in the former > case, the second operator who told me about the real Bell policy said > he couldn't trace down the operator. Perhaps in retrospect, the > supervisor should be called back with all relevant information, or > maybe a top level type in the business office. Or you could try again, > and the next time get a better operator. Presumably this is why operators announce their names before they go on to ask if they can help you, but then again, when dialing information, I have never had an operator speak slowly enough that I could make out what his/her name was. :-) S. Spencer Sun '94 - Princeton Univ. - spencer@phoenix.princeton.edu WWIVnet #1 @6913 - The Corner Pocket 609-258-8647 - 38.4k/DS/v.32bis ------------------------------ From: billm@fujisan.info.com (Bill Martens) Subject: Re: Prodigy's Latest Fiasco Date: 27 Oct 91 02:48:24 GMT Reply-To: billm@fujisan.info.com (Bill Martens) Organization: Info Connections @ Mt. Fuji haug@ka3ovk.irs.gov.UUCP (Susan Haug) writes: > Today, on the front page of the {Washington Post}, there is an article > about Prodigy ... the title is _Computer Network to Ban 'Repugnant' > Comments_. Well, I have to wish them luck as I don't see how they are going to check every single message which users send to each other using their service. I hardly think they would be willing to spend the kind of money it would take to have someone read all of the messages. > Civil liberties groups have compared computer networks to telephone > companies, which do not censor calls. However, Prodigy officals > object to that analogy, saying it is more like a newspaper, and that > Prodigy must judge what is acceptable and what is not, much as a > newspaper editor must. I think this one goes back to the age old question of whether the Sysop is responsible for things which are posted on their bulletin boards. Having been around since the early days of modeming and BBSs, I have found that everytime the authorities have tried to pin some irresponsible person's comments on the SYSOP, it has back fired into a fiasco on the part of the goverment trying to figure out how they are going to try and slide the case under the government. Or they turn it into a case such as the 'Len Rose' case. > Prodigy officials take the position of, and I quote, "we were speaking > in broader terms ... we were focused on the broad issue of free > expression". I do believe the First Admendment "focuses on the broad issue of free expression". But of course we live in a time when people who criticize the government or other authoritarian agencies are thrashed by such agencies into submission. The next thing you know, they will try to limit what people can and can't say in public to each other. > [Moderator's Note: And isn't it quite > curious how all those online pay services are more than happy to seek > protection from the consequences of their users' behavior by invoking > common carrier status when it suits them ... yet not hesitate to > assume the role of newspaper publisher with a right to say what does > and does not get printed when that better meets their purposes. You > can't have it both ways! PAT] I couldnt agree with you more Pat. I had run a BBS in seattle for many years that was free to all users. But with this freedom also was a disclaimer which stated to users that if they had connection with any government agency, they must state so to the sysop in the login process. It also said that the sysop was in no way responsible for the opinions expressed on the board. But as we all know, nowadays, you can be held responsible for almost anything according to the government. (Sounds like Russia to me.) ------------------------------ From: hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 06:22:38 GMT In article rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) writes: > KROQ, once the leading anarchist's radio station, used to do cute > things > The worst was a stunt they > pulled on a call-in show once, where the subject of the show was "The > Worst Thing You've Ever Done". Naturally, somebody called in to > confess a Murder. Unsurprisingly, LAPD wanted to investigate. After > six months, the whole thing was found out to be a hoax, and the > offending Disk Jerkeys were kicked off the air for some piddling > period of time -- two weeks or so, as I recall. Hey, I guess it's > hard to beat good ratings. I think the FCC is still investigating this "fake murder" announcement and another one where a DJ or newscaster announced that one of the other station personnel had just been shot in the parking lot. The police and everyone showed up. In each case, the station may lose its license (we'll have to see what the FCC decides, but they do not seem to be looking kindly on this). An FM station in LA sells for about $50,000,000, so the loss of license may discourage further stunts. Harold ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Speaking of Telco Security ... Date: 27 Oct 91 22:47:49 PST (Sun) From: john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) chris@nike.calpoly.edu (The Squire, Phish) writes: > They asked me his SSN and DLic, and that was all it took > to make changes. I could just as well have used the SSN and DLic of > someone I'm not too keen on and given them every COMSTAR feature (at > $5+ a pop...), changed their DX carrier, or even disconnected their > lines. Pac*Bell would not have even asked you for that. You would merely have given a phone number and after a pause the rep would have asked, "Mr. Smith?" to which you would say, "Yes", if you had anything besides rocks for brains. There is no verification or security WHATSOEVER! There is nothing in the world to stop you from ordering, changing, or cancelling anyone's service anywhere in Pac*Bell Land. Except for one thing. A couple of years ago, a friend called on a line that I had never given to anyone EVER. It turns out that he decided to be cute and called the business office, impersonated me, and reviewed my service. Every number billed under my main listed number was obtained by him. As a result of that maneuver, I had my accounts "passworded". This means that before a Pac*Bell rep will discuss my accounts, the caller must provide a "password". Pac*Bell will do this for anyone that asks, but those that have taken advantage of this represent a tiny minority to be sure. > [Moderator's Note: The experience you describe is all too common, and > its one reason I can't get too excited if MCI or others want to put > all the data at your fingertips via touchtone buttons. Either secure > the data however it may be transmitted, or leave it all open. People > are either honest or they are dishonest. PAT] The world appears to be going crazy with these voice response systems. In some regards, they are very useful (and even provide a portion of my livelihood). But when Bank of America posts your bank account information on the "restroom wall", Sprint tells the world what kind of customer you are by revealing your account status, and MCI broadcasts who all of your friends and relatives are -- all with no security whatsoever, the what we have is technology outpacing our ability to deal with it. John Higdon (hiding out in the desert) ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls Date: 27 Oct 91 22:55:13 PST (Sun) From: john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) writes: > Unsurprisingly, LAPD wanted to investigate. After > six months, the whole thing was found out to be a hoax, and the > offending Disk Jerkeys were kicked off the air for some piddling > period of time -- two weeks or so, as I recall. Hey, I guess it's > hard to beat good ratings. The three who committed the hoax did not get off quite that lightly, according to R&R. In addition to whatever action the station took, the three are each entitled to spend some community service time (around 150 hours each) working in "homeless" soup kitchens. In addition, they are jointly and severally responsible for reimbursing the LA County Sheriff's office for the $12,000 spent on investigating the "crime". John Higdon (hiding out in the desert) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #862 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04146; 29 Oct 91 2:56 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00831 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 29 Oct 1991 00:48:42 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10169 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 29 Oct 1991 00:48:28 -0600 Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 00:48:28 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199110290648.AA10169@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #863 TELECOM Digest Tue, 29 Oct 91 00:48:17 CST Volume 11 : Issue 863 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [Roy M. Silvernail] Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [Scott Dorsey] Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [Andy Sherman] Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [Bill Berbenich] Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? [William Clare Stewart] Re: MCI Friends & Family & Anyone Else With a TT Phone [John Higdon] Re: Speaking of Telco Security ... [Joel M. Hoffman] Re: The Oakland Fire [Sharon Lynne Fisher] Re: 5ESS Audio Quality [William Clare Stewart] Re: Color Codes on Cable Pairs [Andrew M. Dunn] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls From: cybrspc!roy@cs.umn.edu (Roy M. Silvernail) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 91 06:46:02 CST Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN dplatt@ntg.com (Dave Platt) writes: > A few questions for the readership: > Is this sort of yuck-it-up unsolicited phone call from a radio-station > DJ a common practice in other parts of the country? A radio station here in Minneapolis used to do it frequently. Although they still play tapes of some of the calls, I don't think they do them anymore. I'm no longer in the radio biz, but I recall this type of stunt being popular around the mid-70's. Toward the late 70's, though, the FCC (if memory serves correctly) instituted regulations that required gaining the callee's permission _before_ recording a telephone conversation for broadcast. > Do you think that a single such call constitutes harrassment? Perhaps, but I'm no expert. I know that if I had been the recipient of the famous "1200 hamburgers to go" call made by Don Imus, I would have felt harrassed. Imus was the morning DJ at WNBC for a number of years, and while he may not have invented the bozo-call routine, he certainly capitalized on it. There was even an album of these calls released. (It's called "1200 Hamburgers To Go") > To your knowledge, has any DJ, or radio station ever been disciplined > for this sort of practice? Imus got told off a few times, but he never seemed to listen to the management much. To my way of thinking, Howard Stern, et al, are descendants of the Don Imus act who have gone to (yet further) extremes. Roy M. Silvernail |+| roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu [Moderator's Note: What most of those guys need is for a listener a day to slap them personally and their station with a lawsuit; after their lawyers have tripped over their own feet going in and out of the courthouse a few times they'll get the message and tell the bozos to cut it out or find some other line of work (preferable solution). PAT] ------------------------------ From: kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov ( Scott Dorsey) Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls Organization: NASA Langley Research Center Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 14:17:25 GMT In article dplatt@ntg.com (Dave Platt) writes: > I've heard these sorts of "celebrity" phone calls on both AM and FM > radio for many years (back to the '60s, certainly) ... they seem to be > a staple gimmick for DJs on some talk-oriented shows and some rock > stations. Oh, I hope not, because it's illegal. There are FCC regulations about broadcasting telephone conversations without obtaining the permission of the other party. I have seen a station fined for this. scott [Moderator's Note: Fines mean nothing to a large FM radio station. They consider it part of the cost of doing business. What they need is for someone from the FCC to walk into the transmitter site; show his credentials and give them one minute to have an orderly powering down of the facility with the usual 'sign off the air' announcement. Then everyone would be ushered outside and the facility padlocked pending FCC permission to return to the air. PAT] ------------------------------ From: andys@ulysses.att.com Date: Mon, 28 Oct 91 12:10:33 EST Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Murray Hill, NJ In article TELECOM Moderator noted: > [Moderator's Note: About 30+ years ago, station WLS in Chicago had a > DJ by the name of Dick Biondi. He let some profanity go out over the > air and the FCC ordered the station to go off the air about ten > minutes later. They remained off the air for several hours, apparently > while their attorney argued with the FCC about it. And it was fairly > mild as those things go today. Times and attitudes change. PAT] Ah, you must be older than I, with more vivid memories. I remember that Biondi got fired and came back a couple of times. One time I remember he was alleged (in my grammer-school playground, anyway) to have been fired for telling a lewd joke. DISCLAIMER: AT&T has a strong and very well established pre-Thomas harassment policy. Do not infer an uncomfortable workplace from the harmless history cum urban legend lession. Andy Sherman/AT&T Bell Laboratories/Murray Hill, NJ AUDIBLE: (908) 582-5928 READABLE: andys@ulysses.att.com or att!ulysses!andys What? Me speak for AT&T? You must be joking! [Moderator's Note: That is exactly why they finally had to fire him. The FCC kept a lot of pressure on them, especially while they were off the air for several hours that night. A highly-placed honcho at the FCC called the station GM at home that night along with another station executive and told them 'get Biondi off the air NOW; then sign off the air and maintain radio silence until we talk about it ... and if you don't do as you are told, then tomorrow the United States Marshall will serve you with legal process and bring a padlock with him.' Within five or maybe ten minutes the music stopped playing and a voice other than Biondi's read the standard station-ID message used when going off the air and they were gone. Once back on, they were required to read a statement once an hour for about a week saying in effect 'on , Dick Biondi aired a message which many deemed lewd and offensive. The Federal Communications Commission required this station to remain silent until remedial action was taken including Mr. Biondi's dismissal as an employee of WLS. We apologize to our listeners for remarks which may have been offensive, and request that you send comments about WLS and our on-air personnel to the Federal Communications Commission at
'. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls From: wabwrld!bill@uu.psi.com (Bill Berbenich) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 91 11:04:20 EST Organization: Wabworld, Atlanta, Georgia, USA I used to be one of these 'chosen few' who brighten up our days and nights via the airwaves :-). Here's my experience in the matter: What seems like a live, cold call is usually made before you hear it and taped for later airing. During the course of the call (usually toward the end, so it won't blow the surprise) permission would be obtained from the call recipient to air the call. No permission, no airing of the call. I was personally never refused permission. For all appearances, the call sounds "live" on the air but was probably taped a few minutes before. The other group of calls that I remember were those that really did go live on the air. Some examples, people calling in for a contest and "celebrities." People who call in to us are generally always assumed to have given permission -- after all, they called us! Celebrities are either the real thing or impersonators. The real thing is asked permission, too. This is sometimes done by a separate call beforehand (Hey, one of our guys is gonna call you up on the air. Is it okay to put you on the air when he does?) or at the time of the live call, before cutting in their audio path. Impersonators are in on the "gag" and of course know that they're being broadcast. I never participated in or knew of any calls from the station which would be construed in any way as harrassment. No "jokes" that a loved one was hurt or dead, no calls which I knew or suspected would be hurtful in any way. There are plenty of ways to achieve the same on-air effect using impersonators or others. Personally, I don't see the point in some of these gags that some on-air talent comes up with. Maybe that's why I don't do that line of work any more. 'Course it did help feed and clothe a starving student at the time! ---=== wabwrld Waffle BBS ===--- If your mail bounces, try one of these: domain - bill%wabwrld@srchtec.searchtech.com Best! --> bangpath - {emory,uupsi}!srchtec!wabwrld!bill ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Oct 91 15:52:08 EST From: wcs@erebus.att.com (William Clare Stewart) Subject: Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? In article well!rchao@well.sf.ca.us (Robert Chao) writes: > I'm looking for info on how the law handles crank calls. If someone > places crank calls that do not contain profanity, threats, or abusive > language, and do not come at an unreasonable hour, and the calls are > not placed very often, what laws are applicable against him? What > kind of sentence is involved? What evidence would be required? > Suppose the calls do contain language that implies that the caller is > watching and/or following the receiver? How would the laws change in > that case? In the first example, I am referring to calls that contain > silly or garbled language. Thanks to anyone who can help. It's hard to do much, especially if they're infrequent. The canonical examples, such as 10-year-old kids calling up and asking if your refrigerator is running ("Better go catch it"), are best handled by using Caller-ID and calling their Mom, and are frankly a lot less trouble than the salesdroids who want you to buy insurance, cemetary plots, or politicians. We had a rash of collect calls with immediate hangup, from what turned out to be a pay phone at the local high school; getting the operator to get the number before one of the kids had hung up turned out to do the job, and if it hadn't then calling the principal probably would have. The tougher problem was all the calls for Lucille, who had had our number before we did and changed it because SHE was getting crank calls (and the people who DID seem to know her had no telephone manners either) - there was no real way to stop it, since the calls came different people, but they went away after a few years :-) Calls that say the caller is watching or following you are clearly an implied threat, and can be dealt with legally. Bill Stewart +1-908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs AT&T Bell Labs 4M312 Holmdel NJ ------------------------------ Subject: Re: MCI Friends & Family & Anyone Else With a TT Phone Date: 28 Oct 91 10:46:58 PST (Mon) From: john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) spencer@set.princeton.edu (S. Spencer Sun) writes: > I also don't see what's so horrible > about someone POTENTIALLY finding out who's on your F&F list. Am I reading this right? You mean that you cannot immediately imagine some embarassing implications here? There are some people in this world that have associates that they would prefer not know about other associates. Maybe you would prefer that your Uncle Fred not know that you are still keeping in touch with Aunt Minnie. Or perhaps you might not want Hungadunga, Hungadunga, Hungadunga, and McCormick to know that you also consult with Larry, Darrel, and Darrel. Frankly, I consider my toll statement to be one of my more private documents. If Sprint insists on telling the world how I pay my bill and MCI wants to tell everyone who I call ... John Higdon (hiding out in the desert) ------------------------------ From: joel@wam.umd.edu (Joel M. Hoffman) Subject: Re: Speaking of Telco Security ... Organization: University of Maryland, College Park Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 21:11:26 GMT In article our esteemed Moderator notes: > all the data at your fingertips via touchtone buttons. Either secure > the data however it may be transmitted, or leave it all open. People > are either honest or they are dishonest. PAT] ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Actually, I've always adhered to the ``keeping honest people honest'' theory. That's why I lock my luggage. I know that a theif will have no problem breaking the mickey-mouse lock (or taking the whole suitcase), but I want to deter ordinary, honest travelers. Joel ------------------------------ From: well!slf@well.sf.ca.us (Sharon Lynne Fisher) Subject: Re: The Oakland Fire Date: 28 Oct 91 15:11:23 GMT Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA > Estimated loss: 5 billion+ They are now saying $1.5 billion, explaining that some figures were trebled by mistake. > The most horrible thought of all is that it may have been arson: Our > television talking-heads are now saying (quoting CA authorities) that > efforts to find some natural reason for the fire -- any reason at all > that 'mother nature' chose this time and place for such a thing -- > have failed. They found where the fire started, but no natural reason > for it at all. Non-natural is not equivalent to arson, if I understand the term correctly. In other words, yes, the talk is that it was started by workmen burning trash or brush, but not that someone *deliberately* set the fire. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Oct 91 10:29:06 EST From: wcs@erebus.att.com (William Clare Stewart) Subject: Re: 5ESS Audio Quality Organization: AT&T Bell Labs Special Services Division. In article jack.winslade@drbbs.omahug. org writes: > In two cases here in the Omaha area, systems have converted to the > 5ESS with corresponding modem problems. Fortunately over time, all > problems were resolved. > Just over a year ago, the 156th. St. office (the one that serves our > area) cut from a very clean 1AESS to a 5ESS. Almost immediately this > was accompanied with a flood of 'noisy line' complaints from BBS > users. What was funny was that many local calls were dirty, even at > lower speeds, but LD calls on both AT&T and Sprint were quite clean. > Several of the users phoned in repeated 'line noise' complaints to Ma > Bell and feedback from some Ma Bell employees confirmed such things as > trunk interface units connected improperly. Eventually the new office > became as clean as, if not cleaner than the old one. A co-worker of mine used to run an Autovon switch out in Lyons Nebraska. Autovon was the military's private phone network, supporting administrative traffic as well as "special" needs, and generally had good backbone service, which was centrally funded, but inadequate numbers of very long access lines going to antique PBXs at military bases, generally funded on a base-by-base basis by people who didn't work there and usually weren't affected by the service. When Autovon was switching over from crossbar to 1AESS switches, they went through much the same experience, and had real trouble connecting calls in some places. The adjustments on the ESS were set for the specs the lines supposedly had, assuming the PBXs were set right. The problem was that many of the PBXs and base wiring really WEREN'T up to spec, or anywhere close, and the Autovon techs had been adjusting things from their end when they couldn't get the base people to fix theirs. "Crossbars were great! You could do anything you wanted with a soldering iron and 15 minutes of tweaking." Real ESSs had a more limited range of adjustments, and it took a while to find out *how far* beyond spec the crossbars had been pushed. Bill Stewart +1-908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs AT&T Bell Labs 4M312 Holmdel NJ ------------------------------ From: mongrel!amdunn@uunet.uu.net (Andrew M. Dunn) Organization: A. Dunn Systems Corporation, Kitchener, Canada Subject: Re: Color Codes on Cable Pairs Organization: A. Dunn Systems Corporation, Kitchener, Canada Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 13:34:04 GMT > "Bad Boys Rape Our Young Girls, But Violet Gives Willingly. Sometimes > for Gold, sometimes for Silver, but usually for Nothing." > Likewise my example, but I don't recall hearing a more politically > correct version. Anyone else have a "clean" mnemonic for resistor > codes? I was taught: "Billy Bunter Relishes Of Your Gin, But Prefers Good Wine" (note Purple instead of Violet). Andy Dunn (amdunn@mongrel.uucp) ({uunet...}!xenitec!mongrel!amdunn) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #863 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06209; 29 Oct 91 3:39 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22964 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 29 Oct 1991 01:36:27 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28507 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 29 Oct 1991 01:36:06 -0600 Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 01:36:06 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199110290736.AA28507@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #864 TELECOM Digest Tue, 29 Oct 91 01:36:03 CST Volume 11 : Issue 864 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Echo Cancellation on Digital Circuits?!? [Mikel Manitius] Re: Today's Phones Must Go!!! [John Hobson] Re: AT&T Ads Promote Hotel 6 [Henry Mensch] Re: 56KBps Dial Up Wanted in Canada [Bud Couch] Re: Registration/Test by Phone on Campus [Bill DenBesten] Re: Panasonic KXT-1232 Questions [Craig R. Watkins] Re: Are There Any Digital Cordless Phones? [Jeff Carroll] Re: Video Dial Tone: Bell TV? [Dennis Pratt] Re: Radio Station DJ's Making Dubious Calls [Harold Hallikainen] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 28 Oct 91 10:31:33 EST From: mikel@aaahq05.aaa.com (Mikel Manitius) Subject: Re: Echo Cancellation on Digital Circuits?!? >> I've seen several articles here, posted in response to a previous >> article about problems with Telebit modems over MCI circuits, >> referring to the circuits not working properly because of interactions >> between the modems and "echo cancellers on digital circuits." > Funny you should mention that. I was going to point out that the > Telebit story had a large piece of crap in it. Telebit tried to tell > this guy that he didn't have the problem on AT&T because as an older > company AT&T still had lots of analog circuits not needing echo > cancellation. [ ... ] I would like to point out that it was MCI who told me that AT&T's network was "old", not TELEBIT. So take it with a grain of salt. TELEBIT told me that AT&T's echo cancellation equipment came from a different vendor (Western Electric?), and was "configured differently". What I infered from the latter is that MCI and Sprint weren't always willing to work on configuring their echo cancellation equipment to eliminate the problem, and that is one of the reasons TELEBIT went forward with their "Sprint Fix". Since my original posting we have had the opportunity to test TELEBIT modems with the new firmware (versions 7.0 and higher) and have found that that it does eliminate the re-train and loss of carrier problems that were associated with echo cancellation (to the best of my knowledge). However John Higdon (the original posted of this poblem over a year ago) has told me that he is now having problems over local lines. Dave Buck also mentioned this problem. I'll leave it to them to elaborate. Mikel Manitius mikel@aaa.com ------------------------------ Reply-To: hobs@hcfeams.UUCP Date: Mon, 28 Oct 91 13:55:05 GMT From: hobs@hcfeams.UUCP Subject: Re: Today's Phones Must Go!!! In comp.dcom.telecom mmm@cup.portal.com writes: > I think that now is the right time to force a change in the phone > system. All the old equipment should be obsoleted because it's > dangerous. > The reason existing equipment is dangerous is the 48 volts it uses for > powering the bell and sensing the switch hook. I got a shock from > this a few times, once seriously. > Now admittedly I was doing something dumb, stripping the ends of the > phone wire with my teeth because I didn't have a wire stripper. I've > only done this a few times, and you wouldn't think I would receive a > phone call while doing it, but the last time I did it, I did. OMIGOD!! Yes, we must certainly replace all the phone equipment because this idiot got a shock because he was stripping live wires with his teeth. I'm amazed he didn't sue the telco. "Yes, I've been told not to crimp blasting caps with my teeth; but John Wayne did it in a movie and so if he can do it without getting his mouth blown off, why can't I?" BTW, I noticed that he didn't sign his name to the message. Ashamed? John Hobson Ameritech Services 225 W Randolph HQ 17B Chicago, IL 60606 312-727-3490 hobs@hcfeams.chi.il.us ------------------------------ From: henry@ads.com (Henry Mensch) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 91 11:52:21 -0800 Subject: Re: AT&T Ads Promote Hotel 6 Reply-To: henry@ads.com A recent posting complained about the TERRIBLE telephone policies at fancy hotels (typically evidenced by very high prices for telephone calls). > So, does AT&T marketing read comp.dcom.telecom? I dunno, but Marriott has been advertising that their hotels provide AT&T Long Distance as the default on their in-house phones. Henry Mensch / Advanced Decision Systems / ------------------------------ From: kentrox!bud@uunet.uu.net (Bud Couch) Subject: Re: 56KBps Dial Up Wanted in Canada Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc. Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 20:50:42 GMT In article lars@spectrum.cmc.com (Lars Poulsen) writes: > In article TAMIL@QUCDN.QueensU.CA > writes: >> Is there any 56 (or higher) Kbps dial up service available in Canada? > There are two kinds of dial up services for 56-64 kbps use: > (1) ISDN. Provided by your local exchange carrier. Extends the 64kbps > (2) Switched 56 data service. In the US, this is offered by the > interexchange carriers as an option on their bypass services. > I don't think it is offered on anything but T1 access lines, so > at a minimum, your customer premises equipment must include a > T1 multiplexer, even if you only subscribe to one line. (The T1 Switched 56 service in the US is also offered by some LEC's, specifically Pac*Bell and Southern Bell (not an exclusive list), and is under consideration at others. In those situations, the access charges for extension of the service is N/A, and the prices are significantly lower. The service *is* offered on other than T1 access lines, specifically: 4W Single Channel Direct Access (AT&T's name for the DDS extension), Circuit Switched Digital C(onnection?) another AT&T invention; a half-duplex ping-pong method, and, more to the point, Datapath, Northern Telecom's ping-pong service. This should be available anywhere that a DMS100 family switch is in service, i.e.: most of Canada. For a fairly complete view of the technical issues, refer to the preliminary spec from the TR-41.4 committee PN-2023 "NCTE for PSDS". This was out for final vote in September, so it may be an official spec by now. The original poster may wish to talk to his local operating company in Canada, using the words "Datapath service on the DMS100" to ask about Switched 56. Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox If my employer only knew... standard BS applies ------------------------------ From: denbeste@euclid.bgsu.edu (Bill DenBesten) Subject: Re: Registration/Test by Phone on Campus Date: 28 Oct 91 22:19:10 GMT Organization: Bowling Green State University In article , hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) writes: > a high registration priority (typically close to graduation or being > near the top of the random registration priority system) helping > friends by registering for classes they didn't need. When the > friend's priority comes up, they both call into the system. The > student that actually wants to take the class finds it is full. The > student who didn't want the class, but has it, now drops the class. > The student who wants the class now finds a space and adds it. There are a few restrictions imposted by our DTMF registration system that limit this problem: 1) A student can only register for something like 18 hours simultaneously. 2) You can not schedule conflicting classes. 3) You can only call in during your priority time or the full-open time at the end. In other words, a senior can not call in during the junior priority time. > The use of DTMF/voice to handle class registration seems a bit > inefficient to me. A school is going to have to buy lots of new > equipment and pay for lots of DTMF/voice phone lines. It seems to me > that it'd be better handled through the existing computer systems. The problem with this is that not all students have a computer with a modem. Further, not all students are comfortable using a computer. Most of our students call from their apartment or their parent's house during the summer. Heck, it is even possible to call in while you are on a European vacation. Personally, I would like to see a system that works through the campus computer system. I really like to look at eveything on a screen, rather than write it down as the computer dicates it. William C. DenBesten is denbeste@bgsu.edu or denbesten@bgsuopie.bitnet ------------------------------ From: CRW@icf.hrb.com (Craig R. Watkins) Subject: Re: Panasonic KXT-1232 Questions Date: 20 Oct 91 00:04:11 GMT Organization: HRB Systems In article , psw@maestro.mitre.org (Phil Wherry) writes: > I would also be interested in knowing if there is some (simple) way to > read the data stream useproby the proprietary keysets to update their > displays and lights; this alone would solve the problem. I don't know of a simple way. The second pair of the phone carries power and superimposed digital pulses. The switch sends a start pulse to the phone and the phone responds with 19 pulses of data. The switch then reponds to the phone with 47 pulses of data and the phone acks with a pulse. I haven't decoded the meaning of any of the bits, but I woulpn't expect it to be too difficult. Let me know if anyone does anything with this -- I really would like my voice mail to be able to turn the message waiting light on. 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: carroll%ssc-vax%ssc-bee@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Carroll) Subject: Re: Are There Any Digital Cordless Phones? Date: 18 Oct 91 17:57:29 GMT Reply-To: carroll%ssc-vax@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Carroll) Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics In article tom@travis.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley) writes: > I don't really believe this either, but my question is: Are there any > cordless phones which use digital transmission between the handset and > base. I might actually believe claims of perfect sound quality for > such a phone, but I have never seen any advertisements which > explicitly mention digital sound. There has been some recent interesting discussion on the ISDN mailing list to which I am subscribed about a device/standard called DECT (Digital European Cordless Telephone). I am left with the impression that this gizmo is in the demonstration phase at this point in time. I think that for anything like that to be made available in the USA, though, the FCC would have to approve the concept, allocate bandwidth, anp publish regulations governing the device, which I haven't heard about. My gut feeling, based on observing cordless phones in high-RFI installations, is that digital transmission would not be the panacea one might expect without *very* robust coding. The analog interference you hear now would simply be replaced by the audio effects of digital interference. Jeff Carroll carroll@ssc-vax.boeing.com ------------------------------ From: DGP0@gte.com (Dennis Pratt) Subject: Re: Video Dial Tone: Bell TV? Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 18:03:51 DST Organization: GTE Labs I smile when I hear doomsayers imaging worse-case monopoly scenarios as the result of opening up the cable industry to telephone companies and the telephone industry to cable companies. Two large monopolies, complacent after decades of government-enforced protection, facing each other in a truely competitive market????? My guess is that neither of these industries are yet able to compete head-to-head -- WHEN CUSTOMERS HAVE CHOICE AND THERE IS NO GOVERNMENT RESTRICTION ON ENTRY. They would both assume that they will quickly re-achieve their monopoly and would try to operate business as normal. We've all seen the mediocre products launched by telephone companies when they've first ventured into a new "hot" competitive industry. Talking yellow pages, videotext, public access kiosks, voice mail, electronic messaging -- the list goes on and on. The biggest problem is these guys don't know how to design and develop products that meet customers' real needs. Their product entries into competitive industries fail at a rate that greatly outpaces that of other industries. If the government really does remove all restrictions (which I'll bet that they won't), my guess is that we'll see other players come in before telephone and cable companies can alter their corporate cultures enough to focus on their customers' needs, and to stop focusing on lobbying governments. The consumer suffers most from the government's refusal to open these markets to competition. But these costs are hidden -- we can't see what new products and industries might arise given a free market. The government, cable, and telecom all have vested interests to keep the industries closed. (Makes me wonder why telephone companies would even broach this subject.) At my company, a small number of us are making a concerted effort to alter the corporate culture to one that focuses more on the customer than on the government regulatory bodies. But after six years, I can assure you that the type of change that would be required will not be quickly forthcoming. The culture is too strong. The attitude of "we're the phone company" has been ingrained into every level of the company. I hope some day such a change does take place. It would make my job much more important to the corporation!! But, to tell you the truth, I fear the prospects for the telephone companies, more than I think it's obvious that they will blow away cable. Dennis Pratt New Service Modeling Techniques Service Concept Design Department GTE Laboratories, Inc., Waltham, MA (617) 466-2910 ------------------------------ From: hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 17:03:22 GMT Well, we seem to be drifting a little from the telecom subject, but towards FCC regulation of radio, where I do a lot of work. Anyway, someone wanted to know the fine for broadcast of indecent/obscene material. The current FCC fine list (Policy Statement 91-217) lists the "base fine" at $12,500. Base fines may be adjusted upward up to 90% and downward up to 90%. These relatively new fines have not yet been imposed (to my knowledge), and the National Association of Broadcasters has filed a petition (or similar) asking they be rescinded until the FCC goes thru the normal rulemaking process (these new fines are about ten times the previously imposed ones). However, since this is a "policy statement" instead of rules, it probably does not have to go thru the normal rulemaking process. Further, the Supreme Court has struck down the FCC's prohibition of indecent broadcasts on a 24 hour basis (Congress had asked the FCC to make such a requirement). Instead, the court said the FCC should establish a "safe harbor" when the number of children in the audience is low. This has generally been assumed to be after 10 pm. Also, in a recent case, the FCC had a very difficult time determining what was obscene (as opposed to indecent, which is permitted when children are not likely to hear/see). They finally decided to not press the case because they probably could not make a strong case in court. I think the contest call in situations at radio stations would fit under the "presumed to know" about the possibility of broadcast situation. Many stations run a short announcement several times a day that calls to the contest/request line are subject to broadcast. I think it's the "call out" calls stations are making that can get them into trouble, if the FCC receives a complaint. Well, back to telecom? Anyone interested in FCC regulation of broadcasting should see {Broadcasting Magazine}, which covers these issues closely, and {Radio World} newspaper (where I write a column on FCC regulation). Harold [Moderator's Note: Harold's right. As interesting as these little side trips are, they get away from our chosen topic. I ran a cross selection of replies in this thread tonight, but have to close it out now with no printed. Thanks. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #864 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07744; 29 Oct 91 4:21 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25779 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 29 Oct 1991 02:29:25 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02215 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 29 Oct 1991 02:29:12 -0600 Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 02:29:12 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199110290829.AA02215@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #865 TELECOM Digest Tue, 29 Oct 91 02:28:59 CST Volume 11 : Issue 865 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Updating Bell System Jacks [Greg Bulman] AT&T's Family Reunion Sweepstakes [John Temples] Generics (was Interesting Pac*Bell Response) [David G. Lewis] Who is Right About Features? [Maxime Taksar] What Type of Switch is Required For Caller-ID? [Dave Niebuhr] IXO Protocol Update [Tom Limoncelli] X25 Networks With Outdial Service? [Harry A. Levinson] What's an RPOA? [Michael Lyman] Any SS#7 TCAP and SCCP Software Available For UNIX? [Al Nudo] Another Scam From a Hungry Carrier [John L. Shelton] Interesting Things in the Bellcore Area Code Directory [David Leibold] Off Line For a While; Please Hold Off on Any FAQs, etc [David Leibold] Interesting Article in _Discover_ [Michael H. Riddle] Still Another Version of the Resistor Color Code Thing [Randy Lambertus] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: greg@omni.com (Greg Bulman) Subject: Updating Bell System Jacks Date: 28 Oct 91 18:43:38 GMT Organization: Interphase West, Mountain View, CA I have been trying to find out how to update one of the phone lines into my house. I have updated the old hard-wired "block" jacks many times. You can get the necessary hardware at OSH, etc.; just a modular jack converter which some snap on and others screw on. These are very easy and straightforward. There isn't even any wiring necessary (not any "real wiring" anyway). Anyway, what I've come across now is an old hard-wired "flush mount". It did not have a face plate which covers the whole box in the wall. It has an oval plate which covers 1/2 the box's area and the oval flush mount phone jack attaches to the oval plate. Connected to the oval jack are three wires, each of which has black insulation. The three black wires are twisted but have no further outside shielding other than each wires black insulator. On the backside of the jack there are four terminal screws (for four wires?) marked R B Y G. On the side of the ceraminc (or plastic?) jack housing above the B terminal is an orange "I" stamped on it. The terminal had no wire attached to it when I disconnected it. My questions are: 1) Where can I get the necessary converter to update this jack to a modular jack? Flush jack would be fine. I've looked at the local hardware stores and they just have the "block" type and new modular jacks. They are all also short on explanation and instructions to allow insights into any other configuration. I've looked at the Sunset book "Basic Home Wiring" which has been expanded to include telephone hookups. They explain about the two different types of old hard-wired jacks, give pictures of the two types of converters and I cannot find anything which will seem to the the job for the flush mount jacks. 2) What do I do with the three black wires coming out of the wall; do I need to bring in modern four wire color coded telco cable or can I use these existing three wires? Please respond to greg@omni.com Greg Bulman (408) 982-9090 Phone Interphase Corporation (408) 982-9904 FAX Santa Clara, CA greg@omni.com E-Mail ------------------------------ From: jwt!john@uunet.uu.net (John Temples) Subject: AT&T's Family Reunion Sweepstakes Organization: The Museum of Barnyard Oddities Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 04:26:59 GMT Has anyone called to register for the AT&T Family Reunion Sweepstakes? (800-641-2000) What a novelty; a contest you can call in and register for on an 800 number, not a 900 number. Anyway, the contest rules say you're limited to one entry per phone number. I called from my first line, and found it's an automated voice-mail type system. You key in your phone number on the touch-tone pad, then it asks you for your name and address. You have to spell your last name and street name to the computer. On my first attempt, the computer couldn't understand me while I was spelling, and asked me to try again. On the second attempt, it still couldn't understand me, and told me it was unable to continue and hung up. I called back, and the computer told me I was already registered! So I tried again using my second line, this time speaking and spelling more slowly. The computer understood me this time, as well as on my third line. Does anyone know what they're doing with this spoken information? Are they doing voice recognition on the words you're spelling? Then I tried my voice-mail number. This, of course, is not a true phone line, and can't place outgoing calls. Here, I noticed the spiel from the AT&T computer changed. It added, "If you're not currently an AT&T subscriber, there's never been a better time to switch" and some other marketing hype. It was able to tell that my other numbers were AT&T subscribers; however, it wasn't sure that my voice mail number *wasn't* an AT&T subscriber. After registering, it went on to ask if I wanted to switch to AT&T with a special offer. I wonder if they'll try to "slam" my voice mail number ... Then I tried my RingMaster number, and it was also accepted. I thought it was interesting that my RingMaster number was recognized as a subscriber's number by AT&T, even though I'd assume it wouldn't be considered a "real" phone number by anyone other than Southern Bell. One problem I see here is that anyone can call and register any phone number. Will AT&T check that the winning phone number even exists? What if I register someone else's number with my name and address? What if you register a number that's disconnected between now and the time the prizes are awarded? Why doesn't AT&T use ANI to get the phone number you're calling from? John W. Temples -- john@jwt.UUCP (uunet!jwt!john) ------------------------------ From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) Subject: Generics (was Re: Interesting Pac*Bell Response) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 14:51:42 GMT In article john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > hpubvwa!tad@ssc.wa.com (Tad Cook) writes: >> My guess is that someone at PacBell is assuming that their version of >> software is the same as on 5ESS switches everywhere. > And is there some reason why it should be any different? As far as I > know, AT&T is still responsible for all the generics. All depends on how you mean "responsible for". AT&T develops the generics. Customers purchase the generics. If customers don't purchase the generics, AT&T doesn't give them the generics. Different customers are more or less likely to purchase the latest generics. (Note that by "customers" I'm referring to "customers of AT&T" -- i.e. telcos.) The latest 5ESS generic is 5E7. (5E8 goes into First Office Application in January, I believe.) (But I'm sure someone in Indian Hill will correct me if I'm wrong.) However, there are switches out there at 5E6, 5E5, and I'm sure at 5E4.2 and 5E3 as well. Since the external interfaces are clean and well-defined, they all "work" together, although operations can be a pain when you have multiple switches at different generics. David G Lewis AT&T Bell Laboratories david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!houxa!deej ISDN Evolution Planning ------------------------------ Subject: Who is Right About Features? Date: Mon, 28 Oct 91 07:51:31 -0800 From: mmt@latour.Berkeley.EDU After reading the countless articles arguing back and forth about whom to trust about the features of phone switches (in this case, the 5ESS), I was struck by the comment that the next-to-last word should be the official documentation and the final word should be empirical results. I notice this happening quite a bit with Amateur Radio equipment (just read rec.radio.* for a couple days). It seems every amateur rig on the market today has features which, not only aren't documented, but of which the manufacturer has no record. Granted, they *may* have records of undocumented features somewhere in some developer's drawer, but even if they knew, they probably wouldn't admit it. I suspect that if something as relatively small as a ham radio can have miriads of completely hidden features, that something as relatively large and complex as a 5E can suffer from the same difficulty (advantage?). Maxime Taksar KC6ZPS PO Box 14322 Berkeley, CA 94701 mmt@diva.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 16:07:51 -0500 (EST) From: NIEBUHR@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) Subject: What Type of Switch is Required for Caller-ID? I found out from my local Telco (NYTel) that my exchange (516-281) and three others served out of the same CO plus two others that I'm compatible with (according to them). A question comes to mind and its probably been discussed before but I somehow missed it: What type of switch is necessary to be able to have Caller-ID and some of the other features that go with it? My family started receiving harrassing phone calls again and I reported it to NYTel and intend to prosecute if the perpetrators can be found. Call Trace would be beneficial here, but I don't know if its available but not advertised. Call forwarding and three way calling are available. I know that NYTel is conducting a test of Caller-ID in the Pougheepsie, NY area and it won't be generally available for some time. Any info will be appreciated. Thanks, Dave Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Oct 91 10:04:52 EST From: tal@milk.Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) Subject: IXO Protocol Update Reply-To: tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM I got a number of responses about my request for info about the IXO protocol. One person mailed me a copy of the actual spec and I was able to implement the protocol in one night. (This IXO protocols is what pager-terminals use to dial into pager systems to queue up messages to be transmitted to people's pagers. Since my pager-terminal has a 2400bps modem in it, I figured the protocol couldn't be that difficult. I could then have just about any computer act as a pager-terminal if I could speak the same language. Now my pager sends me messages like, "Backups are done.") The IXO protocol is really two protocols in one. The first is a really well-designed (and *very* simple) scheme of sending packets of data with checksums and getting acks or naks. Just what you'd need, right? That's the "automatic protocol". The second protocol is called the "manual protocol". At an early point in the automatic protocol, transmit a capitol M followed by a CR and the system becomes a little BBS that asks you (in English) for the pagerid and message and Y/N if you want to send more. No checksums, no muss, no fuss. I've taken the easy way out and implemented the second protocol. It only needed a simple set of send/expect functions to be written. I could have even done it with "cu" or "tip". Again, thanks for all the responses! Tom ------------------------------ From: hal@world.std.com (Harry A Levinson) Subject: X25 Networks With Outdial Service Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 18:32:18 GMT I am using Sprintnet PC Business to dial in to a customer Unix site. It allows me to dial in to SPrintnet with 9600 but only 2400 outbound. Furthermore the outdial modem has no error-correction. The cost for 9600 is $870/mo for a leased line plus any other hardware required to place the site on the network. Are there any other X.25 networks vendors that provide a 9600 baud "outdial" service? 2400 baud MNP 5 or V.42 bis? Thanks, harry levinson, hal@world.std.com ------------------------------ From: motcid!lyman@uunet.uu.net (Michael Lyman) Subject: What's an RPOA? Date: 28 Oct 91 18:36:02 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL I've been trying to understand the term RPOA which, according to what I've found so far is an acronym for "REGISTERED PUBLIC OPERATING AGENCY". I have been assuming that this term is just another way of saying "land line operator" and that this potential operator ( RPOA ) will need to abide by the licensing agreement with the local or federal regulatory agencies. I'm wondering, though if there are rules and regulations that go along with just being an RPOA, such as any quality of service or special, mandatory features that an RPOA must support in addition to those in the licensing agreements. Does anyone have information on the implications of actually being an RPOA? Any domestic or International information would be greatly appreciated. Michael Lyman, Motorola S.E.D (Iridium) Chandler, Az. ...uunet!motcid!lyman (for now..) ------------------------------ From: motcid!nudo@uunet.uu.net (Al Nudo) Subject: Any SS#7 TCAP and SCCP Software Available for UNIX? Date: 28 Oct 91 20:49:00 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL Are there vendors who sell SS#7 TCAP and SCCP protocol software which run under a UNIX platform, and that can be integrated with application software? Al Nudo Phone: 708-632-4038 Motorola, Inc. (IL-74) e-mail: nudo@marble.rtsg.mot.com 1501 West Shure Drive -or- uunet!motcid!nudo Arlington Heights, IL 60004 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Oct 91 14:32:35 -0800 From: jshelton@ads.com (John L. Shelton) Subject: Another Scam From a Hungry Carrier I just got an interesting call from a sales rep representing "ITT". She claimed that they were the "international division of AT&T." I suppose I should have corrected her. *sigh* John ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Oct 91 14:21:34 -0500 From: David Leibold Subject: Interesting Things in the Bellcore Area Code Directory I recently received the TACD (Telephone Area Code Directory) from Bellcore; it is an interesting reference work. Did you know that Hyder, AK is actually listed with British Columbia's area code (604)? Or that there are a number of Saskatchewan locations listed in Alberta's area code (403 instead of 306 SK)? Wheeling WV has zones 6, 7, and 8 listed in (614) (S.E. Ohio). The carrier identification codes section contains some good information about 10xxx and 950.xxxx numbers. Domino's Pizza not only has 950.1430, but 950.1730 and 950.1830 reserved. Cable companies also reserve codes (Cox Cable has 10317, Continental Cablevision has 10386). Bellcore even has its own carrier code, 10034, as does IBM 10426 or 950.1426), Kodak (10356 or 950.0356) or how about Marylanders Against Youth Suicide (10877 or 950.1877) or Las Vegas Convention and Visitor's Authority (10711) or Pizza Hut (950.0905). I don't know if the Unitel they list (10863) is the Canadian Unitel service attempting to establish a competitive long distance service against Telecom Canada or not. Enough observations for now. djcl@sol.cse.fau.edu dleibold@attmail.com *** please hold mail until 4th Nov *** ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Oct 91 09:35:56 -0500 From: David Leibold Subject: Off Line For a While; Please Hold Off on Any FAQs, etc I will be off the Internet for at least a week; any mail sent to me through any of the usual haunts may be lost, especially regarding anything to do with the FAQ list. I should be connected back (to some extent) after 4th November. Please hold off any mailings to me during this time. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Oct 91 21:00:15 -0500 From: bc335@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Michael H. Riddle) Subject: Interesting Article in _Discover_ Reply-To: bc335@cleveland.Freenet.Edu Readers of _Discover_ magazine will be familiar with the "Lighter Elements" column. The December issue arrived in my mailbox today, with a thoroughly delightful piece by Judith Stone titled "Dial S for Science." It's about two Bell Labs scientists and the psychology of distinctive ringing in the office. Additionally, frequent readers of the Digest should be amused at here comments about people's reactions to answering machines, 976-WHIP, and other telecom matters. <<<< insert standard disclaimer here >>>> mike.riddle@inns.omahug.org | Nebraska Inns of Court bc335@cleveland.freenet.edu | +1 402 593 1192 (Data/Fax) Sysop of 1:285/27@Fidonet | V.32/V.42bis / G3 Fax ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Oct 91 04:05:43 -0600 From: rl@crayamid.cray.com (Randy Lambertus EUROPE) Subject: Still Another Version of the Resistor Color Code Thing I saw today that someone asked for a "clean" version of the resistor color code. This is one we learned in Radar school at Keesler Air Force Base in the early '70s: Biloxi Beer Rots Our Young Guts, But Vodka Goes Well. Later, Randy rl@crayamid.cray.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #865 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01230; 29 Oct 91 22:16 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19631 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 29 Oct 1991 20:01:50 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11908 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 29 Oct 1991 20:01:32 -0600 Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 20:01:32 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199110300201.AA11908@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #866 TELECOM Digest Tue, 29 Oct 91 20:01:21 CST Volume 11 : Issue 866 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Phone Firms Test Systems for Cable TV [Wall St. Journal via Charlie Mingo] 80286 Xenix FAS Port [Andrew J. Piziali] Two Cell Phones on Same Number: It Can Be Done; Here's How [Jeffrey Mattox] Need Information on European Metering Pulses [David Moon] New AT&T Mail Rates (Ouch!) [Fred E.J. Linton] Information on E-Mail For U.S. Friend [David Rabson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charlie.Mingo@p0.f716.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Charlie Mingo) Date: 28 Oct 91 23:07:23 Subject: Phone Firms Test Systems for Cable TV By John J. Keller, {Wall Street Journal}. October 28, 1991 at B1. Expanding the nation's telephone network into a vast television broadcast system is going to cost tens of billions of dollars and won't be finished before the end of the decade, say executives at some of the largest phone companies. But the scale of the project isn't stopping the phone giants, such as GTE Corp., Ameritech, Bell Atlantic Corp., and Pacific Telesis Group, from methodically exploring how to implement such a system. The Baby Bells and GTE have spent several million dollars testing new systems that carry cable TV shows into homes via the phone network. The phone companies will spend many million of dollars more before they are satisfied that they have a service that matches the current voice phone system and tops today's entrenched cable TV monopolies. FCC's Support Last week the phone companies were buoyed by a Federal Communications Commission plan to support a new technology called video dial tone, that would put the big phone companies into direct competition with local cable-television monopolies. Phone subscribers could use such a system to dial up and order video programs from an entertainment company through the same wire that connects a typical phone call. More important, allowing the phone companies could generate enough traffic to fund "broadband" super-capacity information highways that could someday carry TV, medical information, and even FM stereo channels into a home through a single wire, say the executives. However, big hurdles remain. The FCC hasn't decided whether to let the phone companies participate in the programming end of the cable TV business. The phone companies argue that's a financial necessity, because cable TV companies would be reluctant to share the programs they now support and run them over a rival's network. In addition, the 1984 Cable TV Act, which prohibits phone company participation in the cable business, would have to be rewritten. "We're encouraged by the FCC action, but it's not as complete a step as there needs to be made," said Larry J. Sparrow, vice president of regulatory and governmental affairs at GTE Telephone Operations, Irvine, Texas. Adds Kathleen Ahren, Nynex Corp.'s director of federal regulatory policy: "For us to build facilities without anyone to use them would be irresponsible ... programming is essential." There are also technical issues such as whether TV service to the home should be provided through a cable-TV-like coaxial cable or advanced fiber-optic line. Either would require pulling out existing "twisted pair" wiring that now binds the phones in homes and most small businesses to the local phone network. Moreover, the phone industry must still hammer out technical standards for melding video transmission, which requires tremendous transmission capacity, with voice traffic, which uses far less. The system that is finally built will require mountains of capital to transform the existing phone network into a high-capacity phone network of systems that pump signals digitally through fiber-optic transmission lines, which are glass wires. "We've seen figures that it would cost about $250 billion nationwide," says James R. Young, vice president of regulatory and industry relations at Bell Atlantic. Adds Ms. Ahern, "I don't think our plans would have us doing this in less than 20 years and if we do you're talking billions of dollars." Pacific Bell, which spends about $1 billion a year on new network equipment, would see that annual tab jump by two to three times in the first several years of constructing a broadband network, says Michael Bloom, customer premise, broadband applications at the San Francisco-based unit of Pacific Telesis Group. But he notices that as equipment purchases grow and the technology is perfected the annual cost should drop down to current levels after about four years. PacBell, like most other phone companies, already has installed fiber-optic "trunking" lines to carry bulk traffic between its switching centers. It has also begun replacing copper facilities in some neighborhoods, running optical fibers to the pedestal at the curb and then connecting to the regular phone home wires. Someday these lines will carry cable TV, but for now regulation restricts the phone company to voice and data transmission, says Mr. Bloom. Someday this will change, says the FCC, which envisions a service where phone customers would turn on their TVs and find a listing of TV shows, movies, news and other programs, supplied by the phone company and other programmers and accessible via remote control. Several phone companies are already testing such services. In Cerritos, Calif., GTE has built an elaborate network of fiber-optic and coaxial cables lines and advanced switching systems to deliver TV services to several thousand customers. One service, called "Main Street," allows a customer with a remote control to shop via TV, check a bank account and even seek information on colleges in the US. Another service, dubbed "Center Screen," lets 3,900 residential customers call for a movie or a TV show by dialling a special number. A third service lets some customers talk to one another through a videophone in the house. "We've found [from the Cerritos tests] that our customers like full-motion video and not still pictures," which is all that's possible over today's regular phone lines, Mr. Sparrow says. That's because regular conversation travels over phone lines at the rate of 64,000 bits a second. By contract, "reasonable quality" video, such as the kind that appears from a VCR tape, requires transmission capacity of at least 1.3 megabits to 1.5 megabits a second. High quality video will take capacity of 45 megabits to 90 megabits a second, he says. A megabit equals 1 million bits. To save money and get as much capacity out of the existing copper-based systems, Bell Communications Research, the Baby Bell's research arm, has developed "video compression" technology which uses existing copper wire to deliver TV to the home. With video compression, a microprocessor squashes video signals so they can be sent through a regular phone line at the rate of 1.5 megabits a second. The little chip, which is in an electronic box attached to the phone line, looks at an incoming video signal, and filters out the parts of the moving image that are redundant. The chip codes and sends the parts of the signal that are different through the phone line to a receiving box, which decodes and reconstructs the image before projecting it onto the TV screen. The cable companies hope to retaliate by providing phone service through their cable networks. They are funding research to develop switching systems that can pass phone calls from one cable subscriber to another and out to customers using the regular phone system. But the blood between the industries isn't all bad. Ameritech's Indiana Bell subsidiary and Cardinal Communications, an Indiana cable TV operator, are testing a fiber distribution system made by Broadband Technologies Inc, of Raleigh, NC. The system is being used to route video and phone signals over backbone fiber-optic lines and finally through coaxial and twisted pair lines attached to homes in Tipton Lake, a Columbus, Ind. residential development. Bell Atlantic is negotiating with Loudon Cablevision, a cable TV company in Loudon County, Va., to test the transmission of TV signals through phone company lines to 5,000-6,000 homes in The Cascades, a local housing development. ------------------------------ From: andy@piziali.lonestar.org (Andrew J. Piziali) Subject: 80286 Xenix FAS Port Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 16:08:32 GMT I am looking for a port of FAS 2.09, the fast asynchronous serial device driver, to an 80286 UNIX operating system, such as IBM Xenix 1.0 or SCO Xenix 286. If you know of such a port please contact me or post a reply in comp.unix.xenix.- misc. Thank you. Home: andy@piziali.lonestar.org {convex,egsner,frontier,laczko}!piziali!andy Office: piziali@convex.com {sun,texsun,uunet}!convex!piziali ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 13:47:03 CST From: jeff%heurikon.UUCP@cs.wisc.edu (Jeffrey Mattox) Subject: Two Cell Phones on Same Number: It Can Be Done; Here's How A while back, somebody posted a brief article about CelluSoft (Holland, MI, 616-399-6390 AM only). CelluSoft claims to have a legal way of getting two (or more) cellular telephones to share the same telephone number, thus eliminating separate billings and two monthly charges. I called CelluSoft and found out the following: METHOD USED: They change the ESN on your second phone to match that of your first phone. The second phone masquerades as your first phone. IMPLEMENTATION: CelluSoft reverse engineered a certain Novatel phone. You send CelluSoft the ESN of your first phone and of your second (Novatel) phone. CelluSoft returns a ROM to you that programs the ESN of your first phone into the second phone. There are provisions allowing you to restore the original ESN later, should you decide to sell your second phone. COST: $300.00. PHONE RESTRICTION: Although your first phone can be of any type, the second phone must be a Novatel. Other phone types are planned. USAGE RESTRICTION: You cannot use both phones at the same time in the same cellular system. Thus, you cannot call car-to-car in the same area. It might be fun to try, however. LEGALITY: CelluSoft talked to the FCC and various carriers about this and clamins to have found nothing dictating that this should not be done (other than the technical problem created if both phones are used at the same time). CelluSoft's literature even says "Cellular phone companies recommend CelluSoft because of the convenience to you, the consumer, with the hopes of more air time over a second monthly charge." SECURITY: You must prove that you really are a cellular user (by providing CelluSoft with a copy of your bill, but with the telephone number blacked out). CelluSoft makes a point of asking you *not* to send them your cellular telephone number (to prevent your ESN together with your telephone number from ever getting into the wrong hands). (They seemed genuinely interested in preventing and avoiding any hint of fraud by others.) My questions are: 1) Does anybody know for sure about the legalities of this? 2) Has anybody else done this? Any details? 3) Is there any cellular telephone on the market that allows its ESN to be field-programmed without having to use this method? I would think that there might be a backdoor ESN programming method, or do the manufacturers painstakingly program a different control ROM for *each* phone? Jeff ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 12:18:24 EST From: moon@gdc.com Subject: Need Information on European Metering Pulses I am looking for information on the "metering pulses" that are used in many European countries. My primary source of info so far is the "NET 4" specification. This is what I have gleaned so far: Many European countries send metering pulses from the network to the subscriber. These are out-of-band tones, the most common frequencies are 12 KHz and 16 KHz. (Obviously, this only works on metallic loops.) Apparently, the purpose is to drive a metering device that indicates elapsed time, charges for the call, etc. ___________________ ___________ | | | | Phone, | Network |---------| Metering Device |------| Modem, | | |_________________| | etc. | ___________ My particular problem is determining the requirements for a modem in this scenario, in particular, I need to know the maximum signal level of the metering pulses at the modem's input. There seem to be two different types of metering devices. One type presents a low impedance ( ~200 ohms) on the network side, and attenuates the metering pulses on the downstream side. The other type (Germany?) is supposed to be "transparent". Have I understood this correctly? Any info/suggestions will be appreciated. David Moon Internet: moon@gdc.com General Datacomm, Inc. ATTMail: !dmoon Middlebury, CT 06762 (203) 758 1811 FAX: (203) 755 0896 ------------------------------ Date: 29-OCT-1991 15:44:31.09 From: "Fred E.J. Linton" Subject: New AT&T Mail Rates (Ouch!) In proposed new AT&T Mail rates, to take effect 1 December 1991, and announced to AT&T Mail customers in a postal mailing over the weekend, there is a new Service Minimum requirement of $25.00 per month (listed towards the middle of the sheet under Core Services). If this charge will really be applied to all attmail accounts (and several different voices at AT&T Mail and EasyLink CAC's assure me in no uncertain terms that it most definitely WILL), I for one will have to drop the service -- I tend to run up maybe $60.00 worth of usage in a typical year, and don't fancy paying $300.00 a year for that privilege. Is there perhaps someone at AT&T whom I (and others in my shoes) can contact for relief from this new requirement? Fred E.J. Linton Wesleyan U. Math. Dept. 649 Sci. Tower Middletown, CT 06459 E-mail: ( or ) Tel.: + 1 203 776 2210 (home) or + 1 203 347 9411 x2249 (work) [Moderator's Note: Like yourself, I'll be giving up AT&T Mail when this change goes into effect. I got some personal correspondence from someone just a couple hours ago telling me about this for the first time. I'm currently getting a bill for $4 - $5 per month from them now; I have no intention of paying $25 per month -- PLUS a monthly service fee of $3 I am told -- for the little use I make of the system. I fully expect to see them lose a large number of their little customers as a result of this. I've been with them several years and am sorry it has come to this. I guess they are getting ready for their complete merger with Easy Link, now scheduled for February, 1992. Your message should probably be cross-posted to a couple other Usenet news groups so that everyone with an AT&T Mail account is made aware and will have plenty of time to turn in their resignation before getting hit with the first bill under the new plan. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Oct 91 13:36:39 GMT From: davidra Subject: Information on E-Mail For U.S. Friend Esteemed Moderator: Has there been a review of the different commercial e-mail services available to light non-business users? I know about MCI mail; in fact I bought my father a subscription last year. I am looking for information about and a comparison of similar services for a friend of mine in the United States. Prodigy and other services not connected to academic networks are out. I would search the archives myself, but the U.K. still isn't on the Internet. David Rabson davidra%dionysos.thphys@prg.ox.ac.uk [Moderator's Note: We've touched on this at one time or another in the past, but nothing too recently. For the 'academic connection', MCI Mail and AT&T Mail are really where its at. But see the previous message for the new deal at AT&T Mail starting in a month, which will be pretty grim for their small customers. Sprintmail is another one you should consider (703-689-6000); it also exchanges mail with the Internet. Electronic services not specifically intended for email but with email connections to the Internet include Compuserve and Portal Communications of San Jose, CA. You should also investigate the many public access Unix machines around the USA, such as Chinet,to name one I am familiar with. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #866 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01824; 30 Oct 91 0:37 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15656 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 29 Oct 1991 22:25:34 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13338 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 29 Oct 1991 22:25:04 -0600 Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 22:25:04 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199110300425.AA13338@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #867 TELECOM Digest Tue, 29 Oct 91 22:25:00 CST Volume 11 : Issue 867 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Loopback Points in ISDN Network [Russ Nelson] Question About CPC and Answering Machine [Craig Lemon] Phone Company Hassle [Dave Niebuhr] Voice Mail Cracking and alt.dcom.telecom [Dave Niebuhr] Telcos Abuse Cheap Government Loans [Gregg E. Woodcock] Public Cordless Phones [Vance Shipley] Free Calls to MCI Personal 800 Number on Halloween [Colin Tuttle] First ESS(tm) Retired [Andy Sherman] Telecomm Disaster Recovery Plan Information Wanted [Howard Pierpont] Recording Should Say 'Zero', Not 'Oh' [Gregg E. Woodcock] New Archives File: "Modem Tax" [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 07:27:15 EST From: Russ Nelson Subject: Loopback Points in ISDN Network Reply-To: "aka NELSON@CLUTX.BITNET" I had originally written: > If anybody wants to know, I could type in the list of commands that > you need to send to the switch. Basically all you can do is perform > bit error rate tests while looping back at various points. Also, you > can only test one of the B channels. You need to test D or 2B+D from > the switch console itself (otherwise how could the switch communicate > with your set over the D channel?) Then a response asked, > Also on the subject of loopback, can you perform loopbacks at: > 1. local NT2 > 2. local NT1 > 3. local LT > 4. remote LT > 5. remote NT1 > 6. remote NT2 "Remote"? There is no remote -- you're talking directly to the switch. Here's the list of BRITL commands. On the switch I was using, the BRITL was 1-300. This, like everything else on the #5ESS, is probably configurable. *11x# Run BER test on channel x with current parameters *111# uses B1 *112# uses B2 *120# Display Current Test Termination *12x# Set Test Termination *121# terminates at CPE (TE) [default] *122# terminates at NT1 *123# terminates at Linecard (LT) *130# Display Current Test Duration *13x# Set Test Duration *131# 20 seconds [default] *132# 2 minutes *133# 20 minutes *140# Display Current Test Datarate *14x# Set Test Datarate *141# 64K Clear (including nulls) *142# 64K Restricted (excluding nulls) [default] *143# 56K clear *2# Send Alerting Signal to the CPE *3# Print LCEN (Line Card Equipment Number?) on CPE display *4# Print Primary DN/MLHG (Dialed Number) on CPE display *0# Repeat Previous Message (Display/Tone) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 06:49:54 EDT From: clemon@lemsys.UUCP (Craig Lemon) Subject: Question About CPC and Answering Machine I have purchased a Panasonic KX-T1622 answering machine used and without a manual. I borrowed a manual for a similar answering machine (same except it uses a different size of tapes) so I know how to use it already. I noticed in the manual that it said to set the CPC switch to 'A' if you did NOT have call waiting and to 'B' if you did (or if you had calls interrupted). The way I understand it, CPC is merely the "flashing" of line power when I call is completed (am I right)? I set it to 'B' as I had just subscribed to call waiting. This machine is one of the AUTO-LOGIC control units and I have been very happy with it's performance in regards to giving up when you pick up another phone and I've also noticed that if I unplugged the phone line for a split second it would hang up and end the message as well (this is like CPC yes?) in either the CPC 'A' or 'B' settings. Here's where the problem starts ... I ALWAYS have 10-20 second blank periods after my messages that I feel shouldn't be there. I have two lines in the house. LINE 1 is on a Crossbar switch. LINE 2 is on a DMS switch and is equipped with Call Waiting and Three-Way Calling (plus Forwarding and Speed Calling through a trial program). LINE 2 has the answering machine on it. I started to switch the answering machine between the two lines and call myself with various CPC settings etc ... Calling Crossbar with DMS line : I noticed that when I put the machine on the Crossbar switch and had CPC set to 'A' the machine would hang up the INSTANT I hung up LINE 2 after leaving a message. With CPC set to 'B' it would tape about five seconds of a dial tone but it seemed to rewind and tape the 'beep' over the taped dial tone (so you don't hear it when you listen to your messages. Calling DMS with Crossbar line : When set to 'A' there is a 10-15 second tail and when set to 'B' there is the same. The 'A' setting might have a slightly longer delay. Why does the newer DMS switch not send the CPC correctly (BTW, it exhibits the same behaviour when called by another DMS number) at the end of each call? Does it send the CPC properly but not to the specs expected by Panasonic? What do the A & B signify? I ask this because I noticed that the switch wasn't labelled "CPC Detect : ON or OFF" as it's function would imply. What does Call Waiting have to do with CPC? I would really love for the machine to work as it does on the Crossbar switch and I know other people with different brands of machines on DMS numbers have beeps right after their calling party hangs up, why don't I? Mailing responses would be a good idea as I don't always get a chance to read this rather sizable group. Any help is appreciated. If I have been unclear and you could help if you had more info, PLEASE mail an inquiry instead if hitting 'n' or even worse : 'K'! :-) One more thing I forgot. I have an Innova II+ phone (I believe) that has a speakerphone that automatically disconnects when the other person hangs up (I'm assuming it uses CPC as well). When I receive a call on the DMS line I'm pretty sure that it cancels IMMEADIATLY after the call (unlike the machine). It's very sensitive though because often it hangs up when the Crossbar line goes (clunk clunk) after you dial. This is what makes me believe that the DMS and Panasonic specs for CPC don't quite match. Craig Lemon - Kitchener, Ontario. Amiga B2000 UUCPv1.13D. clemon@lemsys.UUCP lemsys!clemon@xenitec.on.ca xenitec!lemsys!clemon@watmath.waterloo.edu ..!uunet!watmath!xenitec!lemsys!clemon ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 8:04:15 -0500 (EST) From: NIEBUHR@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (Dave Niebuhr) Subject: Phone Company Hassle John Higdon recently submitted an article about how a person's account information could be changed by the telephone company quite easily without any real security checking. I ran into a situation the other day when I called the phone company (NY Tel) to see what type of switch was in my CO. The first person found the information but wouldn't give it to me since I have an unpublished number (I also have a published one but the other takes precedence). She said that she would call me back (some mumbo-jumbo about security when it comes to non-published numbers -- BULL). I told her to do it on either number and that I'd be happy to have the info. She also wanted to know why I wanted it. My answer was: "The type of switch is public information in other companies and anyone can find out what it is without too much trouble." To make a long story short, she never called back so I called again two hours later and in five minutes, I found out that my switch was 5ESS and that it is compatible with four others (two exchanges for my community for a total of three and two exchanges for a neighboring community). What a hassle for a tiny bit of telco information. I felt like giving the first person a line about doing telecommunications consultation and had to have the info for my client's business. Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 8:39:34 -0500 (EST) From: NIEBUHR@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (Dave Niebuhr) Subject: Voice Mail Cracking and alt.dcom.telecom Some person (he shall remain nameless) put out a post on alt.dcom.telecom and misc.consumers about wanting to crack voice mail systems. Personally, he should be ... (insert favorite word). I feel that alt.dcom.telecom should be taken off the air, but free-speech issues arise and I don't want to get into that one. Also, I think that USENET should review their policies as to what newsgroups get to use it for messaging. Maybe I'm just a little old-fashioned, but I sure don't want to see my privacy invaded or computer system damaged due to some cracker. If anyone wants the message, I'll e-mail directly to them on request. Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 [Moderator's Note: The fact that it is 'alt.' means by definition it is not Usenet. The 'alt' groups use the same transport mechanism, but they are definitly not part of Usenet. All sites are free to originate traffic to any newsgroup, and accept or decline those newsgroups they do not want to see. I would not go so far as yourself and say that any newsgroup should be taken 'off the air' (well, I *might* make an exception for my Socially Responsible friends and their .talk group ... wink! wink! ... but then everyone has a blind spot or two). The problem with phreak messages lies in the ignorance of people who don't know how they got on *your* machine ... and that includes newspaper writers as well as prosecutors. The smart thing to do is not allow that sort of thing on your machine. Why open yourself up to a hassle later on. Are some government prosecutors ignorant? Of course, but the people with the guns are entitled to be as ignorant as they like. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 09:07:58 -0600 From: "Gregg E. Woodcock" Subject: Telcos Abuse Cheap Government Loans I was watching some news show last night (Oct 27) and they were talking about a government office called the RTA (I think that may not be exactly right) that was created by FDR back in 1920/30's to help small "rural" businesses stay in business or get started. This agency hands out government (taxpayer) subsidised 5% loans to businesses that can *or already have at one time* qualified. Because of the "already have" part many *huge* companies which have bought up little companies which deserved the loans now qualify for them. Including many telcos which have 100s of millions of dollars of liquid assets. They have the gall to ask for them and the government cannot refuse them. I am appalled. They are using these loans to run fiberoptics to ritzy neighborhoods at our expense. Many directors of this office have tried to shut it down but they say it is impossible and the government *will not allow them to stop wasting taxpayer money* by closing the office or instituting qualification reforms. I just thought the readers of the Digest would want to be informed about this additional telco sleaziness. Please feel free to make corrections (I was flipping back and forth to the World Series and the Giants/Redskins games so I missed a lot). ------------------------------ From: vances@xenitec.on.ca (Vance Shipley) Subject: Public Cordless Phones Date: 20 Oct 91 07:15:32 GMT Organization: SwitchView Inc. I was in an airport in Maine a month or so ago and in the bar I found a "Public Cordless Phone". Since I needed to call home anyway I tried it out. The terminal was a standard residential (General Electric) cordless telephone. There was a sticker on the side of the handset stating my right to my choice of carriers, it went on to say that I may access any carrier using their instructions or I can up dial "0" for an operator. I tried AT&T (with 10288 + 0 + NPA + NXX + XXXX) and was greeted with a badly digitized voice that stated that the number I was dialing was "invalid". So I dialed "0" and got a local (NET, I believe) operator. I told her I was having trouble reaching AT&T and she connected me with an AT&T operator. I told her my situation and she said she would report the number as a non-compliant COCOT (her idea) and connect me at direct dialed rates. I relayed my destination number and calling card number and she clnnected me. A few hours later I was in Boston's Logan airport and found another cordless payphone. This phone also denied direct access to AT&T so I dialed "0" and asked for AT&T. I told them I was unable to dial direct and he asked for the number I wanted and connected me. Several minutes into the conversation with the party I was calling I realized that the AT&T operator had not asked for my calling card number! POSTSCRIPT: I was in Boston's Logan airport several days ago. The same phone had an "Out of Order" sign on it. Vance Shipley vances@xenitec vances@ltg ..uunet!watmath!xenitec!vances ------------------------------ Subject: Free Calls to MCI Personal 800 Numbers on Halloween Date: 28 Oct 91 21:20:19 CST (Mon) From: ctuttle@taronga.com (Colin Tuttle) I saw a notice in {USA Today} this morning that said MCI was offering free calls to your personal 800 numbers on Halloween. This is the same promotion they ran on Father's Day earlier this year. I know some people in this newsgroup are not impressed with the MCI Personal 800 service, but for those of us who travel a bit, the $2 monthly charge when combined with the MCI Prime Time Plan it really can keep the LD charges down. You can also put your Personal 800 number into your Circle of Family and Friends and save an additional 20%. I pay .08664 a minute after 5 PM to my Personal 800 number ... it may be a hassle to have to punch in the extra four digits after the 800 number, but for my applications it has been a way to save a few bucks ... plus on Halloween all the calls are free! ------------------------------ From: andys@ulysses.att.com (Andy Sherman) Subject: First ESS(tm) Retired Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 16:56:42 EST According to the latest Bell Labs News, the 1ESS(tm) switch in Succasunna, NJ was replaced with a 5ESS(R) switch on September 28. The Succasunna switch, installed in 1965, was the first commercial electronic switching system. AT&T Network Systems and New Jersey Bell are considering donating part of the retired switch to the Smithsonian Institution. Andy Sherman/AT&T Bell Laboratories/Murray Hill, NJ AUDIBLE: (908) 582-5928 READABLE: andys@ulysses.att.com or att!ulysses!andys What? Me speak for AT&T? You must be joking! (ESS and 1ESS are trademarks of AT&T. 5ESS is a registered trademark of AT&T. There, now the lawyers are satisfied.) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 16:10:44 PST From: Howard Pierpont Digital Equipment Corp. Subject: Telecomm Disaster Recovery Plan Information Wanted As part of an effort at two of our sites we have written a Disaster Recovery plan to cover the voice and data sides of the business. We are interested in obtaining/reviewing/discussing plans with others in a similar setting. This could be done through Benchmarking, information sharing or a PID. Interested parties, please contact me directly. Thanks, Howard Pierpont 508.568.6165 Digital Equipment Corp. 77 Reed Road HLO2-2/C10 Hudson, MA 01749 They let me speak but do not always agree with my ideas. Standard disclaimer applies. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 08:55:40 -0600 From: "Gregg E. Woodcock" Subject: Recording Should Say 'Zero', Not 'Oh' This has bothered me for a long time, why does that stupid voice on the treatment recordings say 'oh' instead of 'zero'? That is just plain wrong. 'Oh' to me means the '6' key (mno). All the telcos should rerecord their messages and fix this. I am sure it confuses "english-as-a-second-language" customers. Slang is *very* unprofessional. [Moderator's Note: IBT has theirs fixed so that two zeros on the end of a number are pronounced 'hundred' and three zeros on the end of a number are pronounced 'thousand'. Four zeros however come out sounding like 'oh, oh, oh! oooooh!!!'. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 20:30:29 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: New Archives File: "Modem Tax" (Mike Riddle) has submitted a new file for the Telecom Archives. This file presents recent FCC activities regarding the so-called 'modem tax'. It is the basis of several discussion threads on GEnie and other commercial electronic services right now. I'd have put it here, but this single file is fifty percent larger than a typical issue of the Digest, so it had to go straight to the archives where you will find it under the name "fcc.modem.tax.filing" if interested. My thanks to Mike Riddle for preparing this and sending it along to the Digest. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #867 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02082; 30 Oct 91 1:43 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09985 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 29 Oct 1991 23:56:09 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15146 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 29 Oct 1991 23:55:53 -0600 Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 23:55:53 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199110300555.AA15146@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #868 TELECOM Digest Tue, 29 Oct 91 23:55:48 CST Volume 11 : Issue 868 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: What's an RPOA? [Dick Rawson] Re: What's an RPOA? [Herman R. Silbiger] Re: What's an RPOA? [Toby Nixon] Re: MCI Friends & Family & Anyone Else With a TT Phone [Robert Zabloudil] Re: MCI Friends & Family & Anyone Else With a TT Phone [Patton M. Turner] Re: MCI Friends & Family & Anyone Else With a TT Phone [David Gast] Re: Administrivia: Today We Fall Behind [Harold Hallikainen] Re: US 0800 From UK [Gordon Grant] Re: AT&T Foreign Visitor Pack [cml@cs.UMD.EDU] Re: Speaking of Telco Security ... [Rob Knauerhase] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 08:51:23 PST From: drawson@Tymnet.COM (Dick Rawson) Subject: Re: What's an RPOA? RPOA is CCITT jargon. The CCITT is part of the ITU, which is part of the UN (I wonder if I left out any steps). Thus, the CCITT is an organization of governments. In fact, the US delegation to CCITT Study Group meetings is lead by the US State Department. CCITT "recommendations" (in effect standards) usually have the viewpoint that governments operate telecom services, and refer to the authority that operates a telecom service as an "administration"; dealings between services in different nations are usually regarded as between their respective administrations. When the telecom provider is not part of a government, the CCITT doesn't call it an administration. Instead, the provider can be an RPOA, and a country may have several RPOAs; RPOA is Recognized Private Operating Agency (see CCITT X.121). RPOA status is granted by the CCITT; I don't know the formalities, but it costs money. As an example, you can specify for an X.25 call the sequence of RPOA transit networks through which the call is to be routed. So, roughly, this is another way of saying data communication network operator ... but not "land line operator" as I think you intended that to mean voice telephone services (plus maybe others). Dick Rawson, BT North America (an RPOA; we operate TYMNET). ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 19:52:39 EST From: hsilbiger@attmail.att.com (Herman R Silbiger) Subject: Re: What's an RPOA? Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article , motcid!lyman@uunet.uu.net (Michael Lyman) writes: > Does anyone have information on the implications of actually being an > RPOA? Any domestic or International information would be greatly > appreciated. RPOA is a CCITT defined term. There are four types of membership in CCITT, Administrations, RPOAs, SIOs and IOs. Administrations are Telephone Administrations (PTTs) in countries where they are Government owned, otherwise some government agency. In the US the Department of State is the Administration. RPOAs are Recognized Private Operating Authorities, such as operating companies or carriers. Examples are AT&T, MCI, Bell Atlantic, COMSAT, British Telecom etc. SIOs are Scientific and Industrial Organizations. Examples are IBM, Motorola, DEC, Siemens, Alcatel, Ricoh, etc. IOs are International Organizations, such as ISI, IEC, UPU, Intelsat. The Recognized in RPOA is recognition by an authority in the country of origin as being eligible by the rules. It should be noted that all members can participate in the standardization work, but only Administartions and RPOAs have a vote. This is really a meaningless distinction, since the work is always agreed by consensus, and in my 12 years in CCITT I have never seen a vote taken. Herman Silbiger Chair CCITT Study Group VIII Working Party 4. ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: What's an RPOA? Date: 29 Oct 91 18:59:04 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA In article , motcid!lyman@uunet.uu.net (Michael Lyman) writes: > I've been trying to understand the term RPOA which, according to what > I've found so far is an acronym for "REGISTERED PUBLIC OPERATING > AGENCY". [...speculation omitted...] "RPOA" stands for Recognized Private Operating Agency. This is one of the four classes of CCITT membership (remember, the International Telegraph and Telephone Consultative Committee [CCITT] is the agency of the United Nations that sets policy and standards for international telecommunications including telegraph, telephone, telex, fax, data networks, modems, etc.). The other classes are "administration" (which means the "government"), "scientific or industrial organization" (mainly equipment manufacturers; Hayes is a CCITT member in this category), and "liaison organizations" (other international bodies like ISO). In most countries, the phone company is owned by the government. But in the USA (and, increasingly, some other countries), the phone companies are "private". Those that carry international traffic are RPOAs. Only Administrations and RPOAS get to vote on CCITT issues, although SIOs have a great deal of influence on technical issues. RPOAs in the US include such companies as AT&T, MCI, US Sprint, etc., but not your local or regional phone companies (they don't have connections directly to the phone systems of other countries). By the way, even though we don't have a nationalized phone system in the US, we still have an "Administration". This role is served by the Department of State. The "US CCITT National Committee", which has members from throughout government and industry, advises the State Dept. on what USA positions should be on CCITT issues. Most technical issues are handled by US national standards committees, like T1 for ISDN and telephone systems and TR-30 for modems, before coming forward to the US CCITT national committee (or its subcomittees) for consideration. [FYI, I'm a member of US CCITT Study Group D, a subcommittee of the national committee which handles modems, fax, and data networks. I'm also Hayes' representative to the CCITT and US standards committees on modems and fax.] Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice +1-404-840-9200 Telex 151243420 Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. | Fax +1-404-447-0178 CIS 70271,404 P.O. Box 105203 | BBS +1-404-446-6336 AT&T !tnixon Atlanta, Georgia 30348 | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon Fido 1:114/15 USA | Internet tnixon%hayes@uunet.uu.net ------------------------------ From: nol2105@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert E. Zabloudil) Subject: Re: MCI Friends & Family & Anyone Else With a TT Phone Date: 29 Oct 91 17:13:15 GMT Organization: Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, Columbus In article phil@wubios.wustl.edu (J. Philip Miller) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 849, Message 8 of 10 > This was posted on RISKS. It clearly is yet another reason to stay > away from the MCI gimicks. >> From: "Brian R. Krause" >> Anyone who knows your phone number and ZIP code can get a complete >> list of your Calling Circle. You don't need to know a number to check >> its status; the computer lists them all. This caught my eye since I was just last week contacted by MCI to join the F&F; my months of reading telecom came in handy because I knew to tell them NO in a firm voice. I waited to snarl until after I had hung up. After reading the above, I dialed the number and discovered my sister in TX had succumbed, they haven't reached my brother in FL yet, and I "did not accept ..." the offer. I wonder why they didn't give my other two brothers and two sisters out of the house this fantastic opportunity? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 16:33:56 CST From: Patton M. Turner Subject: Re: MCI Friends & Family & Anyone Else With a TT Phone John Higdon offers a rebuttal to the following comment: spencer@set.princeton.edu (S. Spencer Sun) writes: > I also don't see what's so horrible > about someone POTENTIALLY finding out who's on your F&F list. Agreeing with John, I can think of several companies, that I done business with that I would not want to know of each others existence. Additionally, by looking at my recent long distance calls one could determine the following at least: 1) A DISA port on a PBX with minimal security. I use this extensively, to page people at the company in question, who are seldom at their desks. 2) Several SCB and Auburn University numbers that they generally don't give out. (ie: lines that are answered in the CO.) 3) At least one radio station transmitter dial-up, where the number is kept very confidential, as many people have the access code, but they must use the autodialer at the station to call the transmitter. (Their idea of security and FCC compliance, not mine.) 4) Several unlisted modem lines, one of which isn't recognizable as a modem by dialing it. 5) Numerous other numbers that I won't mention. Patton Turner pturner@eng.auburn.edu KB4GRZ @ K4RY.AL.USA.NOAM ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 14:18:53 -0800 From: gast@CS.UCLA.EDU (David Gast) Subject: Re: MCI Friends & Family & Anyone Else With a TT Phone I believe that the primary purpose of MCI's Family and Friends program is to create a database, which can then be sold or rented, about people's family and friends. It is part of the trend towards personalized advertisements. For example, rather than sending a piece of junk mail about some product you don't need, they can now send you a piece of junk mail about the same product, but include the fact that your friend "Bob" just bought it. The ad might even look as if it came from "Bob." What I am a little unsure about is the extent to which calls might be considered confidential, but my "Family and Friends" might be considered information which can be distributed without restrictions. David ------------------------------ From: hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 17:15:52 GMT In article spencer@set.princeton.edu (S. Spencer Sun) writes: > Speaking of which, don't various countries go on/off savings time at > different dates in the year? And is there any good reason why this > isn't synchronized? (Seems it would make the most sense to me ...) Of course, countries in the southern hemisphere would have to use different dates and go different directions than those in the northern. Anyone know if other northern hemisphere countries are synchronized with US? When US changed move from standard to DST from last week of April to first week, did other countries follow along? Also, I seem to recall this whole idea of messing with the clock was Ben Franklin's idea. Just rumor or true? I'd prefer we not mess with the clock. Noon has an astronomical meaning, it's not just for convenience. If people want to get up earlier in the summer, can't they just get up earlier? Making system software deal with DST was fun. Our first systems (about ten years ago) had a problem changing back to standard time. They would change back to standard time at 2am, but then it was 1am and not time to change yet, so it'd go back to DST. Each change was printed, so we got lots and lots of changes logged. We finally made the change based on the "unadjusted" or standard time. Software is fun! Harold ------------------------------ From: gg@jet.uk (gordon grant) Subject: Re: US 0800 From UK Organization: Joint European Torus Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 14:39:03 GMT In gtoal@gem.stack.urc.tue.nl (Graham Toal) writes: > I read in some article here recently that you can call US 0800 numbers > from the UK by going via AT&T if you have an AT&T credit card. This [more credeit card stuff deleted] > [Moderator's Note: Actually, we call them '800' numbers rather than > '0800' and you *will* pay for the call between the UK and the USA. It > is only the second part of the connection -- from Pittsburgh in the > USA to the place where the 800 subscriber is located that you will get > without charge -- and then, only if the subscriber uses AT&T 800 ... What second part ? Calls from the UK to North America are all charged at the same rate regardless as to the destination within that area. (True for BT, Mercury have *very* small differences between Canada and the US). So what are they offering without charge? Is the same not true in the opposite direction? I think the service Graham is refering to is a BT service called 'Home Country Direct' this is available to many countries (Don't have the list to hand but its about 20) where BT offer an 0800 number which connects directly to an operator in the overseas country. The caller then uses a credit or charge card to pay for the call at the remote end. It is aimed at visitors to the UK who can then settle the bill with their usual phone company at home. Its also claimed to be useful for non-English speakers, as I noted it was available to places like Brazil. To the US there were three or four numbers depending on which company's operator you required. I could dig out the list of countries with their access numbers if anyone wanted them. gg@jet.uk Gordon Grant Jet Abingdon OX14 3EA UK Voice +44 235 528822 x4822 Fax +44 235 464404 [Moderator's Note: I don't think he was talking about USA Direct service as you imply. I think he was trying to reach 800 numbers in the USA. Note in his message he wondered if he could have the card without ever actually putting charges on it. Anyone would realize there would be a charge to call the USA from the UK. The only reason for a 'second part' to the call is because the 800 subscriber in this country does not wish to receive calls from outside the USA. So the caller pays for a call to the USA (admittedly, the same rate regardless of where in the USA the call went) and the owner of the 800 number pays for the call between Pittsburgh, USA and the actual destination point. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: AT&T Foreign Visitor Pack Date: Mon, 28 Oct 91 12:54:32 -0500 From: cml@cs.UMD.EDU I called away for one of these, specifically requesting the one for Europe; Germany in particular. Last week they came -- one for South America, one for Central America. One in Spanish, one in Portugese. So I'd really like to provide a short review, but those languages are outside my domain! All they send you is a little book, maybe 3x3", that seems to tell about calling the USA. There's not a whole lot there. Christopher Lott \/ Dept of Comp Sci, Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 cml@cs.umd.edu /\ 4122 AV Williams Bldg 301 405-2721 ------------------------------ From: knauer@cs.uiuc.edu (Rob Knauerhase) Subject: Re: Speaking of Telco Security ... Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 04:59:00 GMT In chris@nike.calpoly.edu (The Squire, Phish) writes: [telco employees do not follow secure procedures in changing service] > [Moderator's Note: The experience you describe is all too common, and > it's one reason I can't get too excited if MCI or others want to put > all the data at your fingertips via touchtone buttons. Either secure > the data however it may be transmitted, or leave it all open. People > are either honest or they are dishonest. PAT] There is a difference between humans being insecure and computers being insecure. History is replete with examples of money, smoothtalk, or blackmail being used to get information improperly. As long as human nature doesn't change, this will always be the case. However, allowing easy access via phonepunch/computer is a whole different ballpark. There is no need to permit computers to have the same holes as humans just because employees and current practices are a weak link; indeed, building touchtone-access systems as safe as possible is a good way to REMOVE the insecurity that smoothtalking the front-line help allows. The long-range concern is in the common man's position on "computers in general" -- with current informaton-delivery systems in their infancy, it would be nice to set good precedents for when they become ubiquitous. Rob Knauerhase University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign knauer@cs.uiuc.edu Dept. of Computer Science, Gigabit Study Group ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #868 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02378; 30 Oct 91 2:29 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19843 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 30 Oct 1991 00:49:57 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17057 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 30 Oct 1991 00:49:45 -0600 Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1991 00:49:45 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199110300649.AA17057@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #869 TELECOM Digest Wed, 30 Oct 91 00:49:42 CST Volume 11 : Issue 869 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: IXO Protocol Update [J. Brad Hicks] Re: X25 Networks With Outdial Service [Syd Weinstein] Re: Prodigy's Latest Fiasco [Linc Madison] Re: Station Message Detail Recorder [Horacio T. Cadiz] Re: Charge on 800 Calls [Mikel Manitius] Re: Are There Any Digital Cordless Phones? [Syd Weinstein] Re: AT&T Ads Promote Hotel 6 [David Lesher] Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card [Dell H. Ellison] Re: IBT ISDN Pricing [Richard Zuccarini] Re: New England Tel Messes up Non-Pub Listing [William Degnan] Charging Business Rates For Modem Use [Jack Decker] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 16:08 GMT From: "J. Brad Hicks" <0004073044@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: IXO Protocol Update > Since my pager-terminal has a 2400bps modem in it, ... My desk is a mess, but if I remember correctly, the copy of the spec that I have says that the dial-in must be 300 bps. It wouldn't surprise me if one or more companies exceeded that spec, though. > The IXO protocol is really two protocols in one. The first is a > really well-designed (and *very* simple) scheme of sending packets of > data with checksums and getting acks or naks. Just what you'd need, > right? That's the "automatic protocol". > The second protocol is called the "manual protocol". At an early > point in the automatic protocol, transmit a capitol M followed by a CR > and the system becomes a little BBS that asks you (in English) for the > pagerid and message and Y/N if you want to send more. No checksums, > no muss, no fuss. > I've taken the easy way out and implemented the second protocol. It > only needed a simple set of send/expect functions to be written. I > could have even done it with "cu" or "tip". CyberTel Paging, the company here in St. Louis which provides our pager service, simply refused to turn over to me the modem phone number until I had software capable of handling the automatic protocol. The reason is simple: they have found that once a customer site has the phone number and knows about the manual mode, they tend to give that combination to lots of people who dial in, and then dither for a while over their phone message or looking up the number. They have a relatively small number of modems on that rotary, and can handle about three times as many requests via the automatic protocol as they can through the manual protocol. In fact, they told me that they intend to disable the part of the system that handles manual protocol before the end of the year. In summary, I cannot stress strongly enough that you should not attempt to implement your own code to perform IXO/TAP automatic paging (or even try to implement other people's software) without the full cooperation of the technical support department at your paging vendor. My experience with CyberTel was that these were honest-to-Ghu engineers who really wanted my product to work with their hardware; I seldom get such prompt call-backs and quick, accurate answers from just about anybody else in the computer or telecom industry. Good luck! ------------------------------ From: syd@dsinc.dsi.com (Syd Weinstein) Subject: Re: X25 Networks With Outdial Service Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 17:19:13 EST Reply-To: syd@DSI.COM Someone asked about outdial X.25, well, here is some scoop on a service out there that offers V.32/V.42 .... Quoting Terry Rossi, Access ports are provided for 92% of the population of the US by dialing a local phone call. International Rates are also very competative (ie: $18.00 an hour from London.) The outdial supports it is over 12,000 exchanges. the outdial modems are v32/v32bis/v42/v42bis. modems and access ports support v.32/v.42 standards. The fees for the service are flat rate 24 hours a day at any baud rate. $20.00 Membership Fee. $10.00 Monthly Acount Fee. $ 4.00 hourly, no K charges. Billing are handled thru Visa and Mastercard. Further information can be obtained by Calling Paragon Communications @ 1-800-945-7272 after November 1st. Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP Elm Coordinator - Current 2.3PL11 Datacomp Systems, Inc. Projected 2.4 Release: Early 1992 syd@DSI.COM or dsinc!syd Voice: (215) 947-9900, FAX: (215) 938-0235 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 00:08:20 PST From: linc@tongue1.Berkeley.EDU (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Prodigy's Latest Fiasco Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article is write: > haug@ka3ovk.irs.gov.UUCP (Susan Haug) writes: >> {Washington Post} >> _Computer Network [Prodigy] to Ban 'Repugnant' Comments_. > Well, I have to wish them luck as I don't see how they are going to > check every single message which users send to each other using their > service. I hardly think they would be willing to spend the kind of > money it would take to have someone read all of the messages. They run every message through a simple filter program that silently kills any message containing an offensive word. For example, the dog-breeders SIG has expressed disgruntlement that any message containing the word "bitch" goes into a black hole, irrespective of context. (No joke) Linc Madison = GVHX00A @ Prodigy = linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ From: cadizht@csgrad.cs.vt.edu Subject: Re: Station Message Detail Recorder Date: 29 Oct 91 18:29:21 GMT Organization: VPI&SU Computer Science Department, Blacksburg, VA In article john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > .... when one talks about SMDR he is usually referring to a normal > function of a PBX. This is also how I understand it. However I don't have the money for a PBX. I do have an ordinary computer and an ordinary phone. Can one get SMDR or something equivalent to its functionality without getting a PBX? What can I attach to my ordinary phone so that my ordinary computer can have the functionality of an SMDR? Horacio T. Cadiz cadizht@ csgrad.cs.vt.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 11:47:42 EST From: mikel@aaahq05.aaa.com (Mikel Manitius) Subject: Re: Charge on 800 calls In addition to the sleezy hotel PBX systems Lauren Weinstein mentioned in his article, there is one other "public" source that does charge (rather heavily) for 800 calls. That's AIRFONE. AIRFONE (the in-flight telephone) charges as much as $2 per minute on all domestic calls, including 800 numbers. I think this is a subject of some interest. To some degree the AIRFONE could be viewed as a "public" phone, perhaps even a COCOT. But I'm sure it differs somewhere on paper. Imagine what would happen if the FCC mandated that an 800 call from such a number must be free. I could then place a call to, say 800 950-1022 and place calls using my MCI calling card with no AIRFONE surcharge, thus using the system for free. I wouldn't be surprised if AIRFONE were to block calls to such 800 numbers. Mikel Manitius mikel@aaa.com [Moderator's Note: I think all cellular companies charge for calls to 800 numbers also; or more specifically, they charge for the airtime involved in making a call, regardless of destination, in addition to whatever the local telco may charge them (or the receiver of the call as the case may be.) PAT] ------------------------------ From: syd@dsi.com (Syd Weinstein) Subject: Re: Are There Any Digital Cordless Phones? Reply-To: syd@dsi.com Organization: Datacomp Systems, Inc. Huntingdon Valley, PA Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 16:10:27 GMT In article tom@travis.csd.harris.com > Are there any cordless phones which use digital transmission > between the handset and base. >From the newest B. A. Pargh Catalog: Tropez Digital 900DX cordless telephone 900 Mhz frequency band 20 channel automatic select Fully digital communication between hand and base (listed as pat. pending) 16 bit digital security code (sounds like they 'encrypt the signal as well' Out of range indicator operates in 'on or off' position Digital volume control Unique Privacy Key Control Programmable Memory includes four ringer tone options 1/2 mile range Price? Wholesale 225, retail 350 Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP Elm Coordinator - Current 2.3PL11 Datacomp Systems, Inc. Projected 2.4 Release: Early 1992 syd@DSI.COM or dsinc!syd Voice: (215) 947-9900, FAX: (215) 938-0235 ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Re: AT&T Ads Promote Hotel 6 Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 19:13:12 EST Reply-To: wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (David Lesher) Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex {hotel ripoff's} >> So, does AT&T marketing read comp.dcom.telecom? > I dunno, but Marriott has been advertising that their hotels provide > AT&T Long Distance as the default on their in-house phones. Note that Marriott's Residence Inn wants $0.75/call for all calls: 950, 10222, 1-800, you name it. I wrote Mr. Marriott to complain. He could not bother to reply. The place I am staying instead has free calls. To parady Marriott's ads: What good is a fancy ad when the phone is total ripoff? wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu ------------------------------ From: motcid!ellisond@uunet.uu.net (Dell H. Ellison) Subject: Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card Date: 29 Oct 91 16:56:18 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL In article , baumgart@dpw.com (Steve Baumgarten) writes: > I called AT&T the next day and asked for their calling card > (they answered the phone on the first ring, of course), and I > cancelled my MCI card as soon as the AT&T card arrived. AT&T has > not yet disabled my card for my own protection, and they also > haven't suggested that I might want to get calling cards from other > long-distance companies on the off-chance that they do. Actually, AT&T did cancel my card "for my own protection", just because I hadn't used it for a few months. The point of having it was so I could use it when I was out of town. (I didn't think that I would have to worry about them cancelling it). I use the FON card now. Dell H. Ellison ...!uunet!mcdchg!motcid!ellisond Motorola, Inc. ------------------------------ From: dickz@pain.UUCP (Richard Zuccarini) Subject: Re: IBT ISDN Pricing Date: 29 Oct 91 00:55:29 GMT Organization: Public Access Info Network (818/776-1447) rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) writes: > David, I must admit I would like to be able to complain about GTE > California screwing me on ISDN, but I can't. Why? Because ALL of the > people there that I talked to couldn't even spell ISDN, nor did they > even know what it was. I sympathize with your plight, but at least > you're getting ISDN into your home. Out here, only business class > lines running Centrex get ISDN (so far as I know). At least you found someone that knew what it was. The RBOC's have a big training job on their hands. I have been trying to get residential ISDN for several weeks. I live right on a major boulevard, and am in one of those little residential pockets that hasn't yet been swallowed up by commercial. ISDN is available, just not to me as a residential customer. But then GTE has never been to interested in the residential customer, even if my phone bills do rival some small businesses. usc.edu!celia!techsys!pain!dickz dickz@pain.chaos.spc.com (broken at elroy.nasa.gov?) Public Access Information Network (818/776-1447) ------------------------------ From: William.Degnan@p0.f39.n382.z1.FidoNet.Org (William Degnan) Date: 28 Oct 91 00:08:17 Subject: Re: New England Tel Messes up Non-Pub Listing On UUCP (trott@parity.enet.dec.com wrote: > Recently new telephone books were distributed in my friend's > neighborhood and yes -- you guessed it -- his name, address and phone > number are in the book! Needless to say, he's upset over this and > would like to take some action to correct this problem. > quite upset about this and would like to take NET to task over this > issue. Thanks in advance for any information. Hmmm. Well, if they left him out, they might be forced into sending out a notice telling folks to _add_ his number to the directory. Perhaps they could send out some correction fluid to all directory holders? No? I suspect the general exchange tariff lets them off the hook for errors or ommissions but if the directory is published by an unregulated subsidiary, there might be some recourse someplace. Tell him to have his consultant rattle their cage collective cage. 8-) Origin: Private Line - Stealth Opus in Austin (1:382/39.0) William Degnan, Communications Network Solutions -Independent Consultants in Telecommunications- P.O. Drawer 9530 | ARPA: wdegnan@f39.n382.z1.FidoNet.Org Austin, TX 78766-9530 | !wdegnan@attmail.com | Voice +1 512 323 9383 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 17:19:17 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: Charging Business Rates For Modem Use Quite some time ago this issue of charging business rates for residential modem use came up, and I had a couple of comments/questions at the time that may be worth repeating: FAX transmissions are sent by modems, in the same manner as computer data (facsimile transmissions are just binary-encoded representation of a graphics image). In fact, the use of FAX cards in computers has blurred the distinction between "FAX data" and "computer data." Therefore, any prohibitions against the transmission of computer data on a residential telephone line could also be equally applied against facsimile transmissions. The question you should be asking the regulators is, do you really want to deny the use of a FAX machine to residential customers? As the price of first-class postage continues to rise, and the price of FAX machines continues to decline, it's reasonable to assume that a much higher percentage of residential customers will start using FAX machines (compare with the telephone answering machine, which originally was found almost exclusively on business lines, but now is a common item in homes). The only way that the telephone company can be absolutely sure whether a data transmission is computer data or FAX data is to actually monitor (tap) the transmission and attempt to decode it in order to determine the actual content. Do we really want to give the phone company the right to intercept our private FAX transmissions to determine that they are really FAX transmissions, and not computer data? Should it even matter whether a data transmission is computer data or FAX data? The point I am making should be obvious: The mere presence of computer or FAX data on a residential telephone line, or evidence that a computer modem or a FAX machine is connected to a residential telephone line, is not of itself sufficient to prove that the line is being used for business activity. Just because businesses use FAX machines or computer modems does not mean that residential customers do NOT use these devices. And, as prices fall on these devices, we can expect to see them put to even greater amounts of non-business- related use. The same FAX machine or computer modem that is used to transmit a business contract can be used by a child to transmit tomorrow's homework assignment to a friend who was absent from school. The telephone itself was originally found primarily in businesses, until the price of telephone service dropped to the place where people could afford to have a telephone in their homes. Perhaps someday the telephone companies and the state regulators will stop trying to make a distinction between residential and business service, and just offer one rate for basic telephone service. But in the meantime, the mere presence or absence of a modem or FAX machine on a phone line does NOT mean it is being used for business purposes, and should not be used as justification for charging business rates! Jack Decker : jack@myamiga.mixcom.com : FidoNet 1:154/8 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #869 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02928; 30 Oct 91 3:52 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30766 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 30 Oct 1991 01:56:33 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09575 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 30 Oct 1991 01:55:57 -0600 Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1991 01:55:57 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199110300755.AA09575@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #870 TELECOM Digest Wed, 30 Oct 91 01:55:30 CST Volume 11 : Issue 870 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [Rob Stampfli] Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [Michael A. Covington] Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [Paul A. Houle] Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [Bob Izenberg] Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" [Mark Brader] Re: Recording Should Say 'Zero', Not 'Oh' [Jamie Mason] Re: Notice on GEnie About FCC Action [Michael A. Covington] Re: New England Tel Messes up Non-Pub Listing [Michael A. Covington] Re: Speaking of Telco Security ... [John Hood] Area Code Category on Jeopardy? [Henry Mensch] Pac*Bell's Two Cents (!) [Robert L. McMillin] Controlling Long Distance Access [Jeff Sicherman] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: colnet!res@cis.ohio-state.edu (Rob Stampfli) Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 06:15:14 GMT > The morning clowns on this area's top-rated rock station used to call > some unsuspecting local person every day, falsely identify themselves > and give the callee a hard time about something, hoping for humorous > reactions. > [Moderator's Note: About 30+ years ago, station WLS in Chicago had a > DJ by the name of Dick Biondi. He let some profanity go out over the > air and the FCC ordered the station to go off the air about ten > minutes later. They remained off the air for several hours, apparently > while their attorney argued with the FCC about it. And it was fairly > mild as those things go today. Times and attitudes change. PAT] As I read this, the thought came to me that, wouldn't it be delightful if someone were to call the offending station after one of these episodes, demand to speak to the manager or chief engineer, and -- pretending to be the Engineer-In-Charge from the nearest FCC field office -- quote chapter and verse from the Part-whatever broadcast rules about notifying people prior to putting them on the air, allege that a complaint was filed, slap them with a fine, and order them off the air until they waded through some excessively complex amount of government red-tape, etc. And, if they didn't buy that ruse, the caller could then claim to be from a competitor station, proclaiming that it was all a humorous joke and "You're live on the air with me right now -- tell us, how do *you* feel?" I dunno, somehow I have my doubts that the station management would find the same degree of humor in the situation with the rolls reversed. Rob Stampfli, 614-864-9377, res@kd8wk.uucp (osu-cis!kd8wk!res), kd8wk@n8jyv.oh [Moderator's Note: For obvious reasons, I cannot recommend or allow the suggestion to appear unchallenged that one impersonate a federal official over the telephone. That is another whole can of worms. PAT] ------------------------------ From: mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls Organization: University of Georgia, Athens Date: Wed, 30 Oct 91 06:42:01 GMT In article jeff@bradley.bradley.edu (Jeff Hibbard) writes: > compose himself) DJ imploring my friend not to say that again, and her > demanding to know who this REALLY was (they never did cut the path > from her phone to the transmitter). > She tells me the DJ talked to her later off-the-air enough to make > sure she wasn't really angry with him. As far as I know, nothing ever > came of it, and they continued making such calls. What if she _had_ been really angry? If they had done it to me, I would have insisted on "being angry" on the ground that, even if they didn't embarrass _me_ all that badly in this particular case, they had overstepped all bounds of decency and common sense, and ought to learn a lesson. After all, the _next_ victim could easily be someone who suffers more harm and is less able to defend him/herself. I would call the FCC and a lawyer immediately. Michael A. Covington, Ph.D. | mcovingt@uga.cc.uga.edu | N4TMI Assistant to the Director, Artificial Intelligence Programs The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602, U.S.A. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 13:17:32 MST From: pahsnsr@jupiter.nmt.edu (Paul A. Houle) Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls Two DJ's in the Boston area also attempted some phone shenanigans that backfired. They called the DA operator in Hawaii and asked for Tom Selleck's telephone number -- the DA operator figured that these were a pair of starstruck fools calling, so she gave them the number of the local morgue. The DJ's announced this phone number on the air, and a number of listeners called it, flooding the city morgue with long distance telephone calls from Boston. The radio station was fined, as you'd expect, and the DA operator was also reprimanded. [Moderator's Note: How did they find out which DA operator did it? I'm sure the foolish DJs did not get the operator's name. PAT] ------------------------------ From: bei@dogface.austin.tx.us (Bob Izenberg) Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 2:15:22 CST In TELECOM Digest issue 863, PAT wrote: (In reply to Scott Dorsey's comment about radio stations being fined) > [Moderator's Note: Fines mean nothing to a large FM radio station. > They consider it part of the cost of doing business. What they need is > for someone from the FCC to walk into the transmitter site; show his > credentials and give them one minute to have an orderly powering down > of the facility with the usual 'sign off the air' announcement. Then > everyone would be ushered outside and the facility padlocked pending > FCC permission to return to the air. PAT] I don't think that the FCC needs any more encouragement to act like real police ... not after working in the jurisdiction of the NY field office. People are sentenced to community service by judges fairly frequently; How about increasing the station's public affairs requirement, and re- quiring that it be done during waking hours instead of buried on Sunday mornings? Is this too much like a fine, or will the threat of having to make programming changes be a deterrent? Bob ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 04:54:00 -0500 From: msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) Subject: Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada > Speaking of which, don't various countries go on/off savings time at > different dates in the year? And is there any good reason why this > isn't synchronized? (Seems it would make the most sense to me ...) There is a good reason, but it's not the actual one. The good reason is that the optimal dates for daylight saving time are different for different places. Roughly speaking, the idea is that the clocks ought to be shifted when people are generally getting up nearly an hour after sunrise, and shifted back when sunrise returns to the same time again. But the time of sunrise varies greatly by one's latitude, and by the difference between one's longitude and the longitude that one's clocks are set by (e.g. 75W for EST); also, there are real differences from one place to another as to which hours people use to sleep. I have here a table of sunrise times (first contact) for different latitudes. Consider latitude 30N -- Houston (95W) or New Orleans (90W). These are on the same time zone, so their sunset times are 20 minutes apart. If their residents' habits are such that the clock is best changed when sunrise is at 5:30 am standard time, then the ideal dates of daylight saving time for New Orleans are April 19 to August 19, but for Houston, only May 10 to July 18. At latitude 40N, assuming the same 5:30 am threshold, for Denver it's April 10 to September 5, while Columbus would prefer May 3 to August 1. In the tropics the sunrise time changes so little it isn't worth changing the clock at all -- for example, Hawaii doesn't. Go far enough north, and you get perpetual light in summer and it doesn't matter how you set the clock. (This doesn't stop them from observing daylight time throughout Scandinavia, though -- presumably they all want to stay in step with their less northerly neighbors.) And finally, of course, in the southern hemisphere the seasons are reversed and daylight saving time is used when it's winter up here. The REAL reason, however, is that people in one country often don't like following the standards of people in another country. What else? Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com [Moderator's Note: Have you ever been in northern Alaska? My friend says it is positively eerie during parts of the winter when the sun is up for only an hour or so each day ... popping up over the horizon for awhile in the middle of the 'day', then dropping out of sight several minutes later. Then finally it never shows up at all for a couple months. And the reverse effect in the summer is also bizarre: There will come a time in middle of the 'night' when twilight will arrive, with bits of light lingering for several minutes, but never complete darkness, then the rays of light will begin to shine again as morning arrives. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jamie Mason Subject: Re: Recording Should Say 'Zero', Not 'Oh' Organization: University of Toronto Computer Services Advisor Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1991 01:08:58 -0500 In article woodcock@utdallas.edu (Gregg E. Woodcock) writes: > This has bothered me for a long time, why does that stupid voice on > the treatment recordings say 'oh' instead of 'zero'? That is just > plain wrong. 'Oh' to me means the '6' key (mno). All the telcos > should rerecord their messages and fix this. I am sure it confuses > "english-as-a-second-language" customers. Slang is *very* > unprofessional. > [Moderator's Note: IBT has theirs fixed so that two zeros on the end > of a number are pronounced 'hundred' and three zeros on the end of a > number are pronounced 'thousand'. Four zeros however come out sounding > like 'oh, oh, oh! oooooh!!!'. PAT] Most of the recordings I have heard say "zero". I just checked the '*69' recording. (It announces the last number to call you, before giving you a chance to call it.) The recording definitely says zero. The 'reference of calls' recording also says "zero". I have a zero in my phone number, so it is easy for me to check ... I can't find a Bell recording that says "oh" rather than "zero" in my (very shallow) search. What kinds of recordings are more likely to say "oh" than "zero"? Jamie ------------------------------ From: mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) Subject: Re: Notice on GEnie About FCC Action Organization: University of Georgia, Athens Date: Wed, 30 Oct 91 06:22:36 GMT I will _not_ write to the FCC about anything unless someone first gives me the appropriate NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rule Making) number and/or appropriate reference to the FCC Record. It seems that about 2/3 of the time, when there is a fast-spreading message about an unpleasant FCC action, it turns out to be substantially misrepresented. I don't know about this ONA action, which seems rather arcane, but I'd advise everybody to check out the details before writing. Michael A. Covington, Ph.D. | mcovingt@uga.cc.uga.edu | N4TMI Assistant to the Director, Artificial Intelligence Programs The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602, U.S.A. [Moderator's Note: Well then, I suggest you and other interested readers pull the new file from the Telecom Archives which Mike Riddle gave us. 'fcc.modem.tax.actions' describes in detail exactly what is planned. I put the file up Tuesday evening. The archives can be accessed with anonymous ftp from lcs.mit.edu. (cd telecom-archives). PAT] ------------------------------ From: mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) Subject: Re: New England Tel Messes up Non-Pub Listing Organization: University of Georgia, Athens Date: Wed, 30 Oct 91 06:35:44 GMT In article wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (David Lesher) writes: > Never order service in your name. > When you get service, demand an unlisted ADDRESS. This is > typically free! A local BBS is listed under the name of "P C Dos". But they forgot to leave the address unlisted. Michael A. Covington, Ph.D. | mcovingt@uga.cc.uga.edu | N4TMI Assistant to the Director, Artificial Intelligence Programs The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602, U.S.A. ------------------------------ From: jhood@banana.ithaca.ny.us (John Hood) Subject: Re: Speaking of Telco Security ... Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1991 04:28:19 GMT In article john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > As a result of that maneuver, I had my accounts "passworded". This > means that before a Pac*Bell rep will discuss my accounts, the caller > must provide a "password". Pac*Bell will do this for anyone that asks, > but those that have taken advantage of this represent a tiny minority > to be sure. NY Tel has this in their regulations also. When I ordered my three lines a few months ago, I decided to ask for this. I've called them several times since (most recently to undo Sprint being the default LD carrier on all three lines, instead of just one :) and they have never asked me for my number. Anybody else had this happen? John Hood, CU student, CU employee, and sometime BananaOp jhood@albert.mannlib.cornell.edu,jhood@banana.ithaca.ny.us,jeh@crnlvax5.bitnet ------------------------------ From: henry@ads.com (Henry Mensch) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 20:52:33 PST Organization: Advanced Decision Systems Reply-To: Subject: Area Code Category on Jeopardy It's true ... tonight, on the game show _Jeopardy_, there was a category called "area codes." They would present a clue ... "The east side's up and the battery's down ... and they're both in this area code". The contestant had to reply "What is 212?" One wonders what they'll think of next ... Henry Mensch / Advanced Decision Systems / [Moderator's Note: I've an idea! Let's play it here in telecom. Who wants to get the ball rolling with the first set of clues? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 21:34:09 PST From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) Subject: Pac*Bell's Two Cents (!) Last Wednesday the {Los Angeles Times} printed an editorial taking a stand against allowing Pac*Bell, among others, from entering the information services market, citing the natural conflict of interest when the message is created by the messenger (my wording, not theirs). Sunday's Times Opinion section had on its final page a full-page open letter from Pac*Bell, signed by Sam Ginn, CEO. The Times was rather concerned that some of its fledgling information businesses would be damaged by the entry of Pac*Bell into this market. The points made by Pac*Bell's letter: - The currently leading IP's are large companies, so it makes for more competition if a big company, such as Pac*Bell, gets into the fray. - Several public interest groups support Pac*Bell's entry into this market. - Limiting IP competition is an antitrust issue relative to newspapers, which are effectively a local monopoly in most markets. - The Times' assertion that Pac*Bell will "'subsidize' [their] information services with [their] guaranteed profits" is specious since (a) their "profits have never been guaranteed", and (b) there are laws in place to prevent such things from happening. [It might also be remembered that the dumping of television sets by the Japanese TV cartel in the 1970's was also illegal, but none of the Japanese perpetrators was ever seriously prosecuted. -- rlm] - The Court of Appeals has upheld Pac*Bell's right to engage in IP services even during the Times' appeal of this decision. [Moderator's Note: In an issue of the Digest Wednesday overnight or Thursday morning I'll print a lengthy article by David Gast based on his testimony to the California PUC a few days ago. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 22:46:47 -0800 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: Controlling Long Distance Access Organization: Cal State Long Beach Is there any feature or service that any of the LD carriers have that would prevent someone in your home (temporary employee) from using your phone to make LD calls ? (of course removing a default carrier would require them to use 10+ dialing but looking for something more secure). [Moderator's Note: Why don't you consider one of the inexpensive toll restrictors sold by companies such as Hello Direct (1-800-HI-HELLO)? They attach to the line in series with the phones which come behind the unit, and can be programmed to disallow all toll calls. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #870 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07194; 31 Oct 91 3:50 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00608 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 31 Oct 1991 01:49:30 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19636 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 31 Oct 1991 01:49:19 -0600 Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1991 01:49:19 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199110310749.AA19636@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #871 TELECOM Digest Thu, 31 Oct 91 01:48:57 CST Volume 11 : Issue 871 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Testimony to CA PUC Against the 60% Local Service Increase [David Gast] Extended Range Cordless Telephones [Ken Jongsma] PABX <-> Computer Standards [Andrew Tune] Can Telco Provide LD Access Line Only? [Steve Brack] Monopolies [Bob Ackley] Block Block Blocking in CID? [John R. Levine] What Basic Features Shouls ISDN BRI and PRI Provide? [Tim Gorman] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 22:54:23 -0800 From: gast@CS.UCLA.EDU (David Gast) Subject: Testimony to CA PUC Against the 60% Local Service Increase Comments similar to those I gave before the California PUC yesterday follow. There was not one person in the audience who was even remotely supportive of PacBell or GTE. At the end of the hearing, the judge mentioned he had ``learned something about the economics of Pac Tel''. I have included some Notes to provide some context for non-California readers. Believe it or not, I actually cut out a lot of good evidence. Also, I would like to point out that my residence is served by GTE. GTE promised to send out details of their proposed rate increase before the hearings began. I have not yet received those details. Many people who might voice an opinion will not because they don't know that the proposed increase is 60%. GTE did not mention that there would be a small refund due to incentive pricing. GTE did manage last week to send out a letter reminding me of the upcoming 213 area code split. It began, as I recall, "even thought the split is months away"; the split, of course, happens in less than a week. So much for receiving excellent service. It was also in a separate envelop, not part of a bill, and so at additional expense. Today I called GTE to find out the precise location for these hearings. GTE was unable to tell me. The person gave me the number of the PUC to call; that number was no longer working. So much for Telecommunications Excellence. (Note: One of the GTE slogans). Although I am served by GTE, I will direct most of my comments towards PacBell for two primary reasons. 1. PacBell is much larger. 2. There is much better public information available. I will note, however, that in 1990 GTE bought a local exchange carrier and cellular carriers and that currently it is trying to divest itself of its Electrical Property Group. The only conclusion that I can draw is that in spite of the so-called terrible regulatory climate, GTE feels it is more profitable to be in the monopoly business of providing local telephone service or the duopoly business of cellular rather than a competitive business. As I was walking into the room, I was able to obtain a copy of GTE's proposed modifications. I note that not only will monthly service go up by 60%, but that local measured calls become more expensive, discounts for evening and night calls gets smaller, and in some cases increases. So I should pay 60% more to pay more to call? (Note: The purpose of the hearings is consider whether intra-LATA competition should be allowed. The telco's argument is that competition should be allowed; however, the mechanism will only be convenient for large customers. The telco's maintain that in order to compensate for the lower intra-LATA long distance prices that a 60% increase in local rates is needed. I pointed out for residential callers, who probably do not make a lot of long distance intra-LATA calls, the price of the calls themselves can increase.) GTE should not be allowed to charge more than PacBell. Why should I have to subsidize GTE's inefficiencies? (Note: Another speaker correctly identified that GTE is proposing to lower its prices on all services on which it competes -- including pay phone calls -- and raise the prices on all of its monopoly products.) In preparing this testimony I studied several annual reports of Pacific Telesis as well as other sources. I must say I find it rather amusing that Pac Bell has to come crying to the CPUC for regulatory relief; their annual reports and their financial statements show a company that is doing quite well. Interesting enough, the 1984 annual report -- the first after the breakup of AT&T -- mentions Pac Bell's strong commitment to universal service and the "relationship with the California Public Utilities Commission." Recent annual reports do not mention the first, and the CPUC is criticised again and again in spite of the fact that the CPUC promulgated the great telephone giveaway of 1989--incentive pricing. As evidence that it was the great telephone giveaway, Pacific Telesis's stock rose over 60% in 1989, a fact they are quite proud of. Consider some facts about this so-called poor company that needs to raise residential unlimited rates by 60%. (Note: Many of these figures go only up to December 31, 1989 because I was unable to get a hard copy of a later annual report). 1. "Between Nov 21, 1983 and December 31, 1989 [PacBell] stock appreciated 266%, compared to 199% over the same period for the other six regional telephone holding companies and 113% for the Standard and Poor's Composite." 2. The return on stockholder's equity increase from 13.5% to 15.4%. 3. Profit margins averaged about 14% for the 85-89% period compared to about 6% for other (competitive) companies. Thus, regulated Pac Bell has a profit margin about double the average company. Must be nice to be regulated. 4. The average Treasury Bond (30 years) is now yielding less than 8%. Pac Bell under the incentive scheme can earn as much as 14.75%. That is a 6.75% risk premium for a company that is most unlikely to go bankrupt. They can always get regulatory relief. Even the minimum return allowed 11.5% has a risk premium of 3.5% more than government bonds. 5. Over the last two years, Pacific Telesis has spent about $1.5 Billion to buy back its stock. In the words of Pacific Telesis, "The corporation used its EXCESS funds to purchase this common stock." (Emphasis added). $1.5 Billion is a significant sum of money for a corporation that wants to raise unlimited calling plan rates by 60%. 6. The 1991 President's letter says: "As the world's governments privatize telecommunications and issue new wireline licenses, Pacific Telesis is one of the few companies with the size, telecommunications expertise, and capital to pursue many of these historic opportunities. Comment: Were have these resources come from? The ratepayers. Why should we in CA pay more so Pacific Telesis can build new cellular and cable systems on other continents? 7. Even during the recession -- when such Blue Chips as IBM see their profits fall 85% -- Pacific Telesis does pretty well. Sales were up, gross profits were up, but overall profits were down slightly. Consider these points: a. Selling, general, and administrative expense increased by $329 M. b. Interest expense was up by about $100 M even though interest rates declined. Why? Pacific Telesis borrowed $814 M which, perhaps just coincidentally, just happens to be about equal to the amount of stock repurchased. That is, Pac Tel borrows money to repurchase its stock, the interest on which causes their earnings to decline so they come to the PUC seeking higher rates on residential service. c. They lost some money on a non-regulated subsidiary. Comment: It's always nice to have the deep pockets of the rate payers to protect against unprofitable businesses in the competitive sector. In the annual they mention three different figures for the loss, $60M, $75M, and $100M. I would like to make a few suggestions: 1. Do not allow large executive salaries or perks to be put in the rate base. Also do not allow costs such as advertising for Centrex to be included. 2. Reduce the allowed rate of return to reflect the lower cost of capital today. 3. If the problem is that large corporations are not using Pac Bell's network, then I have the following suggestions. a. Make it illegal to use an IEC instead of the LEC. Include a large fine for violators. b. Require that these large companies pay a fee to a residence phone every time they call. They have to use the LEC to contact a residence after all. c. Investigate thoroughly to see why even with the huge competitive advantage that the LECs have, other companies can build their own networks. If there really is not a competitive advantage to having just one telco, then perhaps we should allow competition, but include the local loop. d. I am somewhat suspect that competition for intra-LATA calls will actually benefit the consumer. AOSes, COCOTs, and the like have been negative, not positive. 4. Make those who want modernization pay for it. For example, Pacific Telesis says that it is modernizing its network and installing SS7. I and many other users of the phone system have no need for that. Make sure those who want those features pay for them. Don't make everyone else subsidize the users who want the latest technological gadgets. 5. If Pacific Telesis really thinks it cannot make money in the regulated market without these additional increases, then ask them to divest themselves of Pacific Telephone. Of course, they won't because Pacific Telephone provides the resources for all the other businesses they want to get into. In conclusion, the telcos seem more interested in providing anything -- information services, cable, cellular, etc -- except local exchange service. Keep things the same. Don't give into the phone companies. And a compromise of a 30% increase is not acceptable either. (Note: this 60% increase is called revenue neutral, the telcos also want to raise rates in other proceedings.) Perhaps it is time for the Phone Company equivalent of Prop 103. (Note: Prop 103 was an anti-insurance company referendum passed by the voters a few years back. Telco would almost assuredly not want such a proposition aimed at them, but with these rate hikes, a well-drawn proposition might have an excellent chance of passage). David Gast [Moderator's Note: Could you please explain a little more about the provisions of Proposition 103, and how it would affect the telcos? PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Extended Range Cordless Telephones Date: Wed, 30 Oct 91 21:56:50 EST From: Ken Jongsma While traveling on business this week, I came across the following ad in American Airlines' American Way in-flight magazine. I transcribe it for your edification and make no recommendations. [begin ad] Up To 60 Mile Radius Cordless Phones* Portable Models from 1 to 15 miles. Mobile Models 30 and 50 miles. Station to Station Models 25 and 60 miles. NEW! High Performance non-cellular cordless extention phones. Base easily connects to your phone lines anywhere in the world. Custom and multilines available. Phone Masters, Since 1969 1022 South La Cienega Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90035 (213)289-0735 FAX (213)289-0776 We Ship Worldwide - Visa, MasterCard, American Express *Some Models may not be used in USA [end ad] Ken Jongsma ken@wybbs.mi.org Smiths Industries jongsma@benzie.si.com Grand Rapids, Michigan 73115,1041@compuserve.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 17:40:45 DST From: Andrew Tune Subject: PABX <-> Computer Standards I'm looking for any information which might be available about standards in the area of _software_ interfaces to PABXs. I'm aware of the fact that a number of PABX vendors (some of whom are also general purpose computer vendors) have products in this area, but I'm more interested in the state of play of the efforts of standards bodies (ANSI, IEEE (perhaps), ETSI, etc). Feel free to respond by email if you'd rather not post. I will submit a summary of emailed responses unless asked not to. Andrew Tune TechNIX Consulting Services Pty Ltd Phone: +61 3 819 3339 Gnd Floor, 197-199 Riversdale Rd Fax: +61 3 819 3278 Hawthorn, 3123, Australia Email: adt@technix.oz.au ------------------------------ From: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack) Subject: Can Telco Provide LD Access Line Only? Date: 30 Oct 91 19:42:02 GMT I recently moved back home, and my parents are not pleased with my LD bill. Although I pay promptly, and use Call Manager, they don't want my calls on their bill. Calling cards are too expensive, and I don't want to get a full-fledged second line, as my call volume makes it uneconomical. My question: is there any way to get a line put in that is strictly for LD calling? i.e. no LEC access? Would that be cheaper, if it's possible? Any other ideas/suggestions would be appreciated. Steve [Moderator's Note: You can get a variety of special lines from most telcos, and one feature is to allow one plus LD calls only, rejecting local calls, 0+ calls, etc. But you would save nothing, and might wind up paying more. Just get a regular second line, with all measured service if possible at the cheapest rate your telco offers, then use it only for LD calls. You'll still be able to make the occassional local calls you want with more flexibility than the plan you proposed. Generally the specially treated lines are intended for security reasons where the users possibly cannot be trusted to use the phone as the owner intended; not as a way to save money for the owner. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Oct 91 03:30:08 cst From: Bob.Ackley@ivgate.omahug.org (Bob Ackley) Subject: Monopolies Reply-To: bob.ackley@drbbs.omahug.org Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha In a message of <26 Oct 91 23:38:28>, John Higdon (11:30102/2) writes: > A final point: if you are so concerned about monopolies, you need look > no further than your local telco. The FCC, the congress, and the courts ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Also your cable TV supplier, power company, water provider, natural gas supplier and sewer utility, all of which are usually monopolies in their service areas. Any or all of which may be owned by or provided by your municipality. IBM is not a monopoly; the Justice Department says so. But IBM has a bigger share of the mainframe computer industry than AT&T had of the telephone industry BEFORE it was broken up. Bob's Soapbox , Plattsmouth (1:285/666.7) ------------------------------ Subject: Block Block Blocking in CID? Date: Wed, 30 Oct 91 22:36:33 EST From: John R. Levine Here's a technical Caller-ID question. When a caller invokes C-ID blocking, the caller's exchange still sends the calling phone number but sets a status bit to block the display. The number can still be used for call trace, call block, call return, etc. In areas such as New Jersey where there is no provision for callers setting the block bit, what will happen when a blocked number arrives from an SS7 long distance carrier? (I realize that nobody passes long distance C-ID now, but they will in the next year or so.) Will the N.J. exchange still honor the block bit, even though it is set never to generate it? Assuming the answer is supposed to be that it will honor blocking, how hard would it be for some dishonest employee to fiddle an exchange so that putatively blocked numbers are displayed for his friends? Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ Date: 30 Oct 91 09:38:06 EST From: tim gorman <71336.1270@CompuServe.COM> Subject: What Basic Features Should ISDN BRI and PRI Provide? I was in a conversation yesterday with some supposed ISDN guru's in our company and was severely disappointed with the level of common agreement on basic features ISDN BRI and PRI should provide. So, in order to do some basic personal research on this I would like to get some input from people on this forum as to what they consider as the basic features that should be provided by BRI and PRI. This should be along the lines of calling number delivery, 64KB data to other ISDN lines, etc. I am not too concerned with what all of the technical documents say ISDN should do (although I would be interested in areas of disagreement between ISDN and SS7 as far as capabilities provided). I am more concerned with what functionality is needed to make the service attractive. Replies via direct email or via the TELECOM Digest accepted. I will try to summarize the results and post them if anyone is interested in seeing them. Tim Gorman - SWBT * opinions are my own, any resemblence to official policy is coincidence* ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #871 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07287; 31 Oct 91 4:10 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00207 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 31 Oct 1991 02:15:49 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25512 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 31 Oct 1991 02:15:31 -0600 Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1991 02:15:31 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199110310815.AA25512@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #872 TELECOM Digest Thu, 31 Oct 91 02:15:08 CST Volume 11 : Issue 872 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card [Jack Decker] Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card [John Higdon] Re: Notice on GEnie About FCC Action [Michael H. Riddle, Esq.] Re: Two Cell Phones on Same Number: It Can Be Done [Randall L. Schwartz] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 30 Oct 91 18:57:22 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card In a message dated 26 Oct 91 23:38:28 GMT, john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: >> That is simply not true, at least not in the 906 area code of >> Michigan. I can take you to step-by-step exchanges served by >> independent phone companies (obviously NOT FGD capable) and dial >> Sprint's 800 access number and it will go through. I know of no place >> that around this area where it will NOT work now, and the majority of >> exchanges in my area (especially to the west of me) are either still >> not converted to equal access or are just being converted this year. > Just because an office does not offer the end user PIC or 10XXX > dialing does not mean that the FGD mechanism is not in place. The > equipment and protocols that make up the FGD capability are described > in a book two inches thick. Did a switchman tell you that the office > was not FGD capable or did you just assume that because it does not > APPEAR to be fully implemented? John ... the offices I am talking about are STEP-BY-STEP offices operated by independent telephone companies. I don't know why you seem to think that you are always right and everyone else is wrong, but I don't need a switchman to tell me that a step-by-step office on a little independent phone company that is barely capable (some would say "incapable") of providing reliable local exchange service is NOT FGD capable. If you don't want to believe that, fine, but I really wish you'd quit assuming that the rest of the country's phone system operates exactly like Pac*Bell in your neck of the woods ... er, desert! > AT&T is STILL the only long distance company in the country that can: > 1. Provide the finest sounding international connections; There are lots of us who never make international calls, or who don't mind a small amount of added noise to save up to 30% on an international call. Granted that if you're pushing data across international boundaries to some remote country, this might be a major consideration, but relatively few of us are in that situation. > 2. Reliably connect you with virtually any internal technical > department in almost any telco in the nation; Why do you need this capability? YOU might, but again, this just isn't a major consideration for MOST folks. > 3. Correct a billing mistake with one call to a rep that takes > less than one minute from dialing to hanging up; Here I am willing to concede that you have a valid point, although I think some of the OCC's are really working on this. Still, most of them have a long way to go. Most OCC operators, for example, cannot issue a credit for a misdialed Calling Card call. > 4. Require fewer of those calls than any other company because its > billing is remarkably accurate; Here I'm not willing to concede. If you want to say that a specific carrier seems more concerned with dropping pins than accurate billing, I might concede the point, but I think that other carriers offer billing as accurate as AT&T's. In fact, with only one exception, every mis-billed call I've ever had on my phone bill has been an AT&T call that somehow got billed to my phone. That may be in part because the OCC's haven't had much penetration in this area (we're not populated enough for their sales departments to worry about us), but I would not call AT&T's billing error-free! > 5. Reliably and quickly give a caller "route and rate" info as > well as place name. Again, you're looking at something that 99% of the population doesn't give a hoot about. You also didn't mention the big item: 6. AT&T's rates are higher than that of any other carrier except the "sleazeball" OCC's that pick off 0+ traffic from coin phones and PBX's, IF you compare "apples to apples" (i.e., you don't compare an AT&T discount plan to another carrier's regular MTS rates). And, their rates would doubtless be MUCH MUCH higher if there was no competition from the OCC's! > We disagree here. Granted, AT&T had a major head start, but if the OCCs > really provided such wonderful service with major savings all the > advertising in the world would not help AT&T. I don't think ANYONE can squeeze rates much below the current levels and still be profitable. But AT&T came into the game with several major advantages, one of which was that their network was fully built AND in many cases had superior central office connections to those that the OCC's could obtain. The playing field is more level now, but I think there's still a decided tilt in favor of AT&T. Furthermore, keep in mind that the classic example of anti-competitive behavior for a large company is to cut prices so low that you drive all your competition out of business (because they have neither the financial backing nor the economies of scale to keep up with you), then after the competition is gone you raise your prices to whatever the market will bear (and if you offer an "essential" product or service, that can be a pretty high figure). > And furthermore, if AT&T's agency is so inept, why has this not > hurt them even more? I think it HAS hurt them, but not that much because frankly, I don't think that the content of television advertising has all that much influence over people's buying decisions. Advertising mainly gives you "name recognition" in the marketplace. Still, people will remember a very good or a very bad ad, and I think AT&T has had some real turkeys! > The truth of the matter is that the OCCs are simply "me too" players > that would like to have the image of AT&T while appearing to be bargain > priced. What do the OCCs offer that you cannot get with AT&T? In my > experience, nothing on a consistent basis. Except, perhaps, a lower price (except in those rare cases where AT&T has just cut their rates and it takes the OCC's a few days to catch up). > For instance, not one of the major OCCs offer alternative billing > (calling card, etc.) without a surcharge. Why? Because that is the way > AT&T has always done it? If you recall, the historical reason for a > surcharge was that such calls required operator assistance. That is no > longer the case, and yet AT&T and all the rest still tack on that > ridiculous charge. Why hasn't Sprint or MCI scooped AT&T on this? Now on this one you have a VERY valid point. I have wondered this many times myself. What really gets me is that some carriers will offer "950-" access to customers in non-equal-access exchanges with no per-call surcharge, but then turn around and use the same "950-" number for their "calling card" service and tack a surcharge on every call. You are absolutely correct in saying that there is no valid justification for this. Some carriers (I believe that ITT/Metromedia is one, along with some of the smaller independent carriers) DO offer a no-surcharge calling card but you have to be careful because their per-minute rates may be substantially higher (I don't think ITT/Metromedia has exorbitantly higher rates, though). > A final point: if you are so concerned about monopolies, you need look > no further than your local telco. The FCC, the congress, and the courts > seem hell-bent on giving telcos more and more power and influence over > your life. They are now permitted to provide information and video > services in addition to local dial tone. And just how do you think that > they will finance these ventures? Hint: by draining those people > served by the only monopoly left -- local exchange service. Just look > what is happening in California. Agreed again. I am hoping that at very least congress and the FCC will realize that turnabout is fair play, and give the cable TV companies the right to offer local exchange service. At least then you'd have a duopoly situation, which is still a far cry from open competition but at least there would be a choice. I'd really prefer to see some sort of openly competitive enviroment at the local exchange level, and I do think it is coming, but not nearly as quickly as I'd like to see it happen. The other thing that could make a big difference along these lines is if the FCC were to amend their rules to allow MORE that two cellular providers to serve any given area, in effect throwing the cellular market wide open to competition. If this were to happen, I suspect that cellular companies would start offering some service options that would make them VERY competitive with the local exchange carriers. This is something that the federal government could do without regard to state regulators, so if the telephone companies think that their monopoly on local exchange service is eternally assured, they may be deluding themselves. Jack Decker : jack@myamiga.mixcom.com : FidoNet 1:154/8 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card Date: 30 Oct 91 01:27:15 PST (Wed) From: john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) motcid!ellisond@uunet.uu.net (Dell H. Ellison) writes: > Actually, AT&T did cancel my card "for my own protection", just > because I hadn't used it for a few months. The point of having it was > so I could use it when I was out of town. (I didn't think that I > would have to worry about them cancelling it). I am very surprised to hear this. I have about ten AT&T cards (half keyed to working numbers and half with "random" numbers). I just tried two that I have not used in at least two years. Worked fine. > I use the FON card now. I also have a FON card. It was issued a LONG time ago as a US Telecom card number and was carried over through the US Telecom/GTE Sprint merger. Sometimes I don't use it for months at a time, but it still works. I am using it heavily this trip to southern California to burn off some of the "apology credit" that I have accumulated over the years because of the many major billing screwups that Sprint has committed. (In all fairness, Sprint was very nice about offering and delivering credits over and above the amounts in question as a good will gesture when the mistakes hit the fan. But my druthers would be a continuously correct bill.) I'm just waiting for Sprint to turn it off because of this sudden "heavy use" to protect me from "fraud". John Higdon (hiding out in the desert) ------------------------------ From: bc335@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Michael H. Riddle, Esq.) Subject: Re: Notice on GEnie About FCC Action Reply-To: bc335@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Michael H. Riddle, Esq.) Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 91 18:40:17 GMT In a previous article, mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) says: > I will _not_ write to the FCC about anything unless someone first > gives me the appropriate NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rule Making) number > and/or appropriate reference to the FCC Record. > It seems that about 2/3 of the time, when there is a fast-spreading > message about an unpleasant FCC action, it turns out to be > substantially misrepresented. > I don't know about this ONA action, which seems rather arcane, but I'd > advise everybody to check out the details before writing. I agree with Dr. Covington, and while many people have access to the archives, many do not. The NPRM is 89-79, FCC 89-105, and the Final Rule is issued at 56 Fed Reg 33879-01. And it is arcane. It seems to do, by a roundabout way, what could not be done in 1987. If you remember the history, in 1983 the FCC created the access charge structure. It granted exemptions from usage-sensitive access charges for Enhanced Service Providers (ESPs) for a number of reasons. In 1987, Docket 87-215, the FCC proposed to remove the exemptions. We all know what happened then. The Commission and Congress received an unprecedented public input on a telecommunications regulatory issue. The plan to remove the exemptions was dropped. While Rep. Markey, among others, thought the idea was dead, period, the Commission appears to have merely gone into hiatus. The current rule, if I have it analyzed correctly, attempts to do three things: 1. Preserve ESP exemptions "in their current form." 2. Create incentives for new services, known as BSEs, under the ONA proposals. ESPs would have to pay access charges to use these services. 3. Ultimately require the removal of the existing feature groups the BSEs would replace. The result in the end, usage-sensitive access charges for ESPs, the very concept thought killed in 1987. This analysis, is of course my own, and I concur with Dr. Covington's thesis that one needs to read it for themselves to completely understand it. One final note about the "posture" of the proceeding. The NPRM seemed to imply that the exemptions would continue, so no one got real upset. This was, after all, only 18 months or so after the 87-215 fiasco. When the final rule was released in July, effective in August, it took people a while to figure out the probable impact. As a result what GEnie and others are asking is support for a petition to reconsider the rule. Hopefully this will help explain and understand the GEnie announcement, released earlier in the Digest. <<<< insert standard disclaimer here >>>> mike.riddle@inns.omahug.org | Nebraska Inns of Court bc335@cleveland.freenet.edu | +1 402 593 1192 (Data/Fax) Sysop of 1:285/27@Fidonet | V.32/V.42bis / G3 Fax [Moderator's Note: Speaking of 87-215, the copy of this in the Telecom Archives became corrupted and only 2/3's readable. I had earlier asked for a replacement copy if someone had it, and am asking again. PAT] ------------------------------ From: merlyn@iWarp.intel.com (Randal L. Schwartz) Subject: Re: Two Cell Phones on Same Number: It Can Be Done; Here's How Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1991 17:46:53 GMT In article , jeff%heurikon (Jeffrey Mattox) writes: > SECURITY: You must prove that you really are a cellular user > (by providing CelluSoft with a copy of your bill, but with the > telephone number blacked out). CelluSoft makes a point of asking you > *not* to send them your cellular telephone number (to prevent your ESN > together with your telephone number from ever getting into the wrong > hands). (They seemed genuinely interested in preventing and avoiding > any hint of fraud by others.) > My questions are: > 1) Does anybody know for sure about the legalities of this? > 2) Has anybody else done this? Any details? > 3) Is there any cellular telephone on the market that allows its ESN > to be field-programmed without having to use this method? I would > think that there might be a backdoor ESN programming method, or do the > manufacturers painstakingly program a different control ROM for *each* > phone? How in the world are they going to verify that you indeed own a *phone* with the ESN that you request? This is an obvious track towards cellphone fraud! Nice to know that there are companies out there willing to provide the technical means for the phreaks to get the tools of their trade. (Sarcasm, in case you missed it.) For Cell-phone naive people: the ESN is the *non*-changable part of the phone, unique per phone, and provides half of the key to cell-phone calling access. The other half is what you would call the "phone number", which is the number people would call to reach you. It *is* programmable, although generally changed only by the cellphone installer. The ESN is supposed to be very difficult to change, to prevent fraud. What this company is providing is a way to create an aribitrary ESN phone. Yuck! Just another concerned cellphone user, Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095 on contract to Intel's iWarp project, Beaverton, Oregon, USA, Sol III merlyn@iwarp.intel.com ...!any-MX-mailer-like-uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #872 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19837; 2 Nov 91 1:13 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25110 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 1 Nov 1991 23:02:14 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23431 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 1 Nov 1991 23:01:58 -0600 Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1991 23:01:58 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111020501.AA23431@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #873 TELECOM Digest Fri, 1 Nov 91 23:01:48 CST Volume 11 : Issue 873 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [Brett G. Person] Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [Robert L. McMillin] Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [Nicholas J. Simicich] Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [Scott Dorsey] Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [Robert Winchester] Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [Andrew C. Green] Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [Dennis Blyth] Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [Harold Hallikainen] Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" [Floyd Davidson] Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" [Andrew M. Dunn] Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" [Dennis Blyth] Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" [Carl Moore] Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" [Guy Finney] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: plains!person@uunet.uu.net (Brett G Person ) Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls Date: 31 Oct 91 04:37:15 GMT Organization: North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND In article bei@dogface.austin.tx.us (Bob Izenberg) writes: > ... How about increasing the station's public affairs > requirement, and requiring that it be done during waking hours > instead of buried on Sunday mornings? Is this too much like a fine, > or will the threat of having to make programming changes be a > deterrent? This is a great idea! But, I bet the NAB whould fight it all the way. Cutting into broadcast "sales time" could really hurt a station. Imagine having to play PSA while your coompetition is raking in the bucks fir the prime-time hours. Gee, would this mean that a station would loose the ability to sell expensive air-time? Someone should suggest this to the FCC. Brett G. Person North Dakota State University uunet!plains!person | person@plains.bitnet | person@plains.nodak.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Oct 91 09:36:42 PST From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls Paul A. Houle writes: > Two DJ's in the Boston area also attempted some phone shenanigans that > backfired. They called the DA operator in Hawaii and asked for Tom > Selleck's telephone number -- the DA operator figured that these were > a pair of starstruck fools calling, so she gave them the number of the > local morgue. The radio station was fined, as you'd expect, and > the DA operator was also reprimanded. > [Moderator's Note: How did they find out which DA operator did it? I'm > sure the foolish DJs did not get the operator's name. PAT] If they had called information over the air, it's a pretty good bet that the information operator had identified himself before asking "May I help you?" I know they do in Los Angeles. If there was a tape machine running during the broadcast, the operator was caught, um, red-voiced. Robert L. McMillin | Voice: (213) 568-3555 Hughes Aircraft/Hughes Training, Inc. | Fax: (213) 568-3574 Los Angeles, CA | Internet: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Oct 91 12:38:49 EST From: "Nicholas J. Simicich" Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls Reply-To: Nick Simicich I have to say that I'm, well, frankly amazed that so many folks want the government, in the guise of the FCC to step in and regulate program content, just because they happen to disagree with it. If you don't like the content, turn your channel selector knob to someone you do like. If someone is damaged, let them sue. The FCC should regulate technical issues, not program content. The less that they or any other government agency has to say regarding the content of the airwaves, the better I feel about it. Nick Simicich (NJS at WATSON, njs@watson.ibm.com) -SSI AOWI #3958, HSA #318 ------------------------------ From: kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov ( Scott Dorsey) Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls Organization: NASA Langley Research Center Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1991 14:32:08 GMT > [Moderator's Note: For obvious reasons, I cannot recommend or allow > the suggestion to appear unchallenged that one impersonate a federal > official over the telephone. That is another whole can of worms. PAT] That would be a bad idea. However, a quick telephone call to the FCC would probably produce a federal officer willing to make such statements himself, so why bother impersonating one? Plus, he can make the fines stick. Disclaimer: I carpool with an FCC engineer so I tend to get better service than most. ------------------------------ From: robw@bucsf.bu.edu (Robert Winchester) Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls Date: 30 Oct 91 22:01:28 GMT Reply-To: robw@bucsf.bu.edu (Robert Winchester) Organization: Computer Science Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA In article john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) writes: >> ... Hey, I guess it's hard to beat good ratings. > The three who committed the hoax did not get off quite that lightly, > according to R&R. In addition to whatever action the station took ... > are jointly and severally responsible for reimbursing the LA County > Sheriff's office for the $12,000 spent on investigating the "crime". I thought that there was a real murder (or, did I miss that post?) and the DJ's used it as a publicity stunt. Boston University, Boston? MA 02215 Rob Winchester (robw@bucsf.bu.edu) 91 Baystate Rd #1151 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 11:42:25 CST From: acg@HERMES.DLOGICS.COM Reply-To: acg@hermes.dlogics.com Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls dplatt@ntg.com (Dave Platt) writes: > I recently heard a DJ on a local radio station urging people to tune > in the next morning to another DJ's show. He said something to the > effect of "We're going to call Zaza Gabor ... we've got her phone > number. We know she likes to sleep late ... so we're going to call > her as early as we can. Tune in to hear the fun." [stuff deleted] > To your knowledge, has any DJ, or radio station ever been disciplined > for this sort of practice? Yes. The actress Shirley Jones sued and won a fairly large settlement from some DJ and/or his radio station here in Chicago a few years back, I believe. I don't recall many of the details, but the situation was something along the lines of her being in Chicago with her husband, comedian Marty Ingalls, who I think was quite sick at the time. Some doofus from a radio station called her early in the morning at her hotel and kept pestering her after it became clear that she was not amused. He may also have neglected to tell her that the conversation was being broadcast. Perhaps someone else can add some more accurate details to this, but if you're seriously researching the subject, this should give you a start. Andrew C. Green (312) 266-4431 Datalogics, Inc. Internet: acg@dlogics.com 441 W. Huron UUCP: ..!uunet!dlogics!acg Chicago, IL 60610 FAX: (312) 266-4473 ------------------------------ From: Dennis Blyth Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls Date: 31 Oct 91 14:33:34 GMT Reply-To: Dennis Blyth Organization: NCR International - Europe Group, Dayton In Cincinnati a morning DJ named Jim Scott used to call various people, including his wife, who lived with Jim on a farm in nearby Indiana (possibly even within Cincinnati Bell's large local calling zone). He'd talk on the air with her for about 30 seconds, and then say 'BTW, you're on the air' and you would almost always hear a sigh, and then the conversation would continue. Sometimes, he'd put his kids on the air. He used to always talk about a little one named 'Casey'. It made the show sound so 'family oriented' But, my how things change, now Jim Scott is on A DIFFERENT Cincinnati station (WLW, clear channel 700 am, you should be able to hear it almost everywhere East of the Mississippi), and guess what, he's DIVORCED! I used to be in radio, and my observation is that most broadcasters would do anything to get ratings. Today, I'm in another (more ethical, IMHO) industry, thank goodness. At least the telecom industry orientation in the states seems to be 'good service to the public'. ------------------------------ From: hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1991 22:11:42 GMT In article colnet!res@cis.ohio- state.edu (Rob Stampfli) writes: > As I read this, the thought came to me that, wouldn't it be delightful > if someone were to call the offending station after one of these > episodes, demand to speak to the manager or chief engineer, and -- > pretending to be the Engineer-In-Charge from the nearest FCC field > office -- > And, if they didn't buy that ruse, the ... Years and years ago, someone called a local station and talked to the weekend announcer, who was relatively new at the station. The caller said something like "Hi, this is Joe. I'm up here at the transmitter site doing some work and we have to shut down the transmitter for a while. Could you go over to to the remote control and hit two lower. Thanks, I'll give you a call when I'm done." This was something like 2 AM. He wasn't the engineer, and never called back. Another caller did a good impersonation of the local newsman ("Peterson... ... ... ... and the news"). The caller said there was danger of the Pozo Dam breaking, but don't announce anything yet. Several calls were made. Luckily, nothing was ever broadcast, even though there IS no Pozo Dam. Finally, one Saturday morning, an emergency alert message came over the wire service (someone in Colorado had put the wrong Teletype punched paper tape in the reader). Stations did not know what to do. One station in Texas ripped open the envelope to check the message authenticator word. The envelope was empty. When Colorado realized the mistake, they immediately sent an emergency termination, BUT used the wrong authenticator word. Quite a mess. This was some time in the early 1970s. Harold Hallikainen ap621@Cleveland.Freenet.edu Hallikainen & Friends, Inc. hhallika@pan.calpoly.edu 141 Suburban Road, Bldg E4 phone 805 541 0200 fax 544 6715 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-7590 telex 4932775 HFI UI ------------------------------ From: floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) Subject: Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1991 11:14:26 GMT > [Moderator's Note: Have you ever been in northern Alaska? My friend > says it is positively eerie during parts of the winter when the sun is > up for only an hour or so each day ... popping up over the horizon for > awhile in the middle of the 'day', then dropping out of sight several > minutes later. Then finally it never shows up at all for a couple > months. And the reverse effect in the summer is also bizarre: There > will come a time in middle of the 'night' when twilight will arrive, > with bits of light lingering for several minutes, but never complete > darkness, then the rays of light will begin to shine again as morning > arrives. PAT] Sounds like winter in Barrow, but summer in Anchorage. Here in Fairbanks it is four hours of twilight in the winter, and the sun actually does go down, barely, in the summer but it doesn't get anywhere near dark. On June 21 they play a baseball game at midnight, with no artificial lighting. Daylight Savings Time is a joke. Every time there is an argument here about Daylight Savings Time, my stance is that we should just go on Eastern Time, period. In the summer it makes absolutely no difference at all, and in the winter the sun would be coming up in the afternoon about the time everyone is getting off work ... if you only have 4-5 hours of daylight it would be nice if most people could see it! Back to telecom: Sprint is coming to Alaska and has filed with the APUC for rates that are almost twice what Alascom and GCI are charging. And they are not asking for FGD equal access. Perhaps they are interested in hotels and tourists??? Floyd L. Davidson | Alascom, Inc. pays me, |UA Fairbanks Institute of Marine floyd@ims.alaska.edu| but not for opinions. |Science suffers me as a guest. ------------------------------ From: mongrel!amdunn@uunet.uu.net (Andrew M. Dunn) Subject: Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" Organization: A. Dunn Systems Corporation, Kitchener, Canada Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1991 16:00:13 GMT In article hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) writes: > Making system software deal with DST was fun. Our first > systems (about ten years ago) had a problem changing back to standard > time. They would change back to standard time at 2am, but then it was > 1am and not time to change yet, so it'd go back to DST. Each change > was printed, so we got lots and lots of changes logged. We finally > made the change based on the "unadjusted" or standard time. Software > is fun! And SCO Unix still has it wrong! SCO sent out a note about a month ago warning that the 'cron' facility in SCO UNIX (and some XENIX products, I think) was going to blow up as we came of DST this year. Their bug was that all cron tasks would get queued up to execute _twice_ once we went back to standard time. Apparently, SCO didn't fix it in time for this year's transition. It certainly happened on my system. The fix was easy (reboot it) but somewhat annoying. Folks have known about DST for many, many years and some of the software is still broken! Andy Dunn (amdunn@mongrel.uucp) ({uunet...}!xenitec!mongrel!amdunn) ------------------------------ From: Dennis Blyth Subject: Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" Date: 31 Oct 91 14:37:53 GMT Reply-To: Dennis Blyth Organization: NCR International - Europe Group, Dayton [previous reference that Hawaii does not change time] Neither does Indianapolis, Indiana. So during the summer time there they are one hour behind Cincinnati but now they are on the same hour as Cincinnati. Beware: different communities in Indiana do different things with time. 'Your mileage may vary'! :-) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Oct 91 16:18:40 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" In 1989, I heard that when the U.S. changed the start of Daylight time from last Sunday of April to first Sunday of April, Canada followed suit because there is so much commerce across U.S./Canada border. [Moderator's Note: Actually we did not have War Time at all until 1942 when President Roosevelt thought it would be a good idea. After WW-2 ended, President Truman thought it would be nice to keep it during the summer. As far as I am concerned, it is a silly exercise. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Nov 91 09:12:40 -0700 From: uunet!uucs1!gaf@lll-winken.llnl.gov Subject: Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" Organization: UUCS inc., Phoenix, Az > Making system software deal with DST was fun. Our first > systems (about ten years ago) had a problem changing back to standard > time. They would change back to standard time at 2 AM, but then it was > 1 AM and not time to change yet, so it'd go back to DST. Each change > was printed, so we got lots and lots of changes logged. We finally > made the change based on the "unadjusted" or standard time. Software > is fun! Here's another fun twist to dealing with DST: Try writing code for a system which frequently crosses time zones. Sometimes you cross from a daylight-savings zone to a standard-time zone. You might even cross between zones using different "spring ahead" values. What sort of beast is this? An alarm clock program which wakes up passengers on a cruise ship! The human-factors considerations are daunting indeed. When you set your alarm for 7:00 AM tomorrow morning, are you doing it thinking it will or won't take the zone change into account? It's even money you'll get it wrong, and we always had some passengers complaining that they'd missed breakfast because they had outwitted the alarm program. Guy Finney UUCS inc. Phoenix, Az ...!ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!uucs1!gaf ...!sun!sunburn!gtx!uucs1!gaf ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #873 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20964; 2 Nov 91 2:03 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14346 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 2 Nov 1991 00:12:11 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29573 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 2 Nov 1991 00:11:57 -0600 Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1991 00:11:57 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111020611.AA29573@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #874 TELECOM Digest Sat, 2 Nov 91 00:11:51 CST Volume 11 : Issue 874 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: US 0800 From UK [Graham Toal] Re: US 0800 From UK [Scott Dorsey] Re: Telcos Abuse Cheap Government Loans [Andrew Adler] Re: Telcos Abuse Cheap Government Loans [Tom Olin] Re: Telcos Abuse Cheap Government Loans [Michael F. Eastman] Re: Recording Should Say 'Zero', Not 'Oh' [S. E. Williams] Re: Recording Should Say 'Zero', Not 'Oh' [John Boteler] Re: Recording Should Say 'Zero', Not 'Oh' [Carl Moore] Re: Recording Should Say 'Zero', Not 'Oh' [Nick Sayer] Re: IBT ISDN Pricing [Nick Reid] Re: Station Message Detail Recorder [Harold Hallikainen] Re: Station Message Detail Recorder [Jeff Sicherman] Re: Station Message Detail Recorder [John Boteler] Re: Administrivia: Today We Fall Behind [Mark Cheeseman] Re: Radio Station DJ's Making Dubious Calls [Harold Hallikainen] Re: Block Block Blocking in CID? [John McHarry] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gtoal@gem.stack.urc.tue.nl (Graham Toal) Subject: Re: US 0800 From UK Date: 30 Oct 91 23:28:53 GMT Reply-To: gtoal@stack.urc.tue.nl Organization: MCGV Stack @ EUT, Eindhoven, the Netherlands In article TELECOM Moderator notes: > [Moderator's Note: I don't think he was talking about USA Direct > service as you imply. I think he was trying to reach 800 numbers in > the USA. Note in his message he wondered if he could have the card > without ever actually putting charges on it. Anyone would realize > there would be a charge to call the USA from the UK. Anyone except me that is, he says rather sheepishly. Yes, I did think the 800 call would be free from end to end! What a chump, eh? The service I was referring to wasn't the BT call-home or whatever; it was a standard AT&T credit card. You call an 0800 (correct!) number in Britain which connects you to an AT&T operator in the US. From there you can call whoever you like, including 800 numbers if you wish. Fortunately the AT&T information pack makes it very clear that you do pay the transatlantic rate for those calls, so between them and PAT I'll avoid running up embarrasing bills! (Thanks, BTW) AT&T also offer a translation service online if you're in a fix abroad; no hint of the charge scale though. Calls on the AT&T card are charged directly to VISA, Mastercard, or Amex. Interestingly, the UK application form doesn't mention Amex, although the the US-printed info sheet does. I added a new "[] Amex" part to their form :-) (hope the AT&T penpushers(*) can hack it!) Graham ------------------------------ From: kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov ( Scott Dorsey) Subject: Re: US 0800 From UK Organization: NASA Langley Research Center Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1991 14:24:15 GMT > [Moderator's Note: Actually, we call them '800' numbers rather than > '0800' and you *will* pay for the call between the UK and the USA. It > is only the second part of the connection -- from Pittsburgh in the > USA to the place where the 800 subscriber is located that you will get > without charge -- and then, only if the subscriber uses AT&T 800 ... This implies that a number which is set up for zone 1 WATS service in Pennsylvania, meaning that it can be called only from within PA, could also be called from Britain, even if not from New Jersey, say. (Pardon if my terminology is incorrect). This is interesting. If I need to call a number which is not accessible from my calling area, but is callable from Pittsburgh, could I call a friend in London and have him forward me? [Moderator's Note: I think the IOC operators in Pittsburgh can override the 'zone' parameters, but I am not sure. They *cannot* override the requirement that the 800 number be serviced by AT&T. So I suppose if the in-state PA place was served by AT&T then you could spend a few dollars to call the UK; have that person spend a few dollars to call back to the USA and save yourself a few cents by not calling the regular 412/215 version of the number. I cannot vouch for the quality of the transmission with a trip over and back across the ocean plus the patched-in connection via Pittsburgh. Why not just be a good sport and call the number you are authorized to call from your location instead? PAT] ------------------------------ From: andrew@coplex.com (Andrew Adler) Subject: Re: Telcos Abuse Cheap Government Loans Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc. Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1991 03:54:37 GMT The report you mention was on this past Sunday's (10/27) edition of "60 Minutes." My cockles were raised as well. :-) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Oct 91 11:52:03 EST From: adiron!tro@uunet.UU.NET (Tom Olin) Subject: Re: Telcos Abuse Cheap Government Loans In article woodcock@utdallas.edu (Gregg E. Woodcock) writes: I was watching some news show last night (Oct 27) ... 60 Minutes. ... and they were talking about a government office called the RTA ... REA - Rural Electrification Administration. And, yes, the report was rather troubling. Tom Olin tro@partech.com uunet!adiron!tro (315) 738-0600 Ext 638 PAR Technology Corporation * 220 Seneca Turnpike * New Hartford NY 13413-1191 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Oct 91 12:32:38 EST From: mfe@ihlpy.att.com (Michael F Eastman) Subject: Re: Telcos Abuse Cheap Government Loans Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article , woodcock@utdallas.edu (Gregg E. Woodcock) writes: > I was watching some news show last night (Oct 27) and they were > talking about a government office called the RTA (I think that may not > be exactly right) that was created by FDR back in 1920/30's to help That is the REA, the Rural Electrification Administration. Mike Eastman att!ihlpy!mfe (708) 979-6569 AT&T Bell Laboratories Rm. 4F-328 Naperville, IL 60566 [Moderator's Note: One major job of the REA was to provide telephone service during the 1930's to rural areas because AT&T wanted to do exactly what they accused their competitors of doing ten years ago: skim the cream. President Roosevelt was not a big fan of AT&T; he wanted to see them chopped into little pieces way back then. And then in the 1950-60 period, when the rural, tiny little telephone cooperative societies got their mortgage paid off, guess who was eager to go in and buy them out, exerting all sorts of pressure as needed to do so ... PAT] ------------------------------ From: sew7490@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.E. Williams ) Subject: Re: Recording Should Say 'Zero', Not 'Oh' Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology Date: Thu, 31 Oct 91 03:39:30 GMT In article jmason2@utcs.utoronto.ca (Jamie Mason) writes: > I can't find a Bell recording that says "oh" rather than > "zero" in my (very shallow) search. What kinds of recordings are more > likely to say "oh" than "zero"? I have noticed that Bell's CLASS features recordings use zero, while the intercept recordings use "oh". Directory Assistance seems to always use the 'hundred' 'thousand' (etc) method. Sean E. Williams (sew7490@ultb.isc.rit.edu) Rochester Institute of Technology - Telecommunications Technology (ITFT) ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Recording Should Say 'Zero', Not 'Oh' Date: Thu, 31 Oct 91 1:45:23 EST From: John Boteler The intercept recordings comprised of the sniglets of Jane Barbe's incomparable speech say 'Oh' instead of 'Zero'. She was just following orders. Does anybody have her phone number? I sure would like to get her voice before it's too late. John Boteler bote@csense {uunet | ka3ovk}!media!csense!bote SkinnyDipper's Hotline: 703 241 BARE | VOICE only, Touch-Tone(TM) signalling ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Oct 91 16:22:37 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Recording Should Say 'Zero', Not 'Oh' Well, phone-company references no longer use letters as part of a phone number (you only see letters as part of phone numbers in advertisements), so when one of their recordings says "oh", there is no confusion with the letter -- "zero" is understood instead. ------------------------------ From: mrapple@quack.sac.ca.us (Nick Sayer) Subject: Re: Recording Should Say 'Zero', Not 'Oh' Organization: The Duck Pond public unix, Stockton, CA Date: 1 Nov 1991 05:32:20 UTC jmason2@utcs.utoronto.ca (Jamie Mason) writes: > I can't find a Bell recording that says "oh" rather than > "zero" in my (very shallow) search. What kinds of recordings are more > likely to say "oh" than "zero"? Just call 209-952-5347: "The number you have reached, nine-five-two-five-three-four-seven, has been changed. The new number is area code four-oh-eight-two- four-nine-nine-six-three-oh...." If you're wondering, 408-249-9630 is the number of The Duck Pond public unix, which just moved (my unix box). Nick Sayer mrapple@quack.sac.ca.us N6QQQ @ K3MC +1 408 249 9630 (modem) ------------------------------ From: reidn@jacobs.cs.orst.edu (Nick Reid) Subject: Re: IBT ISDN Pricing Organization: Oregon State University, CS Dept. Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1991 21:35:12 GMT In article dickz@pain.UUCP (Richard Zuccarini) writes: > rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) writes: >> David, I must admit I would like to be able to complain about GTE >> California screwing me on ISDN, but I can't. Why? Because ALL of the >> people there that I talked to couldn't even spell ISDN, nor did they >> even know what it was. I sympathize with your plight, but at least > At least you found someone that knew what it was. The RBOC's have a > big training job on their hands. I have been trying to get > residential ISDN for several weeks. I live right on a major You are lucky. An associate of mine in London was invited by British Telecom to an ISDN launch in August 1990 -- finger food and jocularity in profusion. He put his name down for a sales representative to call him in the next few weeks. By January this year he had still not heard from them, so called. The Sales Department knew nothing of ISDN. He eventually found the department responsible for the launch. "What happened to the ISDN sales rep?" "ISDN?, !! How do you know about ISDN??" "Your department invited me to a launch last August." "Oh - er - well, um - er - that was all a bit - um - er - a bit - ah - premature." ('S'truth, 100% verbatim #|) ------------------------------ From: hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Re: Station Message Detail Recorder Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1991 21:37:59 GMT Our long distance carrier uses a Mitel Smart-1 dialer to route our calls into their 950 number, send our account number and destination number. This two line dialer has an RS232 port for programming, cascading dialers, and Call Detail Recording. The CDR includes the date, time, duration, number, call completion (yes/no), speed dial (yes/no), trunk number used, route number used, account number, and system ID for each call. This may meet your needs as an SMDR. Harold Hallikainen ap621@Cleveland.Freenet.edu Hallikainen & Friends, Inc. hhallika@pan.calpoly.edu 141 Suburban Road, Bldg E4 phone 805 541 0200 fax 544 6715 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-7590 telex 4932775 HFI UI ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 23:28:32 -0800 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: Re: Station Message Detail Recorder Organization: Cal State Long Beach In article cadizht@csgrad.cs.vt.edu writes: > In article john@mojave.ati.com (John > Higdon) writes: >> .... when one talks about SMDR he is usually referring to a normal >> function of a PBX. > This is also how I understand it. However I don't have the money > for a PBX. I do have an ordinary computer and an ordinary phone. Can > one get SMDR or something equivalent to its functionality without > getting a PBX? What can I attach to my ordinary phone so that my > ordinary computer can have the functionality of an SMDR? Radio Shack has/had a device, # 43-152 that hooked into the line and PRINTED the incoming and outgoing call traffic: date-time, length of call, number dialed (outgoing), daily summaries, etc. I have no idea if it could be modified to send the data though. I haven't seen them on display lately or in the latest catalog I have so probably discontinued. You might call around to stores near you and look for clearance stores to see if one still has them in stock. Perhaps someone on the net has one s/he doesnt want anymore. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Station Message Detail Recorder Date: Thu, 31 Oct 91 1:56:00 EST From: John Boteler Horacio T. Cadiz asks how to implement SMDR functionality without buying a PBX. (Good question.) One answer is the Radio $hack unit which prints out the offhook time and phone number dialed, then the onhook time on calculator-sized paper. Just plug it into your telephone line. It may be discontinued by now knowing Radio Shack, but if you find one at a store or a hamfest it might be worth your while. John Boteler bote@csense {uunet | ka3ovk}!media!csense!bote SkinnyDipper's Hotline: 703 241 BARE | VOICE only, Touch-Tone(TM) signalling ------------------------------ From: Mark Cheeseman Subject: Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" Organization: Your Computer Magazine, Sydney, Australia Date: Fri, 1 Nov 91 09:49:39 GMT On the subject of daylight saving time cut-over dates, I thought it interesting that we in Australia started daylight saving on the same weekend as the US finished. At least, that is, those states that actually have it. Western Australia won't have it without a referendum, Tasmania is starting a bit later than the rest of us, and Queensland is trying it out on a trial basis to see if it really *does* fade the curtains (sorry, bit of an in-joke there). Mark Cheeseman VK2XGK ACSnet: ycomputr@runxtsa.runx.oz.au Technical Editor Fido: 3:712/505.15@fidonet.org Your Computer Magazine Packet: VK2XGK@VK2OP Sydney, Australia Phone: +61 2 693 4143 Fax:+61 2 693 9720 ------------------------------ From: hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1991 22:23:40 GMT In article bei@dogface.austin.tx.us (Bob Izenberg) writes: > How about increasing the station's public affairs > requirement, and requiring that it be done during waking hours > instead of buried on Sunday mornings? The trend has been to extend First Amendment rights to the electronic media, which keeps the government out of programming decisions. Instead of having the governement tell stations what to program for the public (because it's good for them), they're letting the public decide what to watch or listen to. This is a sort of economic democracy where people vote with their tuning dials. As the "print model" is extended further to broadcast, I think the industry will have a difficult time defending the lack of spectrum fees. So far, they have argued that the public service commitment should exempt them from such fees, though people are fully willing to pay such fees to purchase an existing license or construction permit (here, the fee goes to the previous owner, instead of the government). I think eventually we'll have 20 ro 25 year leases on spectrum open to competitive bid. Harold Hallikainen ap621@Cleveland.Freenet.edu Hallikainen & Friends, Inc. hhallika@pan.calpoly.edu 141 Suburban Road, Bldg E4 phone 805 541 0200 fax 544 6715 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-7590 telex 4932775 HFI UI ------------------------------ From: m21198%mwunix@linus.mitre.org (John McHarry) Subject: Re: Block Block Blocking in CID? Organization: The MITRE Corporation Date: 31 Oct 91 12:39:27 GMT johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes: > (I realize that nobody passes long distance C-ID now, but they will > in the next year or so.) Really? The last I knew the problems with this were not technical so much as financial. How much, if anything, is the LEC going to pay the IXC for the information? Or will they charge less for incoming trunks that provide it? John McHarry (McHarry@MITRE.org) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #874 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02471; 2 Nov 91 12:30 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13444 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 2 Nov 1991 10:38:09 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15865 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 2 Nov 1991 10:37:59 -0600 Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1991 10:37:59 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111021637.AA15865@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #875 TELECOM Digest Sat, 2 Nov 91 10:37:44 CST Volume 11 : Issue 875 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: SWB "Modem Tax" Tariff: This Time Its For Real! [Sander J. Rabinowitz] Re: Pending "Modem Tax" in Portland, OR [Michael P. Deignan) Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card [John Higdon] Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card [Robert J. Woodhead] Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card [Patton M. Turner] Re: Color Codes on Cable [Larry Rachman] Re: Speaking About Telco Security [Larry Rachman] Re: Oakland Fire Question [Sharon Lynne Fisher] Re: Information on E-Mail For U.S. Friend [Lars Poulsen] Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" [Nick Reid] Re: Sexist Mnemonics [Damon Schaefer] Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy [Stewart Clamen] Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy [Roy Smith] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 30 Oct 91 13:05 GMT From: "Sander J. Rabinowitz" <0003829147@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: SWB "Modem Tax" Tariff: This Time Its For Real! On 24th October, I wrote: >> [...] So do some >> of the latest custom-calling services such as "Repeat Dialing" (so you >> can reach a busy BBS), "Call Waiting" or "Memory Call"* (so you won't >> miss any calls while you're on the modem), or "Caller ID" (of use, it >> seems, to the sysops). The reply from Duncan A. MacGregor: > Ouch. From previous articles in this newsgroup, as well as other sources, > I know that you do NOT want to have "Call Waiting" supported on a line used > by a modem. If a call-waiting signal occurs while the modem is operating, > the line will be hung up (by either the modem or the telephone system > itself) and the connection ended. Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned it as a modem feature, but I have actually used it with a modem. It depends on how important is the call I'm expecting. If I'm not expecting anything important, I might append my calls with *70 to turn it off. If I *am* expecting a call, but I want to use the modem anyway, I'll leave it on. Then when the line disconnects, that's fine -- even desirable in this instance. Sander J. Rabinowitz sjr@mcimail.com -or- 0003829147@mcimail.com +1 615 661 4645 Brentwood, Tenn. ------------------------------ From: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) Subject: Re: Pending "Modem Tax" in Portland, OR Organization: Small Business Systems, Incorporated, Esmond, RI 02917 Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1991 13:52:54 GMT hpubvwa!tad@ssc.wa.com (Tad Cook) writes: > What happened was that US West is telling a commercial BBS that > charges users for access that they cannot do this on lines that are > billed residential rates. I support this policy of the Baby Bells. There are many local "hobbiest" BBS's here which charge upwards of $100+ per year for "access" to message bases and shareware files. Not that I dislike such a policy, but don't try to hide it under the guise of being a "hobby". Whenever you log into this particular system, you're deludged with messages of how it cost $x thousands for the seven new 9600 baud modems, another $y thousand for those new 386sx motherboards, ad naeseaum. The Sysop is constantly "reminding" people that his chequebook is "$5,000 in the red". Michael P. Deignan Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card Date: 31 Oct 91 11:18:36 PST (Thu) From: john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) Jack Decker writes: > John ... the offices I am talking about are STEP-BY-STEP offices > operated by independent telephone companies. I don't know why you > seem to think that you are always right and everyone else is wrong, > but I don't need a switchman to tell me that a step-by-step office on > a little independent phone company that is barely capable (some would > say "incapable") of providing reliable local exchange service is NOT > FGD capable. Jack ... facts are facts. There is no right or wrong about it. Facts are verifiable and confirmable. I am not always right, but in this case my facts happen to be correct. Why? Any office, including the most vile, disgusting, incapable, primative, rural, backwoods XY can hand ANY (and I mean ANY) call off to a FGD-capable tandem. And this is precisely how any call you make to an OCC 800 number would have to be completed. This also applies to 950. Now if the office can hand those calls off, please explain to me why it cannot hand off 10XXX calls, etc., to that same tandem? > There are lots of us who never make international calls, or who don't > mind a small amount of added noise to save up to 30% on an > international call. Granted that if you're pushing data across > international boundaries to some remote country, this might be a major > consideration, but relatively few of us are in that situation. Let me turn this around. You have repeatedly accused me of parochialism in my Pac*Bell orientation, so what makes you think that just because YOU have no need for decent international service (and yes, I do push high speed data to Japan) that some of the rest of us might not be so small-time? Some of us do more than call Aunt Edna every week. >> 2. Reliably connect you with virtually any internal technical >> department in almost any telco in the nation; > Why do you need this capability? YOU might, but again, this just > isn't a major consideration for MOST folks. In any situation where one has multiple offices around the country, or is involved with WANs, or has a multipoint distribution requirement, the ability to reach distant repair services is a gawdsend. Once again, I turn it around: just because your requirements are so light that you have never found this necessary is no reason to decree that it does not constitute a valid benchmark for carrier satisfaction. And I have a problem with your term "MOST folks". One of the major causes for the decline of goods and services in this country is the concept of marketing to the lowest common denominator. If it is mass-marketable, then fine. If it is vertical, then scrap it. AT&T is the ONLY FULL-SERVICE long distance company in the country. Yes, the OCCs can fill the needs of MOST of the people MOST of the time. So does Chevrolet. But do you fault Mercedes for selling expensive cars just because YOU find no need for one? If your requirements are thin enough, then use the weeniest carrier that can fulfill them. You MIGHT even save some money (if your time is not worth anything). But please do not fault AT&T for continuing to provide its vast assortment of excellent services just because you do not need any of them. Some of us are willing to pay a little more to get a lot more. John Higdon (hiding out in the desert) ------------------------------ From: trebor@foretune.co.jp (Robert J Woodhead) Subject: Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1991 01:58:52 GMT Jack@myamiga.mixcom.com (Jack Decker) writes: > In a message dated 26 Oct 91 23:38:28 GMT, john@mojave.ati.com (John > Higdon) writes: >> AT&T is STILL the only long distance company in the country that can: >> 1. Provide the finest sounding international connections; > There are lots of us who never make international calls, or who don't > mind a small amount of added noise to save up to 30% on an > international call. Just as an outside point of reference, living here in Japan I have been on the recieving end of many international phone calls, carried by most of the carriers. Without exception, when someone in the USA calls me, the line has detectable noise; when the connection is via Comsat, I just sit back and listen to the bouncing AT&T "Death Star" echo. There seems to be little or no difference between AT&T and other carriers. On the other hand, when I call the USA, using IDC, one of Japan's "OCCs", the link is 100% digital all the way and you can hear a grain of rice drop. I often call companies in the USA and start off with "Call from Japan for Ms. Z" in order to avoid the dread "Can you hold?" More than once, the receptionist has refused to believe me because of the quality of the connection. IDC also lets you connect to them two ways; 0061 + number is the normal one, and 0062 + number results in a post-call callback that tells you the number you dialed, the length of the call, and the cost. They also give you a nice bill at the end of the month (which you can direct pay, or pay off at any convenience store) and they have never, ever made a mistake in my experience. Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Oct 91 11:26:52 CST From: Patton M. Turner Subject: Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card Jack Decker writes: > The other thing that could make a big difference along these lines is > if the FCC were to amend their rules to allow MORE that two cellular > providers to serve any given area. It would require more than a rulemaking, I think the current cellular carriers get about 5 Mhz apiece. This bandwidth would have to come from somewhere near the current cellular bands. Additionally, the cellular phone currently in use are designed for only two carriers. While some might accept a firmware upgrade, the RF stages might not be as forgiving. Patton Turner pturner@eng.auburn.edu KB4GRZ @ K4RY.AL.USA.NOAM ------------------------------ Date: 30 Oct 91 08:46:18 EST From: Larry Rachman <74066.2004@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Color Codes on Cable From an old issue of {QST}: Better be right, or your great big venture goes west! Clean, but its the only time I've ever come across the expression "going west" in this context. Larry Rachman, WA2BUX Reply to 1644801@mcimail.com ------------------------------ Date: 30 Oct 91 08:46:35 EST From: Larry Rachman <74066.2004@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Speaking About Telco Security When I called to disconnect one of my lines the other day, the representative was glad to take my order, without asking for the password. I commented "Isn't this account supposed to be password protected?" I heard a few key clicks, and then she said "Oh, you mean ? We don't use those any more, because they only come up on the first page, and sometimes we pull up the records beginning on other pages. If you'd like, you can give me a three-digit code number, and that will work for all the pages." Well, of course I took her up on the offer, but I wonder just how secure it really is. Also, it seems you could really foul up somebody who didn't have a password or code by getting him one that only you knew, before doing your dastardly deeds. Larry Rachman, WA2BUX Reply to 1644801@mcimail.com ------------------------------ From: well!slf@well.sf.ca.us (Sharon Lynne Fisher) Subject: Re: Oakland Fire Question Date: 30 Oct 91 16:04:13 GMT Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA When I called a friend whose home had been destroyed, I got a busy signal. [Moderator's Note: This was in all probability due to the fire having melted the insulation on the wires, allowing them to touch each other and short the line -- essentially a receiver off-hook. PAT] ------------------------------ From: lars@spectrum.cmc.com (Lars Poulsen) Subject: Re: Information on E-Mail For U.S. Friend Organization: CMC (a Rockwell Company), Santa Barbara, California, USA Date: Wed, 30 Oct 91 18:01:54 GMT In article , Patrick writes in response to davidra%dionysos.thphys@prg.oxford.ac.uk (davidra): > For the 'academic connection', MCI Mail and AT&T Mail are really where > its at. ... Sprintmail is another one you should consider (703-689-6000); > it also exchanges mail with the Internet. > Electronic services not specifically intended for email but > with email connections to the Internet include Compuserve and Portal > Communications of San Jose, CA. You should also investigate the many > public access Unix machines around the USA, such as Chinet,to name one > I am familiar with. PAT] In the last year or so, several of the mid-level network operators in the NSFnet conglomerate have "gone commercial". As a result, you can now get accounts on mailhosts with full Internet connectivity at competitive rates. PSI (New England based, but with POPs on the left coast, too) and UUNET (available nationwide through their ALTERnet service) are the largest. Our local mid-level is CERFnet, and they too now allow commercial access. Since I have a current rate sheet on my desk, these are the prices I will quote, but PSI is probably cheaper, because they have specific "hobbyist rates" under service names such as "After Dark". CERFnet is a non-profit, whose purpose is "to advance research and education ... by assisting in the interchange of information among research, educational and commercial institutions ...". They have applied a very liberal interpretation to this purpose. The rates are: One time installation fee per organization: $250 (waived thru the end of 1991) Monthly fee per userid: $20 Connect time per hour: $5 19.2 kbps SLIP lines are available for $250/month flat rate POP's in San Diego, Pasadena, Irvine, Los Angeles and Oakland. Since the mailhost carries a full USENET news feed, this is quite competitive with CompuServe or the "new ATTmail" rates. Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer CMC Rockwell lars@CMC.COM [Moderator's Note: Did you ever get the feeling that within the next two or three years, Internet will be the default standard for email? That is, any email service worth anything will use Internet for connections to the others. The question asked of any service before signing up should be do they have Internet access. PAT] ------------------------------ From: reidn@jacobs.cs.orst.edu (Nick Reid) Subject: Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" Organization: Oregon State University, CS Dept. Date: Sat, 02 Nov 1991 11:03:49 GMT In article cmoore@BRL.MIL (VLD/VMB) writes: > In 1989, I heard that when the U.S. changed the start of Daylight time . And the Moderator noted: > [Moderator's Note: Actually we did not have War Time at all until 1942 > As far as I am concerned, it is a silly exercise. PAT] So thought the Japanese, who had it forced on them at the end of the war. So they got rid of it a.s.a.p. However, they have now calculated that because of the shift of commuting to work from dark to daylight hours that would follow its re-introduction they would save up to 3% of their national fuel expenditure by having it back. Times change (all senses). I grew up where/when it was in effect all year around (in fact, as well as in "ah, childhood: always summer!" #|) ------------------------------ From: damon@hp-vcd.vcd.hp.com (Damon Schaefer) Subject: Re: Sexist Mnemonics Date: 1 Nov 91 01:59:39 GMT Organization: Hewlett Packard, Vancouver, WA > ... as awful as the code is, given our present sensibilities, ... Oh gawd! Save us from politically correct mnemonics! ------------------------------ From: clamen@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen) Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy Date: Wed, 30 Oct 91 18:33:56 GMT Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University Here's a $1000 clue: This area code spans the largest north-south distance. Stewart M. Clamen Internet: clamen@cs.cmu.edu School of Computer Science UUCP: uunet!"clamen@cs.cmu.edu" Carnegie Mellon University Phone: +1 412 268 2145 5000 Forbes Avenue Fax: +1 412 268 1793 Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890, USA ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Oct 91 10:53:33 EST From: Roy Smith Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy Organization: Public Health Research Institute (New York) In article Henry wrote: > It's true ... tonight, on the game show _Jeopardy_, there was a > category called "area codes." They would present a clue ... "The > east side's up and the battery's down ... and they're both in this > area code". The contestant had to reply "What is 212?" Was that really the clue, verbatim? If so, it's wrong! It's not the "east side" that's up, it's The Bronx. The proper quote (from some old Broadway show tune, I think) is: The Bronx is up, and The Battery's down. The people ride in a hole in the ground. New York, New Yo-o-o-ork... It's a heck (hell?) of a town! In any case, if I've been following the upcoming area code splits properly, that's not going to be true much longer. roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016, USA ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #875 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04447; 2 Nov 91 14:50 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17701 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 2 Nov 1991 11:53:32 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23799 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 2 Nov 1991 11:53:20 -0600 Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1991 11:53:20 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111021753.AA23799@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #876 TELECOM Digest Sat, 2 Nov 91 11:53:19 CST Volume 11 : Issue 876 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Prodigy's Latest Fiasco [Jack Decker] Re: Sprint FONCARD vrs. AT&T Calling Card [Jack Decker] Re: Telegraph Fire Alerting Systems [brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu ] Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? [Kath Mullholand] Re: Registration/Test by Phone on Campus [Scott Hinckley] Re: Voice Mail Cracking and alt.dcom.telecom [John R. Levine] Re: Can Telco Provide LD Access Line Only? [Harold Hallikainen] Re: Can Telco Provide LD Access Line Only? [brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 30 Oct 91 18:56:25 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: Prodigy's Latest Fiasco In a message dated 25 Oct 91 18:41:12 GMT, larry@world.std.com (Larry Appleman) wrote: > Here is the text of Prodigy's press release responding to the recent > controversy about anti-Semitic messages: > "PRODIGY DID NOT PUBLISH OFFENSIVE MESSAGE CITED BY MEDIA; > AFFIRMS STANDARDS AND FREE EXPRESSION ON BULLETIN BOARDS I'm not sure how appropriate this topic is to comp.dcom.telecom, but since the Prodigy press release was printed, I thought that perhaps readers might be interested in an opposing viewpoint that was published in FidoNews Vol. 8 No. 43 (28 October 1991). Fidonews is "The newsletter of the FidoNet BBS community." My apologies to the Moderator if someone else has submitted this already. (Please note, I neither endorse nor condemn the following article, I am only sending it because it might be of interest to those who saw the original message. I will say up front that there are portions of this article that I disagree with, but will withhold comment for now.) PRODIGY STUMBLES AS A FORUM ... AGAIN By Mike Godwin/EFF On some days, Prodigy representatives tell us they're running "the Disney Channel of online services." On other days the service is touted as a forum for "the free expression of ideas." But management has missed the conflict between these two missions. And it is just this unperceived conflict that has led the B'nai B'rith's Anti-Defamation League to launch a protest against the online service ... On one level, the controversy stems from Prodigy's decision to censor messages responding to claims that, among other things, the Holocaust never took place. These messages -- which included such statements as "Hitler had some valid points" and that "wherever Jews exercise influence and power, misery, warfare and economic exploitation ... follow" -- were the sort likely to stir up indignant responses among Jews and non-Jews alike. But some Prodigy members have complained to the ADL that when they tried to respond to both the overt content of these messages and their implicit anti-Semitism, their responses were rejected by Prodigy's staff of censors. The rationale for the censorship? Prodigy has a policy of barring messages directed at other members, but allows messages that condemn a group. The result of this policy, mechanically applied, is that one member can post a message saying that "pogroms, 'persecutions,' and the mythical holocaust" are things that Jews "so very richly deserve" (this was an actual message). But another member might be barred from posting some like "Member A's comments are viciously anti-Semitic." It is no wonder that the Anti-Defamation League is upset at what looks very much like unequal treatment. But the problem exposed by this controversy is broader than simply a badly crafted policy. The problem is that Prodigy, while insisting on its Disney Channel metaphor, also gives lip service to the notion of a public forum. Henry Heilbrunn, a senior vice president of Prodigy, refers in the {Wall Street Journal} to the service's "policy of free expression," while Bruce Thurlby, Prodigy's manager of editorial business and operations, invokes in a letter to ADL "the right of individuals to express opinions that are contrary to personal standards or individual beliefs." Yet it is impossible for any free-expression policy to explain both the allowing of those anti-Semitic postings and the barring of responses to those postings from outraged and offended members. Historically, this country has embraced the principle that best cure for offensive or disturbing speech is more speech. No regime of censorship -- even of the most neutral and well-meaning kind -- can avoid the kind of result that appears in this case: some people get to speak while others get no chance to reply. So long as a board of censors is in place, Prodigy is no public forum. Thus, the service is left in a double bind. If Prodigy really means to be taken as a computer-network version of "the Disney Channel" -- with all the content control that this metaphor implies -- then it's taking responsibility for (and, to some members, even seeming to endorse) the anti-Semitic messages that were posted. On the other hand, if Prodigy really regards itself as a forum for free expression, it has no business refusing to allow members to respond to what they saw as lies, distortions, and hate. A true free-speech forum would allow not only the original messages but also the responses to them. So, what's the fix for Prodigy? The answer may lie in replacing the service's censors with a system of "conference hosts" of the sort one sees on CompuServe or on the WELL. As WELL manager Cliff Figallo conceives of his service, the management is like an apartment manager who normally allows tenants to do what they want, but who steps in if they do something outrageously disruptive. Hosts on the WELL normally steer discussions rather than censoring them, and merely offensive speech is almost never censored. But even if Prodigy doesn't adopt a "conference host" system, it ultimately will satisfy its members better if it does allow a true forum for free expression. And the service may be moving in that direction already: Heilbrunn is quoted in the Wall Street Journal as saying that Prodigy has been loosening its content restrictions over the past month. Good news, but not good enough -- merely easing some content restrictions is likely to be no more successful at solving Prodigy's problems than Gorbachev's easing market restrictions was at solving the Soviet Union's problems. The best solution is to allow what Oliver Wendell Holmes called "the marketplace of ideas" to flourish -- to get out of the censorship business. Jack Decker : jack@myamiga.mixcom.com : FidoNet 1:154/8 ------------------------------ From: Jack Decker Subject: Sprint FONCARD vrs. AT&T Calling Card Date: Sat 02 Nov 1991 [Moderator's Note: Unfortunatly, the first part of this message got trashed in transit to me. He is discussing the surcharges levied on calling card use. Here is the portion I received. PAT] > calling card, etc.) without a surcharge. Why? Because that is the way > AT&T has always done it? If you recall, the historical reason for a > surcharge was that such calls required operator assistance. That is no > longer the case, and yet AT&T and all the rest still tack on that > ridiculous charge. Why hasn't Sprint or MCI scooped AT&T on this? Now on this one you have a VERY valid point. I have wondered this many times myself. What really gets me is that some carriers will offer "950-" access to customers in non-equal-access exchanges with no per-call surcharge, but then turn around and use the same "950-" number for their "calling card" service and tack a surcharge on every call. You are absolutely correct in saying that there is no valid justification for this. Some carriers (I believe that ITT/Metromedia is one, along with some of the smaller independent carriers) DO offer a no-surcharge calling card but you have to be careful because their per-minute rates may be substantially higher (I don't think ITT/Metromedia has exorbitantly higher rates, though). > A final point: if you are so concerned about monopolies, you need look > no further than your local telco. The FCC, the congress, and the courts > seem hell-bent on giving telcos more and more power and influence over > your life. They are now permitted to provide information and video > services in addition to local dial tone. And just how do you think that > they will finance these ventures? Hint: by draining those people > served by the only monopoly left -- local exchange service. Just look > what is happening in California. Agreed again. I am hoping that at very least congress and the FCC will realize that turnabout is fair play, and give the cable TV companies the right to offer local exchange service. At least then you'd have a duopoly situation, which is still a far cry from open competition but at least there would be a choice. I'd really prefer to see some sort of openly competitive enviroment at the local exchange level, and I do think it is coming, but not nearly as quickly as I'd like to see it happen. The other thing that could make a big difference along these lines is if the FCC were to amend their rules to allow MORE that two cellular providers to serve any given area, in effect throwing the cellular market wide open to competition. If this were to happen, I suspect that cellular companies would start offering some service options that would make them VERY competitive with the local exchange carriers. This is something that the federal government could do without regard to state regulators, so if the telephone companies think that their monopoly on local exchange service is eternally assured, they may be deluding themselves. Jack Decker : jack@myamiga.mixcom.com : FidoNet 1:154/8 ------------------------------ From: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack) Subject: Re: Telegraph Fire Alerting Systems Date: 31 Oct 91 01:38:52 GMT The Toledo Fire Dept. uses/used much the same system, but the boxes were more complex. They provided for five or six categories of emergency and a test feature. Question 1: Would seperate lines be used for each type of alarm? Question 2: I once saw one of these boxes on the side of a fire station. Any clue as to why? Steve [Moderator's Note: Haven't you ever heard of fire stations catching on fire while the firemen were away at a fire somewhere else? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1991 9:12:52 -0500 (EST) From: K_MULLHOLAND@UNHH.UNH.EDU (KATH MULLHOLAND) Subject: Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? A few weeks ago, I was asked to investigate how to report obscene phone calls for action by TPC. This is the information I was given by New England Telephone, for New Hampshire, to give out to a customer of mine who made the request for information. I suppose the policies could vary from BOC to BOC. ACTION FOR HARASSING PHONE CALLS Step One: Report to police. TPC will do nothing until a police report has been filed. Step Two: Call New England Telephone residence office and request a trap on the line. (The subscriber must do this, not the police. The representative implied that this was due to privacy laws. I was glad to hear that the police couldn't request a tap on my line.) Step Three:The subscriber will be required to sign a release form authorizing release of any information found to authorities. Information will be released **to the police** and *not* to the subscriber. Chances are good the subscriber will not ever see the information that is obtained. The rep stressed that once the release is signed, it is TPC's choice to prosecute, not the subscriber. If it is found that the person making the calls is "Aunt Joan" or "Nephew Tom" the subscriber cannot decide not to prosecute. The rep said that in her experience, the caller will be someone known to the subscriber at least 75% of the time. She also said that TPC understands the feelings of the subscriber who is getting such calls, and wants subscribers to know that they take these things very seriously, but they have priorities which they follow to determine which requests for traps will be done first. In order, they are: Bomb threats, Kidnapping, Threat to Life and Limb, Obscene, Annoying (Calling and hanging up, etc.) The phone company can only place a discrete number of traps in any given CO. The subscriber may get put off for a couple of days due to these other priorities. Kath Mullholand University of NH, Durham, NH ------------------------------ From: scott@hsvaic.boeing.com (Scott Hinckley) Subject: Re: Registration/Test by Phone on Campus Date: 31 Oct 91 14:17:38 GMT Reply-To: scott@hsvaic.boeing.com In hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) writes: > various purposes (I'm on one now). They also have terminals all over > campus and in the library (the various catalogs are on line). All > this in place equipment could also handle student registration. It > could also put the catalog and class schedule on line. A student > would list the classes she/he wants, see a display of when each one is > available and choose the appropriate section. Class conflicts would > show up immediately. The student's class schedule could show up in a > "calendar" format with the class times boxed in. If the student > selects a conflicting class section, she/he would have the opportunity > to modify the previously selected class or the currently selected one > to resolve the conflict. This is almost an exact description of the system used at the Georgia Institute of Technology. In addition, their system will allow you do do things such as: 1) List all Math courses of a certain level that fit your schedule 2) Check for prerequisites 3) check for permissions for overloads/special classes on an individual student basis AND MUCH MUCH MORE! (only $19.95 and we'll throw in these knives...) It is far superior to the mail in your schedule request and wait to see what you get method they use here at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. It also had the advantage of accessibility no moatter where you were located (all you needed was computer, modem, tty or better emulation, phone line). Scott Hinckley scott@hsvaic.boeing.com ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Voice Mail Cracking and alt.dcom.telecom Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 31 Oct 91 11:37:53 EST (Thu) From: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) In article is written: > Some person (he shall remain nameless) put out a post on > alt.dcom.telecom and misc.consumers about wanting to crack voice mail > systems. Personally, he should be ... (insert favorite word). ... commended for going out of his way to make voice mail systems resistant to attack. It was Richard Karasik, who works for Octel, a major vendor of voice mail systems. As his note said: > (no need to wonder why -look at the org) Sheesh. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ From: hhallika@zeus.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Re: Can Telco Provide LD Access Line Only? Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1991 18:32:45 GMT In article brack@uoftcse.cse. utoledo.edu (Brack) writes: > I recently moved back home, and my parents are not pleased with my LD > bill. Although I pay promptly, and use Call Manager, they don't want > my calls on their bill. Calling cards are too expensive, and I don't > want to get a full-fledged second line, as my call volume makes it > uneconomical. How about signing up with another LD company that has 950 access? Here, we have AT&T on 1+ and have a dialer that routes all our calls thru the local LD reseller (Call America), unless we bypass the dialer (by dialing 111). When I go to the company next door to use their fax machine, I just dial our 950 access number so my fax calls do not show up on their phone bill. It appears that all that is required is to sign up with an LD company with 950 access (instead of 1+) and that does not use the local telco for billing. Harold Hallikainen ap621@Cleveland.Freenet.edu Hallikainen & Friends, Inc. hhallika@pan.calpoly.edu 141 Suburban Road, Bldg E4 phone 805 541 0200 fax 544 6715 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-7590 telex 4932775 HFI UI ------------------------------ From: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack) Subject: Re: Can Telco Provide LD Access Line Only? Date: 1 Nov 91 02:47:38 GMT How do measured-rate charges work for LD calls? Also, would using 10XXX0+10D generate a seperate billing statement? Does it depend whether I use the same 10XXX0 carrier as my parents' default carrier? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #876 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01463; 2 Nov 91 18:36 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01665 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 2 Nov 1991 16:40:14 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29826 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 2 Nov 1991 16:40:02 -0600 Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1991 16:40:02 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111022240.AA29826@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #877 TELECOM Digest Sat, 2 Nov 91 16:39:55 CST Volume 11 : Issue 877 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Pac*Bell's Two Cents (!) [John Higdon] Re: MCI Friends & Family & Anyone Else With a TT Phone [S. Spencer Sun] Re: Digital Cordless Telephones and B. A. Pargh [Syd Weinstein] Re: Telecom Frequently Asked Questions [Warren Burstein] Re: Controlling Long Distance Access [Andrew C. Green] Re: Rude Operators [Norman R. Solis] Re: Recording Should Say 'Zero' Not 'Oh' [Jarom Hagen] Re: US 0800 From UK [Nick Reid] Re: SWB "Modem Tax" Tariff: This Time Its For Real [Michael Bender] Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" [Albert Pang] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Pac*Bell's Two Cents (!) Date: 31 Oct 91 13:27:46 PST (Thu) From: john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) writes: > Sunday's Times Opinion section had on its final page a full-page open > letter from Pac*Bell, signed by Sam Ginn, CEO. Whose remarks were mostly rubbish, as one might expect. However, a few of his points deserve special refutation: > - The currently leading IP's are large companies, so it makes for more > competition if a big company, such as Pac*Bell, gets into the fray. Where did he dream this one up? MOST 900 providers are small, Ma and Pa operations who can scarcely afford to have to fight with a behemoth such as Pac*Bell, especially when PB starts its tariff manipulations in its favor as a provider. > - Several public interest groups support Pac*Bell's entry into this > market. Really? Which ones? > - The Times' assertion that Pac*Bell will "'subsidize' [their] > information services with [their] guaranteed profits" is specious > since (a) their "profits have never been guaranteed", and (b) there > are laws in place to prevent such things from happening. Two strikes in one statement. Yes, the regulated profits ARE guaranteed -- period. Maybe Mr. Ginn should go back and find out what a regulated monopoly is so that (a) he can avoid stupid statements such as these, and (b) so that his regulated monopoly could behave a little more in the public interest. As far as the laws that are "in place to prevent such things from happening", perhaps Mr. Ginn would do well to have a reality check. > - The Court of Appeals has upheld Pac*Bell's right to engage in IP > services even during the Times' appeal of this decision. That may address the legality of the issue but not the practicality or the reality. If Pacific Telesis (through its subsidiary Pacific Bell) would pursue the responsibilities of providing service as a monopoly with the same energy and furvor that it does in trying to put the rest of the world out of business, telephone service in California would be world-class. One more point: it is now obvious as to where the wretched attitude that permeates Pac*Bell comes from. It is as I have always indicated: a top down problem. The employees (techs, reps, etc.) of Pac*Bell are the finest to be found anywhere in telephony. My official contact with representatives of PB has always been most satisfactory. But Mr. Ginn has given us the proof that the problem with Pac*Bell lies not in that domain which actually provides product, but in the executive suites where the greedy suit-types are concerned with nothing but bottom lines in THEIR OWN bank accounts. John Higdon (hiding out in the desert) ------------------------------ From: spencer@lamp.Princeton.EDU (S. Spencer Sun) Subject: Re: MCI Friends & Family & Anyone Else With a TT Phone Organization: Princeton Class of '94 Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1991 23:23:47 GMT In article , pturner@eng.auburn.edu (Patton M. Turner) writes: > John Higdon offers a rebuttal to the following comment: > spencer@set.princeton.edu (S. Spencer Sun) writes: >> I also don't see what's so horrible >> about someone POTENTIALLY finding out who's on your F&F list. > Agreeing with John, I can think of several companies, that I done > business with that I would not want to know of each others existence. > Additionally, by looking at my recent long distance calls one could > determine the following at least: Well, after thinking about it some more, I can understand the motivation both of you expressed, however, in my current mental state* I am unable to think of any reason why someone wouldn't want each of two or more companies finding out that he/she is communicating with any of the other companies, without any sort of deception or shady ethical/moral situation ... could you provide an example? (In mail if you like.) S. Spencer Sun '94 - Princeton Univ. - spencer@phoenix.princeton.edu WWIVnet #1 @6913 - The Corner Pocket 609-258-8647 - 38.4k/DS/v.32bis ------------------------------ From: syd@dsinc.dsi.com (Syd Weinstein) Subject: Re: Digital Cordless Telephones and B. A. Pargh Date: Thu, 31 Oct 91 15:30:25 EST Reply-To: syd@DSI.COM There seems to be some questions re who is B. A. Pargh, and that is understandable. B. A. Pargh is a Wholesale distributor of things for office supply style stores, and they happen to list an awful lot of telephones (even the Panasonic E-Key systems we hear so much about in this forum) ... Their number is 1-800-BAP-1000, but they deal with resellers only. (Note, any reseller is fine with them.) They do not sell at retail. Find some store near you that is willing to order the item from them and go to it if you want it. Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP Elm Coordinator - Current 2.3PL11 Datacomp Systems, Inc. Projected 2.4 Release: Early 1992 syd@DSI.COM or dsinc!syd Voice: (215) 947-9900, FAX: (215) 938-0235 ------------------------------ From: warren@worlds.com (Warren Burstein) Subject: Re: Telecom Frequently Asked Questions - Revised 10/13/91 Date: 31 Oct 91 17:49:07 GMT Reply-To: warren@itex.jct.ac.il Organization: WorldWide Software From the FAQ posting: > A: Where real call supervision is unavailable or inconvenient, > a ploy used by some call billing systems is to guess when > a call might be answered... > There are reports that California requires proper billing > and supervision of calls, at least as far as hotels are > concerned. Other areas may adopt similar requirements. How does someone get call supervision? Is it something that you have to order from the BOC? What sort of hardware is needed on your end? What can make it "unavailable or inconvenient"? The former, I would guess, would be a BOC that didn't make it available, the latter probably means "expensive"? I would guess that if you wanted to automatically monitor your own phone so you could check the accuracy of your phone bill, you would need call supervision to do it right. warren@itex.jct.ac.il ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 01 Nov 1991 10:48:06 CST From: acg@HERMES.DLOGICS.COM Reply-To: acg@hermes.dlogics.com Subject: Re: Controlling Long Distance Access sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes: > Is there any feature or service that any of the LD carriers have > that would prevent someone in your home (temporary employee) from > using your phone to make LD calls? and our Moderator notes: > [Why don't you consider one of the inexpensive toll restrictors > sold by companies such as Hello Direct (1-800-HI-HELLO)? They > attach to the line in series with the phones which come behind > the unit, and can be programmed to disallow all toll calls. PAT] I came across another option, which is not the height of security, but does address the problem. I bought a reproduction payphone back around 1985 from some really-off-brand outfit ("Tele-Concepts", perhaps), basically because it looked cute: lots of chrome, working coin slots, coinbox with key, a bell that goes ding when you drop a quarter in; you get the picture. Turned out that it was actually quite smart. You could disable dialout with a switch in the back to require the user to actually drop a quarter in first; after clanging the bell, the quarter would whack a microswitch that turned on power to the handset. (Cheating was prohibited; nickels and dimes were not heavy enough to activate it.) The phone's microchip was somehow capable of detecting an incoming call and turning on the handset without requiring a quarter first. The LD restriction was particularly clever. The owner could program the phone with a three-digit code to restrict the number of digits you could dial. Typically you'd program a limit of seven digits to prevent LD access, and after the seventh number was pressed, the keypad just went dead. To dial a longer number, you'd begin by pressing a Recall button and entering your three-digit code on the keypad. As a final touch, you could elect to block ALL functioning of the "0" key by programming an access code that included a 0; this was intended to defeat someone trying to get LD access on your phone via the operator. Granted, it's not a totally foolproof LD blocker (you could always use the phone in our basement instead :-), but it worked well enough during raucous parties that we didn't have to remove it beforehand to preserve our phone bill. The only glitch I found was that it did not always detect incoming calls properly, so if you had set on coin mode and the phone rang, you'd need an emergency quarter nearby to kick the handset on in case the phone didn't notice. Oh, well. It makes a nice conversation piece, by the way. I believe the company that made it is still around; if there is sufficient interest, I'll ransack our basement and get the details off the box. Disclaimer: I have nothing to do with this product, other than as a moderately-satisfied user. Andrew C. Green (312) 266-4431 Datalogics, Inc. Internet: acg@dlogics.com 441 W. Huron UUCP: ..!uunet!dlogics!acg Chicago, Il. 60610 FAX: (312) 266-4473 ------------------------------ From: Norman R. Solis Subject: Re: Rude Operators Organization: U. S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD Date: Fri, 1 Nov 91 10:35:48 EST I actually had an operator fall asleep after she answered the line! Imagine my surpise when after explaining my problem I could hear very faint snoring on the line. 'Hello?....Hellllllooooo?.....HELLOHELLOHELLOHELLO.....' N Richard Solis m937290@n1.usna.navy.mil GO NAVY! USNA 2nd Company m937290@midn.ecs.usna.navy.mil BEAT ARMY! Annapolis, MD 21412 (301) 991-4720 United States Naval Academy - Class of 1993 [Moderator's Note: I had something like that several years ago. I was calling directory assistance somewhere. (This was long before they started answering with the voice-chip of their name). She took my request, and was looking for it and talking to me. Presently she quit talking and I assumed she was still looking ... but after twenty seconds or so a different operator came on and said 'hold on a second and I'll get to you ...' and maybe twenty seconds after that the other operator took my request all over again. I asked what happened to the original operator and the second one replied she was not free to discuss the matter. But judging from the conversation I heard in the background while the second operator was assisting me ("call the Fire Department; help her sit down over here") I assume the first operator had a heart attack or a stroke while we were talking. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jhagen@npri6.npri.com (Jarom Hagen) Subject: Re: Recording Should Say 'Zero', Not 'Oh' Date: 1 Nov 91 18:05:39 GMT Organization: NPRI, Alexandria VA jmason2@utcs.utoronto.ca (Jamie Mason) writes: > I can't find a Bell recording that says "oh" rather than > "zero" in my (very shallow) search. What kinds of recordings are more > likely to say "oh" than "zero"? When I moved, my old line had a recording about the number being disconnected and gave the new number with 0 as "oh". This is a Bell Atlantic recording. I Brazil, the number 6 is called "seis" or "meia". Which translates to "six" or "half". Someone told my it had something to do with a half dozen. But no one could tell me why. To make things more confusing, "meia" also means "stocking". It wasn't tough to figure out what someone was saying once I knew what to listen for. I don't see why saying "oh" instead of "zero" is going to cause problems for anyone. Jarom Not paid for and/or endorsed by NPRI. 602 Cameron St, Alexandria VA 22314 (UUCP: ...uunet!uupsi!npri6!jhagen) (Internet: jhagen@npri.com) ------------------------------ From: reidn@jacobs.cs.orst.edu (Nick Reid) Subject: Re: US 0800 From UK Organization: Oregon State University, CS Dept. Date: Sat, 02 Nov 1991 11:49:03 GMT In article gtoal@stack.urc.tue.nl writes: > In article TELECOM Moderator notes: >> [Moderator's Note: I don't think he was talking about USA Direct >> service as you imply. I think he was trying to reach 800 numbers in >> the USA. Note in his message he wondered if he could have the card >> without ever actually putting charges on it. Anyone would realize >> there would be a charge to call the USA from the UK. True, but now that AT&T, Sprint, etc, are available via an 0800 number in the UK (equivalent of a 1-800 number in the USA) it provides the _only_ way to contact folks, typically magazine advertisers, etc, for whom a Briton has _only_ an 800 number (a surprisingly frequent occurrence for UK dwellers: US advertisers, etc, should always remember to quote a regular number as well as their 800 number, as 800 numbers are inaccessible from most parts of the world outside of the USA and a great many ads, etc, particularly of the glossier kind from advertisers who have many outlets in the US, don't even provide an address that could be quoted to directory service). ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Nov 91 13:28:58 PST From: Michael.Bender@Eng.Sun.COM (W7EGX) Subject: Re: SWB "Modem Tax" Tariff: This Time Its For Real Duncan A. MacGregor writes: > Ouch. From previous articles in this newsgroup, as well as other sources, > I know that you do NOT want to have "Call Waiting" supported on a line used > by a modem. If a call-waiting signal occurs while the modem is operating, > the line will be hung up (by either the modem or the telephone system > itself) and the connection ended. Not necessarily true for all modems. For example, my Telebit Trailblazer operating in PEP mode will not drop the line if a call waiting tone is detected; rather it will cause a retrain to occur between both modems. I won't see any spurious characters on my screen either. I suspect that most higher-speed modems that use a non-trivial data transfer protocol over the phone lines can be configured to react the same way to a call waiting tone, as well as to make line noise transparent to the user (albeit with a a loss of throughput while both modems are renegotiating the connection). An interesting feature that I haven't seen on a modem is the ability to detect a call waiting tone, and somehow send a message to the DTE; this would probably require a communications program (when using the modem for interactive use) that could detect this message and act on it appropriately. A few other interesting features of the newer modem chipsets that will have an impact on telecom: - decode the CID data and present it to the DTE. - decode DTMF tones. - provide a path between the DTE and the modem's analog section (A/D and D/A) to allow the DTE to send/receive digitized audio to the phone line. mike bender ------------------------------ From: albert@INSL.McGill.CA (Albert Pang) Subject: Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" Organization: INSL, McGill University, Montreal, Canada Date: Sat, 2 Nov 91 08:41:10 GMT In article hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) writes: > Making system software deal with DST was fun. While on the same subject, I have to mention this since it is telecom related. I am a subscriber of Call Display (caller id) from Bell Canada. My exchange is (514)289-xxxx which is a Northern Telecom DMS-100 switch. I have rented a much to be desired Northern Telecom Maestro phone with has a small LCD display. It shows the time of day and tells you if there is a new call. Montreal (or Canada) has switched to EST last Sunday. However, as of today, the little display on my phone still works on EDT. I don't think it is my problem since the clock will be set by any incoming Caller-ID information. That means the clock on the DMS switch is still working on EDT. Pretty anoying. Anybody outside of Bell Canada area has the same problem? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #877 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07336; 2 Nov 91 19:35 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25276 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 2 Nov 1991 17:45:43 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA32153 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 2 Nov 1991 17:45:33 -0600 Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1991 17:45:33 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111022345.AA32153@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #878 TELECOM Digest Sat, 2 Nov 91 17:45:21 CST Volume 11 : Issue 878 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Extended Range Cordless Telephones [Michael A. Covington] Re: Extended Range Cordless Telephones [James Parkyn] Re: Two Cell Phones on Same Number: It Can Be Done [Wilson Mohr] Re: How Does the Law Handle Crank Calls? [Dave Niebuhr] Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? [John Higdon] Re: Telegraph Fire Alerting Systems [Jacob R. Deglopper] Re: Telegraph Fire Alerting Systems [Terry Kennedy] Re: Telegraph Fire Alerting Systems [Marvin K. Hoffman] Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" [Harold Hallikainen] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) Subject: Re: Extended Range Cordless Telephones Organization: University of Georgia, Athens Date: Sat, 2 Nov 91 04:41:11 GMT In article wybbs!ken@sharkey.cc.umich. edu (Ken Jongsma) writes: > While traveling on business this week, I came across the following ad > in American Airlines' American Way in-flight magazine. I transcribe it > for your edification and make no recommendations. > [begin ad] > Up To 60 Mile Radius Cordless Phones* > Portable Models from 1 to 15 miles. > Mobile Models 30 and 50 miles. > Station to Station Models 25 and 60 miles. > NEW! High Performance non-cellular cordless extention phones. > *Some Models may not be used in USA I think the last line sums it up, but change "some" to "all" and change "USA" to "all ITU signatories" (i.e., the entire world). Any transmitter with a 50-mile radius is going to have to have a license, simply because it can interfere with anything else on the same frequency in a 50-mile radius. Michael A. Covington, Ph.D. | mcovingt@uga.cc.uga.edu | N4TMI Assistant to the Director, Artificial Intelligence Programs The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602, U.S.A. [Moderator's Note: I am reminded of the RF linear amplifiers sold for use in the eleven-meter (CB) band. Totally illegal for *use* in the USA, one is always required to sign the merchant's disclaimer saying the unit is 'being sold for export outside the USA only'. Ten-four! PAT] ------------------------------ From: jparkyn@kilroy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (James Parkyn) Subject: Re: Extended Range Cordless Telephones Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA Date: Thu, 31 Oct 91 23:40:52 GMT Most, if not all of these models operate in unauthorized frequency ranges (for the USA) and the sellers make no effort to alert customers to the licensing problems. The local FCC office here hunts these units down as they cause interference to legitimate commercial and amateur radio communications. The units are sometimes sold with a disclaimer that they are not to be operated in the US (nudge-nudge, wink-wink) and the person who answered the phone when I called was very evasive when questioned about licensing. One recent bust by the FCC involved a unit that was transmitting on the VHF downlink for the Transit satellite! ------------------------------ From: motcid!mohr@uunet.uu.net (Wilson Mohr) Subject: Re: Two Cell Phones on Same Number: It Can Be Done; Here's How Date: 1 Nov 91 19:16:11 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL In article , jeff%heurikon.UUCP@cs. wisc.edu (Jeffrey Mattox) writes: > I called CelluSoft and found out the following: > METHOD USED: They change the ESN on your second phone to match > that of your first phone. The second phone masquerades as your first > phone. Not recommended, but can be done. (obviously :^) !) > USAGE RESTRICTION: You cannot use both phones at the same time > in the same cellular system. Thus, you cannot call car-to-car in the > same area. It might be fun to try, however. This really depends on the carrier and there poilcy/programming of the system to handle "live" bandit mobiles. For the most part these mobiles are generallly denied service though. > LEGALITY: CelluSoft talked to the FCC and various carriers > about this and clamins to have found nothing dictating that this > should not be done (other than the technical problem created if both > phones are used at the same time). What I want to know is how far did they research this with the FCC? There are set parameters as to what information makes up an ESN and this is DEPENDENT upon the MANUFACTURER of the phone. (Here's one for you privacy folks. The manufacturer of the phone you are using is identified in the ESN! Granted, only representatives authorized by you have access to this information, but ...) > Is there any cellular telephone on the market that allows its ESN > to be field-programmed without having to use this method? None that I know of. > I would think that there might be a backdoor ESN programming method, > or do the manufacturers painstakingly program a different control ROM > for *each* phone? As demonstrated by the Novatel example, manufacturer's do "painstakingly program a different control ROM for *each* phone". This is not difficult to do via our friend Mr. Computer. Most manufacturers also track the FINAL end user who purchases the phone for security reasons. i.e. say you had a phone with the CelluSoft modification and it got stolen. You would definitely report it to your carrier AND get your phone number changed. *WELL* (now comes the twist) Your carrier then supplies the ESN to Postive Validation Service to deny it NATIONWIDE as well as its independent resellers to watch for this phone if it shows up. (Receiving stolen property, etc.) Stolen phones are tracked by their ESN since the thief will either: a) Fence the phone ASAP (w/o reprogramming it). b) Have a "friend" reprogram it for his own use. c) Reprogram and sell it. d) Mount it in concrete and use it for a paperweight :^) ! (doubtful) Since there would be no sense in stealing a phone if you could not use it, our local friend the thief (or other uninformned person who purchases said phone) will now call up a carrier and ask for a number. Being a responsible carrier they will ask for the *ESN*. They then will look this up on a "Hot Sheet" to determine if it has been reported stolen. Then the flit hits the shan. Ok. No problem you say. Now you take in your phone to get it reprogrammed with your new number BUT the *SAME* *ESN*. Can you say oops! After a LOOOONG explanation with a multitude of officials you may get home in time for dinner. The other fun part to this is that any reputable carrier would not let the original phone to continue having service since they could be defrauded big time by roaming charges. How you say? They could not deny the ESN without cutting you off also. Intercarrier agreements work on Blocks of Mobile ID's using a Positive Validation Service to make sure the right ESN works on ONLY the right phone. A work around for this is to immediately reassign the number, but we all know the repercussions of that. You can do this modification (for now), but it obviously could lead to a lot of wasted time as well as losing BOTH phones if ONE got misplaced. (you wouldn't want to NOT have the ESN denied ... would you?) Toodles! Wilson Mohr - Motorola CIG ...!uunet!motcid!mohr [Moderator's Note: Security wise, what solutions are there against people who program their telephone number to one of the demo numbers every carrier hands out to their dealers for testing and sales use? For example, the RS dealer here has a number on which every cell phone in his display case will function. On that particular phone number, the cell carrier does not bother to check the ESN -- how could they while still letting the dealer demo all his phones? Likewise, the internal phone numbers used by the cell carrier are not ESN validated. What prevents a typical user from programming his stolen phone to one of those numbers so the ESN is no longer a concern? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1991 14:28:03 -0500 (EST) From: NIEBUHR@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) Subject: Re: How Does the Law Handle Crank Calls? K_MULLHOLAND@UNHH.UNH.EDU (KATH MULLHOLAND) in writes: > Step Three:The subscriber will be required to sign a release form > authorizing release of any information found to authorities. > Information will be released **to the police** and *not* to the > subscriber. Chances are good the subscriber will not ever > see the information that is obtained. > The rep stressed that once the release is signed, it is TPC's choice > to prosecute, not the subscriber. If it is found that the person > making the calls is "Aunt Joan" or "Nephew Tom" the subscriber cannot New York Telephone works in the same way when it comes to finding out who is making harrassing calls. I just went through it. My wife is also required to sign the complaint form. Dave [Moderator's Note: You really can't blame telco for the stand they take on this. They are not going to waste their time adjudicating domestic disputes between family members, in-laws and the like. If you want to prosecute the trouble-maker, that's fine. If not, that's fine also, but don't involve telco in your personal disputes. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? Date: 2 Nov 91 12:16:50 PST (Sat) From: john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) K_MULLHOLAND@UNHH.UNH.EDU (KATH MULLHOLAND) writes: > A few weeks ago, I was asked to investigate how to report obscene > phone calls for action by TPC. This is the information I was given by > New England Telephone, for New Hampshire, to give out to a customer of > mine who made the request for information. I suppose the policies > could vary from BOC to BOC. [Lengthy and complex description of procedure, deleted.] Currently, it appears that there is someone attempting to hack my DISA. In the middle of the night, call after call appears with unsuccessful attempts made to enter the system. While my DISA is very secure, it IS possible that this person could get lucky. My choices are: 1. Do nothing and hope this turd gives up before striking it rich. 2. Turn off all trunk access (and thus deprive myself of some the system's usefulness). There are no other choices. Pac*Bell could not care less, since nothing has yet happened. The authorities could not be bothered, since no crime has yet been perpetrated. What is my point? With Caller-ID (and DISA denial if Caller-ID is blocked) this could be handled quickly and easily. If I knew that the DISA would not put out on blocked ID, it would be easier to sleep at night. And if the slime that is working on the line was stupid enough to allow his CPID to be sent, then we would have "case closed". John Higdon (hiding out in the desert) [Moderator's Note: If you have some way of seeing the passwords he is trying, you might stay a jump ahead of him by changing the password more or less daily for awhile always picking passwords he has already tested and eliminated. Someone at this site changes their password daily using chron to run a script *at another site* which telnets over here, runs a couple of commands to change the password based on some formula he uses, then exits. The passwords are lengthy non-words, full of punctuation symbols, etc. When it exits, it writes the password to some obsure file on the other site read/writeable by himself only, just in case he forgets how his own formula goes. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jrd5@po.CWRU.Edu (Jacob R. Deglopper) Subject: Re: Telegraph Fire Alerting Systems Reply-To: jrd5@po.CWRU.Edu (Jacob R. Deglopper) Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 91 19:57:44 GMT In a previous article, brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack) says: > The Toledo Fire Dept. uses/used much the same system, but the boxes > were more complex. They provided for five or six categories of emergency > and a test feature. > Question 1: Would seperate lines be used for each type of alarm? > Question 2: I once saw one of these boxes on the side of a fire > station. Any clue as to why? > [Moderator's Note: Haven't you ever heard of fire stations catching on > fire while the firemen were away at a fire somewhere else? PAT] I believe the different alarm buttons transmit different codes over the same line. This is just a guess, but it might transmit something like the following if box, say, 5-4-2 has the "police" button pushed: 5-4-2-pause-2 or 5-4-2-pause-1 for fire and so forth. As for having call boxes on the sides of fire stations ... we don't use call boxes, but all our stations have things labelled "Emergency Phone" on the outside where the public can get at them. We already have leased lines from each station to the communications center (two of them in fact, one voice, one data, but that's irrelevant), and the "Emergency Phone" is on this direct line. It's fairly common for someone to come to the station with medical problems or occasionally to report an emergency somewhere else. There are times when everyone in the station is out on calls, although these times are rare, and the phone provides an alternative. In addition, there's no guarantee that someone will be awake at 3am when someone knocks on the door. There usually is, but not always. _/acob DeGlopper, EMT-A, Wheaton Volunteer Rescue Squad jrd5@po.cwru.edu -- Biomedical Engineering '95, Case Western Reserve Opinions my own... ------------------------------ From: "Terry Kennedy, Operations Mgr" Subject: Re: Telegraph Fire Alerting Systems Date: 2 Nov 91 15:21:28 GMT Organization: St. Peter's College, US In article , brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo. edu (Brack) writes: > Question 2: I once saw one of these boxes on the side of a fire > station. Any clue as to why? People often behave in odd ways during an emergency. One of the more common, when faced with a fire, is to run to the fire station (if it's nearby). If the crew there is out dealing with another fire, there's no-one there to help. Thus, there's a call box clearly located outside the fire station. I used to live six houses away from one and saw this quite often. Terry Kennedy Operations Manager, Academic Computing terry@spcvxa.bitnet St. Peter's College, Jersey City, NJ USA terry@spcvxa.spc.edu (201) 915-9381 ------------------------------ From: HOFFMANMK@CONRAD.APPSTATE.EDU Subject: Re: Telegraph Fire Alerting Systems Date: 2 Nov 91 15:14:12 EDT Organization: Appalachian State University Fire alarm boxes on buildings were generally referred to as "Master Boxes" and were connected to internal sprinkler or smoke detector systems. When the smoke detector or sprinkler activated, it sent a signal to the master box to activate and transmit the box number to fire alarm headquarters. Such boxes were typical of schools, hospitals, nursing homes, some factories, courthouses and I guess some fire stations. Marvin K. Hoffman Appalachian State University Political Science/Criminal Justice ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Nov 91 14:57:08 -0800 From: hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo > I am a subscriber of Call Display (Caller ID) from Bell > Canada. My exchange is (514)289-xxxx which is a Northern Telecom > DMS-100 switch. I have rented a much to be desired Northern Telecom > Maestro phone with has a small LCD display. It shows the time of day > and tells you if there is a new call. Montreal (or Canada) has > switched to EST last Sunday. However, as of today, the little display > on my phone still works on EDT. I don't think it is my problem since > the clock will be set by any incoming Caller-ID information. That > means the clock on the DMS switch is still working on EDT. I wonder about the clock on the billing system? Is it the same one, perhaps billing at the wrong rate for measured calls? Harold [Moderator's Note: Are you sure telco is sending the time, or does telco send just the Caller-ID and the box provides the time for each call? PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #878 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19810; 2 Nov 91 21:18 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06278 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 2 Nov 1991 19:32:10 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04558 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 2 Nov 1991 19:31:59 -0600 Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1991 19:31:59 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111030131.AA04558@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #879 TELECOM Digest Sat, 2 Nov 91 19:31:49 CST Volume 11 : Issue 879 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: IXO Protocol Update [Harold Hallikainen] Re: New England Tel Messes Up Non-Pub Listing [Harold Hallikainen] Re: Prodigy's Latest Fiasco [Dave Harvey] Re: Telcos Abuse Cheap Government Loans [Patton M. Turner] Re: First ESS(tm) Retired [Tom Lowe] Oldest 1ESS in USA Retires [Bell Labs News via Maurice R. Baker] Early ESSs? [John Boteler] 5ESS Switch [Dave Niebuhr] Internet to EARN? [Peter Petto] Working Assets as an IEC? [Scott Brim] California Prop 103 and Telcos [Linc Madison] Prop 103 Style Reforms (Moderator's Note on PUC Testimony) [Arun Baheti] Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" [Roger Fajman] Economics of Dial-Out Only Lines [Bob Izenberg] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Re: IXO Protocol Update Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1991 21:05:14 GMT By the way ... a TSR program for calling pagers (including alphanumeric, I believe) is available for $19.95. It's called Pop Page. You can get it from Statistical Control Systems, 3430 27th Parkway, Sarasota, FL 34235. Phone 813 954 8816. Harold Hallikainen ap621@Cleveland.Freenet.edu Hallikainen & Friends, Inc. hhallika@pan.calpoly.edu 141 Suburban Road, Bldg E4 phone 805 541 0200 fax 544 6715 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-7590 telex 4932775 HFI UI ------------------------------ From: hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Re: New England Tel Messes up Non-Pub Listing Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1991 21:58:42 GMT In article William.Degnan@p0.f39. n382.z1.FidoNet.Org (William Degnan) writes: > Hmmm. Well, if they left him out, they might be forced into sending > out a notice telling folks to _add_ his number to the directory. > Perhaps they could send out some correction fluid to all directory > holders? No? Garison Keilor of A Prarie Home Companion and American Radio Theatre was once giving Reader's Digest a hard time about condensing the Bible, since most people don't read all of it. He said something like, "Next thing you know, they'll condense the phone book. After all, you don't call most of the people in there." Harold Hallikainen ap621@Cleveland.Freenet.edu Hallikainen & Friends, Inc. hhallika@pan.calpoly.edu 141 Suburban Road, Bldg E4 phone 805 541 0200 fax 544 6715 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-7590 telex 4932775 HFI UI ------------------------------ From: daveharv@pro-novapple.cts.com (Dave Harvey) Subject: Re: Prodigy's Latest Fiasco Organization: Crash TimeSharing, El Cajon, CA Date: Fri, 01 Nov 1991 08:17:05 GMT In billm@fujisan.info.com (Bill Martens) writes: > I couldn't agree with you more Pat. I had run a BBS in seattle for > many years that was free to all users. But with this freedom also was > a disclaimer which stated to users that if they had connection with > any government agency, they must state so to the sysop in the login > process. It also said that the sysop was in no way responsible for > the opinions expressed on the board. But as we all know, nowadays, > you can be held responsible for almost anything according to the > government. (Sounds like Russia to me.) To add confusion to the issue, the October 31 edition of the {Washington Post} reports the ruling of U.S. District Judge Peter Leisure that says Compuserve cannot be held liable for defamatory statements contained in a newsletter available through its electronic library. A rep for the ACLU was quoted as saying that it was one of the first decisions by the First District Court ruling on the status of electronic bulletin boards, holding that they have limited liability and that without knowledge of the act they are not liable. proline: pro-novapple!daveharv uucp: crash!pnet01!pro-novapple!daveharv arpa: crash!pnet01!pro-novapple!daveharv@nosc.mil Internet: daveharv@pro-novapple.cts.com [Moderator's Note: Well whatever happened to the last part of 'knew or should have known'? If it were *that easy* to avoid liability -- by just shaking your head and claiming you knew nothing of it -- then why can't everyone pull that off all the time? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Nov 91 12:38:33 CST From: Patton M. Turner Subject: Re: Telcos Abuse Cheap Government Loans I have been told by an operations manager for Altel that there is a push from their corporate headquarters to reduce their dependence on REA loans. My experience with several REA sub'd telco's has been that REA loans can sometimes be more trouble than they are worth. They regulate every aspect of the installations that they finance. There have been several instances where, after finishing a ten hour day installing cable, I would be up til midnight documenting every 'unit' of construction. For example a construction of a single span of line might involve the following units: PM1 Pole Lightning Protection Assembly PM2 Pole Ground Assembly PE1-2 Down Guy of 6M Strand PF1-3 Patent Anchor PM11 Guy Guard PM52-1 Pole Marking C50-24P(6M) 50 Pair, 24 ga. PIC cable lashed to 6M strand 25-7 25', class 7 Pole [These units are from a few years old copy of "Specifications and Drawings for Construction of Pole Lines, Aerial Cables, and Wires", and may have changed recently.] Every one of these units has accompanying specifications. Rather than insure the quality of the provided telephone service, they seem to encourage corruption among contractors and employes of the telephone companies. Patton Turner pturner@eng.auburn.edu KB4GRZ @ K4RY.AL.USA.NOAM ------------------------------ From: tlowe@attmail.com Date: Wed Oct 30 09:23:54 EST 1991 Subject: Re: First ESS(tm) Retired > According to the latest Bell Labs News, the 1ESS(tm) switch in > Succasunna, NJ was replaced with a 5ESS(R) switch on September 28. > The Succasunna switch, installed in 1965, was the first commercial > electronic switching system. AT&T Network Systems and New Jersey Bell > are considering donating part of the retired switch to the > Smithsonian Institution. You should have mentioned the headline and picture that appears with the story. The headline is "What Are You Doing, Dave?" (a reference, of course, to HAL in 2001: A Space Odyssey) and the picture is that of four New Jersey Bell technicians standing in front of a frame, each holding a large cable cutter. They are in the process of cutting all the lines connected to the 1ESS. The 5ESS was connected in parallel to the 1ESS, and at 1:00 am, the 1ESS lines were cut then the new switch turned on. The whole operation took only a few minutes. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Oct 91 16:23:04 EST From: jj1028@homxc.att.com (Maurice R Baker) Subject: Oldest 1ESS in USA Retires Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories From {Bell Labs News} of 10/28/91: ----Picture of a row of craftpersons with bolt cutters severing many multi-pair cables--- These New Jersey Bell technicians are actually in the process of taking a very well-behaved -- and the nation's oldest -- 1ESS(tm) out of service. The switch became the world's first commercial electronic switching system when it was installed in Succasunna, NJ in 1965. It was replaced with a 5ESS(tm) on September 28th. The cutover was accomplished in three steps. First, the new 5ESS was installed and hooked up to the incoming lines -- which were also still going to the old switch -- but not powered up. Then, at 1:00 AM, when there is relatively little traffic on the old switch, the cables coming in to the 1ESS were quickly cut. Once all the lines were cut, the new switch was turned on. The whole operation took only a few minutes, and agencies involved in emergency services were notified in advance of the brief service outage. The 1ESS design project, which was conducted at Whippany in the early 60's, was the largest single development effort undertaken by the Bell System up to that point, occupying more than 300 engineers and technicians. AT&T Network Systems and New Jersey Bell are considering donating part of the retired switch to the Smithsonian Institution. ------------------------------ Subject: Early ESSs? Date: Thu, 31 Oct 91 1:41:59 EST From: John Boteler Sicho said that Columbia, Maryland had the first ESS#1 ... well, he is a crossbar kind of guy, after all. Since Succasunna, NJ was THE first ESS, where does Columbia stack up in the list? It makes sense that it was one of the first, being a 'planned' community. John Boteler bote@csense {uunet | ka3ovk}!media!csense!bote SkinnyDipper's Hotline: 703 241 BARE | VOICE only, Touch-Tone(TM) signalling [Moderator's Note: Wait a minute. What about Morris, IL? I thought they were first or nearly first back in the sixties. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1991 10:51:52 -0500 (EST) From: NIEBUHR@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) Subject: 5ESS Switch I recently found out that my switch is a 55-5ESS. I understand what the 5ESS is, but what is the 55? Thanks, Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 [Moderator's Note: Maybe the person who told you this was stuttering as they were speaking ... :) PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Nov 91 08:58:14 -0500 From: ppetto@NCoast.ORG (Peter Petto) Subject: Internet to EARN? Organization: North Coast Public Access Un*x (ncoast) I'm having some trouble sending a piece of Internet mail to a location that does not have a domain name (of which I am aware). I'm hoping someone can help me. I want to send a message to "LISTSERV@TAUNIVM" -- my system does not recognize that address. TAUNIVM is in Tel Aviv. The reference material I have at hand indicates that TAUNIVM is connected to the EARN network and that the EARN network is connected to the City University of New York (CUNY). Can anyone help me with an address that can get from here (ncoast.org) to there? I'd really appreciate it. Peter Petto | ppetto@ncoast.org Bay Village, Ohio | 73125.617@compuserve.com [Moderator's Note: Have you tried 'listserv%taunivm@cuny.edu'? In other words, hand it to CUNY and let them figure it out ... or perhaps 'cuny.edu!taunivm!listserv' might work. Or 'postmaster@cuny.edu' might be able to tell you how they connect with taunivm. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Scott Brim Subject: Working Assets as an IEC? Organization: Cornell Information Technologies Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1991 16:14:26 -0400 I just got something in the mail from Working Assets. They seem to be claiming that *they* are an inter-exchange carrier (and that 1% of what they charge you goes to Good Causes, just like with their Visa card). Can anyone tell me more? What are their rates like? I thought they were just a Sprint remarketer -- certainly they don't have their own physical plant(??). Thanks much ... Scott ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Oct 91 00:46:02 PST From: linc@tongue1.Berkeley.EDU (Linc Madison) Subject: California Prop 103 and Telcos Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article David Gast writes: > Perhaps it is time for the Phone Company equivalent of Prop 103. > (Note: Prop 103 was an anti-insurance company referendum passed by the > voters a few years back. Telco would almost assuredly not want such a > proposition aimed at them, but with these rate hikes, a well-drawn > proposition might have an excellent chance of passage). > [Moderator's Note: Could you please explain a little more about the > provisions of Proposition 103, and how it would affect the telcos? PAT] Prop. 103 was one of several insurance reform initiatives placed on the ballot last year, and I believe was the only one that passed. Its provisions included providing an ELECTED (rather than appointed) state insurance commissioner, rolling back insurance rates to those in effect on some arbitrary date, and providing additional legal hurdles to raising rates. It further provided that rate differentials between different insured individuals had to be justified more thoroughly. Prop. 103 itself has minimal effect on the telcos (unless they decide to diversify into the insurance business ...), but a similar initiative could be written that would roll back rates and place caps on future increases and maybe even provide for an elected CPUC. Linc Madison = linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu = ucbvax!tongue1!linc ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1991 11:41 CDT From: Arun Baheti Subject: Prop 103 Style Reforms (Moderator's Note on PUC Testimony) Prop. 103 was the insurance intiative placed on the California ballot in 1988 under California's referendum laws. It called for, among other things, the halting of many of the more insulting practices of the regulated (but hugely profitable) insurance industry in the state, including the end of redlining districts and basing insurance premiums solely on previous history rather than statistical tendencies. And most importantly called for an automatic 20% roll-back in rates with refunds for consumers -and- allows banks and other firms to enter the currently uncompetitive insurance industry. A version directed at the telecom industry could be effective, but I doubt that the public has the same sense of outrage against the phone company as their insurance provider. The new increases could change that however ... particularly of note is that insurance (phone service) could now be provided by banks or other companies that are run much more efficiently than insurance companies (phone companies) and want a piece of the huge profit margins ... ------------------------------ From: "Roger Fajman" Date: Sat, 02 Nov 91 19:53:38 EST Subject: Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" > [Moderator's Note: Actually we did not have War Time at all until 1942 > when President Roosevelt thought it would be a good idea. After WW-2 According to my mother, War Time was two hours ahead of standard time. I'm too young to remember, although I was born while War Time was in effect. :-) Must have been dark pretty late in the morning in some places. ------------------------------ From: bei@dogface.austin.tx.us (Bob Izenberg) Subject: Economics of Dial-Out Only Lines Date: Thu, 31 Oct 91 6:27:36 CST A friend told me of a co-worker that brought up using a "dial-out only" phone line for a computer system at work. I questioned the economics and maybe even the existence of such a thing, but a Digest reader in SWBT turf may know better. If this type of service exists, what are the economics of it? Not just to the customer, but also for the telco to provide? Is there (of course there is!) any particular terminology to run past the clerk when ordering this line? Additionally, armchair quarterbacking about whether a dial-out only line, if there is such a beast, does anything real for the security of their computer system is welcome. Bob DOMAIN-WISE: bei@dogface.austin.tx.us BANG-WISE: ...cs.utexas.edu!dogface!bei [Moderator's Note: Yes, incoming/outgoing only lines are available from telco, along with lines which don't allow local (or) toll dialing. There is no economic advantage, since they generally cost the same as lines which have not been so treated, and it may wind up costing more since you need a second, regular line as well if you expect to have the types of calls the specially treated line is prohibiting. Specially treated lines of this nature which restrict one or more types of calls from taking place are intended as a security precaution, where you have people around who can't keep their hands off the phone, ie, jail inmates or delinquent children. It is basically the same thing as a phone which denies 900/976 numbers. For instance, my phones all deny inbound collect calls and third-number billings. I have no need of such services. If all you are concerned about is your own use of the phone, then just get a regular line. Why inconvenience yourself when you may need a certain type of call? PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #879 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07327; 2 Nov 91 23:38 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11258 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 2 Nov 1991 22:00:40 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01424 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 2 Nov 1991 22:00:30 -0600 Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1991 22:00:30 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111030400.AA01424@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #880 TELECOM Digest Sat, 2 Nov 91 22:00:17 CST Volume 11 : Issue 880 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson GTE's Latest Scam [Alan Gilbertson via Keith Dickinson] Line Testing Voltage: Summary [Jon Sreekanth] Hurricane Grace Backlash on Long Island [Dave Niebuhr] Calling Card Fraud: It Happens [John Parsons] Area Code 410 in Present Tense Already? [Carl Moore] OSI Management Registry Info Needed [Allen Pellnat] Relaynet Phones Conference [Nigel Allen] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 01 Nov 91 21:32:45 PDT From: nanook@psycho.fidonet.org (Keith Dickinson) Subject: GTE's Latest Scam From: Alan.Gilbertson@f230.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Alan Gilbertson) Date: Sat, 02 Nov 91 07:51:00 PDT Organization: FidoNet node 1:3603/230 - CSFSO Telecomm, Clearwater FL Generally I'm a placid sort of fellow. I put up with GTE because they're the only game in town, and because I have very good working relationships with the (generally friendly and very competent) engineering and technical staff at most levels locally, so I'm served reasonably well. Once in a while, and this is one of those times, GTE will do something that is so outrageous, so flagrantly opportunist, that I refuse to remain cool, calm, and collected. Today, I received an item in the mail that has to be last word in sleaze, capping anything that the "Alternative Operator Services" ever did, in sheer effrontery. I have not been able to verify whether this "service" is tariffed in Florida, but I will be checking on it on Monday, and will follow up with some form of communication to the Florida PUC. The mailing piece adds insult upon insult by offering to "increase" my typical V.32 and V.32bis modem data rates on our private E-mail system and data links to 4,800 bps. The fact that it's targeted at residential (who are generally quite ignorant about telecom technology), as well as business customers (only some of whom might be expected to know better), simply exacerbates it's bogus nature. It is predicated on the public ignorance; that same ignorance on which all the confidence tricksters of history have relied in order to pull off their scams. Here's what the accompanying letter (there is also a four-color glossy which says essentially the same thing) "offers": **** Begin Quote **** Dear GTE Customer: Ever feel like the data you're sending is stuck in a traffic jam? Want to make your modem really move and your fax machine fly? Now is your chance to add Dial DataLink(r) from GTE and rev up your transmission performance. Your current phone line was created with only voice communications in mind. But because your data communications needs are ever growing, GTE now offers you Dial DataLink. With Dial DataLink your current phone line is conditioned to better hand data transmissions from today's state of the art fax machines, modems and credit card authorization equipment. And it's a difference you may appreciate almost immediately! The data you're sending will get where it's going fast -- and with less [sic] errors. You can have all of this speed and accuracy by calling GTE at 1-800-334-2000! (ext. 80 please) Because Dial DataLink strengthens the typically weakest link in the communications chain -- from your home or office to the nearest GTE central switching office -- it enhances your transmission and protects your data, even at rates of up to 4800 bps*. You'll be happily surprised when you receive your phone and computer service bills. Because Dial DataLink improves the speed of data transmissions and helps you to complete them on the first attempt, you can reduce your long distance and computer connection service charges. In addition to monthly local line charges, you'll pay JUST $5.00 PER MONTH plus a $25.00 one-time connection charge and a $14.00 secondary service order charge. If you order before October 31, 1991 we'll waive the one-time secondary service order charge -- a savings of $14.00! Look over the attached brochure and race to your phone today! Order Dial DataLink then fax to the max tomorrow. Simply call 1-800-334-2000 (etxt. 80)! Sincerely, (sic) Julia K. Glover Product Manager -- Dial DataLink P.S. Order now and you only pay $5.00 per month, plus a one-time connection fee of $25.00. (In addition to local line charges.) And there will be no secondary service order charge if you order before October 31, 1991!! *GTE does not ensure the transmission level over the entire circuit. **** End Quote **** Comments and suggestions for further action with regulatory bodies welcome in E-mail. Alan. Internet: Alan.Gilbertson@f230.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG UUCP: ...!uunet!ndcc!tct!psycho!230!Alan.Gilbertson Note: psycho is a free gateway between Usenet & Fidonet. For info write root. --- InterMail 2.01b Origin: CSFSO Telecom [f230.n3603.z1.fidonet.org] (1:3603/230) ------------------------------ From: jon_sree@world.std.com (Jon Sreekanth) Subject: Line Testing Voltage: Summary Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1991 16:01:36 GMT This is a summary of email responses to my question in the Digest, 19 Oct 91. Thanks again to everyone who replied. My original question was: a commercial fax switch I used in Hudson, MA, would ring all by itself late at night. I suspected it was tripping because of automatic line test voltages. (I also discovered it would trip because of a parallel connected pulse phone.) I needed the line test specs in order to do reliable ring detection for my own circuits. JM writes ... What you have here is bell tap. Cheap and sleezy devices bell tap. for an electronic ringer, or ring detector that doesn't bell tap and also looks like a real bell to telco test gear, get the Motorola Ringer IC. The MC34017 should do the job. JD writes... I had the same problem with my ASAP TP555 switch. Additionally, when I talk to ----------- on the phone, his voice would always set the thing off ringing while we were on line (too much trouble to explain exactly how this manifested, but it was a drag). All I did to get rid of the occasional late night ringing sessions and the false triggering on -----'s voice was to dump the remaining default two digit security numbers and make them all more complex four digit codes. This stopped all the problems -- not a one since. JD writes ... Don't worry about what the line voltage is, you should _NOT_ detect square waves of any reasonable voltage (yes I know some cheap equipment generates square waves, you will NEVER get anything but a sine wave from the CO or a decent PBX or KSU). In all my circuits, I basicly low-pass the ring detect signal so if the dv/dt is too high, it's ignored. JD writes... My filter consists of a properly selected RC on the input side of an AC opto isolator and a pull-up and cap to ground on the computer side (use a schmidt trigger input). ... > Both criteria (cost and speed of detecting ring) weigh against analog > filtering. What I'm doing now is filtering the ring in software, to > only allow 17Hz - 68Hz as valid ring waveforms. I trip after 4 such > edges. I've verified that this can very nicely filter out a 10 pps > pulse phone, so bell tap has not been a problem. Good, the testing voltage is a high-level DC voltage applied to the line. The spike this creates will cause a non-filtered input to detect one or two ring pulses. We had to make some custom boards for Hawai`ian Tel and they were very sensitive to this spike. Every midnight when they would do their automated line test, the boards would go off hook and the line would fail testing due to the load. Every morning their technician had to reset all the lines to active service. They decided they didn't need a ring circuit that sensitive. JM writes ... The usual frequency of old style line testers was 10 Hz, so you should be safe. GM writes ... You are seeing a problem with the effects of a ALIT test performed at the CO. This is an automatic line insulation test. We had problems with the first revision of a security device our company manufactured until we figured this out. The fax switch you are using must wait for at least one on to off to on transition of the ring detector. The test will not generate this on to off to on only on to off for a brief duration. This duration is shorter than a normal ring interval and shouldnt be detected as ring condition. Any device which picks up too soon also runs the risk of screwing up centrex loops, the caller will hear the ringback signal for a brief interval and then the signal will change to busy. All this is documented in a Bellcore document on how not to answer the phone! TG writes ... Line test voltages are below the demarcation voltages of 125 volts. They are typically 100 volt signals applied tip to ring, tip to ground, ring to ground and tip and ring to ground. You can find descriptions of the No 14 test desk, the No 3 CL tester and the like in the literature. ------- For the most part, I think I have a handle on the problem now, but if there are further followups, please email and I'll summarize. Thanks, Jon Sreekanth Assabet Valley Microsystems, Inc. | Fax and PC products 5 Walden St #3, Cambridge, MA 02140 | (617) 876-8019 jon_sree@world.std.com | ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1991 8:59:10 -0500 (EST) From: NIEBUHR@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (Dave Niebuhr) Subject: Hurricane Grace Backlash on Long Island These are sketchy reports of the problems caused by the backlash Hurricane Grace as it went by Long Island: I'm gong to summarize them and insert comments where appropriate. - Severe Coastal Flooding. - Fire Island Barrier Beaches sustained heavy damage. - Flooding as far as 1 1/2 miles from the barrier beaches. - An estimated 22,000 homes lost electricity. - Homes on the barrier beach destroyed (6) [I would comment on this but its a very political issue on Long Island]. - Ferry service between Long Island and Connecticut stopped. - Rescue helicopter down trying to save someone who's boat capsized. Four of five on helicopter saved by NY Air National Guard 106 Air Rescue Group (also detailed to space shuttle launches). Hopes high for last person who had survival gear and oxygen. - My hometown (Mastic Beach, NY) hit hard (its on a peninsula and gets it from two sides with East/NE winds). I was lucky. Water stopped about one mile from my home. - Continued flood watch until this afternoon. - Gilgo Beach (a major beach) flattened. - Many sand dunes on Fire Island destroyed (potentially serious winter flooding due to storms) (Fire Island separates the Atlantic Ocean from a bay on the southern side of Long Island.) - Parts of the North Shore of Western Long Island sustained some damage (Nothing more on that since it was the first that I've heard). The North Shore of Eastern Long Island was hit fairly hard since it was closer to the hurricane. - Telephones stayed operational (at least from my point of view since I'm doing this from home via landline). - This comes on the heels of Hurricane Bob in August. There were other reports yesterday but the information above is the latest according to the local news program and is more factual. So far, thankfully, there have been no reports of loss of life. Property damage is the only thing so far and there haven't been any reports of that except for the six homes on Fire Island. Only good thing: The leaves that were to be raked this weekend are gone from my front yard. Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 [Moderator's Note: Gracious ... our country has certainly been hit with disasters aplenty the past few months, what with fires and floods. I sit here in my crummy apartment and complain about the heat in the winter ... while people on either coast wish they had a home to go to tonight ... :( PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Oct 91 09:07:42 mst From: John Parsons Subject: Calling Card Fraud: It Happens I've seen the warnings in this Digest about calling card fraud, and passed the info to my wife. But, like most people, "I never thought it would happen to me." My wife's business has an 800 number through Telecom USA. She received a call yesterday from someone claiming to be from Telecom USA, and asking for info about her account. She refused to give it, and passed the call to me. The conversation went like this: Scum: "My name is [forgotten], i.d. number D4819, and I'm calling about $700 worth of overseas calls charged to your calling card between Oct. 26 and 28. Did you authorize these calls?" Me: "No." Scum: "Have you authorized anyone to use your Telecom USA calling card?" Me: "No. We do not have a Telecom USA calling card. We have a Sprint card." [Oops, probably shouldn't have told him that!] Scum: "Sir, Telecom USA and Sprint are related." Me: "I understand Telecom USA is a subsidiary of MCI." Click! Mr. Scum hangs up. I reported this to Telecom USA, so they might use the ANI information to help track Mr. Scum. They thanked me, and said "This sort of thing happens all the time." I've noted the time of the call, so when the next bill comes, I'll send you Mr. Scum's number. Any bets that it's a coin station? Thanks to TELECOM Digest for the prior warning. It DOES happen! John Parsons johnp@hpgrgu.gr.hp.com [Moderator's Note: You did not specifically say so, but I assume the call arrived on the 800 number, in which case yes there will be ANI on your bill next month. I get ANI on my Telecom 800 numbers. So by all means send the number along. Let's see who the creature is, and what he is about. And I'll bet you it was NOT a pay station. Hmmm ... :) PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Oct 91 13:27:52 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Area Code 410 in Present Tense Already? The message at tollfree 800-477-4704 has been changed to indicate that area code 410 is now in the present tense. The end of the grace period is now indicated as "next November" -- meaning 1992, even though it is not yet November 1991 at this writing. A radio ad received from Baltimore earlier this week used 410-792-xxxx. And earlier I received a copy of outgoing electronic mail in which the sender: --used area code 410 --added footnote saying to use 301 until November 1. On Monday 4 November, I will be sending revised versions of some archive files whose names start with "areacode". They will account for the 301/410 split (see above), and also 213/310 and 404/706 (although the last one has to be flagged because it will still not be in effect). ------------------------------ From: agp@cci632.cci.com (Allen Pellnat) Subject: OSI Management Registry Info Needed Organization: Computer Consoles Incorporated Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1991 14:05:42 GMT Can anyone provide me with informational contacts, either telephone numbers or e-mail addresses where I can enquire about the status of the (Formerly ISO) Network Management Forum's registry/library of Managed Objects. I understand that the Canadian Standards Association is the repository but haven't been able to get much from them. Reply by e-mail or 716-654-2686. Thanks in advance. Allan Pellnat Computer Consoles Inc. Rochester, New York ------------------------------ From: nigel.allen@canrem.uucp (Nigel Allen) Date: 27 Oct 91 (23:47) Subject: Relaynet Phones Conference Organization: 52 Manchester Avenue, Toronto, Ontario I've mentioned FidoNet and its telecom-related echoes (FCC and MDF) before. I thought I should also mention that RelayNet, another mail network for BBSes, now has a PHONES conference. (A RelayNet conference, like a FidoNet echo, is like an unmoderated Usenet newsgroup.) If you would like to check out the RelayNet PHONES conference, here are some BBS numbers you can call to access it: The DataGate (404) 739-1013 Hispanic Bell Mgmt Assoc 312-727-4868 Chicago Telephone Exchange at 904-268-2945 Parole Board BBS (919) 965-4696 Some of these BBSes may also have telecom-related files available for download. You may be able to locate some nearby RelayNet or FidoNet BBSes by checking with a local computer user group or university computer center, or possibly a computer dealer. Canada Remote Systems. Toronto, Ontario NorthAmeriNet Host [Moderator's Note: One of the numbers you gave above (312-727-4868) is on someone's desk at Illinois Bell headquarters in downtown Chicago. All 312-727 phones end up there. And in fact I just now went a-calling, and it seems like a well-maintained, interesting BBS. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #880 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12261; 3 Nov 91 0:21 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11398 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 2 Nov 1991 22:46:19 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18458 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 2 Nov 1991 22:46:10 -0600 Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1991 22:46:10 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111030446.AA18458@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #881 TELECOM Digest Sat, 2 Nov 91 22:46:09 CST Volume 11 : Issue 881 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Toronto Transit Commission's Timeline Service [Nigel Allen] NYC Court Decision May Protect Usenet Sites [Stan Brown] Re: Prodigy's Latest Fiasco [Mike Godwin] Divesting Phone Companies (was Testimony to CA PUC ...) [David G. Lewis] CA Rate Increases and GTE Notifications [Lauren Weinstein] Israeli Phones Get Free (and Unasked For) Call Waiting [Warren Burstein] The Rate Shuffle Hearings [John Higdon] I *Couldn't* Use AT&T! [David Singer] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 31 Oct 91 18:42:45 PDT From: Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.fidonet.org (Nigel Allen) Subject: Toronto Transit Commission's Timeline Service Organization: FidoNet node 1:250/438, Echo Beach, Toronto The Toronto Transit Commission operates subway, bus and streetcar service in Metropolitan Toronto (the city of Toronto and the adjacent suburbs). A few years ago, it introduced Timeline service, which gives every bus or streetcar stop its own telephone number. Call the number (for example, 416-539-1111 is one particular stop on the 4 Annette trolleybus route), and you'll get a synthesized voice giving you the scheduled arrival times of the next two or three transit vehicles. It gives the scheduled times, and doesn't track the actual progress of the bus. However, if the bus is likely to be late because of bad weather or some other problem, you're warned that "major (or minor) delays may occur". Since each stop has its own phone number, the service can be accessed from a rotary phone; you just dial the seven-digit number. This uses up most of the (416) 539-xxxx block of numbers, of course, and may have hastened Bell Canada's plans to split the 416 area code. Several other Ontario communities have services like this. Ottawa may have been first. The transit services in Guelph, Oakville, and Mississauga also have phone numbers on their bus stops. Of course, people could consult the printed schedules that are provided for Toronto's less frequent transit routes, but the Timeline service is convenient, and probably has helped the TTC to win or maintain some riders. For a message explaining Timeline, call (416) 539-6666. The Toronto Transit Commission's address, if you want to write to it, is: Toronto Transit Commission 1900 Yonge Street Toronto, Ontario M4S 1Z2 Canada Nigel Allen - via FidoNet node 1:250/98 INTERNET: Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ From: brown@NCoast.ORG (Stan Brown) Subject: NYC Court Decision May Protect Usenet Sites Date: Thu, 31 Oct 91 7:54:15 EST Sites that carry Usenet groups may now be shielded from legal action based on the contents of the postings. Today's (Thursday, 31 Oct) {Wall Street Journal} carries news of a Federal court decision in New York City. It's too long to quote (a full column on page B1), but here's the gist. A column "Rumorville" published in CompuServe said nasty things about a rival. The rival sued the writer of the column and CompuServe for libel. US District Judge Peter Leisure agreed with CompuServe's motion to be dropped from the lawsuit. The judge said, "CompuServe has no more editorial control over such a publication than does a public library, bookstore, or newsstand, and it would be no more feasible for CompuServe to examine every publication it carries for potentially defamatory statements than it would be for any other distriubutor to do so." The article continues, "CompuServe doesn't pre-screen its electronic bulletins, though it periodically deletes notes it considers offensive. ... The decision won't necessarily [benefit] Prodigy ... because Prodigy has an unusual policy of pre-screening its members' public notes." The article didn't mention Usenet. But it seems to me that the key point is the inability to pre-screen material, coupled with the absence of any declared intention to do so. Usenet meets both those criteria. I believe the decision should be made known to any site administrators who are nervous about carrying Usenet in general or particular newsgroups because they fear their sites may be liable if someone is offended by the content. Judge Leisure's decision is an important precedent that should remove that fear. Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio, USA +1 216 371 0043 email: brown@ncoast.org ------------------------------ From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) Subject: Re: Prodigy's Latest Fiasco Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1991 03:27:31 GMT Our Moderator notes: > [Moderator's Note: Well whatever happened to the last part of 'knew or > should have known'? If it were *that easy* to avoid liability -- by > just shaking your head and claiming you knew nothing of it -- then why > can't everyone pull that off all the time? PAT] Bookstores and libraries *do* pull this off all the time. Judge Leisure correctly decided in Cubby Inc. v. CompuServe that online services like CompuServe are more like bookstores than like newspapers or magazines. The same reasoning would lead to a different result for Prodigy, which prescreens all its public postings. Mike Godwin, mnemonic@eff.org (617) 864-0665 EFF, Cambridge ------------------------------ From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) Subject: Divesting Phone Companies (was Testimony to CA PUC...) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1991 17:26:22 GMT (a rather sensitive issue to my company ...) In article gast@CS.UCLA.EDU (David Gast) writes: > 5. If Pacific Telesis really thinks it cannot make money in the > regulated market without these additional increases, then ask them to > divest themselves of Pacific Telephone. Of course, they won't because > Pacific Telephone provides the resources for all the other businesses > they want to get into. Before I came to Bell Labs, I spent a little over a year working for Teleport Communications Group, an access carrier with its largest network in New York. Teleport is slowly but surely setting itself up as a competitor to New York Telephone in the local loop, although the regulatory envelope hasn't quite been pushed enough to put the two companies at anything approaching parity. Anyway, we often had brainstorming sessions about what kinds of defenses NYTel would present to keep Teleport out of the local switched services business, and how we'd respond. We half-seriously considered that if NYTel said that Teleport shouldn't be allowed to provide local switched services because we'd "cream-skim" the urban, business market leaving NYTel with the "unprofitable" suburban and rural residential operations, then we'd offer to buy those "unprofitable" operations from them at book value ... (note that "we" == "Teleport" in the above; my current company would have nothing to do with such shenanigans ...) David G Lewis AT&T Bell Laboratories david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!houxa!deej ISDN Evolution Planning ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Oct 91 11:33:01 PST From: lauren@vortex.COM (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: CA Rate Increases and GTE Notifications Greetings. I had a number of discussions with GTE Executive Offices last week concerning the lack of detailed rate increase proposal info in advance of the current round of public hearings. Their resposne was that the dates for all mailings had originally been set in agreement with the PUC, and that they did not occur in advance of the hearings since, supposedly, these public testimony hearings were never originally planned! Apparently the PUC actions regarding intra-LATA competition were not initially planned to go to public testimony hearings at all! Only complaints by some public action groups resulted in these hearings being scheduled. GTE also kept repeating that these hearings were not the rate hearings, so detailed rate proposals were not necessary in advance of these hearings. When I pointed out that the issue of allowing competition was directly related to the proposed rate increases, so of *course* the info was needed, they agreed that might be true, but that they couldn't change the procedures. There appears to be some question about whether there will actually be another round of public testimony hearings to actually deal with the rate case separately. There of course will be the usual "private" hearings with official testimony by various interested parties. GTE also tried to explain their rate increase by mentioning that part of the proposal includes removing the current "temporary surcharge" (now running at something close to 20% I believe), which would tend to (very slightly) reduce the impact of the rate increases. They also claimed that their proposals for increased measured service usage charges were much less than what Pac*Bell proposed (though I have not seen this in writing as of yet). The plan apparently is for the details of the rate increases to start going out in the October 7 cycle bills -- those would be mailed starting around the 24th or 25th of October. So GTE subs should start seeing the details about now. It's also worth noting that most of the public groups who are fighting the increases by both telcos are doing so from the standpoint of residence customers -- suggesting that businesses take an even *higher* increase than currently planned. Even the originally proposed increases could be devastating to small businesses, particularly ones with lots of ordinary POTS or Centrex lines to service incoming callers, but who don't make many intra-LATA toll calls. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ From: warren@worlds.com (Warren Burstein) Subject: Israeli Phones Get Free (and Unasked For) Call Waiting Date: 31 Oct 91 14:47:19 GMT Reply-To: warren@itex.jct.ac.il Organization: WorldWide Software Within the last few weeks, Bezeq, the Israeli phone company, turned on call waiting (and forwarding, I think) on digital phone lines. This of course has caused lots of fun for modem owners. There appears to be no way to disable it temporarily, so I suppose I will have to call them and ask to have it disabled permenantly. So I started thinking about getting a second line so there is some way that people can reach me when I'm plugged in. An article in this past Friday's {Yediot Achronot} says that a second line can be installed at the same price as the first line, a mere 965 shekels (about $400). Bezeq was once famous for taking years (yes, years) to install a single line, now you can have as many as you can pay for, if you can pay for them. warren@itex.jct.ac.il ------------------------------ Subject: The Rate Shuffle Hearings Date: 31 Oct 91 22:19:59 PST (Thu) From: john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) After hearing what an exciting thing the Caller-ID hearings were, I decided to attend the "IntraLATA Competition" roadshow hearings when they came to a town near me. At the moment that happens to be Victorville. A little mention of the locale is in order. Victorville is a small (45K) town that is essentially the gateway from the Los Angeles sewer to the High Desert. It is part of a growing desert community of about 220K and the majority of the telephone service comes from Contel. Since Contel's rates are tied to the rates Pac*Bell charges, the PUC came to town to get customer comments. The meeting was in the city council chambers and had representatives from Pac*Bell, Contel, GTE, TURN, and the PUC consumer advocates office present. In addition, there were about ten townfolk at the gathering. It would appear that simple (?) rate increases do not have the draw that an explosive issue such as Caller-ID carries. In any event, the predictable comments came from the predictable people. The judge gave opening remarks, Mr. Disher from Pac*Bell had a few words with charts and graphs showing his case, the person from Contel said that his company was still pondering its part in the whole thing, and the PUC consumer advocate explained what his function was in the whole proceding. TURN predictably was more concerned with little old ladies than with anyone else, claiming that this increase would be a hardship on people with fixed incomes, etc., etc. But since all of these people had been heard from many times before, the bulk of the time was turned over to the audience. I spoke first. Remembering the last major PUC action with Pac*Bell (the great regulatory giveaway, as David Gast so aptly expressed it) and how we, the public, got absolutely nothing, I went on to express my suspicions that this was even worse. Refuting Mr. Disher, I mentioned that it was too late to stop bypass; it is already a big reality among big business. Pac*Bell is sharply raising its prices ONLY in those areas where the customers involved cannot go anywhere else and will use that money to undercut and devastate the competition. And what happens if competition is so effective that Pac*Bell needs even more money from the regulated rate base? Will they be back in a couple of years wanting still more? And this in an industry where the actual costs of providing service are plummeting. And considering what advances have been made in the past ten years in the arena of telecommunications, what have we, the monopoly customers got to show for it? What services can we get now that we could not get ten years ago? (Remember this is California and Pac*Bell territory so you ISDN people just sit on your hands!) Anyway, I went on and on. It was sort of theraputic in its own way. But it suddenly dawned on me. Here was the public's chance to sound off, and we heard from one crackpot (me), two little old ladies ("too much money"), and one other gentleman ("too much money"). And this for an increase that, if passed, will really gouge the small businessman. The doubling of the local minute charge is not something to be taken lightly. I overheard Mr. Disher (Pac*Bell) discussing the wonders and joys of measured service with one of the elderly ladies. Believe you me, that is Pac*Bell's next major agenda: total measured service. In my comments, I suggested that if competition was so successful in bringing down the price of everything else, why not extend it to local service as well? This did not make a big hit with Mr. Disher, who after the meeting tried to tell me that the cable companies are responsible for keeping Pac*Bell from wiring neighborhoods with fiber. "We would love to deliver your sixteen residential lines with T1, but the PUC won't let us." And with that bedtime story, it is time to hit the hay. But the judge did mention that no decision could be expected on this whole big ugly mess before fall, 1992 and no implementation would be scheduled before the first of 1993. John Higdon (hiding out in the desert) ------------------------------ Subject: I *Couldn't* Use AT&T! Date: Fri, 01 Nov 91 21:25:01 -0800 From: singer@almaden.ibm.com This morning, I was trying to call an 800 number, and got an *immediate* busy signal when I dialed the last digit. That seemed odd, so I tried another one ... and got the same results. Then, I tried making a non-800 number call using AT&T, and got a distorted and unintelligible intercept recording ... even the three-tone sequence at the beginning was wrong. Then, I tried calling 10288-1-700-555-4141 -- same bad recording. But 10222-1-700-555-4141 gave me the "welcome to MCI" message, and 10333 got me Sprint's message. And my other line had the same problems. (Both are in the same exchange, 408-356.) I called "0" for the operator, and got an AT&T operator, who was able to connect me to the original 800 number with no problems; after that, I asked the operator to give me AT&T repair. They couldn't figure out what might have happened, but when I got home from work, I was able to use AT&T again. I guess I'm lucky that GTE contracts with AT&T for operator services, or I might never have been able to make an AT&T-handled call again! I just wish I knew what happened ... any guesses? David Singer -- Internet: singer@almaden.ibm.com BITNET: SINGER at ALMADEN Voice: (408) 927-2509 Fax: (408) 927-4073 [Moderator's Note: I'm sure you would 'have been able to make an AT&T handled call again ...'. There was probably some temporary failure in the local AT&T switch which got resolved seconds or minutes at most after you noticed it. I doubt it was peculiar to your phone lines, and repair service was probably inudated with complaints they could do nothing about (other than notify AT&T, in case Mother didn't know about it already, which is doubtful. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #881 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19989; 3 Nov 91 1:29 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06774 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 2 Nov 1991 23:53:24 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18331 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 2 Nov 1991 23:53:14 -0600 Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1991 23:53:14 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111030553.AA18331@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #882 TELECOM Digest Sat, 2 Nov 91 23:53:08 CST Volume 11 : Issue 882 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Genie vs. FCC -- Tempest in a Teapot? [John R. Levine] Information on CCITT Red & Blue Book on Internet [Krishnan Sakotai] IS-41 Information Request [Douglas Scott Reuben] AT&T Online Translation Service [Jacob R. Deglopper] Telco Voice Mail Question [Alan Marc Gallatin] 512 Area Code Split Announced [Joe Isham] ISDN Connectivity Report and Demand For Testing [Clemens Schrimpe] Morris, IL ESS (was Early ESS) [Jim Haynes] Re: First ESS(tm) Retired [David T. Punia] Fast Turnaround on Service Interuption [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Genie vs. FCC -- Tempest in a Teapot? Date: Fri, 1 Nov 91 12:09:42 EST From: John R. Levine An article earlier this week in {Newsbytes} offers some insight into what Genie and the other packet carriers are upset about. (You may think of Genie as an on-line service, but GEISCO also happens to have a very large data network.) The FCC considers packet networks to be similar to voice networks, and all things being equal they should be connected to the phone network the same way, e.g. 950 and 10XXX. But all things are not equal, and the FCC has given packet carriers an exemption so that they connect to the phone network like business customers, not like long distance customers. There is an important financial difference, since long distance carriers pay per-minute rates for incoming calls, but business customers don't. That's why per-hour rates for packet carriers are much lower than for voice carriers, e.g. $10/hr is cheap for voice, but expensive for data. I'm not saying at this point whether this is good or bad, but it's how things are. But this exemption is just for the current kind of service, i.e. business POTS. Anything fancier is lumped under ONA. The FCC's ruling says that if a packet carrier wants any ONA features, it loses its exemption. If they wanted, say, ANI or automatic redial (the two examples an FCC spokesman used,) they'd have to pay voice rates. That's what they don't like. What the packet carriers really want is to be put in a different category so their less expensive network access is considered the normal thing for their category, rather than an exception in the larger long distance category. As a spokesman for the trade association ITAA, formerly Adapso, put it: "We want to be treated like any business user of phone services, like General Motors. We're not common carriers, like MCI." Editorial: I can see merit to both sides here. On the one hand, the packet carriers use the local telco for access much as long distance carriers do. On the other hand, what they ask is much less -- typically 2400 bps of bandwidth rather than the 64K bps that voice needs, if only there were a way to distinguish between data and voice calls. In a perfect world one might dial 950-DATA to be connected to a local packet switch which would take your data off the voice net at your local switch, then connect you via efficient packet switching to your packet net. AT&T even has a 1PSS packet switch intended to work this way. ISDN offers the necessary hooks, but it'll be quite a while before ISDN overtakes POTS. Considering the way that telcos are overpricing ISDN, and their long standing philosophy that they know what's good for you and if it's anything but POTS it'll be real expensive, I believe that pricing packet access like business service is the best achievable compromise in the near term. Maybe in 1999 when there is as much ISDN as POTS they can rethink the rules. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ From: ksakotai@cs.ulowell.edu (Krishnan "krish" Sakotai ) Subject: Information on CCITT Red & Blue Book on Internet Organization: University of Lowell Computer Science, Lowell MA Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1991 19:13:49 GMT Hello, Sometime back I heard that ITU finally agreed during Telecom '91 that it would initiate publishing the BISDN standards (or proposed ones) on Internet or some central location in electronic form for public consumption. Anyone know what is happening in that regard? I for one feel that it is ridiculous that any organization or standards body should make it difficult for individuals to easily obtain information on standards. Krishnan C. Sakotai ------------------------------ Date: 2-NOV-1991 04:13:29.57 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: IS-41 Information Request Since IS-41 will be upon us by March 1992, I was wondering what (if any) literature or technical info there may be available on this? For those unfamiliar with what "IS-41" is, it will be a protocol by which various switches can "talk" to each other. Thus, while presently and Ericsson cellular switch can't talk to an AT&T Autoplex switch, the IS-41 protocol will allow the two to communicate, and thus allow "Custom Calling" features and all sorts of feature packages to work in different switches other than your home switch. So not only will you be able to get calls in ANY market without the need for activation codes or roam ports, you will be able to get "call-waiting", "three-way-calling", and the various flavors or "Call-forwarding" as well. This is sort of like a 'universal' Motorola EMX system, where your features can be accessed in any Motorola EMX which is connected to a given EMX-cellular system, but far more advanced, allowing all switches to participate in what will hopefully one day be a nationwide network. Ericsson and Ericsson's chief buyer, McCaw Cellular, are pushing hard for this. They need to integrate their new Ericsson switches in the NY market with the Motorolas surrounding the NY system (presently they have an EMX just sitting there for the purpose of integration with the rest of the Northeast, and it runs the Cell One/NY's voicemail as well), and McCaw has a good deal of systems in the Midwest (and Lynn/Los Angeles?) which are AT&T, all of which McCaw wants to interconnect into its growing network. This differs from the system which McCaw just announced, where callers in six markets can go to other McCaw systems (running Ericssons, of course :) ), and be autonimously registered when they enter one of these six areas. Thus, the Ericsson "back home" knows they are elsewhere, and automatically sends the calls out to that system. Custom calling works as well. This, however, is only between Ericssons (and presently this doesn't include Canadian Ericssons, as least not in terms of McCaw's systems), and utilizes SS-7, but it is not, from what I gather, a true implementation of IS-41. Anyhow, I guess I went beyond a simple request for info, but perhaps some of you have heard about IS-41 but by a different name, so maybe the above description will help broaden the range of responses. Thanks in advance for any info, Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet P.S. I said "Cell One/NY" - This used to be "Metro One/NY", but last week they changed their name. Just a note for the more observant reader! :) ------------------------------ From: jrd5@po.CWRU.Edu (Jacob R. Deglopper) Subject: AT&T Online Translation Service Reply-To: jrd5@po.CWRU.Edu (Jacob R. Deglopper) Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 91 19:43:40 GMT In a previous article, gtoal@gem.stack.urc.tue.nl (Graham Toal) says: > AT&T also offers a translation service online if you're in a fix > abroad; no hint of the charge scale though. Is this accessible from inside the US? I'm a volunteer EMT with a rescue squad in the Washington DC suburbs, and we occasionally could use some sort of translation. We're supposedly able to get it through Andrews Air Force Base, but on at least one occasion, all we've been able to get is Spanish, and we have members and police officers who speak Spanish. The case in point was one night about 3 AM we had a man who spoke only Chinese who seemed to have a severe case of poison ivy. He didn't need an ambulance, or a hospital, just a good shot of cortisone, but we ended up taking him anyway due to a lack of communication. Anyone have any other ideas besides calling the Chinese Embassy at 3 AM? It would have been a local call, and if it _wasn't_ 3 AM, that's what I would have done. _/acob DeGlopper, EMT-A, Wheaton Volunteer Rescue Squad jrd5@po.cwru.edu -- Biomedical Engineering '95, Case Western Reserve Opinions my own... ------------------------------ From: alan@hercules.acpub.duke.edu Subject: Telco Voice Mail Question Date: 2 Nov 91 23:06:55 GMT Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C. I'm currently using GTE's 'Personal Secretary' service (aka voice mail). The service notifies you of message(s) waiting by changing the dialtone from a constant sound to a 'stutter.' Does anyone know of a device that can be plugged inline with the phone which will illuminate a light or something to that effect when a message is waiting (thereby eliminating the need to pick up the phone to hear if there is a message). Thanks! ALAN MARC GALLATIN Internet: alan@hercules.acpub.duke.edu Duke University School of Law ----- Disclaimer, etc.... ----- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Nov 91 20:16 CST From: joeisham@chinet.chi.il.us (Joe Isham) Subject: 512 Area Code Split Announced Southwestern Bell has announced the splitting of area code 512 effective November 1, 1992. The new area code -- 210 -- will serve San Antonio and the Rio Grande Valley. The 512 code will remain in use in an area stretching from Lampasas through Austin, San Marcos, Victoria and Corpus Christi to south of Kingsville. Cities to be switched to 210 include San Antonio, New Braunfels, Seguin, Eagle Pass, Laredo, Zapata, McAllen, Harlingen and Brownsville. Joe Isham -- joeisham@chinet.chi.il.us ------------------------------ From: csch@netcs.com (Clemens Schrimpe) Subject: ISDN Connectivity Report and Demand For Testing Date: Fri, 1 Nov 91 17:56:11 MET DST Hi all around - Over the past weeks I have tried some international ISDN connections, I'd like to report about. According to the German PTT (Telekom) the following ISDN connections exist from Germany to foreign networks: DIRECT: Netherlands (PTT telecom), [regular service since 9/91, before 9/91 was a 2 year trial period] Denmark (Telecom Denmark), [since 8/91] Italy (ASST), [since 10/91] United Kingdom (British Telecom), [since 12/90] France (France Telecom), [since 10/90] TRANSIT THROUGH FRANCE: Belgium (RTT), [since 7/91] USA (AT&T), [since 10/91] Japan (KDD), [since 4/91] So far I have successfully tested connections to/from UK and JP: The connection to the UK was set up with UCL (University College London). They run a self-made PRI adapter board on their side with their own software. We tested IP using broadcast-UI-frames and it worked well. Call setup-time is between two and five seconds and ping shows an average of 70 ms (compared to 55 ms inside Germany). The connection to JP was tested with Sony in Tokyo. They run their own software on a BRI interface for their NeWS Workstations. After punching our local PTT admins to correctly route our calls, we finally connected. Call setup-time is between 12 and 19 (!!!) seconds (it seems, that someone is manually connecting us on a switchboard :-) Ping shows an average of 640 ms (obviously a satelite link) FTP throughput is currently very lousy (av. 2KB/sec) but we are currently trying other B-channel link parameters (we currently use LAP-B modulo 8 with a windowsize of 7). Now: I am still interested in trying other connections. Any volunteers? We can support almost ANY HDLC-based B-channel protocol (various Level 2 and Level 3 protocols) -- we are even able to connect to 56kbit based networks (USA) with the appropriate baudrate conversion [at least we have implemented it :-] Even people with just a TA and aserial port on a cisco are quite welcome. Hope to hear from YOU soon :-) Clemens Schrimpe, netCS Informationstechnik GmbH, Berlin INTERNET: csch@netcs.com BITNET: csch@db0tui6.BITNET PSI: PSI%26245050230409::CSCH X.25/WIN: 2624 50502 30409 PHONE: +49-30-856 999-0 FAX: +49-30-855 52 18 X.400: /S=Schrimpe/P=netCS/A=DBP/C=DE/ [on Research Networks] ------------------------------ From: haynes@cats.UCSC.EDU (Jim Haynes) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 91 20:18:30 -0800 Subject: Morris, IL ESS (was Early ESS) Morris, IL had the first electronic switch, but as I recall it was a field test of a model not intended for production. Seems like it used vacuum tubes and magnetic drum memory. ------------------------------ From: punia@uvm-gen.uvm.edu (Card 54...) Subject: Re: First ESS(tm) Retired Organization: University of Vermont -- Division of EMBA Computer Facility Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1991 04:20:41 GMT In andys@ulysses.att.com (Andy Sherman) writes: > The Succasunna switch, installed in 1965, was the first commercial > electronic switching system. AT&T Network Systems and New Jersey Bell > are considering donating part of the retired switch to the Smithsonian > Institution. A good idea! I grew up in central NJ, and remember the excitement generated by the first touch-tone phone in the neighborhood. Hmm, sort of foreshadowed my later training, I guess, but it was exciting ... David T. Punia Internet: David.Punia@uvm.edu Univ. of Vermont CSEE dept Voice: 802-656-1915 Burlington, VT 05405-0156 Compu$erve: 72617,1211 Prodigy: DJND87A ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1991 23:44:25 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Fast Turnaround on Service Interuption I've been bad, and I guess I should call one of those confession phone lines and bare my soul ... Actually, it wasn't my fault (don't all deadbeats say that? !), but my phone bill -- my monthly pennance to IBT had gone unpaid for over two months, and I got my just rewards Friday morning when the service was summarily cut. I'm on a telephone bill paying service which allows me to call a certain number, identify myself, punch in a 'merchant number', an amount to pay, and a date to pay. For whatever reason, IBT had gone by the wayside ... I've not yet gotten to the bottom of it, but that's not the gist of my story. They say they called me to notify me on Thursday. Then why no message on their own message service I asked. No answer to that, but I suppose they figure I was the liar, having gotten their message from the day before and erased it. I pointed out I'd had this service and the same phone numbers for about 14 years, plus service in my own name for 32 years (from a time when deposits were never requested by telco, mind you; I've never had a deposit with them) and were they seriously concerned about a bill for $239? The response was they're getting itchy a lot sooner these days than they used to ... and would I like to pay up now. So I leave my office in the driving rain (what else is new here for the past week!) and hoof it over to Harriet's Department Store on Clark Street, which is a bill paying agency for various utility services. I paid and by the time I got back to my office twenty minutes later the service had been turned back on ... amazing! I was only tipped off to the problem when I tried to call my brother at home at 1:00 PM to say something ... only to get the sickening intercept message on both lines and my multi-ring number that 'the number you have dialed, xxx-xxxx has been temporarily disconnected'. I reached him on the cell phone which fortunatly was turned on and sitting on my desk here at Digest headquarters; he drove over to get me and we went immediatly to Harriet's. The service was restored by a little after 2 PM. An oddity when calling the 800 numbers during the shutoff was that Telecom tried to forward the call as always, but IBT picked it off here and returned (to the 800 caller) the same message about 'the number you dialed (local Chicago number -- not 800 number) has been temporarily disconnected.' All in all, a fun afternoon, and it gave me a good excuse to yell and be abusive to the service rep as well as be cranky at my office the rest of the afternoon ... while it rained, and rained, and rained. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #882 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07557; 3 Nov 91 4:12 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26884 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 3 Nov 1991 02:39:31 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21936 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 3 Nov 1991 02:39:19 -0600 Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1991 02:39:19 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111030839.AA21936@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #883 TELECOM Digest Sun, 3 Nov 91 02:39:17 CST Volume 11 : Issue 883 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Station Message Detail Recorder [Mike Morris] Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" [Mike Morris] Re: Snoopy Phone Wanted [Mike Morris] Re: Oldest 1ESS in USA Retires [John Higdon] Legalities of Taping Phone Calls [David R. Zinkin] Call Waiting/Cancel Call Waiting Fun [David R. Zinkin] Instead of ATT Mail? [Alexis Rosen] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: morris@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us (Mike Morris) Subject: Re: Station Message Detail Recorder Organization: College Park Software, Altadena, CA Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1991 01:52:41 GMT cadizht@csgrad.cs.vt.edu writes: > In article john@mojave.ati.com (John > Higdon) writes: >> .... when one talks about SMDR he is usually referring to a normal >> function of a PBX. SMDR is on almost any recent moderately sized electronic key system -- the Mitel SX-10 at work hasn't been in production for years, but has it (if I could only get the printer port to work ...) > This is also how I understand it. However I don't have the money > for a PBX. I do have an ordinary computer and an ordinary phone. Can > one get SMDR or something equivalent to its functionality without > getting a PBX? What can I attach to my ordinary phone so that my > ordinary computer can have the functionality of an SMDR? Radio Shack made (maybe still does) a SMDR-like device that printed on adding machine tape. It hooked across the phone line just like an extension. Mike Morris WA6ILQ PO Box 1130 Arcadia, CA. 91077 | All opinions must be my own since nobody pays 818-447-7052 evenings | me enough to be their mouthpiece... ------------------------------ From: morris@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us (Mike Morris) Subject: Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" Organization: College Park Software, Altadena, CA Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1991 02:25:08 GMT uunet!uucs1!gaf@lll-winken.llnl.gov writes: > Making system software deal with DST was fun. Our first > systems (about ten years ago) had a problem changing back to standard > time. They would change back to standard time at 2 AM, but then it was > 1 AM and not time to change yet, so it'd go back to DST. Each change > was printed, so we got lots and lots of changes logged. We finally > made the change based on the "unadjusted" or standard time. Software > is fun! Guy Finney UUCS inc. Phoenix, Az writes: > Here's another fun twist to dealing with DST: Try writing code for a > system which frequently crosses time zones. Sometimes you cross from > a daylight-savings zone to a standard-time zone. You might even > cross between zones using different "spring ahead" values. > What sort of beast is this? An alarm clock program which wakes up > passengers on a cruise ship! The human-factors considerations are > daunting indeed. When you set your alarm for 7:00 AM tomorrow > morning, are you doing it thinking it will or won't take the zone > change into account? It's even money you'll get it wrong, and we > always had some passengers complaining that they'd missed breakfast > because they had outwitted the alarm program. I once worked on a Data General Nova-based radio paging system in Los Angeles. The time changes were handled rather straightforwardly: a table in memory had the dates for the next ten years, and a task queued up tasks every hour: one was a time change task. If it executed it set a flag that inhibited execution -- the flag was cleared by the midnight task. What was a real bear was time entry for delayed pages: one of our features was a page queued up to three months in advance via the operator (as opposed to touchtone entry). Example: ask 50 people what 12 o'clock is, and is it am or pm, and is 12am = midnight or noon?. We ended up not accepting 12:00 at all, and instead requiring the operators enter 'noon' or 'midn'. And then we had people giving us military time, etc. As I recall, we had it accept: nn:nn am or pm or a or p n:nn am or pm or a or p n am or n pm nnnn (but having to accept 0000 and 2400) nnnn am or pmor a or p (yes, we had customers say "1520 pm" and so on.... In case anybody is interested the routine converted everything to military time with 0000 as midnight, and then exited. The code to do that was in the neighborhood of 8k of assembly code. The reason we went to all the trouble was simple: turnover and training. The operators job was minimum wage, and we'd have a complete turnover at least once a year. It was easier to note what was being typed by the operators and make the software handle 90% of it -- this way it was minimal training. Please no flames about the decisions - I didnn't make policy, it was 1979 when this was done and I was a electronic tech and junior programmer on this problem (the system had two 6' racks of card cages with paging tone generators, transmitter controllers (14 tx's at 12 sites, linked by microwave), operator interfaces, audio switchers, interfaces for 32 phone lines, etc ...) I had an excellent supervisor who was a fabulous teacher -- I learned more about real-time systems from him than I've learned about any other area of programming from anybody else since. Mike Morris WA6ILQ PO Box 1130 Arcadia, CA. 91077 | All opinions must be my own since nobody pays 818-447-7052 evenings | me enough to be their mouthpiece... ------------------------------ From: morris@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us (Mike Morris) Subject: Re: Snoopy Phone Wanted Organization: College Park Software, Altadena, CA Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1991 02:37:45 GMT ddodell@stjhmc.fidonet.org (David Dodell) writes: > My wife's birthday is coming up, and she mentioned at one time that > she missed the "Snoopy" telephone she had as a kid. I called the > local AT&T store, and confirmed that they did make one at a time, but > no longer. > Anyone have any suggestions where I might find one of these in working > order? Here in LA they are rare -- it seems every 25-39 year-old that had one as a kid now wants one ... I've heard of them going for >$600 in primo condition. Mike Morris WA6ILQ PO Box 1130 Arcadia, CA. 91077 | All opinions must be my own since nobody pays 818-447-7052 evenings | me enough to be their mouthpiece... ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Oldest 1ESS in USA Retires Date: 2 Nov 91 22:55:36 PST (Sat) From: john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) jj1028@homxc.att.com (Maurice R Baker) writes: > The 1ESS design project, which was conducted at Whippany in the > early 60's, was the largest single development effort undertaken by > the Bell System up to that point, occupying more than 300 engineers > and technicians. > AT&T Network Systems and New Jersey Bell are considering > donating part of the retired switch to the Smithsonian Institution. At least the 1ESS in my office is still up and running. Since the introduction of the 5ESS to other prefixes in my area, I have come to appreciate that verable old workhorse more and more. My Pac*Bell contacts insist (of course) that it is just a matter of time before the five prefixes (723, 978, 979, 559, and 879) still served by the 1ESS are moved over to the 5ESS and the 1ESS is finally retired. From what I have seen of the 5ESS's performance, that will be a sad day. Somehow, I don't think that the SJ14 1ESS is going to end up in the Smithsonian :-) John Higdon (hiding out in the desert) ------------------------------ From: drz@po.CWRU.Edu (David R. Zinkin) Subject: Legalities of Taping Phone Calls Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA) Date: Sun, 3 Nov 91 06:23:23 GMT Hello, I have a question, and I was wondering if someone could please help. I have had a number of difficulties at my school with departments who claim that they will look into a particular matter, fill a request, resolve a minor difficulty, or something else along those lines, but who then fail to follow up and later claim "but we never promised to do that" or even "no one *here* would say that!" I was thinking that a way to end the problem would be to tape any calls between me and the departments in question so that if such a problem arises again, I can simply play back the tape. My question is, can I legally tape a phone call between me and another party without letting the other party know that the call is being recorded? By the way, in case the laws vary by state, I'm in Ohio. Thank you! David Zinkin (drz@po.cwru.edu) CWRU Psychology and Chemistry (WR '92) Apple Computer Student Rep & CWRU MacMUG University of Rochester Cancer Center ------------------------------ From: drz@po.CWRU.Edu (David R. Zinkin) Subject: Call Waiting/Cancel Call Waiting Fun Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA) Date: Sun, 3 Nov 91 06:32:28 GMT Warren Burstein's post regarding call waiting reminded me of one of my prior dealings with Rochester Telephone. (So that people who see my previous message don't think I've lost my marbles, I go to school in Ohio but my home is in Rochester, NY.) Shortly after I purchased my first modem, I brought it home with me and tried to use it on my home phone line. Of course I had forgotten that my parents had Call Waiting on the line, so I called Rochester Telephone to find out how to temporarily disable it. The representative who took my call said "Well, for an extra $1.50 a month plus a $15 connect charge, we can give you Cancel Call Waiting. You can then just push 80# to disable the Call Waiting tone." After placing the order for the "extra service", I had an idea. I asked if it would be possible to discontinue Call Waiting but to continue the Cancel Call Waiting service. The rep answered, "Certainly. I can see why you'd want to do that; you'd save yourself quite a bit of money." This happened three years ago; now I'm sorry I didn't ask for more details on how I could "save money"! :-) David Zinkin (drz@po.cwru.edu) CWRU Psychology and Chemistry (WR '92) Apple Computer Student Rep & CWRU MacMUG University of Rochester Cancer Center ------------------------------ From: alexis@panix.com (Alexis Rosen) Subject: Instead of ATT Mail? Date: Sun, 3 Nov 91 03:41:43 GMT Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC [Moderator's Note: When I received the message below, I gave it some thought and finally decided to show it to you, in view of the several complaints I've read recently regarding the huge increase in rates for little users at AT&T Mail starting next month. And since we've discussed commercial services such as MCI/ATT Mail here in the past, I thought this alternative might interest some of you. Bear in mind two other services offering similar things are Chinet here in Chicago (312-283-0559 login newuser) where Randy Suess is the sysadmin and $75 per year or so gets you a full news feed plus mail; and Portal Comm- unications in San Jose, CA whose phone number slips my memory at present. You'll note instructions were to not run it if deemed 'too commercial', but I had never heard of this bunch and found it interesting. Maybe you will also. This is the final message in this issue, so if you don't want to read a 'commercial' message, you may quit reading now. PAT] ------------------------- (start of submitted text by Alexis Rosen) I have never sent anything to this group before because I felt it would be inappropriate for me to do so. Nevertheless, because of the ATT mail thing, I thought it might be valuable for your readers to know about our service. So I'm sending you the entire "brag sheet" we typically send to people who enquire about us; feel free to trim it down or not post it at all if you think it's too "commercial" (though we certainly aren't making a dime off of the service ...) for this group. One thing that should be pointed out is that we're a real unix, not just a mail system. This is good for unix users, or those capable of learning it, (or at least capable of learning to get into elm or mailx from a shell), but bad for computerphobes who just want to type an address and a letter. We will probably make a bbs interface available early next year, but I don't want to make any promises. Alexis Rosen Owner/Sysadmin, PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC alexis@panix.com {cmcl2,apple}!panix!alexis ---------------------Cut Here------------------- About Panix Last Updated by Alexis on Saturday November 1, 1991 Panix is a Public Access Unix system based in New York City. It is dedicated to providing stable and reliable netnews and mail services, but anything legal is permissible as long as it doesn't get in the way of our primary goal. Panix is accessible by local call from anywhere in New York City, and can be accessed via PC Pursuit from anywhere in the USA or Canada. PC Pursuit is a service (which we are not affiliated with) which provides up to 30 hours of long distance modem time per month for $30. Panix is a Mac IIx with 8MB RAM, 1150MB on 3 fast Wren disks, 10 serial ports, and an assortment of modems. There are currently 8 phone lines, two of which are reserved for high-speed Telebit access; the others run at 2400bps. We plan on migrating the 2400 bps lines to V.32bis over the next year. Panix calls the largest Internet site in NYC six to thirty times daily to exchange mail and news. We also call a west coast Internet site (apple) regularly, and a number of smaller sites in NYC. We get a full newsfeed from NYU.EDU, including a large number of regional newsgroups (such as the ba, ny, nj, dc, can, and chi hierarchies). As a member of the ".com" domain, any site that can mail to anywhere on the Internet can mail to us. This includes Compuserve and MCI mail, Bitnet sites, etc. We will provide you with your choice of shell- sh, ksh, csh, or tcsh. We have the ELM mail reader as well as regular mailx. A variety of programs useful for Mac and PC users is available on-line, such as archivers, unstuffers, and download protocols such as kermit, xmodem, ymodem, zmodem, and jtrans. We provide recent versions of both the rn and nn newsreaders. We will support both, and keep both current. Panix runs a modern merged SVR2.2 / BSD4.3 Unix, A/UX 2.0.1. It's a "nice" Unix, including features like job control and all the programs and libraries you get with either standard flavor of Unix. Panix is a system created solely for the convenience of its users. If there is a program or newsgroup that you want that we don't have, let us know, and we'll try to get it. Panix isn't free. We've invested enormous amounts of money and time into making Panix run smoothly, and we continue to spend money on the system. For example, early in March '91 we were running out of disk space, so we purchased a 630MB disk to relieve the crunch. Just a few months ago we added three more phone lines, with another Telebit on one. We ask that users pay us $10 per month, or $100 per year up front. We do _NOT_ charge for connect time or disk storage. If you think you might be interested in Panix, you can join up. If you decide after two weeks that you don't like it, just tell us -- we'll cancel your account and you won't owe us anything. We supply uucp mail feeds free to users on request. News feeds are available for an extra $5. You can pick which groups you want, up to 2MB/day average. (Telebit users can have up to 3MB/day.) What's in store: 1) A _REAL_ Internet connection. Schedule calls for hookup by December 31, 1991. Of course, this might slip a bit, but we hope not. Benefits of faster mail will apply to all users, but those wishing to use FTP or telnet must pay an additional fee. 2) V.32bis modems. So far, demand has been almost nonexistant, but we anti- cipate that many people will own V.32 or V.32bis modems by the end of the year, as prices tumble. When a significant portion of our user base owns such modems, we'll start putting them on. 3) If warranted, a processor upgrade. Right now performance, even at peak usage, is quite good. If we add more lines, this may be necessary. If you are interested in subscribing to Panix, you can dial in at (718) 832-1525, and log in as "newuser". Panix will ask you a few questions and then one of us will call you back shortly. If you'd like to talk to one of us first, email us at the addresses provided below, or call us. Alexis Rosen (212) 877-4854 alexis@panix.com cmcl2!panix!alexis Jim Baumbach (718) 965-3768 jsb@panix.com cmcl2!panix!jsb ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #883 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07014; 4 Nov 91 0:05 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17612 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 3 Nov 1991 21:23:53 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07722 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 3 Nov 1991 21:23:22 -0600 Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1991 21:23:22 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111040323.AA07722@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #884 TELECOM Digest Sun, 3 Nov 91 21:23:05 CST Volume 11 : Issue 884 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Radio Station DJs Meets the Telemarketers [David Kuder] Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [Peter da Silva] Re: Need Information on European Metering Pulses [Peter Knoppers] Re: AT&T Online Translation Service [John R. Hall] Re: Oldest 1ESS in USA Retires [Christopher Lott] Re: Digital Cordless Telephones [Ken Levitt] Re: Information on CCITT Red & Blue Book on Internet [Peter M. Weiss] Re: AT&T Online Translation Service [Harold Hallikainen] Re: Telco Voice Mail Question [Harold Hallikainen] Re: Administrivia: Today We Fall Behind [Warren Burstein] Re: How Does the Law Handle Crank Calls [Dave Niebuhr] Re: IS-41 Information Request [Carl Wright] Re: Working Assets as an IEC? [Charlie Rosenberg] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: david@indetech.com (David Kuder) Subject: Radio Station DJs Meets the Telemarketers Organization: Independence Technologies, Inc. Fremont, CA Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1991 06:37:20 GMT In light of the recent spate of messages about DJs making obnoxious calls, I wonder what the rules are when things get turned around. One of the local station's morning (why is it always the morning "crew"?) DJs was complaining about the seemingly infinite telemarketing calls he got from the {San Fransisco Chronicle} and John Higdon's favorite, the {San Jose Mercury News}. Somehow he found out the name and number of the telemarketing company. After spewing spleen for a bit, he encouraged his listeners to call the company and ask if they wanted to subscribe to him. He also had the number of some joint subscription bureau run by the papers that he gave out. He did give out numbers over the air and he did encourage listeners to call those numbers. When he succeeded in getting through (off air) to one, he was told to "quite bugging us", but I don't think the receptionist being harrassed knew it was him who was responsible. David A. Kuder 415 438-2003 david@indetech.com {uunet,sun,sharkey,pacbell}!indetech!david ------------------------------ From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls Organization: Taronga Park BBS Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1991 02:15:25 GMT spencer@set.princeton.edu (S. Spencer Sun) writes: > On the other hand, B104 (WBSB 104.3) often does this thing in the > morning where someone calls in and arranges for the DJ to call someone > else (usually spouse/significant other/good friend) and tell them > something outrageous ("Your wife just died" or something else to cause > a really heated/hysterical reaction) before telling them it's all a > joke. Yeh, the local Q-Zoo station used to do this. I don't know if the current DeeJays still does it. They call it "Zoogerizing". Peter da Silva Taronga Park BBS. +1 713 568 0480|1032 2400/n/8/1. ------------------------------ From: knop@duteca4.et.tudelft.nl (Peter Knoppers) Subject: Re: Need Information on European Metering Pulses Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1991 15:03:40 GMT moon@gdc.com writes: > I am looking for information on the "metering pulses" that are used in > many European countries. In the Netherlands metering pulses are available at a price if you are connected to a computerized telephone exchange, or free if you are connected to an old-style exchange. (The telco cannot suppress the signal in old-style exchanges.) The signal is a 50Hz common mode signal of approximately 60 Volts. The signal lasts about 400 ms (but this varies a lot). Each pulse corresponds to DFL 0.15 on your phone bill (about US $ 0.08). To count the pulses a special (rather expensive) counter is used that contains the following circuit: a b a and b are connected parallel to the phone(s) | | (These wires are called tip and ring in the US) | | * > ||| < This is a kind of transformer that only passes > ||| < through common mode AC and DC current. > ||| < * | | | | These capacitors block DC current, preventing === === 0.3 uF an off-hook condition that would otherwise occur. | | Only common mode AC current gets beyond this point. |_____| | | === 0.5 uF Don't know why this capacitor is needed. | | / \ 1.2 .. 2.2 kOhm Resistor. / \ | __|__ |__/__| 2400 Ohm Coil that controls the mechanical counter. | | e This wire must be connected to ground. In computerized exchanges additional equipment must be connected to the subscriber circuits that are to receive metering pulses. This equipment is very expensive and takes up a similar amount of space as 4 subscriber line circuits. It is possible to replace the resistor in the counter with a bridge rectifier and a small relay. This relay closes shortly when a metering pulse is received and can be used to drive other circuits. Such modifications are probably not appreciated by the phone company ... > My particular problem is determining the requirements for a modem in > this scenario, in particular, I need to know the maximum signal level > of the metering pulses at the modem's input. As you can see, the metering pulse signal reaches the phone or modem completely intact. The modem should therefore be capable of normal operation with a 50 Hz 60 Volt common mode signal superimposed on the normal line voltage. (The audio signal is differential mode.) Test signals used by the phone company to test subscriber circuits use much higher voltages (a few 100 Volts). While this does not happen while the line is off-hook, a modem should survive such signals when on-hook. Hope this helps, Peter Knoppers - knop@duteca.et.tudelft.nl ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Nov 91 12:29:44 EST From: jhall@ihlpm.att.com (John R Hall) Subject: Re: AT&T Online Translation Service Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Sure. The Language Line service can be reached from the U.S. These are the numbers and address that customers can use to request more information. I have not called these numbers to verify their accuracy. If there is any problem, send me some E-mail and I'll figure it out. AT&T Jeff Munks - Director Sales & Marketing Building 2 Suite 400 1 Lower Ragsdale Drive Monterey, CA 93940 800-752-6096 or 408-649-5871 8am - 5pm PST Note that the service itself is 24 hours / seven days, but the info line is just 8am-5pm. John ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Nov 91 13:50:03 -0500 From: cml@cs.UMD.EDU (Christopher Lott) Subject: Re: Oldest 1ESS in USA Retires Organization: University of Maryland Dept of Computer Science > The cutover was accomplished in three steps. First, the new > 5ESS was installed and hooked up to the incoming lines -- which were > also still going to the old switch -- but not powered up. Then, at > 1:00 AM, when there is relatively little traffic on the old switch, > the cables coming in to the 1ESS were quickly cut. Once all the lines If this is obvious, please forgive me. I don't understand why the old 1ESS switch wasn't just powered down about the same time that the new one was powered up. Wouldn't this do the same thing?? Seems awfully final to cut the cables. What if the new switch doesn't work right? I must be missing something. Christopher Lott \/ Dept of Comp Sci, Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 cml@cs.umd.edu /\ 4122 AV Williams Bldg 301 405-2721 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Nov 91 16:06:08 EST From: levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org (Ken Levitt) Subject: Re: Digital Cordless Telephones In a message Sydney Weinstein writes: > There seems to be some questions re who is B. A. Pargh, and that > is understandable. > B. A. Pargh is a Wholesale distributor of things for office supply > style stores, and they happen to list an awful lot of telephones. > ... but they deal with resellers only, they do not sell at retail. I have a dealer account with B. A. Pargh. I'm willing to buy and resell a 900mhz digital cordless phone at zero profit under the condition that I get to play with the phone for a few days before passing it on. Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 UUCP: zorro9!levitt INTERNET: levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org or levitt%zorro9.uucp@talcott.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Sunday, 3 Nov 1991 16:34:17 EST From: Peter M. Weiss Subject: Re: Information on CCITT Red & Blue Book on Internet In article , ksakotai@cs.ulowell.edu (Krishnan "krish" Sakotai) says: > Sometime back I heard that ITU finally agreed during Telecom '91 that > it would initiate publishing the BISDN standards (or proposed ones) on > Internet or some central location in electronic form for public > consumption. Anyone know what is happening in that regard? (etc.) ~ftp bruno.cs.colorado.edu cd pub/standards/ccitt Peter M. Weiss | pmw1 @ PSUADMIN | psuvm.psu.edu|psuvm 31 Shields Bldg - PennState Univ. | not affiliated with psuvm.psu.edu|psuvm University Park, PA USA 16802-1202 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Nov 91 15:17:10 -0800 From: hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Re: AT&T Online Translation Service Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo I've heard that a voice online langauge translation service is available here in CA, but I can't find any info on it. It might be interesting to try some of the low cost text language translation software now available. Selective Software (3004 Mission Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060, 800 423 3556) sells "Spanish Assistant", "French Assistant", "German Assistant", and "Italian Assistant" for $79.95 each. Most translation software I've seen works "both ways" (ie, English to Spanish and Spanish to English), but these appear to be one way translators. They take an ascii file and generate an ascii file in the target language. They include the standard editor that puts the source and target files up on the screen side by side, to check and edit the translation. They won't replace human translators, but they seem better than nothing! For the online emergency handling problem, text oriented translators have a couple problems. Once you have the translated text, can you read it into the phone? There are lots of languages that would not be understandable to someone were I to try reading them. This could possibly be handled by a voice synthesizer. Then, the caller is going to speak in some language, and the dispatcher has to try to figure out how to spell what the caller says. Well, we could try to get into voice recognition, or require all telephones to have asciii keyboards, but perhaps we'd better stick with human translators! Harold ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Nov 91 16:25:06 -0800 From: hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Re: Telco Voice Mail Question Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo > I'm currently using GTE's 'Personal Secretary' service (aka voice > mail). The service notifies you of message(s) waiting by changing the > dialtone from a constant sound to a 'stutter.' > Does anyone know of a device that can be plugged inline with the phone > which will illuminate a light or something to that effect when a message > is waiting (thereby eliminating the need to pick up the phone to hear if > there is a message). Someone sells a little box that I once considered manufacturing. It trips an indicator if your phone has rung. I originally intended to sell it to answering services, who'd give it away to their customers, cutting down the incoming calls for messages when there were none. My "little box" would reset the indicator when you went off hook (by detecting loop current, not loop voltage, so answering services on cross-town extensions would not reset the indicator). I've seen a similar device advertised for something around $20, but I don't remember where! This should work with your voice mail system if it rings your phone before transferring to the voice mail system. A "software solution" to this problem would be for telco's or independent voice mail systems to call you back every few minutes when they are holding a message. Harold ------------------------------ From: warren@worlds.COM (Warren Burstein) Subject: Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" Date: 3 Nov 91 10:37:55 GMT Reply-To: warren@itex.jct.ac.il Organization: WorldWide Software spencer@set.princeton.edu (S. Spencer Sun) writes: > Speaking of which, don't various countries go on/off savings time at > different dates in the year? And is there any good reason why this > isn't synchronized? (Seems it would make the most sense to me ...) In Israel, we don't even do the same thing from year to year. Each year the Interior Minister decides what the dates will be that year. Usually the Interior Minister wants as little summer time as possible and the Energy Minister wants as much as possible. warren@itex.jct.ac.il ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1991 7:39:16 -0500 (EST) From: NIEBUHR@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) Subject: Re: How Does the Law Handle Crank Calls (Text deleted about steps to take when dealing with harrassing calls.) > [Moderator's Note: You really can't blame telco for the stand they > take on this. They are not going to waste their time adjudicating > domestic disputes between family members, in-laws and the like. If you > want to prosecute the trouble-maker, that's fine. If not, that's fine > also, but don't involve telco in your personal disputes. PAT] The point is that a lot of harrassing calls are NOT from "Aunt Sally", "Nephew Bob", etc. The phone company is involved at the beginning solely by being the medium of transmission. If the phone company didn't want to get involved, then why is there a portion of the White Pages in my phone book devoted to telephone harrassment and what to do about it? I don't know if the Moderator has ever received harrassing phone calls but I can tell you that its not fun to receive them and hear some of the language. It is also not fun to pick up the phone and have the idiot on the other end start pressing buttons before I can say more than "Hello". It is also not fun getting calls in the middle of the night and the caller just hangs up. Punks can and do that. The original message described how it works New Hampshire and a comment was made about not being sure if other states worked the same way. My comment what that in New York it did. [Moderator's Note: And it is very similar here in Illinois also. Yes, I had a battle with this about two years ago. We had a trap put on the line and caught the person, who happened to be the lady living downstairs from us. We signed the police complaint, went to court on the appointed day and she was told if she called us again for any reason at all she'd wind up in jail. Telco's position is they do not intend to be your private investigation service. They are not able to tell what you do or do not consider harassing. They will assist the police and courts in stopping the harassment if that's what you want, but they won't be in the middle of family disputes, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: wright@irie.ais.org (Carl Wright) Subject: Re: IS-41 Information Request Date: Sun, 03 Nov 91 19:00:11 EST Organization: UMCC - Ann Arbor, MI USA You can get them from the Telecommunications Industry Association in Washington, DC. Call Susan Shaw at 202-457-4904 to order copies. I believe that only the interim standard is available to those not on the IS-41 committee. Carl Wright | Lynn-Arthur Associates, Inc. Internet: wright@ais.org | 2350 Green Rd., #160 Voice: 1 313 995 5590 EST | Ann Arbor, MI 48105 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Nov 91 06:51:22 PST From: Charlie Rosenberg Subject: Re: Working Assets as an IEC? I have used them for over a year and US Sprint sends me my long distance bill. Unless they have a new deal going, they were charging me the same rate as Sprint was and donating 1% to a group of enviromental organizations. There is another outfit that does the same thing with Sprint that is call The Affinity Fund. For more information call 1 800 366-9563. Hey, I feel like non-profits can use that one percent a whole lot more than U.S. Sprint can. Charlie Rosenberg ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #884 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10035; 4 Nov 91 2:07 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29279 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 3 Nov 1991 23:56:45 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29460 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 3 Nov 1991 23:56:35 -0600 Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1991 23:56:35 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111040556.AA29460@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #885 TELECOM Digest Sun, 3 Nov 91 23:56:30 CST Volume 11 : Issue 885 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson CNID Bill Passes Committee [Washington Post via Bill Berbenich] Caller ID Chip from Motorola [Electronic Eng Times via Harold Hallikainen] Re: Question About 5ESS Switch [Dave Niebuhr] 900 Line for Homework Help [Dave Niebuhr] System 85 Expert Needed [David Lesher] Re: Genie vs. FCC -- Tempest in a Teapot? [Harold Hallikainen] Re: Early ESSs? [John Nagle] Re: AT&T Online Translation Service [Michael A. Covington] Re: Prodigy's Latest Fiasco [Harold Hallikainen] Wanted: Two Line Answering Machine Recommendations [Jeffrey C. Honig] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: CNID Bill Passes Committee [Washington Post Story] Date: Sun, 3 Nov 91 19:30:37 EST From: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu By Cindy Skrzycki Washington Post Staff Writer Congress took another step forward yesterday to balance the privacy rights of callers who do not want their telephone numbers revealed against those of people who want to know who's calling them: The Senate Judiciary Committee proposed that telephone companies offer callers free blocking of their numbers on a call-by-call basis. The committee agreed on a bill that would make Caller ID legal and sets a national standard that requires what is known as per-call blocking of telephone numbers. If someone has Caller ID on his or her phone line, a screen displays the number a call is coming from. With per-call blocking, a caller who does not want that number displayed punches in a short code before dialing. "I believe Caller ID is a welcome service," said Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), who introduced the Telephone Privacy Act of 1991. "But forced Caller ID violates our fundamental right to privacy because there are a variety of situations in which callers need and deserve to keep their phone numbers to themselves." The bill proposes to grandfather per-line blocking in the fewer than ten states that have allowed it. Per-line blocking protects the identity of the caller on all calls made from a single line. It also creates a special exemption for battered women's shelters and other places where people take refuge from domestic violence, offering per-line blocking in those cases. The bill, which may come to a vote in the Senate before the end of the session, also resolves legal disputes over Caller ID, exemplified by a Pennsylvania case that prevents Caller ID from being offered by Bell Atlantic, the regional telephone company serving that state. The legislation, if passed, also would mean that states such as Virginia that have Caller ID but have not allowed blocking would have to allow per-call blocking. The District and Maryland both have Caller ID and free per-call blocking. "We can live with the bill and manage Caller ID in the states we serve," said Aubrey Sarvis, vice president of federal relations for Bell Atlantic. Similar legislation proposed by Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), chairman of the House telecommunications and finance subcommittee, also is awaiting floor action. That bill sets as a minimum free per-call blocking. Both House and Senate bills place restrictions on how information gleaned from the use of 800- or 900-phone numbers is sold or reused. ------------------------ Whether one agrees with the philosophies of the various parties to this story or not, it is certainly an objective piece IMHO. Bill Berbenich ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Nov 91 14:02:16 -0800 From: hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Caller ID Chip from Motorola {Electronic Engineering Times}, 28 October 1991, page 79 Motorola's MOS digital-analog IC division has entered the telephone-caller identification market with a highly integrated CMOS chip designed to demodulate the Bell 202 1,200-baud frequency-shift- keying asynchronous data. The primary use for the MC145447 is in telephone adjunct boxes and telephone products that can receive and display the calling number or message-waiting indicators that's been sent to subscribers from participating central-office facilities of the public-switched network. The device contains a carrier-detect circuit and a ring detector that can be used to power-up the device. The chip operates from a single supply of 3.5 V to 6 V. The pin-selectable clock frequencies are 3.68 MHz, 3.58 MHz or 455 KHz. In quantities of 1,000, the caller-ID chip goes for 2.23 each. In quantities of 25,000, the price drops to $1.88 per unit. More info, call Dave Kolkman, 512 928 6733 -------- Note also that Yamaha has what they are calling a "Vodem" chip that does standard 2400 bps data modem communications, 9600 bps fax send/receive, DTMF detection and generation, voice generation (probably thru digitized voice instead of synthesis), and Caller-ID. Harold ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1991 7:27:55 -0500 (EST) From: NIEBUHR@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) Subject: Re: Question About 5ESS Switch > I recently found out that my switch is a 55-5ESS. I understand what > the 5ESS is, but what is the 55? > [Moderator's Note: Maybe the person who told you this was stuttering > as they were speaking ... :) PAT] NO! This was on a complaint form that I filed with NY Tel. I feel that it was a legitimate question, or are only some people allowed to ask questions. I thought that this forum was for the discussion of telecommunications issues and reasonable questions were allowed. Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 [Moderator's Note: Of course reasonable questions are allowed. Does anyone have an answer to Mr. Niebuhr's reasonable question? What is a 55-5ESS? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1991 7:57:17 -0500 (EST) From: NIEBUHR@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) Subject: 900 Line for Homework Help Today's {Newsday} has an article about school kids (grades 8 - 12) getting homework help via a 900 line. It was started by a former teacher whose office is in Huntington, New York and is designed for those who need assistance with math, science, social studies or communications skills. The hours are 6:30 - 10:00 pm, Monday through Thursday. All questions are answered by a teacher who is on the owner's staff. The charge is $1.99/minute, up to ten minutes, first minute free. Calls by students under 18 must be approved by a parent and are terminated at ten minutes unless parental approval is received. Safeguards: Charge only for time on the phone; no charge for the tutors' research, and refunds are offered when the tutors can't find an answer. This is an interesting concept for use of a 900 line; however, I feel that the charge is somewhat high. It seems to fill a void when parents cannot assist a student for some reason or lack access to research materials. The reason I feel it is high, is that on Wednesday, I can spend $.95 per minute to find out the results of the local elections held the day before. If anything, it should be the other way around. Maybe volume (if it develops) will help the cost to come down. Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: System 85 Expert Needed Date: Sun, 3 Nov 91 8:59:35 EST Reply-To: wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (David Lesher) Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex I'm looking for an expert on System 85's to answer a few quick questions. These are in the features area, i.e "can it do ....?" rather than the how it works realm. Any volunteers? wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Nov 91 14:58:16 -0800 From: hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Re: Genie vs. FCC -- Tempest in a Teapot? Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo It was suggested that local telcos could distinguish between voice and data traffic, charging voice for access to an LD carrier, while charging substantially less for access to a data packet network. I don't think the telco should charge based on the content of the call. They should, instead, charge for the use of their equipment. Telephone usage charges have (as I've suggested before) traditionally been charged to those originating the call, not those receiving the call. So, on this basis, I'd expect to see no per minute charge on 950, 10XXX or access to packet switched data networks. In fact, these high usage call receivers would appear to decrease the amount of equipment the telco needs to handle a higher amount of traffic, since they need less line terminating equipment for the same call volume on high usage lines (the LD carriers, etc.). They can make their income by charging the people who call these numbers. The fact that a data user may only be sending 2400 bps over the local loop and thru the switch really makes no difference to the switch, so it appears to me there should be no price differential between data and voice, providing the data can be stuffed down the voice circuit. Harold ------------------------------ From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) Subject: Re: Early ESSs? Date: Mon, 04 Nov 91 02:15:36 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) The Moderator questions: > [Moderator's Note: Wait a minute. What about Morris, IL? I thought > they were first or nearly first back in the sixties. PAT] There were a number of experimental electronic switching systems before the 1ESS. Interestingly, an early Bell System experimental system, in 1953, involved pole-mounted concentrators remotely controlled by a #5 crossbar at the central office. Field trials were conducted in LaGrange, IL, Englewood, NJ, and Freeport, LI. Further experimental work was done on distributed switching, but the notion of active components in outside plant was premature; components were not yet reliable enough. So the 1ESS was, like its electromagnetic predecessors, designed with all the active components in the central office. The system installed in Morris, IL in 1958 was in some ways "more electronic" than the 1ESS system. Unlike the 1ESS, which uses reed relay type devices for the actual call switching, the Morris system used cold-cathode gas tubes. So, unlike 1ESS, Morris had no moving parts. But Morris required special telephone sets, with active components, because the gas-discharge tubes couldn't handle the usual 86V ringing signal. Coin lines, PBX lines, and loop testing, all of which use nonstandard voltages, were not supported at all. While electronic, Morris was only partially solid-state. The test system had over 2000 vacuum tubes, plus 30,000 gas-discharge tubes. The test system served only 400 customers, so a big Morris-type system would have had rather large numbers of vacuum tubes. Pictures of the Morris switch show a truly strange-looking system. The gas-discharge tubes had to be illuminated by fluorescent lamps to provide enough free electrons so that the tubes would ionize quickly. So the banks of tubes sat in brightly lit racks with built-in fluorescent tubes running vertically down the racks. After Morris came the 101 ESS, which was a PBX in the 200 line range. This, interestingly, used a time-division bus front-ended by ferreed relays. But the bus was analog, not digital, using "pulse-amplitude modulation", intermittently connecting a sample-and-hold circuit to the analog bus when the time slot went by. But after these forays into truly electronic switching, Bell Labs decided to build the 1ESS around what are essentially big arrays of reed relays controlled by a computer. Semiconductors just weren't ready for the job of physically switching telephone-line levels. So the first 1ESS, at Succasunna, (dedicated May 27, 1965), still switched calls with moving contacts. And so did all the other 1/1AESS switches. (Was some kind of electronic retrofit developed, or are the 1/1AESS switches running today still using fereed relays?) It's interesting to think of how things might have developed. If the distributed concentrator concept had been pursued, the phone system might look very different today, with much more intelligence in the outside plant. We might have ended up with a phone system that looked more like the ARPANET or Datakit, rather than the central CPU operating a dumb crosspoint architecture we still see today. If the cable TV people start selling dial tone, we may see it yet. [Source: A History of Engineering in the Bell System, Switching Technology, 1925-1975.] John Nagle ------------------------------ From: mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) Subject: Re: AT&T Online Translation Service Organization: University of Georgia, Athens Date: Mon, 4 Nov 91 02:44:00 GMT In article jrd5@po.CWRU.Edu (Jacob R. Deglopper) writes: > The case in point was one night about 3 AM we had a man > who spoke only Chinese who seemed to have a severe case of poison ivy. > He didn't need an ambulance, or a hospital, just a good shot of > cortisone, but we ended up taking him anyway due to a lack of > communication. Anyone have any other ideas besides calling the > Chinese Embassy at 3 AM? It would have been a local call, and if it > _wasn't_ 3 AM, that's what I would have done. Call the Chinese Embassy in the daytime and ask them if they have anyone on duty at night. (Probably so, for two reasons: they want to be able to deal with emergencies at any time, and they probably do a lot of their work when it is daytime in Peking rather than in Washington.) Even the lowliest receptionist would be able to give you all the help you need; you wouldn't need to talk to an attache or anything. Michael A. Covington, Ph.D. | mcovingt@uga.cc.uga.edu | N4TMI Assistant to the Director, Artificial Intelligence Programs The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602, U.S.A. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Nov 91 14:26:06 -0800 From: hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Re: Prodigy's Latest Fiasco > To add confusion to the issue, the October 31 edition of the > {Washington Post} reports the ruling of U.S. District Judge Peter > Leisure that says Compuserve cannot be held liable for defamatory > statements contained in a newsletter available through its electronic > library. A rep for the ACLU was quoted as saying that it was one of > the first decisions by the First District Court ruling on the status of > electronic bulletin boards, holding that they have limited liability > and that without knowledge of the act they are not liable. Let's see, libel and slander are (as I recall) for saying or publishing an untruth that damages someone. Is a BBS a publisher? Could it not perhaps be considered a library? Are libraries liable for the contents of their books? Harold ------------------------------ Subject: Wanted: Two Line Answering Machine Recommendations Reply-To: Jeffrey C Honig Organization: Information Technologies/Network Resources; Cornell U Ithaca, NY Date: Sun, 03 Nov 91 23:09:28 -0500 From: Jeffrey C Honig I have two phone lines and a single line answering machine/phone. I've looked at a few dual-line adaptor boxes for the answering machine, but they will make the phone useless. The phone will end up being on the last line that rang (or was answered). Since I don't have dial-a-visit on both lines this would not be desirable. So, I'd like to start looking for a dual-line answering machine. Can anybody provide any recommendations? My current Phone Mate 7050 has remote access, but I'd like something more than a single digit security code. I'll summarize responses. Jeff jch@nr-tech.cit.cornell.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #885 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20830; 4 Nov 91 9:08 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA32103 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 4 Nov 1991 07:07:44 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12008 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 4 Nov 1991 07:07:31 -0600 Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1991 07:07:31 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111041307.AA12008@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #886 TELECOM Digest Mon, 4 Nov 91 07:07:19 CST Volume 11 : Issue 886 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Largest (?) Free Dialing Area [Lisa Gronke via Joe Stein] RFI: PC Voice to ASCII sw/hw [Peter M. Weiss] Re: Legalities of Taping Phone Calls [Steve Brack] Re: Internet to EARN? [Al Stangenberger] Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? [John Goggan] Re: Two Cell Phones on Same Number: It Can Be Done [Robert J. Woodhead] Early Switches Permitting Touch-Tone [Dave Niebuhr] Re: AT&T Online Translation Service [Frederick G. M. Roeber] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: joes@techbook.com (Joe Stein) Subject: Largest (?) Free Dialing Area Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1991 06:01:05 GMT Originally from: lisa@m2xenix.psg.com (Lisa Gronke) >From {The Portland Oregonian}, Friday, November 1, 1991, page D1 & D8 PORTLAND-AREA DIALING TURNS TOLL-FREE AT MIDNIGHT FRIDAY o Every phone call will be local throughout a 1,407-square-mile area from Corbett to Forest Grove by Dean Baker (of the Oregonian staff) Hold that phone a minute before you dial long-distance. Come Saturday, there'll be a lot less need to dial 1 in the Portland area. Portland and 20 neighboring communities will become one big telephone city at midnight Friday. Every phone call will be local througout a 1,407-square-mile area -- from Corbett to Forest Grove, from Burlington to Charbonneau. The new toll-free region ends long-distance dialing among the towns, farms and suburbs around Portland and 20 other adjoining phone exchanges. The new region includes the 20 exchanges that already could call Portland toll-free but could not all call each other unless they paid for it. The spoke-and-hub pattern is being changed to something called an "extended-area service" region in which everyone calls anywhere toll-free. Some 2,500 new circuits have been added for the change, cross-linking the 21 exchanges. For subscribers using 694,256 telephone lines in the area, the change means no more long-distance and more costly flat monthly charges -- but not necessarily more costly total bills. "It all begins to make more sense if we assume that this is a vibrant area that's growing, with a transporation system that's growing and carrying people everywhere, both ways," says Ron Eachus, chairman of the Oregon Public Utility Commission. Unlike a freeway, the old telephone system carried voices toll-free to some areas. But there was a charge to get onto some city streets. The new system is a freeway that will bind the area together. "The commission sees this change reflecting how the community has come together physically, socially and commercially." said Jim Haynes, spokesman for US West. "They said the phone system ought to change to keep up with that." While the PUC has not analyzed the all-one-city approach for benefits to commerce, Eachus said business owners in outlying areas -- Forest Grove, in particular -- told him "it's worth it to us." Still, some telephone users will save money with the change, while others will lose. "We think this is a benefit for the entire region," said Eachus. "I realize this is a subjective call. There will be winners and losers." The winners will be customers who once were forced to make many long-distance calls throughout the 21-exchange region. The losers will be customers who already have extended-area service where they make the most calls. Gresham residents will pay $4.49 more, Sandy $6.38 more, Corbett $9.45 more and Portland just 12 cents more. For the money, Gresham, Sandy and Corbett subscribers will add toll-free dialing to 18 or 19 other exchanges. Winners like Beaverton customers now will be able to make toll-free calls to Lake Oswego and to 11 other extended-area service exchanges that used to cost them money. GTE Northwest will increase Beaverton's residential phone rate $2.54 a month and business rate $2.17 to make up for revenue lost in long-distance charges. But that increase covers it. Still more communities want to get in on the change. Newberg, Molalla, Yamhill, Scapoose, Canby, Hoodland and Aurora all have petitioned the PUC to be included in the toll-free Portland region. A hearing is scheduled Nov. 22, but the investigation and a decision may take many months. Eachus said Vancouver, Wash., also may be included someday in the region. But Haynes said adding Vancouver is unlikely because Vancouver lies on the other side of two legal borders -- a state line and a federal long-distance zone boundary. A Vancouver-Portland "area of interest" also would have to be established under PUC rules. Including Vancouver also would require approval by Washington state and the federal government. Among the 21 exchanges included in Saturday's change, the smallest residential monthly phone bill increase will be 12 cents in Portland; the largest will be $10.25 in Estacada. The smallest business increase will be $1.38 in Portland, the largest $20.50 in Estacada. In making the changes, the seven telephone companies involved will lose $12.8 million in long-distance revenues, but they'll make it up by increasing the extended-area service rates. The process is designed to keep the change "revenue neutral," so the phone companies will neither lose nor profit by the change, Eachus said. Portland's rate increase is the smallest because US West will regain its lost long-distance revenues by spreading the larger extended-area service costs over 377,039 access lines. Estacada and Corbett have the greatest increases because Cascade Utilities will cover its long-distance revenue losses by spreading increased rates over only the 6,385 customers it serves. Not everyone will pay the same rate for service. Customers may choose among three options: flat-rate, measured-rate, or a combination flat-rate local and measured-rate extended-area service. Flat-rate is one fixed charge a month for unlimited calls throughout the extended service area. Measured-rate is a charge for each call made. The combination of flat local and measured extended-area service would be economical for a customer who makes many calls within his or her own exchange but few calls outside it. "This is our first cut on this, and we're starting a tracking mechanism to see how well it works," Eachus said. "This is our attempt to get the region in place and meet the new phone book deadline." ---------------- Metro Toll-Free Calling Area (not exactly to scale) [Adapted from {The Oregonian}, 01-Nov-91] F | | O G NP BU | | R R \ \_____________________________ E O \ Columbia River S V HI BV \______________________________ T E PORTLAND GRESHAM CORBETT LO LG SUNNYSIDE SANDY SCHOLLS TIGARD O C R I REDLAND STAFFORD E T G Y BEAVER SHERWOOD O CREEK ESTACADA CH N Key (roughly from west to east) FOREST GROVE Forest Grove NP North Plains BU Burlington HI Hillsboro BV Beaverton SC Scholls SHERWOOD Sherwood TIGARD Tigard PORTLAND Portland LO Lake Oswego STAFFORD Stafford CH Charbonneau LG Lake Grove/Milwuakie OREGON CITY Oregon City BEAVER CREEK Beaver Creek REDLAND Redland SUNNYSIDE Sunnyside ESTACADA Estacada SANDY Sandy GRESHAM Gresham CORBETT Corbett Telco Number of exchanges Lines GTE Northwest 9 Beaverton, Forest Grove, 211,705 Gresham, Hillsboro, Sandy, Scholls, Sherwood, Stafford & Tigard US West 6 Burlington, Lake Oswego, 461,727 North Plains, Oak Grove, Oregon City & Portland Cascade Util. 2 Corbett & Estacada 6,385 Beaver Creek 1 Beavercreek 3,431 Clear Creek 1 Redland 2,907 Contel of the NW 1 Sunnyside 6,648 PTI/Tele. Util. 1 Charbonneau 1,453 Totals 21 694,256 Joseph W. Stein +1 503 643 0545 joes@techbook.com -or- joe@m2xenix.psg.com My opinion is that I have no opinion but my own... So there! ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Monday, 4 Nov 1991 06:51:43 EST From: Peter M. Weiss Subject: RFI: PC Voice to ASCII sw/hw This is a request from Dr. Donald F. Parsons, list owner of HSPNET-L@ALBNYDH2 (Bitnet). Please respond to dfp10@albnydh2 directly. When he summaries, I will x-post it to C.D.T. Thanks in advance, Pete Weiss, PSU Management Services ------------- ** VOICED PATIENT RECORDS ** "Donald F. Parsons MD" Maintaining a Listserv File on Voice Communication I recently saw a demonstration of a nursing home system using a PC 386 and one of the standard voice->ASCII cards (? Kurzweil). Could any subscribers who have experience with such medical reporting systems send to the list their observations? I will summarize the info into a LISTSERV stored file here. DFP ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Nov 91 23:48:39 EST From: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack) Subject: Re: Legalities of Taping Phone Calls drz@po.CWRU.Edu (David R. Zinkin) writes: > My question is, can I legally tape a phone call between me and > another party without letting the other party know that the call is > being recorded? > By the way, in case the laws vary by state, I'm in Ohio. As far as I know, as long as such is intended for administrative/ recordkeeping purposes, you may tape the call w/o giving notice to the other party. In my experience, I've found it "enhances service" when you tell them you are recording their calls. BTW: I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on c.d.t. 8) Steve ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Nov 91 21:42:43 PST From: forags@nature.Berkeley.Edu Subject: Re: Internet to EARN? Organization: University of California In article is written: > I'm having some trouble sending a piece of Internet mail to a location > that does not have a domain name (of which I am aware). I'm hoping > someone can help me. > I want to send a message to "LISTSERV@TAUNIVM" -- my system does not > recognize that address. TAUNIVM is in Tel Aviv. The reference > material I have at hand indicates that TAUNIVM is connected to the > EARN network and that the EARN network is connected to the City > University of New York (CUNY). Those addresses are all connected to Bitnet. Try sending to: LISTSERV@TAUNIVM.bitnet Al Stangenberger Dept. of Forestry & Resource Mgt. forags@violet.berkeley.edu 145 Mulford Hall - Univ. of Calif. uucp: ucbvax!ucbviolet!forags Berkeley, CA 94720 BITNET: FORAGS AT UCBVIOLE (510) 642-4424 FAX: (510) 643-5438 ------------------------------ From: jgoggan@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (John Goggan) Subject: Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? Date: 4 Nov 91 06:07:13 GMT Reply-To: jgoggan@gnu.ai.mit.edu (John Goggan) Organization: Free Software Foundation In article The Moderator notes: > [Moderator's Note: Obscene language is not required. If you read the > tariffs on this you'll see they refer to 'repeatedly causing the bell > to ring on another's telephone ... ' as harassment, whether or not the > caller speaks up when answered or what is said. ...but what is considered "repeatedly"? If you call the house once, say nothing, and just wait for them to hang up -- is that a crime then? I'm asking because I'm trying to determine if "crackers" using war-dialers are breaking the law. I was under the impression that they WERE -- but just what law(s) exactly are they breaking? Since each person is only bothered "once" (ignoring people with more than one line for the moment), is it "harassment" as stated above? I realize that it is very annoying to the receiver, but are there any laws preventing the crackers from running the war-dialers/prefix scanners? John Goggan [jgoggan@gnu.ai.mit.edu] [Moderator's Note: Good point. I don't think the 'repeatedly' refers to any one subscriber so much as it refers to the entire network. In other words if I call a thousand people, cause their phone to ring and disconnect without speaking (or transmitting data as the case may be) -- if I do this intentially -- then I think its the same difference as calling one person a thousand times doing the same thing. Remember the guy who was a programmer for a bank who fixed the bank's computer so that all the tiny fractions of a cent of interest which otherwise were rounded off and dropped got put in his account instead? The fractional shavings when totalled up amounted to a nice piece of change for him. No one customer noticed the small amount of victimi- zation, yet the guy was found guilty of fraud against the bank. I think it is the same thing with the war-dialers. Everyone is very slightly victimized. PAT] ------------------------------ From: trebor@foretune.co.jp (Robert J Woodhead) Subject: Re: Two Cell Phones on Same Number: It Can Be Done; Here's How Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1991 07:30:42 GMT > [Moderator's Note: Security wise, what solutions are there against > people who program their telephone number to one of the demo numbers > every carrier hands out to their dealers for testing and sales use? Hmm. Offhand, I would venture to guess that (a) each store has a different demo number and (b) each demo number is only valid when used at a location served by a particular cell [and no handoffs]. At least, this is what I would do. Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1991 7:53:05 -0500 (EST) From: NIEBUHR@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) Subject: Early Switches Permitting Touch-Tone I have a question for those who have knowledge of the earlier telephone switches and hope someone can give me the answer. In 1965, my wife and I were on one of the earliest exchanges (516-325) that permitted touch-tone dialing (this was a very small community on Long Island, and still is for that matter). We subscribed to the service and enjoyed it and now I am curious as to what type of switch allowed touch-tone. My guess is that it might have been a 1ESS some early animal. Anyone? Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ From: roeber@vxcrna.cern.ch (Frederick G.M. Roeber) Subject: Re: AT&T Online Translation Service Date: 4 Nov 91 12:44:57 GMT At Telecom '91 a few weeks ago here in Geneva, a few Japanese companies were showing their Japanese-English translation systems. One system was a voice-to-voice interpreter for Japanese <--> English. Voice recognition (of about 500 words in each language), sentance analysis, translation, and voice synthesis took about four seconds. No "training" was needed to teach it a new voice: you could walk up to the microphone and say a sentance (within the 500 word vocabulary), and it would translate it. In addition to the voice synthesis in Japanese or English, it would display the text on a screen in both languages plus French and Spanish. Another company had a computer that could receive a G4 fax, separate the text from the pictures, translate the text (Japanese <--> English), paste it back in, and send the fax on. The slowest part of this demo was the paper feeds in the faxes. It was only programmed to recognize a few (typewritten) fonts, though. There were lots of fun things at Telecom '91. When I get organized I'll send in a summary of the fraction I saw. Frederick G. M. Roeber | CERN -- European Center for Nuclear Research e-mail: roeber@caltech.edu or roeber@cern.ch | work: +41 22 767 31 80 r-mail: CERN/PPE, 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland | home: +33 50 42 19 44 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #886 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21735; 5 Nov 91 2:50 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10347 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 5 Nov 1991 01:02:54 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23451 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 5 Nov 1991 01:02:34 -0600 Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1991 01:02:34 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111050702.AA23451@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #887 TELECOM Digest Tue, 5 Nov 91 01:02:08 CST Volume 11 : Issue 887 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Prodigy's Latest Fiasco [Robert J. Woodhead] Re: Prodigy's Latest Fiasco [Bill Sohl] Re: Prodigy's Latest Fiasco [J. Brad Hicks] Re: AT&T Online Translation Service [Michael A. Covington] Re: AT&T Online Translation Service [Fred E.J. Linton] Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? [Ed Greenberg] Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? [Carl M. Kadie] Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy [Scott Dorsey] Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy [Kath Mullholand] Re: Information on CCITT Red & Blue Book on Internet [J. Porter Clark] Re: Information on E-Mail For U.S. Friend [J. Brad Hicks] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: trebor@foretune.co.jp (Robert J Woodhead) Subject: Re: Prodigy's Latest Fiasco Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1991 07:03:24 GMT PAT notes (regarding BBS liability) > [Moderator's Note: Well whatever happened to the last part of 'knew or > should have known'? If it were *that easy* to avoid liability -- by > just shaking your head and claiming you knew nothing of it -- then why > can't everyone pull that off all the time? PAT] Although it would be nice to see the whole decision before passing judgement on it, I would point out that, as any viewer of Senate hearings knows, it is pulled off all the time at the highest of levels -- as I recall, it's called "Doing the Reagan." Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp [Moderator's Note: Well, hmmm ... time to close still another topic here and move along :). As Mr. Godwin said in an issue over the weekend, the libraries and bookstores 'do it all the time'. A couple more on this thread, then let's close if off. PAT] ------------------------------ From: whs70@taichi.cc.bellcore.com (24411-sohl) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 91 16:36:19 GMT Subject: Re: Prodigy's Latest Fiasco Reply-To: whs70@taichi.cc.bellcore.com (24411-sohl,william h) Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ In article hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) writes: >> To add confusion to the issue, the October 31 edition of the >> {Washington Post} reports the ruling of U.S. District Judge Peter >> Leisure that says Compuserve cannot be held liable for defamatory >> statements contained in a newsletter available through its electronic >> library. A rep for the ACLU was quoted as saying that it was one of >> the first decisions by the First District Court ruling on the status of >> electronic bulletin boards, holding that they have limited liability >> and that without knowledge of the act they are not liable. > Let's see, libel and slander are (as I recall) for saying or > publishing an untruth that damages someone. Is a BBS a publisher? > Could it not perhaps be considered a library? Are libraries liable > for the contents of their books? In a similar article credited to the AP newswire (Bart Ziegler), the article satrts out by saying: "Or should they (electronic BBS) enjoy the looser standards of libraries and bookstores, which are generally not liable for the information they make available." That would seem to clear it up for me. Frankly, it would be ludicrous (IMHO) to expect a library or any other entity that "archives" text to be responsible for everything that flows through. I personally think that the BBS environment is simply not analogous to a newspaper because everything that is published in a newspaper is subject to at least one review by someone. That is certainly not the case for postings to BBSs nor is it the case for libraries (eg. receipt of monthly periodicals etc.) Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's. Bill Sohl (K2UNK) || email Bellcore, Morristown, NJ || UUCP bcr!taichi!whs70 (Bell Communications Research) || or 201-829-2879 Weekdays || Internet whs70@taichi.cc.bellcore.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Nov 91 19:43 GMT From: "J. Brad Hicks" <0004073044@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Prodigy's Latest Fiasco Considering how much I *loathe* Prodigy, I am amazed that I keep coming to its defense. First the stupid STAGE.DAT non-controversy (anybody who read the one-page installation instructions had to know it was going to be there, and anybody who's computer literate would have known that it would have overlapped previously-deleted files). Now this. Of all improbable places to find clarification on a computer-related issue, the current issue of {Newsweek} finally made sense out of this whole silly non-issue, because it reported a simple pair of facts that were not in any other coverage. Most of the news media just picked up the JADL press release; some of them picked up both the JADL and the Prodigy press release, but bless 'em, {Newsweek} cut right to the gist of the matter. (1) The original message which has been described as anti-Semitic was sent in *private mail* from one user to another user. (2) The receiving user was so offended that he or she chose to rebut the message not via return mail but by posting it to a *public forum*. Prodigy refused to post the rebuttal, not because either IBM or Sears is anti-Semitic, but because they have a long-standing policy against allowing personal attacks to appear in a public forum, and they perceived this (correctly, I suspect) as a personal attack on the person who wrote the original *private message*. In other words, Prodigy quite correctly told the second author that if he or she had a problem with something somebody sent him in private mail, he or she should take it up with that person, instead of dragging that person's name and reputation through the mud in a long personal attack in a public forum. Prodigy was right this time. EVEN IF the original author was a genuine anti-Semite, I know as an ex-sysop that it is a genuine BAD IDEA to allow a flame war to start by letting people throw around personal accusations in a public forum. If the pro-JADL second author was so determined to add Prodigy to the list of the many media outlets which are being used to discredit Holocaust revisionism, then by Prodigy's policies, all he had to do was to write the message in such a way that it attacked the ideas without accusing any individual Prodigy subscriber of racism or anti-Semitism or Nazism. How hard could this be? How much is this to ask? Unfortunately, as I know from attempting to rebut accuasations against "occultists" that were made in Prodigy's public forums, I suspect that at that point Prodigy would have thrown his message out anyway, because if he quoted any organization such as the JADL they would decline on the grounds that it "solicited for other organizations." Even if he didn't, they'd probably say it was "too controversial for a family-oriented forum." THEN he or she would have had what I consider a legitimate beef against Prodigy. That's why I don't use Prodigy, and as long as they continue to so actively censor the content of their public forums and until they repay those of us they bait-and-switched over the original fee structure, I never will. [Moderator's Note: Really, this has gone too far off topic to continue here. Maybe one of the .talk groups would be a good place to go. (I did like the Reagan comment though! :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) Subject: Re: AT&T Online Translation Service Organization: University of Georgia, Athens Date: Mon, 4 Nov 91 15:49:53 GMT In article roeber@vxcrna.cern.ch (Frederick G.M. Roeber) writes: > At Telecom '91 a few weeks ago here in Geneva, a few Japanese > companies were showing their Japanese-English translation systems. > One system was a voice-to-voice interpreter for Japanese <--> English. > Voice recognition (of about 500 words in each language), sentance > analysis, translation, and voice synthesis took about four seconds. > No "training" was needed to teach it a new voice: you could walk up to > the microphone and say a sentance (within the 500 word vocabulary), > and it would translate it. Er... how good were the translations? How easy was it to make it produce gibberish? Machine translation is far from a solved problem. I've never seen a convincing demonstration of it. At COMDEX a couple of years ago I played with an English-to-Spanish translator that produced lots of nonsense, in either language, whenever you didn't use its favorite phrases. Michael A. Covington, Ph.D. | mcovingt@uga.cc.uga.edu | N4TMI Assistant to the Director, Artificial Intelligence Programs The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602, U.S.A. ------------------------------ From: "Fred E.J. Linton" Subject: Re: AT&T Online Translation Service Date: 2 Nov 91 19:43:40 GMT In Message jrd5@po.CWRU.Edu (Jacob R. Deglopper) asks: > Is this [translation service online] accessible from inside the US? Yup. In a recent print ad AT&T lists the following 1-800 numbers for "Customer Service for Questions and Interpreting": Japanese: 338-8120 Korean: 338-8097 Mandarin: 338-8095 Spanish: 235-0900 as well as these other 1-800 numbers for related information: 222-0300 "How can we help you?": 661-0661, ext. 5513 I hope these help you. Fred E.J. Linton Wesleyan U. Math. Dept. 649 Sci. Tower Middletown, CT 06459 E-mail: ( or ) Tel.: + 1 203 776 2210 (home) or + 1 203 347 9411 x2249 (work) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Nov 91 10:21 PST From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Subject: Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? Well, here's my experience with Pacific Bell's annoyance call handling. One day, my wife, who was home sick, recuperating from surgery, called and told me that she had received several obscene telephone calls. She had (on her own :-) logged the times and was continuing to do so. I called the business office, and got the annoyance call bureau. They told me that I needed to file a police complaint and call them with the case number, and that they would then take action. So I called the San Jose PD. They told me that they wouldn't take the report from us, but only from the telephone company. Oh well -- a pox on both their houses. I remotely reprogrammed my answering machine with a generic message: "Thank you for calling - Please leave a message." The machine took about four attempts over the next two hours, and we never heard from him again. Had it continued, my next step would have been to try and get one of the two parties (telco or PD) to hold on while I conferenced in the other. Then let them sort it out. edg [Moderator's Note: Actually, I think most of the time the police snicker behind their backs at people who file complaints about obscene phone calls, given their case load otherwise in these violent times in which we live. There are certain crimes which do not take nearly as high a priority as others. They probably said what they did to get you out of their hair. Sorry, but I think that's the way it is. PAT] ------------------------------ From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1991 22:31:09 GMT In jgoggan@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (John Goggan) writes: > [Moderator's Note: Good point. I don't think the 'repeatedly' refers > to any one subscriber so much as it refers to the entire network. In > other words if I call a thousand people, cause their phone to ring and > disconnect without speaking (or transmitting data as the case may be) > -- if I do this intentially -- then I think its the same difference > as calling one person a thousand times doing the same thing. So, a telemarketer who calls ten people who are not interested is equivalent to ten calls to one person who is not interested? Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign [Moderator's Note: Nope, not true at all, because a telemarketer does have a legitimate business reason for calling. The fact that you or I or anyone else is not interested does not remove the legitimacy of the call in the first place. The difference between them and phreaks who war-dial an entire community is the phreak had no business calling the number in the first place ... the telemarketer did. PAT] ------------------------------ From: kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov ( Scott Dorsey) Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy Organization: NASA Langley Research Center Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1991 14:24:22 GMT In article roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: > In article Henry wrote: >> It's true ... tonight, on the game show _Jeopardy_, there was a >> category called "area codes." They would present a clue ... "The >> east side's up and the battery's down ... and they're both in this >> area code". The contestant had to reply "What is 212?" > Was that really the clue, verbatim? If so, it's wrong! It's > not the "east side" that's up, it's The Bronx. The proper quote (from > some old Broadway show tune, I think) is: That's true, in fact the Bronx is so up that it's now in 718, no longer 212 .... scott ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1991 11:10:28 -0500 (EST) From: K_MULLHOLAND@UNHH.UNH.EDU (KATH MULLHOLAND, TELECOMMUNICATIONS, X1031) Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy This area code is bordered by only one other, whether north south east or west. Kath Mullholand, University of NH, Durham, NH k_mullholand@unhh.unh.edu ------------------------------ From: jpc@avdms8.msfc.nasa.gov (J. Porter Clark) Subject: Re: Information on CCITT Red & Blue Book on Internet Organization: NASA/MSFC Date: 4 Nov 91 14:56:03 GMT ksakotai@cs.ulowell.edu (Krishnan "krish" Sakotai ) writes: > Sometime back I heard that ITU finally agreed during Telecom '91 that > it would initiate publishing the BISDN standards (or proposed ones) on > Internet or some central location in electronic form for public > consumption. Anyone know what is happening in that regard? I for one > feel that it is ridiculous that any organization or standards body > should make it difficult for individuals to easily obtain information > on standards. In a similar vein, does anybody know if there is an anonymous FTP source for the ADPCM test sequences described in CCITT G.721 and G.722? J. Porter Clark jpc@avdms8.msfc.nasa.gov NASA/MSFC Communications Systems Branch ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Nov 91 19:39 GMT From: "J. Brad Hicks" <0004073044@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Information on E-Mail For U.S. Friend In reply to somebody else's message, Pat said: > [Moderator's Note: Did you ever get the feeling that within the next > two or three years, Internet will be the default standard for email? > That is, any email service worth anything will use Internet for > connections to the others. The question asked of any service before > signing up should be do they have Internet access. PAT] That's actually a pretty debatable proposition, given how many of the world's governments (including our own) have legislated X.400 as the interchange standard. As a semi-libertarian, I'm torn ... after all, the primary funding mechanisms for the Internet are tax money (to cop a phrase from P.J. O'Rourke, would you hold your grandmother at gunpoint to pay for the Internet? That's what you're doing now ...) and inflated college tuition costs (making it less and less possible for anybody outside the monied elite to get a decent education). On the other hand, RFC822 over TCP/IP is a robust standard, much less politicized than X.400, and I find Internet addresses easier to remember. So given my druthers, I guess I'd pick RFC822 over TCP/IP transport for mail, but with the costs spread evenly over all users (and with none of the costs dumped onto non-users). TANSTAAFL! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #887 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22945; 5 Nov 91 3:36 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01433 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 5 Nov 1991 01:43:52 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01561 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 5 Nov 1991 01:43:16 -0600 Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1991 01:43:16 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111050743.AA01561@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #888 TELECOM Digest Tue, 5 Nov 91 01:42:46 CST Volume 11 : Issue 888 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Economics of Dial-Out Only Lines [Jack Dominey] Re: Internet to EARN? [Fred E.J. Linton] Re: Oldest 1ESS in USA Retires [Al L. Varney] Re: Morris, IL ESS (was Early ESS) [David W. Barts] Re: Today's Phones Must Go!!! [Darren Alex Griffiths] Re: AT&T Online Translation Service [Graham Toal] Re: TTC Timeline Service [Tony Harminc] Re: 5ESS Audio Quality [Guy R. Berentsen] Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" [Tom Gray] Re: Wanted: Two Line Answering Machine [Charlie Rosenberg] Re: Fast Turnaround on Service Interuption [David E. Martin] 540 Pager Scam Update [Rob Boudrie] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jdominey@bsga05.attmail.com Date: Mon Nov 4 15:10:35 EST 1991 Subject: Re: Economics of Dial-Out Only Lines In V11#879, Bob Izenberg (bei@dogface.austin.tx.us) inquires: > A friend told me of a co-worker that brought up using a "dial-out only" > phone line for a computer system at work....If this type of service exists, > what are the economics of it? Since I'm a long-distance salesdrone, the first thing I thought of is a WATS line. Most LD carriers are happy to install them. Instead of the old Band 1 through Band 5 system, most WATS lines provide "unlimited" access, meaning you can call anywhere in the US, including in-state. Calls are typically billed according to mileage at a slightly lower rate than calls over a telco local line. AT&T's version of the "unlimited" WATS line is called One-Line WATS (sm). It costs $36.70 per month, per line, plus $12.00 per month for the WATS account. You can even use it for international calls (with no discount), and for local calls (billed by telco at Intra-LATA WATS rates). So if the computer system that Mr. Izenberg is talking about makes lots of long distance calls, and very few local calls, a WATS line could be just the ticket. Jack Dominey, AT&T Commercial Marketing, Tucker GA (404) 496-6925 AT&T Mail: !dominey or !bsga05!jdominey ------------------------------ Date: 4-NOV-1991 15:28:31.61 From: "Fred E.J. Linton" Subject: Re: Internet to EARN? Responding to a query of ppetto@NCoast.ORG (Peter Petto) in , our Moderator suggests: > Have you tried 'listserv%taunivm@cuny.edu'? As the mystery site TAUNIVM is an EARN site, i.e., a "Bitnet/EARN" site, a good many US mailers won't know how to reach it unless its name is given in the "domain-icised" form TAUNIVM.bitnet . Ergo, some things that might work are: listserv@taunivm.bitnet listserv%taunivm.bitnet@cuny.edu listserv%taunivm.bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu or the bang-path equivalents thereof, or what is obtained therefrom after replacing [cunyvm.]cuny.edu by the Internet name of any other reachable "smart" host. Fred E.J. Linton Wesleyan U. Math. Dept. 649 Sci. Tower Middletown, CT 06459 E-mail: ( or ) Tel.: + 1 203 776 2210 (home) or + 1 203 347 9411 x2249 (work) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Nov 91 13:37:06 CST From: varney@ihlpf.att.com (Al L Varney) Subject: Re: Oldest 1ESS in USA Retires Organization: AT&T Network Systems In article jj1028@homxc.att.com (Maurice R Baker) writes: > From {Bell Labs News} of 10/28/91: > ----Picture of a row of craftpersons with bolt cutters severing > many multi-pair cables--- > The cutover was accomplished in three steps. First, the new > 5ESS was installed and hooked up to the incoming lines -- which were > also still going to the old switch -- but not powered up. Then, at > 1:00 AM, when there is relatively little traffic on the old switch, > the cables coming in to the 1ESS were quickly cut. Once all the lines > were cut, the new switch was turned on. The whole operation took only > a few minutes, and emergency services agencies were notified .... I've written before about the ability of ESS(tm) switches to cut-over lines (one or more NXXs, or an entire office) without the need to drop any calls or cut cables. Each cut-over is handled on a case-by-case basis, so some cut-overs do not use all the capabilities available. In the Succasunna cut-over, the sequence involved was: 1) Lines were marked for cut-over in each switch, as usual, except NJB marked the old switch lines to be "in-active@pre-cut" and set the switch status as "post-cut". The line cut-over normally sets the both switches to "pre-cut". The major difference in procedure involves the treatment of "unassigned" lines in the old switch. 2) All trunks were previously set up to connect via T1 patch panels to the new switch. Patch cords were used to connect to the old switch facilities. 3) At about 1 A.M., set the old office status to "pre-cut", making the switch not recognize new "off-hooks". Set the new office to "pre-cut", making new off-hook requests result in dial tone from the new switch. 4) Pull the patch cords on the T1 facilities. Drops any inprogess trunk calls in the old switch. 5) A while later, cut the line-side cables from the old switch to the MDF. Drops any old line-to-line calls in the old switch. 6) Some days later, when service is completely verified, power off and remove the old switch. Step 5 is not usually needed until the new switch operation is verified; NJB felt the age of the equipment, particularly in the contacts that are used to remove the "off-hook" detection at this No. 1 ESS, might result in some added induction loading on lines after cut-over. Once calls appeared to be working on the new switch, the cables were cut. And in article cml@cs.UMD.EDU, (Christopher Lott) writes: > If this is obvious, please forgive me. I don't understand why the old > 1ESS switch wasn't just powered down about the same time that the new > one was powered up. Wouldn't this do the same thing?? Seems awfully > final to cut the cables. What if the new switch doesn't work right? > I must be missing something. Briefly: (remember Succasunna was large, say gymnasium-sized). Powering off a switch will not reliably remove ground or forms of resistance/inductance from lines, since the non-power state of relays and cross-points is not predictable. The old switch would act as a load on the lines to the new switch. The alarms set off might mask real alarms from the new switch or other systems, and also require a lot of paperwork later. Power spikes induced by any massive load removal is not a Good Thing to do to power sources, especially since the sources probably also power the new switch. The No. 1 ESS switches were not built to be turned off/on frequently. If the new switch doesn't work, a quick massive power-up of all the redundant power sources might damage lots of circuits. Normally, power-up takes lots of time, as in hours! This could be a lot more final than cutting cables, which, as I mentioned, was done only after new switch calls were tested. Al Varney, AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Nov 91 14:09:59 -0800 From: David W. Barts Subject: Re: Morris, IL ESS (was Early ESS) In Volume 11, Issue 882, Message 8 of 10, haynes@cats.UCSC.EDU (Jim Haynes) writes: > Morris, IL had the first electronic switch, but as I recall it was a > field test of a model not intended for production. Seems like it used > vacuum tubes and magnetic drum memory. It was also an end-marked switch (the calls were routed by placing a voltage between where the calling party's pair entered the switch matrix and the called party's pair left it (where one of these "pairs" can be a trunk to another office). I remember reading something about a special kind of tube used in the Morris switch that wasn't a vacuum tube since it actually contained a minute amount of some gas, and this gas was ionized to make it conduct. I believe these were a critical part of the end-marked switch matrix. The biggest drawback with the Morris CO was that it used a different set of voltages than a normal CO; while it was installed, all subscribers in Morris had to use special, non-standard station sets that were designed to work with the Morris CO. The special voltage requirements were a direct result of the special tubes used in the switch. The Morris switch was replaced with a normal 1ESS soon after the Succasunna installation. The nonstandard station set interface (with the associated high cost of replacing all station sets in a service area) was probably the main reason why this technology was never put into production. David Barts N5JRN UW Civil Engineering, FX-10 davidb@zeus.ce.washington.edu Seattle, WA 98195 ------------------------------ From: dag@ossi.com Subject: Re: Today's Phones Must Go!!! Reply-To: dag@ossi.com Organization: Open Systems Solutions, Inc. -- UNIX R Us. Date: Mon, 04 Nov 91 13:31:05 PST In article mmm@cup.portal.com writes: > The reason existing equipment is dangerous is the 48 volts it uses for > powering the bell and sensing the switch hook. I got a shock from > this a few times, once seriously. > Now admittedly I was doing something dumb, stripping the ends of the > phone wire with my teeth because I didn't have a wire stripper. Yet another case of evolution in action kids. I say keep the phones. :-) Cheers, Darren Alex Griffiths dag@ossi.com (finally) ------------------------------ From: gtoal@gem.stack.urc.tue.nl (Graham Toal) Subject: Re: AT&T Online Translation Service Date: 4 Nov 91 23:03:11 GMT Reply-To: gtoal@stack.urc.tue.nl Organization: MCGV Stack @ EUT, Eindhoven, the Netherlands In article jrd5@po.CWRU.Edu (Jacob R. Deglopper) writes: > In a previous article, gtoal@gem.stack.urc.tue.nl (Graham Toal) says: >> AT&T also offers a translation service online if you're in a fix >> abroad; no hint of the charge scale though. > Is this accessible from inside the US? Well, the US number of USADirect on this info card I have here is: 1 800 874 4000 x359, or call collect on 412 553 7458 from overseas. Now -- an update on my application for this card: I was phoned at work by AT&T's UK sales person, who left a message saying she needed my passport number and social security number. I was rather concerned by this, because I know for a fact that the *only* people who can index me anywhere under these numbers is the UK government. I've never given anyone else these numbers (as anyone who has read my postings on other groups about civil liberties might have guessed). However, when I got in touch, it seems the reason was because they assumed I was American. Apparently it is slightly problematical for a non-US person to get this card (she didn't explain why, but I think it was something to do with my wanting to pay with Amex), but she said she would sort something out and make sure I got the card. Graham ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Nov 91 18:50:33 EST From: Tony Harminc Subject: Re: TTC Timeline Service Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.fidonet.org (Nigel Allen) wrote: > The Toronto Transit Commission operates subway, bus and streetcar > service in Metropolitan Toronto (the city of Toronto and the adjacent > suburbs). A few years ago, it introduced Timeline service, which > gives every bus or streetcar stop its own telephone number. Call the > number (for example, 416-539-1111 is one particular stop on the 4 > Annette trolleybus route), and you'll get a synthesized voice giving > you the scheduled arrival times of the next two or three transit > vehicles. It gives the scheduled times, and doesn't track the actual > progress of the bus. However, if the bus is likely to be late because > of bad weather or some other problem, you're warned that "major (or > minor) delays may occur". I've been meaning to mention TTC Timeline here for a while -- thanks for bringing it up. There are a few quirks to the system: The ringing tone is bizzare -- it sounds like a recording of some old rural SxS switch, followed by the clatter of someone carelessly picking up the receiver. The voice is not synthesized; rather it is spliced together recorded pieces. The numbers are not handled too well (stop 1000 is read as "one zero zero zero"), and the stitching between phrases is jerky. But it does work. Actually each stop does *not* have its own number -- they cheated and assigned one, two, or three stops one number, depending on how far apart they are. > Since each stop has its own phone number, the service can be accessed > from a rotary phone; you just dial the seven-digit number. This uses > up most of the (416) 539-xxxx block of numbers, of course, and may > have hastened Bell Canada's plans to split the 416 area code. It seems to use the 1000 through 6000 blocks of 539. I don't know what equipment they are using -- presumably a PBX-style interface. 416 539 is a DMS 100 office. Tony H. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Nov 91 19:10:58 EST From: guy@ihlpw.att.com (Guy R Berentsen) Subject: Re: 5ESS Audio Quality Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article jack.winslade@drbbs.omahug. org writes: > Just over a year ago, the 156th. St. office (the one that serves our > area) cut from a very clean 1AESS to a 5ESS. Almost immediately this > was accompanied with a flood of 'noisy line' complaints from BBS > users. What was funny was that many local calls were dirty, even at > lower speeds, but LD calls on both AT&T and Sprint were quite clean. I have heard that line noise on data calls is often caused by improper syncronization between the switches at each end of a digital path. This causes enough of the signal to get dropped to generate noise on a modem call ( often looks like periodic '{' chars ) even though it is not perceptable on a voice call. ------------------------------ From: mitel!Software!grayt@uunet.uu.net (Tom Gray) Subject: Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" Date: 4 Nov 91 15:16:31 GMT Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada. As an interesting note, we have been on Standard Time for more than a week now in Ontario. Howevr my Maestro telephone with Class service still displays DST. Bell Canada keeps telling us that their new equipment is so modern. You would think tat they could program their switches to follow the time change. Tom Gray ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Nov 91 17:30:11 PST From: Charlie Rosenberg Subject: Re: Wanted: Two Line Answering Machine Crutchfield sells a nice Panasonic 800 446-1640 ------------------------------ From: dem@fnhep5.fnal.gov (David E. Martin) Subject: Re: Fast Turnaround on Service Interuption Date: 4 Nov 91 18:22:45 GMT Reply-To: dem@fnal.fnal.gov Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, IL, USA In article telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: > So I leave my office > in the driving rain (what else is new here for the past week!) and > hoof it over to Harriet's Department Store on Clark Street, which is a > bill paying agency for various utility services. For some reason, Illinois Bell doesn't publicize it, but they take Visa for payment now. Just call them up, ask them your balance, and you can pay it immediately. Of course, then you wouldn't enjoy the Chicago fall weather! David E. Martin National HEPnet Management || phone: +1 708 840-8275 Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory || fax: +1 708 840-2783 P.O. Box 500; MS 234; Batavia, IL 60510 USA / \ e-mail: dem@fnal.fnal.gov ------------------------------ From: Rob Boudrie Date: Mon, 4 Nov 91 13:58:48 EST Subject: 540 Pager Scam Update A friend of mine who works in the security office of a large corporation recently showed me an internal dispatch descirbing the 540 pager scam previously discussed in this group. Besides the expected warnings, it mentioned that their pager company (Skytel) was updating their software to prevent such numbers from being displayed, but that the change had not yet been implemented, and urging caution in the mean time. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #888 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23980; 5 Nov 91 4:10 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02451 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 5 Nov 1991 02:29:46 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25602 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 5 Nov 1991 02:29:23 -0600 Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1991 02:29:23 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111050829.AA25602@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #889 TELECOM Digest Tue, 5 Nov 91 02:29:19 CST Volume 11 : Issue 889 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson LEC Competition is a Bad Idea [David W. Barts] Bypassing the Local Telco is a Good Idea [John Higdon] Another MCI Offer: Is This a Scam? [Brian Crawford] 1973 Articles on 703/804 Split [Carl Moore] Re: Touch-Tone on Old Switches [Steve Valle] Call For Split Information [Carl Moore] Wanted: Integrated Computer Terminal/Telephone [Paul Cook] Looking For SMDS / Frame Relay Mailing Lists [Gordon Spoelhof] Administrivia: Feedback Wanted on Subject Index [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 4 Nov 91 23:10:10 -0800 From: David W. Barts Subject: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea Time and time again, I keep seeing contributors to this Digest make references to how wonderful allowing competition for local dial tone will be. Well, I, for one, cannot share in their enthusiasm. I will admit I am not an expert on the early days of telecom history, but I keep hearing stories of how our towns and cities were served by different, competing telephone companies in the past and of the chaos that resulted from such policy. Things like merchants wasting money having three or four phones installed (from three or four different phone companies) so that all their customers could reach them. And while all this vigorous competition was taking place in the cities, farmers, ranchers, and residents of small, isolated towns had no telephone service simply because there were no profits to be made by serving such areas. Like it or not, local telephone service is, has always been, and probably always will be a natural monopoly. This is a result of the high cost of stringing (or burying) cable through an area, and also of the fact that one properly-maintained cable system can serve an area as well (actually better than, since there are less connectivity problems) as two or three, but without the added labor and inconvenience of the extra systems. I can imagine readers itching to fire off a response saying "what about using radio waves?" An interesting idea, but first, take a look at a radio frequency allocation chart. Notice anything? That's right! All the frequencies are already taken. Even with improved modulation technology, I just can't see how we'd find the room for allocating blocks of spectrum to the several dozen firms wishing to provide phone service in a city the size of New York or Los Angeles. And note, places like LA and NYC already have the most congested airwaves in the nation, and they are precisely the areas where firms would most desire to get spectrum space to provide service. Even in the event that spectrum space _could_ be found to accommodate local exchange competition, we'd still have a natural monopoly for telephone service. Since spectrum space is a scarce resource, any system would have to share a single radio channel between many users (not at the same time, of course). In a large area, there would either have to be many channels, or many cells with a few channels each. In the former case, the system would have to use frequencies in the microwave range, since an antenna is designed to work at a certain wavelength, and its performance drops off as soon as one moves away from this wavelength. Thus, we would need to accommodate many differing frequencies (channels), with as little variation in wavelength as possible. Since l = c / f (where l = wavelength, c = speed of light, f = frequency), it should be obvious that we can get l to change little for large changes in f when f is large, i.e. the frequency is high. But UHF and SHF waves propagate over distance very poorly, so unless you'd want a call to your next door neighbor to sound like a call to Tanzania every time it rains, the system will have to have many cells. There will still have to be a big investment in equipment per neighborhood, and there will still be a natural monopoly. In the latter case, by definition we have small cells with a high per-neighborhood investment. And I haven't even mentioned NIMBY issues (whoops! just did :-) ), which are already rearing their ugly head with regard to cellular phone towers across the country. And the number of towers for an RF-based local exchange would dwarf anything we've seen in a cellular system. Of course, there's always the cable TV network. Even this, however, could not be turned into a telephone wire plant overnight. A CATV system is deliberately designed for _one way_ transmission of data. (This is done to prevent disruption of service caused by a customer accidentally or deliberately injecting an unwanted signal into the network.) I'll admit I don't know how extensive the modifications would be to convert a CATV system into a two-way network, but the money has to come from somewhere. The most likely place is from CATV subscribers. So whether you're interested in the CATV company's phone service or not, they will make you pay for converting their system to carry phone calls. Then, of course, there's the problem of ensuring that the networks be well-interconnected. Do _you_ want to pay long-distance changes to call your neighbor across the street, just because they use TCI Cable phone service and you use US West? Do small businessmen, already operating at a meager profit margin, want to be forced to pay for _two_ phone lines, not for any additional service, but just to maintain the customer contact they already have? Do you want your call to 911 be answered by a fast busy because your telco pulled the plug on the telco serving 911 because of a billing dispute? Or will the 911 call be answered with "Do-da-deeeee, The number you have dialed, 9 1 1, is incorrect. The correct number is 9 9 9. Please hang up and try your call again." If the answer to any of the above questions is "no", then clearly some form of regulation is required to ensure some standards of connectivity (and sanity at the user interface level). Now, as numerous posters have detailed over and over in this forum, state PUC's have enough trouble keeping one big telco and many small ones in line. With several big telcos, and oodles of tiny ones, there will be even more firms to police, so even more regulators will be hired. The end result: more bureaucracy, higher taxes, and telephone service won't improve much (and it may even get worse). Local dialtone competition just doesn't make sense to me. David Barts N5JRN UW Civil Engineering, FX-10 davidb@zeus.ce.washington.edu Seattle, WA 98195 ------------------------------ Subject: Bypassing the Local Telco is a Good Idea Date: 4 Nov 91 10:47:21 PST (Mon) From: john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) Pac*Bell has in its bag of reasons for the rate shifting proposal now on the table the premise that it must be competitive to prevent big business from "leaving the system" and thereby increasing the costs the rest of us have to pay. After performing a survey of my own, it would appear that the horse is long out of the barn. Pac*Bell has the highest, most confiscatory rates for intraLATA toll calls in the nation. One can pay up to $0.49/min to call from one end of a LATA to another (one can call overseas for that kind of money!). Consequently, most major companies are now leasing lines directly from MCI, Sprint, AT&T and others and "accidently" routing their intraLATA traffic (at $0.10/min) over these lines, completely depriving Pac*Bell of its pound of flesh. Even if Pac*Bell succeeds in shifting the burden of its expenses to the residential and small business customers and brings down the ridiculous price of intraLATA calls, it will not get back those major customers. Why? Those customers now have nice, modern digital entrance facilities for their direct WATS lines. Why on earth would they want to go back to the crummy old copper analog circuits that Pac*Bell insists on for dial tone delivery? I am going to do everything I can to derail Pacific Bell on this one. I recommend to every client that spends more than $500/month on intraLATA call that direct WATS lines be considered from a major carrier. Many clients are already saving many thousands of dollars per month EACH on this. In addition, as some e-mail correspondents have pointed out, the media needs to get involved. People need to understand that California deserves a utility that is committed to providing local telephone service rather than grabbing up revenue to finance foreign and domestic cable, paging, and cellular companies. Does anyone have any idea how many of our utility dollars went down the drain on the abortive "PacTel Computer Center Stores"? It is time that we expect Pac*Bell to start delivering something for the exhorbitant rates that it charges and wishes to charge in the future. Not one network feature is available to the residence customer that was not available ten years ago, and yet the rates have not only gone steadily upward (remember, Pac*Bell pockets the "FCC-mandated" access fee), but we pay for many things that were traditionally provided at no extra charge (inside wiring, DA, number changes for cause, etc.). The real reason for this "rate shift" is simply that Pac*Bell is eyeing all of these new ventures that it will need to capitalize. Information Providing, cable service, and equipment sales are just three examples. Pac*Bell (as does any RBOC) plays to win. It finances its game on the ratepayer's back. This has got to stop. John Higdon (hiding out in the desert) [Moderator's Note: Per the first article in this issue, I take it you do not think local competition would be a bad idea ... :) PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Nov 91 13:49:58 -0700 From: Brian Crawford Subject: Another MCI offer: Is This a Scam? I have just received what appears to be quite a juicy offer from MCI- sign up for their MCI fax service and receive $100 worth of free fax the first full billing period in effect. What this amounts to is they bill the fax calls for the first 30 seconds at 6 second increments. I told the rep that I use my PC fax card on my own home phone line, and how would they be able to tell between a fax and a voice toll call? She stated that their equipment could detect the carrier as well as the typical short duration of a fax call relative to that of a voice call. Has anyone had any experience with this? I am a recent college grad (B.S.E.E.) who faxes his resume's to potential employers quite frequently, and this offer is a most welcome sight. Is it a mirage? Brian Crawford, KL7JDQ INTERNET: crawford@stjhmc.fidonet.org PO Box 804 crawford@p12.f15.n114.z1.fidonet.org Tempe, Arizona 85280 USA crawford@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Nov 91 16:18:37 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: 1973 Articles on 703/804 Split The {Washington Post} had two short articles in 1973 covering the 703/804 split in Virginia. There was an announcement on May 16 of that year, then on June 24 on page B1 there was a notice of its being implemented at 2:01 AM that morning, which was a Sunday. The impression was that there was no grace period, or that a grace period ended on June 24 of that year; a male voice selected to startle callers informed them of the new area code if the old one was erroneously used. (Also, the June 24 article has the wrong area code for Fredericksburg, which is still in 703 today.) ------------------------------ From: /PN=GLORIA.C.VALLE/O=GTE/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/@sprint.com Date: 5 Nov 91 02:02 UT Subject: Re: Touch-Tone on Old Switches There were several adapters that could be added to Step, XY and Crossbar switches that permitted a user to have Touch-Tone service. These were placed on the line equipment which took the tones and converted them to pulses so that they would continue through the switch train. Later on at least in Step switches a conversion was done to the Director equipment that routed the calls to except the Tones and convert them to pulse or Multi-freq, depending on how the call would be routed. It has been over eight years since I have been around that and GTE California no longer has them, with the exception of Contel areas and I'm not sure about that. Steve ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Nov 91 10:56:07 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Call For Split Informaition Area codes 410 and 310 are now in effect, according to the announced dates. Below is what I now have for the other splits announced but not yet in effect; this includes the newly-arrived info for 512/210. If any of this is incomplete or incorrect, and preferably-official announcements are available, let me know their contents. In what is now 212/718: Bronx to switch from 212 to 718 by July 1992. 404/706 Georgia, 3 May 1992 (full cutover 2 Aug 1992) 512/210 Texas, 1 Nov 1992 212/917 New York, 1992 or 1993? (details not yet available) 714/909 California, Nov 1992 (Riverside and San Bernardino counties go into 909; Orange County remains in 714.) 416/905 Ontario, 4 Oct 1993 (full cutover Jan 1994, no exact date yet.) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Nov 91 18:29 GMT From: Proctor & Associates <0003991080@mcimail.com> Subject: Wanted: Integrated Computer Terminal/Telephone A few years ago I recall seeing these fancy computers or computer terminals with a built in telephone. The idea was to eliminate clutter on the desk by combining the two functions. I don't think these really caught on, and I also remember seeing these in some of the close out catalogs. Does anyone still make these? I am looking for a source for just a dumb ASCII terminal with a single line telephone built in. Paul Cook Phone: 206-881-7000 Proctor & Associates 800-824-9719 15050 NE 36th St. Fax: 206-885-3282 Redmond, WA 98052-5317 internet: 3991080@mcimail.com ------------------------------ From: spoelhof@kodak.com Subject: Looking For SMDS / Frame Relay Mailing Lists Reply-To: spoelhof@kodak.com Organization: Eastman Kodak Company Date: Mon, 4 Nov 91 20:27:44 GMT Does anyone know an address for any discussion lists on SMDS or Frame Relay? If so, please respond to my e-mail address, "spoelhof@kodak.com". Thank you. Gordon Spoelhof, Eastman Kodak Co. - Image and Information Management Internet: spoelhof@Kodak.COM Phone: 716-253-9734 ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Administrivia: Feedback Wanted on Subject Index Date: Tue 5 Nov 1991 02:00 CST If any of you have had a chance to get the Volume 9-10-11 Subject Index from the archives (ftp lcs.mit.edu) and play around with it, I would appreciate your feedback, since I will update it soon with another fifty issues, and would like to know your opinion of the index, and if it is worthwhile to continue. It is NOT intended to replace the WAIS (Wide Area Information Server) we are working diligently on, but is intended to complement it and serve as a way to accelerate archival searches in the meantime. With a little luck we should have WAIS up and running by the end of the year. One big consideration is the amnount of space required for the keyword, headline and other indexes (like, about 80 megs, I am told.) PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #889 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29311; 6 Nov 91 2:31 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14249 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 6 Nov 1991 00:40:39 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21204 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 6 Nov 1991 00:40:26 -0600 Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 00:40:26 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111060640.AA21204@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #890 TELECOM Digest Wed, 6 Nov 91 00:40:00 CST Volume 11 : Issue 890 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy [Steve Thornton] Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy [Kath Mullholand] Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy [Kath Mullholand] Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy [Tony Harminc] Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy [Ed Greenberg] Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy [Kevin Collins] Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy [David G. Lewis] Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy [Robert L. McMillin] Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy [Ron Dippold] Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy [Mark Van Buskirk] Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy [TELECOM Moderator] Re: 512 Area Code Split Announced [Linc Madison] Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" [Jim Somerville] Re: 5ESS Audio Quality [Floyd Davidson] Re: 5ESS Audio Quality [Steve Thornton] Re: Prodigy's Latest Fiasco [Robert J. Woodhead] Re: Another MCI offer: Is This a Scam? [Floyd Davidson] Re: Oldest 1ESS in USA Retires [Steve Forrette] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 05 Nov 91 09:08:09 EST From: Steve Thornton Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy On Tue, 5 Nov 1991 01:02:34 Kath Mullholand said: > This area code is bordered > by only one other, whether > north south east or west. What is 617, Boston (surrounded by 508, eastern Mass.)? What is 713, Houston (surrounded by 409, S.E. Texas)? What is 312, Chicago (surrounded by 708, N.E. Illinois, I think -- the "map" in my phone book sucks and is unclear). What is 907, Alaska (borders 604, British Columbia)? Then there are 808, Hawaii, and 902, Nova Scotia/P.E.I., which border nothing. Also, in reference to the jingle about New York, my book says the Bronx is in 212 with Manhattan. 718 is Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island. So the jingle is correct as originally quoted. Incidentally, what is wrong with having maps that approximately correspond to the land masses they supposedly represent, instead of the godawful computer-generated "artworks" we see everywhere from the phone book to the evening news these days? Steve Thornton / Harvard University Library / +1 617 495 3724 netwrk@harvarda.bitnet / netwrk@harvarda.harvard.edu [Moderator's Note: Actually, 312 also borders 219 for several miles on the south side of Chicago. And some of those places you mentioned which have water on one or more sides of them wouldn't count either, since there is technically a 'country code' for ships at sea. And Alaska does border 604, but a small part also borders 403 I think. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1991 10:12:21 -0500 (EST) From: K_MULLHOLAND@UNHH.UNH.EDU (Kath Mullholand, UNH Telecom, 862-1031) Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy How about this one? If you aren't in the mood for fall showers, take these locales in area codes 207, 215, 309, 506, 517, 607, 613, 803, and 919. (List is not necessarily complete...) Kath Mullholand, University of NH Durham, NH ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1991 10:36:35 -0500 (EST) From: K_MULLHOLAND@UNHH.UNH.EDU (Kath Mullholand, UNH Telecom, 862-1031) Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy Remember the answer? > This area code is bordered > by only one other, whether > north south east or west. There were four correct "questioners", even though the question may not have have implied clearly that the area code was landlocked. They were: elm@sprite.Berkeley.EDU (ethan miller) linc@tongue1.Berkeley.EDU (Linc Madison) tarl@apache.sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter) patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L. Humphrey) On to Double Jeopardy. Kath Mullholand, University of NH, Durham, NH ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 Nov 91 12:05:11 EST From: Tony Harminc Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy K_MULLHOLAND@UNHH.UNH.EDU (KATH MULLHOLAND) wrote: > This area code is bordered > by only one other, whether > north south east or west. > "What is 902 ?" and soon: "What is 416 ?" Tony H. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Nov 91 09:54 PST From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy Kath Mullholand, University of NH, Durham, NH writes: > This area code is bordered > by only one other, whether > north south east or west. What is 713? (Houston) ------------------------------ From: aspect!kevinc@uunet.uu.net (Kevin Collins) Subject: Re: Largest North-South Area Code Date: 5 Nov 91 19:31:42 GMT Organization: Aspect Telecommunications, San Jose, Ca In message , clamen@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen) answers: > Here's a $1000 clue: > > This area code > spans the largest > north-south distance. What is 809? (Bermuda in the mid-Atlantic in the north, Trinidad and Tobago off the coast of South America (Venezuela?) in the south). Kevin Collins | My opinions are mine alone. USENET: ...uunet!aspect!kevinc | GO BEARS! ------------------------------ From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1991 18:08:39 GMT In article kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov ( Scott Dorsey) writes: > That's true, in fact the Bronx is so up that it's now in 718, no > longer 212 .... Brrrp! Sorry, wrong answer. New York Metro Area Codes: 212: Manhattan and Bronx 718: Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island 516: Long Island (e.g. Nassau, Suffolk Co.) 914: Upstate (e.g. Westchester Co.) 917: New area code for NYC. My first information was that 212 would be split, with the Bronx going into 917, and with new exchange codes added in Manhattan for other than standard lines (e.g. for pager company, cellular, and possibly DID trunks?) going into 917. I've since heard that 917 will be an overlay on 212, not a split. I don't know which is correct. Hello Bellcore? David G Lewis AT&T Bell Laboratories david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!houxa!deej ISDN Evolution Planning ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Nov 91 09:35:25 PST From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy Kath Mullholand writes the latest Jeopardy clue: > This area code is bordered by only one other, whether north south east > or west. Hmm -- isn't this 214 serving Dallas, Texas? ------------------------------ From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 01:56:50 GMT clamen@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen) writes: > Here's a $1000 clue: > This area code > spans the largest > north-south distance. That's got to be 907 - Alaska. ------------------------------ From: mvanbuskirk@attmail.com Date: Wed Nov 6 03:48:15 GMT 1991 Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy ANSWER: What is 713? Mark Van Buskirk ------------------------------ From: TELEOCM Moderator Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy Date: Tue 5 Nov 1991 00:00:00 CST Here is my submission: It is broken in two parts which don't touch each other. The little part in the middle is completely surrounded by another one .. Then the bigger part of the first one surrounds the whole thing on three sides. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Nov 91 03:32:00 PST From: linc@tongue1.Berkeley.EDU (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: 512 Area Code Split Announced Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article joeisham@chinet.chi.il.us (Joe Isham) writes: > Southwestern Bell has announced the splitting of 512 on 11 / 1 / 92. > 210 will serve San Antonio and the Rio Grande Valley. > 512 will remain in use in an area stretching from Lampasas > through Austin, San Marcos, Victoria and Corpus Christi to south of > Kingsville. Cities to be switched to 210 include San Antonio, New > Braunfels, Seguin, Eagle Pass, Laredo, Zapata, McAllen, Harlingen and > Brownsville. Lampasas? I'm a native Texan, and I didn't realize 512 got that far north ... so much for the neat-o new area code maps that show lovely neo-geographic facts such as, Delaware is now wider east-west than north-south. (Pac*Bell says so, so it *must* be true!) Anyhoo, that's a pretty convoluted boundary, leaving 512 as a narrow stripe about 75 miles wide and about 300 miles long, kind of like 908 only bigger. From my limited knowledge of the subject, though, it does sound like they kept to LATA lines pretty closely -- is that the case? (Of course, Texas has quite a few LATAs, something like 17 of them.) I'm just a bit surprised that they split it in the direction they did -- I would've expected San Antonio to keep 512 and Austin and/or Corpus to get the new area code. My mother's home town of Goliad won't have to change after all! Linc Madison = linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu P.S. A COCOT in San Francisco yesterday intercepted as "invalid number" a call to 510, and the "permissive" dialing period is almost half over. I took my business to another phone, after leaving a message on their repair line to get their act together or get out of the payphone biz. ------------------------------ From: bnr-rsc!jim@bnr-vpa.uucp (Jim Somerville) Subject: Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1991 17:15:57 -0500 Organization: Bell Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada In article mitel!Software!grayt@ uunet.uu.net (Tom Gray) writes: > As an interesting note, we have been on Standard Time for more than a > week now in Ontario. Howevr my Maestro telephone with Class service > still displays DST. > Bell Canada keeps telling us that their new equipment is so modern. > You would think tat they could program their switches to follow the > time change. I work on the operating system of said equipment ie. Northern Telecom's DMS family of telephone switches. I read this group regularly so your observations are not falling on deaf ears. Standard disclaimers apply. These comments in no way represent my employer, BNR, Northern Telecom, or Bell Canada. Jim Somerville (bnr-vpa!bnr-rsc!jim) Phone: (613) 763-4497 Bell-Northern Research, Stop 145 Usenet:utzoo!bnr-vpa!bnr-rsc!jim P.O. Box 3511, Station C, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1Y 4H7 ------------------------------ From: floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) Subject: Re: 5ESS Audio Quality Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1991 13:04:36 GMT In article guy@ihlpw.att.com (Guy R Berentsen) writes: > I have heard that line noise on data calls is often caused by improper > syncronization between the switches at each end of a digital path. > This causes enough of the signal to get dropped to generate noise on a > modem call ( often looks like periodic '{' chars ) even though it is > not perceptable on a voice call. Clock slips. Actually poor syncronization between the transmit end and the receive end of any T1 digital path, even if it is not a switch, will cause the problem. The receive end will either skip a byte of data or repeat the last byte of data, depending on whether it needs to catch up or slow down, and that results in a phase jump that a modem will detect. It usually will not bother 1200 bps or slower modems, but will produce the classic '{{{{{{{' pattern at 2400 bps with modems that do not do error correction. Since the sampling rate is 8 Khz, that one byte dropped or added usually can't be heard on a voice connection. Occasionally the problem is such that many "clock slips" happen all at once, and that can be heard as a slight pop or tick. Floyd L. Davidson | Alascom, Inc. pays me, |UA Fairbanks Institute of Marine floyd@ims.alaska.edu| but not for opinions. |Science suffers me as a guest. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 Nov 91 09:31:59 EST From: Steve Thornton Subject: Re: 5ESS Audio Quality On Mon, 4 Nov 91 19:10:58 EST guy@ihlpw.att.com (Guy R Berentsen) said: > In article jack.winslade@drbbs.omahug. > org writes: >> Just over a year ago, the 156th. St. office (the one that serves our >> area) cut from a very clean 1AESS to a 5ESS. Almost immediately this >> was accompanied with a flood of 'noisy line' complaints from BBS >> users. What was funny was that many local calls were dirty, even at >> lower speeds, but LD calls on both AT&T and Sprint were quite clean. > I have heard that line noise on data calls is often caused by improper > syncronization between the switches at each end of a digital path. > This causes enough of the signal to get dropped to generate noise on a > modem call ( often looks like periodic '{' chars ) even though it is > not perceptable on a voice call. This is similar to what happened to us when Harvard installed its 5ESS a couple of years ago. It took N.E.T. and Harvard's Network Services geniuses over a year to isolate and fix (they called it "tuning" the connections to several other switches in the area. Wellesley (or was it Melrose?) and Roxbury come to mind as particular problems. The symptom was as you describe -- no degradation of voice, but data calls, even at 1200 bps, would drop or fail to connect with repeated {{{{{'s. I was told that the problem switches were 1AESSes, though, not digital. The problems came and went. As soon as they got one area settled, another switch would "go out of tune". (Of course, it wasn't really the _other_ switch that was the problem, it was us). I was doing phone support for modem dialers at the time, and I eventually learned to suspect this problem right off the bat. It seemed to me then that in their great wisdom the phone gods had designed a piece of equipment whose sophistication greatly surpassed that of the people who were intended to operate it. Steve Thornton / Harvard University Library / +1 617 495 3724 netwrk@harvarda.bitnet / netwrk@harvarda.harvard.edu ------------------------------ From: trebor@foretune.co.jp (Robert J Woodhead) Subject: Re: Prodigy's Latest Fiasco Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 02:39:51 GMT > [Moderator's Note: Really, this has gone too far off topic to continue > here. Maybe one of the .talk groups would be a good place to go. (I > did like the Reagan comment though! :) PAT] Some men are called to greatness; others have greatness thrust upon them; I just sit around and exercise my twisted sense of humor and then inflict it upon you, Pat. Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp ------------------------------ From: floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) Subject: Re: Another MCI Offer: Is This a Scam? Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1991 13:29:20 GMT Hey Brian, In article crawford@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (Brian Crawford) writes: > Has anyone had any experience with this? I am a recent college grad > (B.S.E.E.) who faxes his resume's to potential employers quite ^^^^^^^ You finished it up eh! Have you faxed a copy of that resume to Alascom? Lately? Right now might be a real good time. Floyd L. Davidson | Alascom, Inc. pays me, |UA Fairbanks Institute of Marine floyd@ims.alaska.edu| but not for opinions. |Science suffers me as a guest. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Nov 91 19:03:04 pst From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Oldest 1ESS in USA Retires Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA In article John Higdon writes: > Somehow, I don't think that the SJ14 1ESS is going to end up in the > Smithsonian :-) Well, John, considering how long it took Pacific Bell to retire those old crossbars, perhaps your 1ESS *will* end up in the Smithsonian, as the LAST one in service! Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #890 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06128; 6 Nov 91 5:41 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27778 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 6 Nov 1991 01:20:59 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27822 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 6 Nov 1991 01:20:44 -0600 Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 01:20:44 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111060720.AA27822@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #891 TELECOM Digest Wed, 6 Nov 91 01:20:25 CST Volume 11 : Issue 891 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea [Mark Fulk] Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea [Mickey Ferguson] Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea [Peng H. Ang] Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea [John Higdon] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: fulk@cs.rochester.edu (Mark Fulk) Subject: Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1991 16:20:13 GMT In article davidb@zeus.ce. washington.edu (David W. Barts) writes: > Time and time again, I keep seeing contributors to this Digest make > references to how wonderful allowing competition for local dial tone > will be. Well, I, for one, cannot share in their enthusiasm. I think you raise valid issues, but I think that they can be dealt with. > I will admit I am not an expert on the early days of telecom history, > but I keep hearing stories of how our towns and cities were served by > different, competing telephone companies in the past and of the chaos > that resulted from such policy. Things like merchants wasting money > having three or four phones installed (from three or four different > phone companies) so that all their customers could reach them. Obviously there must be a connectivity standard. The early days of telephone were utterly unregulated, and consequently are not a fair representation of what a regulated competitive phone system would be. Furthermore, the technology available up until the 60's, at the earliest, would have made adequate inter-telco connection prohibitively expensive. Bear in mind that, if there are two equal-sized phone companies in an area, and people choose randomly, roughly 50% of all phone calls will have to be routed between the two companies. If there are more companies, the percentages are likely to be worse. > And while all this vigorous competition was taking place in the > cities, farmers, ranchers, and residents of small, isolated towns had > no telephone service simply because there were no profits to be made > by serving such areas. Certainly this issue needs to be addressed. Service to sparse areas is an important social good. There are several important points: 1) By reducing the cost of switches and trunks, modern technology has made serving rural areas much more reasonable. Any place that has electricity can have a trunk run in, and a switch for 50 or 100 people is not an unreasonable proposition. A fiber-optic trunk can easily be hung from the same poles as the electric wires. The extremely small number of people who live in even more remote areas could use a subsidized satellite phone service; the price of satellite antennas has been dropping like a stone. (Interestingly, my cousin Judy and her husband have no electricity, but DO have a phone, at their house five miles back into the woods in Vermont.) 2) The population is now much more urbanized than it was at the turn of the century. Only 1% or so live on farms, and of those, probably only a few percent could be described as living in an extremely remote area. 75% live in the northeast corridor, very little of which is far from an urban area. The number of people who would be best served by a satellite link is extremely small; I would be surprised if there were even a million. 3) Given the above, some form of taxation or requirement of service to support rural telephone service seems a reasonable idea, as it does not represent a severe burden. The hardest problem is determining a fair rate to charge the rural customers. > Like it or not, local telephone service is, has always been, and > probably always will be a natural monopoly. This is a result of the > high cost of stringing (or burying) cable through an area, and also of > the fact that one properly-maintained cable system can serve an area > as well (actually better than, since there are less connectivity > problems) as two or three, but without the added labor and > inconvenience of the extra systems. The economies of a monopoly are well known. The diseconomies of regulated monopolies are harder to determine. I think it is arguable that the diseconomies of multiple phone systems are now low enough that they are exceeded by the diseconomies of monopolies. As for the cost of stringing cable: most of the cost of cable is really in the telephone poles and rights-of-way (or easements). I think that local governments should probably own most of the telephone poles and underground conduits, and the telephone companies (and electric companies) should lease insulators on the poles. There needs to be a suitable set of laws punishing deliberate cable-cutting, and a way of distributing the cost of repairs of deliberate cable-cuts even when the perpetrators cannot be identified. > I can imagine readers itching to fire off a response saying "what > about using radio waves?" An interesting idea, but first, take a look Not an interesting idea for long. I would only advocate radio connections for very remote locations, and for mobile services. > Of course, there's always the cable TV network. Even this, however, > could not be turned into a telephone wire plant overnight. A CATV ... > So whether you're interested in the CATV company's phone service or not, > they will make you pay for converting their system to carry phone calls. They are going to be converting their systems to optical fiber one of these years anyway, and we'll certainly pay then. CATV is really only interesting as a capital source for the creation of a competing data carrier. > Then, of course, there's the problem of ensuring that the networks be > well-interconnected. Do _you_ want to pay long-distance changes to ... > If the answer to any of the above questions is "no", then clearly some > form of regulation is required to ensure some standards of > connectivity (and sanity at the user interface level). Now, as I believe that regulating connectivity, 911 service, and the like will be easier than regulating rates. The required service standards can be made quite objective, whereas setting rates depends on evaluating costs and depreciation and a multitude of other, rather ill-defined, financial issues. To some extent, the competing telcos can be made to monitor each other. Automatic monitoring equipment can measure compliance. And the threat behind the rules can be "comply or have your license revoked," which is a good bit stronger than "we won't let you have your latest rate increase." With quite a bit less leverage, we have been able to get the RBOCs and independent local telcos to provide connections to all of the major LD carriers. Indeed, there was a lot of grief along the way; however, I think a lot of the grief was caused by an ill-planned transition from the old system to the new. And the grief was mostly in the form of unhappiness at not yet having a cheap service; not in the form of missing services. Now that I think about it, you might have been arguing with a straw man. I do not support the establishment of an unregulated free market in telephone service. I am just suggesting the substitution of a regulated oligopoly for a regulated monopoly, in order to substitute market forces for regulation of prices. I do know some of the flaws of oligopolies (e.g. the difficulty of introducing expensive new technology). I don't think they will be serious in the telephone industry. But I will argue those points in other postings, if other people wish to raise them. Mark A. Fulk Computer Science Department fulk@cs.rochester.edu University of Rochester Omit needless words -- Strunk Rochester, NY 14627 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Nov 91 11:00:42 PST From: fergusom@scrvm2.vnet.ibm.com (Mickey Ferguson) Subject: Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea Organization: Rolm Systems In a recent Digest, David W. Barts writes about competition for local phone service being bad. Unless I am misreading something, I interpret an underlying premise of his message is that because calls go from one provider to another, they will be charged as long distance calls, even though the distance may, in fact, be very short. This may have been true in "the olden days," :) but it would seem to me that the PUCs could prevent this by regulation. I see no reason why the competition couldn't be forced to provide service across to other providers at the same rates as are determined by our LATAs which are defined by the PUC. If this were done, I believe it takes most of the steam out of the argument against allowing local competition. Mickey Ferguson Rolm Systems fergusom@scrvm2.vnet.ibm.com [Moderator's Note: IBT and Centel both operate in the city of Chicago, and they exchange traffic on a local call basis. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 Nov 91 10:19 EST From: "Peng_H.Ang" <20017ANG@msu.edu> Subject: Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea Bart raises a number of related issues on natural monopoly in the local loop. > I keep hearing stories of how our towns and cities were served by > different, competing telephone companies in the past and of the chaos > that resulted ... merchants wasting money having three of four phones. Someone from the U. of Pennsylvania has done a doctoral dissertation on the issue. He found that 1) the concept of universal service has changed and that 2) that competition in the local loop has helped penetration of the telephone. In fact, according to his findings, phone penetration in the farmland of Iowa in the early 1900s was higher than penetration now in certain parts of Western Europe. (The exact details elude me.) There is also argument along this line that US phone penetration is high because it was in private (ie compet- itive) hands and not in government hands. It might also interest you to note that Sir Bryan Carsberg, head of the British Office of Telecommunications that regulates telecom in UK, recently said that there is no reason the economics of the local service is so different from that of the long-distance service as to preclude competition. Back to universal service. The U.Penn researcher said the concept of universal service in the past was that one phone should be able to connect to all numbers. That is, there should not be three or four phones. An eminently sensible idea. Now, our idea of universal service is that *everyone* should be able to get a phone. > there's the problem of ensuring that the networks are well-inter- > connected. If the traditional concept of universal service is used, inter-connec- tion will not be a problem. Bart is right that there will be more bureaucracy and perhaps higher taxes. But these in themselves are not grounds to maintain monopoly. All over the world, telecos are being privatized (28 at last count). Almost all if not all will have more regulation. But the benefits just outweigh that cost. Perhaps the safe typical-academic-cop-out answer is to say: more studies are needed. But right now, my gut feelings go with competition. When it is cheaper for me in East Lansing to call Los Angeles than to call Detroit, my guts tell me something is wrong. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea Date: 5 Nov 91 12:06:07 PST (Tue) From: john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) David W. Barts writes: > I will admit I am not an expert on the early days of telecom history, > but I keep hearing stories of how our towns and cities were served by > different, competing telephone companies in the past and of the chaos > that resulted from such policy. That was then. This is now. To discount the bulk of your article, there are numerous ways of providing for multiple local carriers in any community. Common fiber trunkage, short-haul microwave, CATV, etc., can be used quite effectively and maintain interconnectivity. In short, there are no valid technical reasons to oppose competition. These same arguments used to be used to explain why competition in the IEC field was impossible. > Of course, there's always the cable TV network. Even this, however, > could not be turned into a telephone wire plant overnight. So if something cannot be done overnight, we should just give it up, right? > Then, of course, there's the problem of ensuring that the networks be > well-interconnected. Do _you_ want to pay long-distance changes to > call your neighbor across the street, just because they use TCI Cable > phone service and you use US West? I would suggest that you look at Pac*Bell's current rate restructuring proposal that is now before the PUC. If this is approved, this is exactly what will happen -- Pac*Bell would like to price local calls as if they were long distance. So what do we do about that? We cannot go to the competition; there isn't any. > Do small businessmen, already > operating at a meager profit margin, want to be forced to pay for > _two_ phone lines, not for any additional service, but just to > maintain the customer contact they already have? Do you want your > call to 911 be answered by a fast busy because your telco pulled the > plug on the telco serving 911 because of a billing dispute? Or will > the 911 call be answered with "Do-da-deeeee, The number you have > dialed, 9 1 1, is incorrect. The correct number is 9 9 9. Please > hang up and try your call again." These are very silly and unrealistic scenarios. You can make up all the horror fantasies you want and for your efforts the current LECs will be most appreciative. But the truth of the matter is that saying that local exchange service is a natural monopoly is like saying that interexchange service is a natural monopoly and I think that MCI and Sprint could take issue with that. What has happened since the "impossible" took place? Much better quality, more advanced services, much cheaper rates, and many other benefits too numerous to mention here. LEC competition IS inevitable. With companies such as Pac*Bell now wanting to rape the small subscriber, the time is coming closer, faster. At $1.20 per hour for a call ACROSS THE STREET, Pac*Bell is making "universal service" a bad joke. You claim that competition will drive the cost up rather than down. I think Pac*Bell is single-handedly proving you wrong. > With several big telcos, and oodles of tiny ones, there will be > even more firms to police, so even more regulators will be hired. The > end result: more bureaucracy, higher taxes, and telephone service > won't improve much (and it may even get worse). Allow me to introduce you to the most effective regulator of them all: The Marketplace. With competition, providers will have to woo subscribers on the basis of price and service. What a novel concept! I cannot fathom the idea that ANYONE would consider the current system of a utility flim-flamming some brain-dead bureaucrats with things such as "revenue shifting" and "cost of providing service" to be superior to market reality. You absolutely cannot have a company that is simultaneously involved in competition AND monopoly in the same field at the same time. Pac*Bell is working both sides of the street: running a monopoly at the individual subscriber level and then competing in the short-haul long distance arena. How can ANYONE claim that this is a viable or beneficial (to anyone other than Pac*Bell) situation? Full monopoly or full competition is the answer. We have been through monopoly and apparently did not like it. What is the remaining choice? > Local dialtone competition just doesn't make sense to me. It will. John Higdon (hiding out in the desert) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #891 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06191; 6 Nov 91 20:35 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05931 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 6 Nov 1991 18:08:55 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05890 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 6 Nov 1991 18:08:46 -0600 Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 18:08:46 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111070008.AA05890@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #892 TELECOM Digest Wed, 6 Nov 91 16:08:44 CST Volume 11 : Issue 892 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? [Bob Clements] Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? [Bill Gripp] Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea [David G. Lewis] Re: I *Couldn't* Use AT&T! [David Singer] Re: AT&T Online Translation Service [Toronto Star via Rick Broadhead] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? Date: Tue, 5 Nov 91 10:47:58 EST From: clements@BBN.COM In article the Moderator notes: > [Moderator's Note: Nope, not true at all, because a telemarketer does > have a legitimate business reason for calling. The fact that you or I > or anyone else is not interested does not remove the legitimacy of the > call in the first place. The difference between them and phreaks who > war-dial an entire community is the phreak had no business calling the > number in the first place ... the telemarketer did. PAT] Balderdash! A telemarketer has no more legitimate reason to call me in my home than does a modem-searching phreak. Each is trying to get something from me, against my will, that they have no right to. In one case, the use of my computer, and in the other case the use of my wallet. Bob Clements, K1BC, clements@bbn.com [Moderator's Note: Wrong again. The telemarketer is soliciting you for a business transaction. The phreak is trying to steal from you. Both may be unsightly, ill-bred creatures; but the fact that you do not want anything to do with either of them does not mean they are equal in purpose or intent. PAT] ------------------------------ From: billg@bony1.bony.com (Bill Gripp) Subject: Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? Organization: The Bank of New York Date: Tue, 5 Nov 91 15:26:58 GMT > [Moderator's Note: Remember the guy who was a programmer for a bank > who fixed the bank's computer so that all the tiny fractions of a cent > of interest which otherwise were rounded off and dropped got put in > his account instead? The fractional shavings when totalled up amounted > to a nice piece of change for him. No one customer noticed the small > amount of victimization, yet the guy was found guilty of fraud > against the bank. The only place I remember this from is Richard Pryor in Superman III. Did this really happen??? If so where? [Moderator's Note: I think the scene in Superman III was inspired by the actual incident several years ago. Sorry, I do not have specific references available now. Can anyone else provide specifics? PAT] ------------------------------ From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) Subject: Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1991 17:55:48 GMT In article davidb@zeus.ce. washington.edu (David W. Barts) writes: > Time and time again, I keep seeing contributors to this Digest make > references to how wonderful allowing competition for local dial tone > will be. Well, I, for one, cannot share in their enthusiasm. > I will admit I am not an expert on the early days of telecom history, > but I keep hearing stories of how our towns and cities were served by > different, competing telephone companies in the past and of the chaos > that resulted from such policy. Things like merchants wasting money > having three or four phones installed (from three or four different > phone companies) so that all their customers could reach them. The problem in the early competitive era of telephony was the lack of well-defined and enforced interconnection arrangements. Businesses needed to have multiple phones because local telcos refused to interconnect with each other. Refusing to interconnect was a mechanism to gain market share. > And while all this vigorous competition was taking place in the > cities, farmers, ranchers, and residents of small, isolated towns had > no telephone service simply because there were no profits to be made > by serving such areas. Also because it took a significant amount of time to get there. Lack of service in isolated areas continued to be a problem long after the demise of local telephone competition, and "Universal Service" -- getting phone service to these areas -- continued to be a goal of the Bell System for a good 20-30 years (at least) after competition went by the wayside. > Like it or not, local telephone service is, has always been, and > probably always will be a natural monopoly. How can something be a natural monopoly when it was originally competitive? > This is a result of the > high cost of stringing (or burying) cable through an area, One of the defining factors of a natural monopoly is natural barriers to entry. I will grant that for a company to go in and duplicate the existing telco plant would be sufficiently costly to be a natural barrier to entry. But I submit that it would be exceedingly stupid for a carrier seeking to compete to do so. I would also submit that the cost of stringing or burying cable through an area is overestimated by many people. Yes, it's expensive - but not prohibitively so. What are the components of cost of outside plant? Rights-of-way, materials, and installation. Let's look at them in order. Access to rights-of-way is usually cited as one of the largest barriers to entry. But all that means is that underground or aerial right-of-way is a natural monopoly. In New York City, the government has recognized that the right-of-way is the natural monopoly, and a company called Empire City Subway owns all the underground right-of-way in the city. They are obligated to lease rights-of-way to anyone -- sort of a "common carrier" of space. They are also a "value-added provider" -- they own conduits built in the r-o-w, and will lease conduit space if you don't want to build your own. Yes, access to rights-of-way can be a barrier to entry. But I would submit that the solution is regulating free and fair access to rights-of-way, not mandating that only one company shall be granted access to r-o-w, and that company is therefore a natural monopoly because no one else has access to the r-o-w. That's a state-imposed monopoly. Material? Yes, to lay five hundred thousand route-miles of fiber would be prohibitively costly. But even the Bells aren't doing that. If I'm going to compete with a local telco, I'm not going to try to duplicate in one year, or five years, or twenty years, a network that it took over a hundred years to build. "Cream-skimming!", I hear you cry. Of course, that's the same thing you cried when MCI put some microwave towers between Chicago and St. Louis. Installation? Ditto. > and also of the fact that one properly-maintained cable system can > serve an area as well (actually better than, since there are less > connectivity problems) as two or three, but without the added labor > and inconvenience of the extra systems. I must strongly disagree here (like I've only been weakly disagreeing above...). If I'm going to try to compete with Big Monopoly Telco, I've got to find ways to do things cheaper and better than them. So I'll use techniques, architectures, methods that let me provide the same or better service at a lower cost. Guess what? BMT is going to feel some pressure, and start figuring out new techniques of their own. Both our costs are going to come down, and both our quality of service is going to go up - mine, because I've got to stay one step ahead of BMT; theirs, because they're trying to keep or win back the market share that I'm trying to grab. For another line of argument, I could say that one long-distance system can serve a country as well or better than two or three for the same reason, but I don't think many people would agree with me. > I can imagine readers itching to fire off a response saying "what > about using radio waves?" An interesting idea, but first, take a look > at a radio frequency allocation chart. Notice anything? That's > right! All the frequencies are already taken. I'd submit that in the places where spectrum is least available, physical right of way for cable is most available (given a neutral regulatory environment like I've described in NYC). > Even in the event that spectrum space _could_ be found to accommodate > local exchange competition, we'd still have a natural monopoly for > telephone service. Since spectrum space is a scarce resource... Open (non-leading) question: Does anyone know of any studies of situations where two "scarce resources" can be used for the same purpose? Does the market behave the same way as it does in the presence of a single scarce resource, does it settle into duopoly, or does it act as if there is no scarce resource? (Hmm, I think I see a thesis in there somewhere ...) > Of course, there's always the cable TV network. Even this, however, > could not be turned into a telephone wire plant overnight. It does, however, give me a handy right-of-way to run my fiber through, complete with building entrances ... > Then, of course, there's the problem of ensuring that the networks be > well-interconnected. I agree that this is the kicker. However, it's a very different thing to say "local competitive telecom networks must be gracefully interconnected" than to say "local telecom is a natural monopoly." > Do _you_ want to pay long-distance changes to > call your neighbor across the street, just because they use TCI Cable > phone service and you use US West? If "the street" happens to be a boundary between two local telcos, e.g. United Tel and NJ Bell, the situation occurs today - which means that there are established precedents for local telco interconnection. Granted, there are issues outstanding. Those issues are being worked even as we speak. New York, New Jersey, Chicago, Massachussets, and California (to my knowledge) have established agreements between LECs and other carriers which share the same geographic area for interconnection of leased line services. Switched services are still a ways away, but coming. > Do small businessmen, already > operating at a meager profit margin, want to be forced to pay for > _two_ phone lines, not for any additional service, but just to > maintain the customer contact they already have? Do you want your > call to 911 be answered by a fast busy because your telco pulled the > plug on the telco serving 911 because of a billing dispute? I think you're getting into a little bit of hyperbole here ... mandate that telcos are obligated to interconnect their local networks. Mandate the grade of service for that interconnection. Mandate that calls which can not be completed on the originating network shall be handed off to the geographically-colocated network. Allow handoff to be at a point chosen by the originating network. Allow the originating caller to specify a transit network (IXC) for calls which can not be completed on the originating network, and leave this choice to the caller (or billed party). Establish intercompany charges for delivering calls to the destination party, similar to access charges, or let these be negotiated between companies, subject to the condition that such arrangements must *not* prevent calls from being completed. Have the regulatory agencies have responsibilities for policing interconnection arrangements and arbitrating disputes over grade of service, billing, and other interconnection issues. > If the answer to any of the above questions is "no", then clearly some > form of regulation is required to ensure some standards of > connectivity (and sanity at the user interface level). Now, as > numerous posters have detailed over and over in this forum, state > PUC's have enough trouble keeping one big telco and many small ones in > line. With several big telcos, and oodles of tiny ones, there will be > even more firms to police, so even more regulators will be hired. The > end result: more bureaucracy, higher taxes, and telephone service > won't improve much (and it may even get worse). You're slipping in the unstated assumption that the regulatory agencies will still be responsible for their current functions, including rate of return regulation, tariff approval, customer complaint handling, and all the other things that make up "regulation" of the "natural monopoly". Eliminate the tariff approval process because the telco is subject to competitive price pressure, and you eliminate a large chunk of staff. Eliminate the armies of accountants to perform ROR calculations and audit telco books to prevent cross-subsidies between "regulated" and "unregulated" lines of business, and you eliminate even more. Pare down the regulatory agencies to fulfill the policing and arbitration functions I described above, and I doubt they would be larger than they are today. David G Lewis AT&T Bell Laboratories david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!houxa!deej ISDN Evolution Planning ------------------------------ Subject: Re: I *Couldn't* Use AT&T! Reply-To: singer@almaden.ibm.com (David Singer) Organization: IBM Almaden Research Center Date: Mon, 04 Nov 91 20:54:25 -0800 From: singer@almaden.ibm.com AT&T service called me back on Saturday afternoon and told me that GTE had asked them to "reroute the trunks" on Friday morning, but obviously the entire process hadn't been completed, leaving me without 1+ access to the network. They said that 0+ access should have worked, and suggested that I try using Call Manager if I ever have the problem again (though Call Manager won't connect me to an 800 number, since it requires calling 0+NPA+number, and 0+800+number goes to an intercept recording). For what it's worth, I was unable to connect to AT&T for over an hour; that's a long time to be disconnected from the One True Network. I'd tried calling GTE repair service, but gave up after a few minutes on hold. I had to wait for AT&T, too, but the person I reached seemed able to understand what I told him, unlike my last experience with GT&E. And I was happy that AT&T called back to explain, even if it was 24 hours later. David Singer -- Internet: singer@almaden.ibm.com BITNET: SINGER at ALMADEN Voice: (408) 927-2509 Fax: (408) 927-4073 (For good time, call +1 303 499-7111.) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 Nov 91 00:08:14 EST From: Rick Broadhead Subject: Re: AT&T Online Translation Service Speaking of translation services ... Toronto, effective Monday, is using AT&T's online translation services in Monterey, California. Previously, when the 911 operator could not understand a caller, ambulance, fire, and police vehicles were all dispatched to the scene. CHIEF HAILS 911 SERVICE TO INTERPRET LANGUAGES By Dottie O'Neill TORONTO STAR A new emergency phone service that instantly interprets calls for help in 140 languages is "absolutely fantastic" says Metro police Chief William McCormack. The system that the Metro police department has plugged into "meets the needs of concerned groups within Metro's ethnic communities," McCormack said yesterday. Starting Monday, calls to the emergency 911 line will provide almost instant interpretation in 140 different languages, Metro police announced yesterday. These will include everything from Afrikaans to Zulu and Cantonese, Mandarin, Swahili and Urdu. The multilingual around-the-clock telephone service is provided by the AT&T Language Line, acting Sergeant Lisa Hodgins said. Call takers at Metro's police communications centre on Jarvis St. will reach the service through a toll-free number "and a language line service interpreter will come on the line momentarily" to determine details of the emergency, Hodgins said. With the touch of a button known as speed dialing, the local call taker gets immediate access to the multilingual centre in Monterey, Calif., said Inspector Bill Holdridge of the communications section. The Metro call taker stays on the line to receive the interpreter's instructions as given by the caller. Last month, Metro police received at least 50 emergency calls from people speaking languages that were not immediately recognizable, Holdridge said. AT&T will bill police $2 a minute to use the service. The average conversation lasts for five minutes, research has shown. "Ten dollars is very, very cheap to save a life or prevent a major crime," Holdridge said. The system was developed by a California police officer in the early 1980s after an influx of Vietnamese refugees. Peel Region police have also hooked up to the service recently. [originally appeared in {The Toronto Star}, Saturday November 2, 1991] Rick Broadhead ysar1111@VM1.YorkU.CA ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #892 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09851; 6 Nov 91 22:59 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25787 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 6 Nov 1991 21:06:24 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25158 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 6 Nov 1991 21:06:03 -0600 Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 21:06:03 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111070306.AA25158@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #893 TELECOM Digest Wed, 6 Nov 91 21:06:00 CST Volume 11 : Issue 893 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy [Scott Fybush] Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy [Linc Madison] Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy [Carl Moore] Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy [David Cornutt] Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy [Gregory M. Marr] Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy [Bob Goudreau] Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy [Stewart Clamen] Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy [John R. Levine] Re: Largest North-South Spanning Area Code (ANSWER) [Stewart Clamen] Re: Fast Turnaround on Service Interuption [Warren Burstein] Re: Fast Turnaround on Service Interuption [Jeff Hibbard] Re: Telegraph Fire Alerting System [Tad Cook] Re: Administrivia: Feedback Wanted on Subject Index [Craig R. Watkins] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 17:21 EDT From: Scott Fybush Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy TELECOM Moderator entered the fray, giving clues for 708: You didn't have to be so obvious as to pick your very own city! The answer is obviously 708, where there are small pockets of 708 completely surrounded by the city of Chicago (312), which is itself bounded on three sides by the rest of 708. Now if you then include the 312 enclave at O'Hare that is, I believe, surrounded by 708, the fun really starts! (I understand the 213/310 and 301/410 boundaries are similarly convoluted) >From just within the 617/508 line, Scott Fybush -- ST901316@pip.cc.brandeis.edu [Moderator's Note: Actually, O'Hare is not disconnected from Chicago, just barely ... what I mean is, Illinois law provides that you can't have the same city in two different places without some geographical link between them. In order for O'Hare to be Chicago politically, while at the same time Rosemont, IL geographically, a small thin slice of land extends from Chicago proper on the northwest side down Foster Avenue out to the airport where it 'balloons' or mushrooms full size into O'Hare. The buildings on either side of Foster Avenue are in the town of Rosemont (? correct, Mr. Tamkin?) while the street itself is considered Chicago. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Nov 91 01:38:35 PST From: linc@tongue1.Berkeley.EDU (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article PAT writes: > It is broken in two parts which don't touch each other. The little > part in the middle is completely surrounded by another one .. Then the > bigger part of the first one surrounds the whole thing on three sides. Well, I guess I'd have to guess "What is 708?" although I don't know exactly what part of 708 is surrounded by 312. 508 is possible, but I don't think it's the answer. As for longest north-south, I think it's 403 -- all the way from the Alberta/Montana provincial line almost to the North Pole. I believe that's a good bit farther than Alaska or Area Code 809. (BTW, Alaska has quite a long border with 403 -- Yukon) For my submission, consider this one: "This County is home to five area codes, more than any other U.S. County." (I believe it's five, not six, although it's close at the northeast corner.) Linc Madison = linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu So when are 408 and 609 going to split? Every other area code I've ever lived in has split or is about to! (512, 713, 214, 415) [Moderator's Note: The villages of Norridge, IL and Harwood Heights, IL are totally surrounded by Chicago. They touch each other. The two of them also touch an area called 'Unincorporated Norwood Township' which is for the most part 708, but with a small section in 312. I've since remembered another convoluted 312/708 arrangement: North of Howard Street and west of the CTA yards is considered Evanston (708). From the corner of Howard and Clark Streets (which the Evanstonians prefer to call Howard Street and Chicago Avenue, go about two blocks north and a little finger of Chicago juts out along Jonquil Terrace north of the CTA yards. For about fifty yards, you are in back in Chicago (on the east side of the street, with 312 numbers) until you reach the alley and the south wall of Calvary Cemetery, where Evanston starts again on both sides of the street. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Nov 91 9:58:33 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy No, I do not think 214 (after 214/903 split) is bordered by only one other area code. It still touches 817 between Dallas and Fort Worth. ------------------------------ From: cornutt@freedom.msfc.nasa.gov (David Cornutt) Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy Organization: NASA/MSFC Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 15:04:59 GMT roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: > In article Henry wrote: > Was that really the clue, verbatim? If so, it's wrong! It's > not the "east side" that's up, it's The Bronx. The proper quote (from > some old Broadway show tune, I think) is: > The Bronx is up, and The Battery's down. ^^^^^^^ Oh, Battery Park! I get it! (For a moment there, I thought they were talking about Thompson St ...) David Cornutt, New Technology Inc., Huntsville, AL (205) 461-6457 (cornutt@freedom.msfc.nasa.gov; some insane route applies) "The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of my employer, not necessarily mine, and probably not necessary." ------------------------------ From: gregm@wpi.WPI.EDU (Gregory M Marr) Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 16:12:51 GMT In article KATH MULLHOLAND writes: > This area code is bordered > by only one other, whether > north south east or west. > Boston Mass area. Area code 617 Bordered north south and west by 508 Bordered east by Atlantic Ocean [Moderator's Note: Then 617 would not be correct, since she included EAST in her description. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Nov 91 12:35:28 est From: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy In article Steve Thornton writes: >> This area code is bordered by only one other, whether >> north south east or west. > What is 617, Boston (surrounded by 508, eastern Mass.)? What is 713, > Houston (surrounded by 409, S.E. Texas)? What is 312, Chicago > (surrounded by 708, N.E. Illinois, I think -- the "map" in my phone > book sucks and is unclear). What is 907, Alaska (borders 604, British > Columbia)? Then there are 808, Hawaii, and 902, Nova Scotia/P.E.I., > which border nothing. > [Moderator's Note: Actually, 312 also borders 219 for several miles on > the south side of Chicago. And some of those places you mentioned > which have water on one or more sides of them wouldn't count either, > since there is technically a 'country code' for ships at sea. Pat, the clue said "area code" -- nothing about water or country codes counting as area codes. I think we have to give him 617 on this basis, though the completely water-bounded area codes he mentioned (he forgot 809) don't actually meet the test of being bordered by "one other" area code. Of course, land-locked 713 is probably the answer the original riddler had in mind; he just didn't phrase the question tightly enough. > And Alaska does border 604, but a small part also borders 403 I think. PAT] I'd hardly call the entire Alaska/Yukon Territory border "small"!! 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: clamen@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen) Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy Date: Wed, 06 Nov 91 19:18:21 GMT Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU In article KATH MULLHOLAND writes: This area code is bordered by only one other, whether north south east or west. I believe 418 (Quebec City and environs) is totally surrounded by 819. Stewart M. Clamen Internet: clamen@cs.cmu.edu School of Computer Science UUCP: uunet!"clamen@cs.cmu.edu" Carnegie Mellon University Phone: +1 412 268 2145 5000 Forbes Avenue Fax: +1 412 268 1793 Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890, USA ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 6 Nov 91 15:54:52 EST (Wed) From: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) In article is written: > Here's a $1000 clue: > This area code > spans the largest > north-south distance. An interesting one. One possibility is 809, which runs from Bermuda to Trinidad, about 22 degrees of latitude or 1320 nautical miles. But the winner is 819, which runs from the Quebec-Vermont border to Baffin Island, and maybe even to Ellesmere Island. If there are phones on the latter, it runs 40 degrees of latitude or 2400 nautical miles. Another challenger is 403 which runs from Alberta to the western Canadian Arctic. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Nov 91 14:16:39 EST From: clamen@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen) Subject: Re: Largest North-South Spanning Area Code (ANSWER) Date: Wed, 06 Nov 91 19:16:20 GMT Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU In message , I provided the following clue: This area code spans the largest north-south distance. In over a week, no one has come up with the response I was looking for. Let me review the answers that were posted or mailed to me directly: Code Region approx. N/S span (in degrees) 714 LA suburbs (perhaps a typo) 2 702 Nevada 5 908 Alaska 20 809 Caribbean 25 403 Alberta, Yukon, western NWT >30 And the correct answer, by a large margin, is: 819: rural Quebec, eastern NWT 40! (Begins at the Quebec/NH border, extending to the most northly regions of the Northwest Territories.) When I initially made the post, I believed the correct response to be 403, assuming that much of the Northern Canadian archipelago (which extends up to the town of Alert on Ellesmere Island in the mid-80's) was in that area code. However, a ten minute conversation with the supervisor at 403-555-1212 changed my mind. With the aid of her atlas, my world map, and her database mapping towns to area codes, we discovered that Resolute Bay, NWT (74.5 N, 94.5 W) was, in fact, in the 819 area code. Since Resolute Bay is west of Ellesmere (to the north), I must assume that Ellesmere is also in 819. You might ask, why didn't I research the obvious, and find out what area code phones in Alert are in? Well, because all the phones in Alert (a Canadian/US military base) are run through Ottawa. Those of you who who guessed Alaska can blame me for not explicitly specifying that "area code" included all of "Country Code 1". Thanks to all who participated, including: Nick Sayer Joe Isham Ethan Miller Kath Mullholand Eric Weaver Shih-ping Spencer Sun Kevin Collins Ron Dippold Any omissions were unintentional. Stewart M. Clamen Internet: clamen@cs.cmu.edu School of Computer Science UUCP: uunet!"clamen@cs.cmu.edu" Carnegie Mellon University Phone: +1 412 268 2145 5000 Forbes Avenue Fax: +1 412 268 1793 Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890, USA ------------------------------ From: warren@worlds.com (Warren Burstein) Subject: Re: Fast Turnaround on Service Interuption Reply-To: warren@itexjct.jct.ac.il Date: Tue, 5 Nov 91 12:21:02 IST Organization: WorldWide Software I recently had my outgoing service disconnected by Bezeq (the Israeli telephone company). I assumed that this was because my landlord had neglected to have the bill forwarded to me while he was on vacation. When I got to their office, they printed out a new phone bill (which I paid, and service was reconnected within a few hours). When I got home, I discovered that my landlord had in fact tried to change the billing address to my apartment, but someone had gotten it wrong. There was more than enough time for the misaddressed phone bill to have returned to the phone company. They made no attempt to contact me either when the bill returned or before disconnecting my service. Or perhaps they called, but didn't know what to do with an answering machine. warren@itex.jct.ac.il ------------------------------ From: jeff@bradley.bradley.edu (Jeff Hibbard) Subject: Re: Fast Turnaround on Service Interuption Organization: Bradley University Date: Tue, 5 Nov 91 23:24:34 GMT dem@fnhep5.fnal.gov (David E. Martin) writes: > For some reason, Illinois Bell doesn't publicize it, but they take > Visa for payment now. Just call them up, ask them your balance, and > you can pay it immediately. Well, you can try. I called Illinois Bell on October 14 to pay a bill which was due on October 17. Visa shows a payment to Illinois Bell on October 14 for the expected amount, but my latest phone bill does not acknowledge the payment, and includes a late charge for not paying it by the 14th. Paying the next bill by old-fashioned check now presents a new risk, since I will be paying a lower amount than shown on their "return this page with your payment" sheet. Illinois Bell encodes the MICR dollar amount on checks themselves, and has a tendency to encode it for the amount shown on the bill, rather than the amount the check is actually written for. Once encoded, no bank handling the check looks at the hand-written written amount, so Illinois Bell gets whatever amount of money they feel like taking from you, and you end up wondering why all your other checks are bouncing. I know several people this has happened to. Of course you can complain to your bank and get your money back, but it's difficult to figure out what's going on until you actually see the cancelled check. Jeff Hibbard, Bradley University, Peoria IL ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Telegraph Fire Alerting System Date: Mon, 4 Nov 91 23:45:47 PST From: tad@ssc.wa.com (Tad Cook) brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack) writes: > Question 2: I once saw one of these boxes on the side of a fire > station. Any clue as to why? Once in the early 70s I was visiting a friend on Capitol Hill in Seattle, and fire broke out in an old school bus parked next to his house. The local fire station was right around the corner. This was before the days of 911, so I ran over there, and the fastest way to get the fire department's attention was just to pull the alarm box on the front of the building. It was very effective and got a mighty fast response! Tad Cook tad@ssc.UUCP Seattle, WA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 17:52 EST From: "Craig R. Watkins" Subject: Re: Administrivia: Feedback Wanted on Subject Index Organization: HRB Systems In article , telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: > If any of you have had a chance to get the Volume 9-10-11 Subject > Index from the archives (ftp lcs.mit.edu) and play around with it, I > would appreciate your feedback ... It's great. I used it the day after it was available to find one of my own old postings on programming cellular phones. I needed some of the info for a phone I was programming but I had given up hope finding the right issue without the index. It was perfect for my application. Craig R. Watkins Internet: CRW@ICF.HRB.COM HRB Systems, Inc. Bitnet: CRW%HRB@PSUECL.Bitnet +1 814 238-4311 UUCP: ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!crw ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #893 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10732; 6 Nov 91 23:29 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30456 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 6 Nov 1991 21:41:31 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30347 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 6 Nov 1991 21:41:21 -0600 Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 21:41:21 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111070341.AA30347@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #894 TELECOM Digest Wed, 6 Nov 91 21:41:05 CST Volume 11 : Issue 894 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Two Cell Phones on Same Number: It Can Be Done [Ron Dippold)] Re: Two Cell Phones on Same Number: It Can Be Done [Wilson Mohr] Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea [Frederick G.M. Roeber] Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea [Norman Yarvin] Re: CA Rate Increases and GTE Notifications [Dave Singer] Re: Toronto Transit Commission's Timeline Service [Mark Brader] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) Subject: Re: Two Cell Phones on Same Number: It Can Be Done; Here's How Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 01:33:26 GMT jeff%heurikon.UUCP@cs.wisc.edu (Jeffrey Mattox) writes: > 3) Is there any cellular telephone on the market that allows its ESN > to be field-programmed without having to use this method? I would > think that there might be a backdoor ESN programming method, or do the > manufacturers painstakingly program a different control ROM for *each* > phone? According to IS-3-D (EIA/TIA-553 Cellular System Mobile Station - Land Station Compatibility Specification), "It [the ESN] must be factory-set and not readily alterable in the field. The circutry that provides the serial number must be isolated from fraudulent contact and tampering. Attempts to change the serial number circuitry should render the mobile station inoperative." However, there isn't much they can do to thwart anyone who knows much about the phone. Replacing the ROMs with a copy of another phone's should do it. If a checksum or such is stored in the EEPROM, you may have to copy that as well. Probably the most secure way to do it would be to physically wire the ESN different for every phone (yich - but maybe with auto-manufacturing something can be worked out. Or maybe just have someone cut the appropriate traces, but then someone else can also cut them and the cuts can be reconnected). Perhaps a different PAL for each mobile that supplies the ESN. It's not foolproof, again, but Joe Crook is going to have a much harder time copying the PAL than copying an ROM, I like this solution. If you look at EIA/TIA-IS-54 (Cellular System Dual-Mode Mobile Station - Base Station Compatibility Standard), it in fact adds that "Modification of the ESN will require a special facility not normally available to subscribers. The circuitry that provides the ESN must be isolated from fraudulent contact and tampering. Electronic storage devices mounted in sockets or connected with a cable are deemed not to comply with this requirement." This doesn't leave much of a choice except for hard-wiring the ESN somehow. Then again, IS-54 is generally brain dead. ------------------------------ From: motcid!mohr@uunet.uu.net (Wilson Mohr) Subject: Re: Two Cell Phones on Same Number: It Can Be Done; Here's How Date: 6 Nov 91 18:26:06 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL > [Moderator's Note: Security wise, what solutions are there against > people who program their telephone number to one of the demo numbers > every carrier hands out to their dealers for testing and sales use? > For example, the RS dealer here has a number on which every cell phone > in his display case will function. On that particular phone number, > the cell carrier does not bother to check the ESN -- how could they > while still letting the dealer demo all his phones? Likewise, the > internal phone numbers used by the cell carrier are not ESN validated. > What prevents a typical user from programming his stolen phone to one > of those numbers so the ESN is no longer a concern? PAT] Nothing stops these people from implementing the "workarounds" that you mention. A carrier that choses not to validate ESN's is letting themselves open to a lot of fraud, as well as other carriers that they have roaming agreements with. I believe this is a stipulation in some roaming agreements between carriers that ESN checking is mandatory. (Inter carrier agreements work on blocks of numbers, etc. and the "owning" carrier is responsible for airtime incurred by its subscribers in other systems with which they have an agreement.) Interesting that a large carrier would not validate ESN's. Some major carriers that employ this as well as alternative methods of combatting fraud have six and seven figures in lost revenues. Must be passing it on to the ratepayers! :^) As for internal numbers, if the revenues lost there reach a certain amount, someone will look into it. Most of the carriers with internal numbers register them like any other phone and validate ESN's, but they write off the phone bills as business expenses! I'm sure if your local RS got a bill that was out of the norm they'd get their number changed, and fast! Like with anything now in our High Technology world there are mechanisms to keep honest people honest, yet there will always be a way around them. Someone who wants to get around the systems will do so, but not for long. For the honest people this solution COULD lead to a pain. Like I said before, you can do this, but I wouldn't recommend it. Wilson Mohr - Motorola CIG ...!uunet!motcid!mohr Heh, heh!" - Curly ------------------------------ From: roeber@vxcrna.cern.ch (Frederick G.M. Roeber) Subject: Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea Date: 6 Nov 91 21:39:31 GMT In article , davidb@zeus.ce. washington.edu (David W. Barts) writes: > And while all this vigorous competition was taking place in the > cities, farmers, ranchers, and residents of small, isolated towns had > no telephone service simply because there were no profits to be made > by serving such areas. There are many costs to living out in the middle of nowhere. Food has to be trucked in from a distance, so it's more expensive. You have to dig your own well, or pay a lot to pipe in water from a distance. Most places -- work, stores, etc. -- are a lot further away, so you have to spend a lot of time driving around. There aren't as many shops, movie theaters, radio stations, etc.; so entertainment is more limited or more expensive. In short: living in the boonies has costs. Presumably the benefits of living there -- fresh air, fewer people, scenic green hills and cows, whatever -- outweigh the costs. Why should phone connectivity be any different? These places do tend to have stores, gas stations, etc., so I don't see that they would not have phone service at all. But like these other markets, the phone market mightn't be so competitive, and therefore the services might be more expensive. But why should someone who is willing to live in the middle of a city subsidize someone who would rather incur the cost of a country life? If the answer is "Access to emergency services" -- which is certainly a valid point, even though there are many other factors greatly impacting this access which should have been evaluated in the decision to live there -- why doesn't the question then become "How can the government best provide access to emergency services" instead of "How can the government best insure access to phone connectivity to insure access to emergency services"? And if it is decided that access to the phone network -- instead of access to the I've-fallen-and-can't-get-up network, or a broadcast system (CB channel 9?), or whatever -- is the best way to provide emergency services, why would this require a regulated monopoly of the entire local loop business? Insurance has the "assigned risk" category. Radio and TV stations have "public service" requirements. Local telcos could have similar arrangements. Or, we could call a spade a spade, and say "this society has decided that universal access to emergency services is a social good that should be supported by the entire populace. Therefore we will levy such-and-such a tax, and go take bids ..." This would further reduce the barriers to entry that suppress market competition. For an analogy: there are many trucking and delivery services on the roads today. They pay business taxes, income taxes, fuel taxes, sales taxes, etc. Some of this money ends up paying for ambulances and fire trucks. We don't have "The Trucking Company" of which one requirement is the provision of ambulances and fire trucks to all areas. Frederick G. M. Roeber | CERN -- European Center for Nuclear Research e-mail: roeber@caltech.edu or roeber@cern.ch | work: +41 22 767 31 80 r-mail: CERN/PPE, 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland | home: +33 50 42 19 44 ------------------------------ From: yarvin-norman@CS.YALE.EDU (Norman Yarvin) Subject: Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea Organization: Yale Computer Science Department Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 00:21:58 GMT fulk@cs.rochester.edu (Mark Fulk) writes: > As for the cost of stringing cable: most of the cost of cable is > really in the telephone poles and rights-of-way (or easements). I > think that local governments should probably own most of the telephone > poles and underground conduits, and the telephone companies (and > electric companies) should lease insulators on the poles. Unfortunately, I don't think we can trust local governments to maintain the telephone poles as well as the phone companies do. Not that maintenance is often required, but when a pole does get destroyed I wouldn't want to wait months for it to be replaced. On another topic: Suppose telephone outside plant really is a natural monopoly in some area. Consider then the possibilities for (limited) competition on inside plant. You'd have one company -- the outside plant company -- supplying wires from all the houses to a central office building. Inside the central office building there would be several competing local companies' switches, each connected to its own local trunk network. A subscriber would change his line from one switch to another by calling the wireline maintainer and asking them to unplug his wire from GTE's switch and plug it into MCI's. Could several companies fit into the CO building? Perhaps -- telecom equipment is constantly shrinking in physical size -- but it would become a very noisy place, not just because of GTE's #1 crossbar, but also because of the constant sounds of sabotage and psychological warfare ... :-) ------------------------------ Subject: Re: CA Rate Increases and GTE Notifications Reply-To: singer@almaden.ibm.com (David Singer) Organization: IBM Almaden Research Center Date: Mon, 04 Nov 91 21:15:01 -0800 From: singer@almaden.ibm.com Here are some of the rate "restructuring" proposals from GTE: Current Rate Proposed Rate Residence Flat Rate 9.75 (11.85) 15.55 Residence Measured 5.25 ( 6.38) 8.15 Business Measured 9.10 (11.06) 14.90 FX Residence Flat 14.75 25.55 FX Business 31.55 37.35 (The figures in parentheses include the surcharge, which would be incorporated into the new rates.) Measured 1st minute 0.04 0.05 -- additional minute 0.01 0.01 Evening Discount 30% 20% Night Discount 60% 40% Residence Allowance 3.00 none ZUM first minute 0.10 0.10 -- additional minute 0.04 0.04 Evening Discount 30% 20% Night Discount 60% 40% "A typical business LD call -- day period, 3 minutes, 27 miles -- would drop from 67 cents to 46 cents, a 31% savings. A typical residence call -- evening period, 5 minutes, 27 miles -- would decrease from 73 cents to 61 cents, a 16% savings." And my calculations show a 5 minute, 27 mile call during the night period actually *increasing* from 42 to 45 cents, though they conveniently don't give that example. (You can, however, sign up for a 25% discount on evening and night LD calls for $3.00/month.) Residential customers really take it on the chin with this proposal, and measured service customers lose bigtime -- not only does their basic rate go up by nearly $2.00/month, but they lose the $3.00 allowance towards usage, producing a *real* increase of about 75%. Oh yes...there will be a new discount plan offering 9 cent/minute long distance calling anywhere in the LATA for a mere $200/month fee. Aunt Minnie should jump at that one! David Singer -- Internet: singer@almaden.ibm.com BITNET: SINGER at ALMADEN Voice: (408) 927-2509 Fax: (408) 927-4073 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1991 19:17:00 -0500 From: msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) Subject: Re: Toronto Transit Commission's Timeline Service Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada > A few years ago, [the TTC] introduced Timeline [sic] service, which > gives every bus or streetcar stop its own telephone number. ... > Since each stop has its own phone number, the service can be accessed > from a rotary phone; you just dial the seven-digit number. This uses > up most of the (416) 539-xxxx block of numbers, of course ... The above matches what the TTC's publicity says, but it isn't actually quite right. The same number may actually be assigned to multiple consecutive stops along a route. For example, the two westbound bus stops nearest my house are both 416-539-2224. I've never explored the numbering enough to tell whether they assign new numbers at every minute's travel, or at slightly longer intervals; anyway, this effect does somewhat reduce the number of numbers needed. On the other hand, when the same stop is served by multiple routes, it sometimes has multiple phone numbers. It isn't obvious how they decide whether to do this or not. If one needs the phone number for a stop that one isn't actually at, from 7:30 am to 11:30 pm it can be obtained by calling the TTC's general information number, 416-393-4636 (393-INFO). > It gives the scheduled times, and doesn't track the actual > progress of the bus. A few bus routes have the positions of the buses dynamically monitored by sensors in the street, to help the drivers maintain an even spacing along the route. It has been said that the TTC would like to use this information to provide real-time information about the bus positions to TimeLine. This would, of course, be very nice. People familiar with the destination signs that the London Underground now uses on some lines will be familiar with the warm feeling of *knowing* that the next vehicle is only 1 minute away. > Of course, people could consult the printed schedules that are > provided for Toronto's less frequent transit routes ... This is actually an interesting point; the TimeLine numbers give out schedule information even on very frequent routes such as #77 Spadina, whereas printed schedules stop giving details when the service is more frequent than every 9-10 minutes. Of course, the more frequent the service the less the information is needed and the more likely it is that it will be meaningless anyway since timekeeping in traffic can't be exact to the minute. By the way, the synthesized announcement contains a two-word commercial for a watch company. Here's a sample. I just called 539-2000 and it said: TTC TimeLine schedule for stop two zero zero zero. [Brand name deleted] time is seven oh one. [P.M., not stated] Route twenty-five, Don Mills, next vehicle to Pape station in one minute. Following vehicle in five minutes. Third vehicle in six minutes. Route fifty-one, Leslie, next vehicle to Eglinton station in sixteen minutes. Following vehicle in thirty-two minutes. Route three oh three, Don Mills via Broadview Blue Night, next vehicle to Queen at one twenty [A.M., not stated]. Thank you. Notice the use of zero in the phone number but oh in the time and routes. Notice also that the overnight bus route is included, even though there won't be any of them for six more hours. I think the system should be smart enough to delete this from the announcement. In fact, in some cases it used to do so, but this seems to no longer happen, or maybe the threshold is too large. A final flaw is the omission of A.M. or P.M. from the time from the #303, which occurs even when it might be ambiguous. Despite these flaws I appreciate the service and often use it when I take a non-frequent bus and don't have a timetable. Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #894 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12710; 7 Nov 91 0:25 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04293 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 6 Nov 1991 22:33:09 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03710 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 6 Nov 1991 22:32:47 -0600 Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 22:32:47 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111070432.AA03710@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #895 TELECOM Digest Wed, 6 Nov 91 22:32:39 CST Volume 11 : Issue 895 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: SWB "Modem Tax" Tariff: This Time Its For Real [Steve Millendorf] Re: Early Switches Permitting Touch-Tone [Ken J. Clark] Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? [Andrew Klossner] Re: AT&T Online Translation Service [Toronto Star via Mark Brader] Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy [David Leibold] Re: Largest North-South Area Code [David Leibold] Re: Largest North-South Area Code [Bob Goudreau] Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea [David Leibold] Re: Extended Range Cordless Phone [Tad Cook] Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [Tad Cook] Re: Legalities of Taping Phone Calls [Michael H. Riddle, Esq.] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Millendorf Subject: Re: SWB "Modem Tax" Tariff: This Time Its For Real Date: 6 Nov 91 14:49:11 GMT Organization: Applied Digital Data Systems Duncan A. MacGregor writes: > Ouch. From previous articles in this newsgroup, as well as other > sources, I know that you do NOT want to have "Call Waiting" supported > on a line used by a modem. If a call-waiting signal occurs while the > modem is operating, the line will be hung up (by either the modem or > the telephone system itself) and the connection ended. I seem to remember there being an "undocumented feature" of call waiting. In particular, a way to shut it off. I think it was "*"-7-0, but you may want to try other combinations of "*"-7-x. On some phone systems it may shut off the call waiting until you re-enable it with another combination. On most of the ones I remember trying it just disabled it for that call only (after you enter the code, it returns you to a dial tone). In any case, you can probably check with your customer service office to see if this works. If they don't know anything about it, you can't lose anything by trying. If anybody does try it, perhaps you can post a summary? stevem@hitwr.hauppaugeNY.NCR.COM [Moderator's Note: *70, 1170 or 70# are usually the codes. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Nov 91 13:38:23 PDT From: "Ken J. Clark" Subject: Re: Early Switches Permitting Touch-Tone In (Volume 11, Issue 886, Message 7 of 8) NIEBUHR@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) asked: > In 1965, my wife and I were on one of the earliest exchanges (516-325) > that permitted touch-tone dialing (this was a very small community on > Long Island, and still is for that matter). > We subscribed to the service and enjoyed it and now I am curious as to > what type of switch allowed touch-tone. My guess is that it might have > been a 1ESS some early animal. Dave, Actually the function of subscriber dialing known in North America as Touchtone(R) is _independant_ of the type of switch located in the CO. Touchtone(R) will work on a step-by-step switch (Strowger, cross-bar) equally as well as an electronic switch. The train of tones generated by the key pad on your phone is received and interpreted then stored in a register. This information is then used to instruct the switch. In fact, this same function is used for pulse dialing and is known as "common control." Common control is more efficient in that the switch is not tied up while the subscriber is "dialing." Once the number is completely dialed and passed to the switch, the most efficient conenction can be made. I'm not sure when AT&T introduced Touchtone(R) to the market place. Do they still hold it as a registered trade mark? Anyone? However, I remember seeing a 1930s experimental phone in the Smithsonian about five years ago. It had the ten numeric keys in one row (like the number keys along the top of a typewrite keyboard) on a very wide-based phone. I don't know what frequencies were used for the signaling and I doubt that what has become the CCITT Q23 allocation for the frequencies was used. I'm assuming that the 10 linear keys implies 10 discrete tones, unlike the 4 X 4 combination defined in Q23. Anyone have any more information on the history of Touchtone(R) signaling? Ken J. Clark KCLARK@cevax.simpact.com Sys. Integration/Applications Group {uunet..}!simpact!cevax.simpact.com!kclark Simpact Associates Inc. Voice: 703-758-0190 ex. 2134 Reston, VA Fax: 703-758-0941 ------------------------------ From: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) Subject: Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? Date: 6 Nov 91 21:40:37 GMT Reply-To: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville, Oregon TELECOM Moderator offered counsel to John Hidgon: > "If you have some way of seeing the passwords he is trying, you > might stay a jump ahead of him by changing the password more or > less daily for awhile always picking passwords he has already > tested and eliminated." This may not be good advice. If you have a nice large password space, you would get better protection by selecting a random symbol sequence. A cracker may not be methodical enough to try passwords only once. Andrew Klossner (andrew@frip.wv.tek.com) (uunet!tektronix!frip.WV.TEK!andrew) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 06:20:00 -0500 From: msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) Subject: Re: AT&T Online Translation Service Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada I think I remember reading something about this service in the past. But it's been brought back to my attention this week, because the police forces both here in Metropolitan Toronto and in Peel Region (the adjacent county-sized area to our west) have recently subscribed to it to use with their emergency numbers. Following are excerpts from a {Toronto Star} article of Saturday, Nov. 2, somewhat abridged by me for brevity and resequenced for clarity. Starting Monday, calls to the emergency 911 line will provide almost instant interpretation in 140 different languages, Metro police announced yesterday. These will include everything from Afrikaans to Zulu and Cantonese, Mandarin, Swahili and Urdu. The multilingual around-the-clock telephone service is provided by the AT&T Language Line. Call takers at Metro's police communications centre on Jarvis St. will reach the service through a toll-free number. With the touch of a button known as speed dialing, the local call taker gets immediate access to the multilingual centre in Monterey, Calif., and "a language line service interpreter will come on the line momentarily." The Metro call taker stays on the line to receive the interpreter's instructions as given by the caller. AT&T will bill police $2 a minute to use the service. The average conversation lasts for five minutes, research has shown. "$10 is very, very cheap to save a life or prevent a major crime." The system was developed by a California police officer in the early 1980s after an influx of Vietnamese refugees. Last month, Metro police received at least 50 emergency calls from people speaking languages that were not immediately recognizable. (end of newspaper article) ------------- I'd like to know what happens when the Language Line receives such a call. If they can really cover 140 languages at any hour of the day or night, they must have a considerable number of people there! Does each incoming call go to *all* the interpreters simultaneously, until one says "She's speaking Zulu, that's mine" and claims it? If not, how do they do it? How many interpreters does the service employ altogether -- and what would be the most and the fewest that it has on duty at one time? If this is already written up in the Telecom Archives, perhaps the Moderator will supply a reference. If not, can someone tell us about it? Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com [Moderator's Note: Its not in the archives that I know of. I think what they do with some of the languages available is they contract with people as needed, and call them at home (their office, etc) when they need an on the spot translation. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Nov 91 22:07:23 EST From: DLEIBOLD@VM1.YorkU.CA Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy In a recent Digest ... > book sucks and is unclear). What is 907, Alaska (borders 604, British > Columbia)? Then there are 808, Hawaii, and 902, Nova Scotia/P.E.I., > which border nothing. Don't forget 709 Newfoundland ... > Incidentally, what is wrong with having maps that approximately > correspond to the land masses they supposedly represent, instead of > the godawful computer-generated "artworks" we see everywhere from the > phone book to the evening news these days? Don't forget the new AT&T 1992 800 Directory ... it seems to have put Atlanta, GA in a different part of the state when it illustrated the area code split that is soon to take effect. Then again, with all these area code splits, the area codes are getting very small land areas. Metro Toronto, which will have 416 all to itself in 1994, might win the geographically smallest area code award. > [Moderator's Note: Actually, 312 also borders 219 for several miles on > the south side of Chicago. And some of those places you mentioned > which have water on one or more sides of them wouldn't count either, > since there is technically a 'country code' for ships at sea. And > Alaska does border 604, but a small part also borders 403 I think. PAT] I wouldn't exactly consider the Alaska-Yukon border to be a small part. (Yukon of course being assigned Alberta's 403, perhaps staying that way until a truckload of new area codes becomes available in 1995). If anything, 907's border with 604 is the "small part". dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Nov 91 22:09:25 EST From: DLEIBOLD@VM1.YorkU.CA Subject: Re: Largest North-South Area Code Kevin Collins writes: > What is 809? (Bermuda in the mid-Atlantic in the north, Trinidad and > Tobago off the coast of South America (Venezuela?) in the south). Try 819, which claims Grise Fiord as North America's northernmost phone exchange and south to Hull, Quebec (adjacent to Ottawa) which would be south of the 49th parallel. Without an atlas and a measuring tape, it's hard to tell who wins between 819 and 809. Also, do we count the distance in terms of which are the northernmost and southernmost exchanges available, or in terms of the geographical limits of the area code which may extend beyond actual exchange service? Of course, if you think about it, the clear winners in the largest area code sweepstakes have to be 800 and 900! :-) dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Nov 91 12:22:57 est From: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Subject: Re: Largest North-South Area Code In article Kevin Collins writes: >> This area code spans the largest north-south distance. > What is 809? (Bermuda in the mid-Atlantic in the north, Trinidad and > Tobago off the coast of South America (Venezuela?) in the south). Ahh, but can that beat 403, which stretches all the way from the Alberta/US border to the northern tip of the Northwest Territories? (Probably not many phones at that end, though!) 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: Wed, 06 Nov 91 22:27:28 EST From: DLEIBOLD@VM1.YorkU.CA Subject: Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea In the 1920's in Kincardine, Ontario, Canada, Bell Canada was slugging it out with the independent Bruce Municipal Telephone service. In fact, independents were able to set up phone service since Bell was slow in providing it to rural areas. There was no interconnection between Bell and Bruce Municipal during the competitive time, and eventually Bruce Municipal won, and it is likely still an independent telco today (and fairly modernised, too, considering they installed digital switching years ago). dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Extended Range Cordless Phone Date: Mon, 4 Nov 91 23:44:21 PST From: tad@ssc.wa.com (Tad Cook) Ken Jongsma writes: > While traveling on business this week, I came across the following ad > in American Airlines' American Way in-flight magazine. I transcribe it > for your edification and make no recommendations. > [begin ad] > Up To 60 Mile Radius Cordless Phones* I called the outfit selling these, suspecting that the telephones were the ones I have seen advertised by various outfits in the far east. Sometimes these show up illegally here in the USA on the 2 meter ham band. It sounds like these are the same kind of phones. The sales guy told me you just apply to the FCC for your "own frequency", and that with the cost of cellular "many people here in the LA area are doing this." It sounded like he was talking about getting a land mobile frequency, but I pointed out that in LA it wouldn't be private, and actually I am not sure of the legality of doing this on business radio frequencies. Then he told me that many people just buy the phones and don't bother to get licensed. The implication was that this was no big deal! I wonder what services his customers will end up interfering with? Tad Cook tad@ssc.UUCP Seattle, WA ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls Date: Mon, 4 Nov 91 23:42:26 PST From: tad@ssc.wa.com (Tad Cook) Regarding the DJs raising hell over the telephone, and possible regulatory action, look what just came in: "The FCC issued a 3 page TEXT Proposing Adoption of a Hoax Rule. As a result of several recent incidents of hoaxes by broadcast stations, the Commission has proposed adopting a hoax rule. Adoption of a hoax rule would enable the Commission to redress hoaxes with sanctions other than license revocation, such as monetary forfeiture, and codify licensee obligations in this area. M Docket 91-314, by NPRM (FCC 91-335) adopted October 24." Tad Cook tad@ssc.UUCP Seattle, WA ------------------------------ From: bc335@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Michael H. Riddle, Esq.) Subject: Re: Legalities of Taping Phone Calls Reply-To: bc335@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Michael H. Riddle, Esq.) Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 91 13:48:15 GMT In a previous article, brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack) says: >> My question is, can I legally tape a phone call between me and >> another party without letting the other party know that the call is >> being recorded? >> By the way, in case the laws vary by state, I'm in Ohio. > As far as I know, as long as such is intended for administrative/ > recordkeeping purposes, you may tape the call w/o giving notice to the > other party. * * * > BTW: I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on c.d.t. 8) Well, I'm a lawyer, but not licensed in Ohio. :-) But the general rule is, "it depends." In Federal law, and that of many states, you can tape as long as one of the parties is aware of it and has granted permission. The theory is that this person could tell anyone else about the call, anyway. But as your question notes, it hinges on state law. Some states, California for one, if I remember correctly, require that both parties have knowledge. And there used to be a tariff in many places that required the "beep" every so often. My AT&T 2500 anwering machine, with two-way option, can provide the beep where required. So the brotherhood's usual answer: see someone in Ohio! <<<< insert standard disclaimer here >>>> mike.riddle@inns.omahug.org | Nebraska Inns of Court bc335@cleveland.freenet.edu | +1 402 593 1192 (Data/Fax) Sysop of 1:285/27@Fidonet | V.32/V.42bis / G3 Fax [Moderator's Note: Please explain if 'having knowledge of' is sufficient or if permission must be specifically given. That is, I say to you "I am recording this call." Now both parties know about it, even though you may object and tell me you don't want it recorded. But I keep the recorder going ... after all, you now have knowledge of it. Is there an presumption you agreed to the recording because you stayed on the line and did not disconnect on being given notice? PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #895 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15692; 7 Nov 91 2:05 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20637 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 7 Nov 1991 00:19:17 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18479 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 7 Nov 1991 00:19:05 -0600 Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 00:19:05 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111070619.AA18479@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #896 TELECOM Digest Thu, 7 Nov 91 00:19:00 CST Volume 11 : Issue 896 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: TTC Timeline Service [Norman Soley] Re: AT&T Online Translation Service [Jamie Mason] CPID Problems in South Florida [Ronnie Schnell] AT&T Cordless 5200 Hidden Warranty [Charles Beatty] Need Help Building Telephone Recorder [Sandy Kyrish] Re: 540 Pager Scam Update [Ed Greenberg] The Telephone/Terminal: Any Information? [Bob Kupiec] Telephone Registration to be Used at Umass/Amherst [Collegian via J. Welch] Interoffice Trunk Traffic Engineering Question [Steve Chafe] ATT Outage in Massachusetts 11/5? [Steve Elias] Monopolies [John Higdon] MCI and FAX Detection [Tim Gorman] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: soley@trooa.enet.dec.com (Norman Soley) Subject: Re: TTC Timeline Service Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Date: 5 NOV 91 09:49:11 In article , TONY@MCGILL1.BITNET (Tony Harminc) writes... > Actually each stop does *not* have its own number -- they cheated and > assigned one, two, or three stops one number, depending on how far > apart they are. In addition there are also stops with more than one number. I used to live near a major street where there were three different bus routes that went by. Each route had a separate number to call. We never bothered with Timeline since to find out when the next bus to the subway was usually took longer than actually going out to the stop and waiting. > I don't know what equipment they are using -- presumably a PBX-style > interface. 416 539 is a DMS 100 office. I don't know either but the company that makes the boxes that do this service is Teleride/Sage, they're in Toronto at 150 Front St. W.. Norman Soley, Specialist, Professional Software Services, ITC District Digital Equipment of Canada soley@trooa.enet.dec.com Opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Digital Equipment Corporation or my cat Marge. ------------------------------ From: Jamie Mason Subject: Re: AT&T Online Translation Service Organization: University of Toronto Computer Services Advisor Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 00:04:03 -0500 In article msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) writes: > I'd like to know what happens when the Language Line receives such a > call. If they can really cover 140 languages at any hour of the day > or night, they must have a considerable number of people there! Does > each incoming call go to *all* the interpreters simultaneously, until > one says "She's speaking Zulu, that's mine" and claims it? If not, > how do they do it? No. AT&T's Genetic Engineering Department got a patent on the Babel Fish. The Language line employs a small staff of regularly trained AT&T operators, each of whom have a babel fish in one ear. AT&T is considering suing Sirius Cybernetics Corperation, and Douglas Adams, for violation of their trademark. (To be taken with a grain of :-), of course...) Jamie ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Nov 91 10:44:31 -0500 From: Ron Schnell Subject: CPID Problems in South Florida I recently moved to Southern Bell territory. I am *really* happy to be out of GTE-land in California. Everything seems to work perfectly with the custom calling services. I can even get a call-waiting while in a three-way call! Anyway, one of the reasons I was excited about making the move was the availability of Caller-ID. I ran straight from the airport to an electronics store to buy my display device (I already called from CA to have the service established). I purchased the AT&T Call Display 64. I brought it back to the apartment building and discovered it only seemed to work about one out of five times. I called AT&T and they kept putting me on hold. I wanted to make sure I could tell Southern Bell that it was their problem and not the unit. After being on hold for 15 minutes I gave up. I called Southern Bell repair, and they sent a guy over. He connected his set, which had the same problem! He made a call to his friend, and found out that my building is wired with fiber optics as opposed to copper. He said that I need to get a special type of Caller-ID box that works for this. Now I had never heard of this so I spoke with his friend. He explained to me that some boxes have this extra resister which is necessary for fiber-optic buildings. "Is this something I can put in-line myself?" "Sure if you have a 600ohm resister ... actually you also need ---" "Let me guess, a .01uf capacitor?" "Yeah, how did you know?" "Just a guess." The guy went on to tell me that all of the stores in the area know which ones work in my building and which ones don't. Of course I called EVERY store in the area, and none of them knew what I was talking about. Eventually I returned the AT&T Call Display 64 and got one from Sears which had 70 memories, and had the AT&T logo on it. It is made by some other company, though. I called AT&T and they had never even heard of the device. It seems to work perfectly. Has anyone heard of these problems before? Ron ------------------------------ From: beatty@gold.nlm.nih.gov (Charles Beatty) Subject: AT&T Cordless 5200 Hidden Warranty Reply-To: beatty@ncbi.nlm.nih.gov Organization: National Center for Biotechnology Information Date: Tue, 5 Nov 91 16:24:11 GMT We have an AT&T model 5200 cordless phone which has started buzzing pretty badly after about two years of use. I read somewhere that there is a "hidden warranty" for this, e.g. AT&T is aware of the problem and will fix it or replace it if you scream loud enough. Does anyone know anything about this? I'll post a summary if I get email. Thanks in advance. Charles Beatty beatty@ncbi.nlm.nih.gov ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Nov 91 16:40 GMT From: Sandy Kyrish <0003209613@mcimail.com> Subject: Need Help Building Telephone Recorder Perhaps this subject has been covered before, but I would like to record telephone conversations onto a conventional tape recorder. I already own an answering machine, which doesn't record phone calls, so buying one with that feature doesn't make sense. Is there a simple design for converting the output of a telephone line into (preferably) a mic level signal or (less preferably) into a line level signal? In other words I'd like to have a Y-patch with one end going to the telephone and the other end into the magic box and then onto the tape recorder. I have used the Radio Shack inductance coupler with awful S/N results, so please don't suggest that alternative. If there is an off the shelf product, that'd be great, but I am willing to build. Please e-mail replies directly to 320-9613@mcimail.com. Thanks! Sandy Kyrish ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Nov 91 10:00 PST From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Subject: Re: 540 Pager Scam Update > their pager company (Skytel) was updating their software to prevent > such numbers from being displayed, but that the change had not yet > been implemented, and urging caution in the mean time. Oh gasp, groan and gripe! Supposing that I want to communicate to my wife that I'll be ready at 5:40, and we're going to location 1234 on our handy cheat sheet of numbers? I appreciate most of the opinions that have flown on this one, but John H's point that people should be wary of the charges that may accrue when they use the telephone, and the opposing view that the peepul should enjoy protection from such chicanery, but this takes the cake. For "my protection", my pages will now be censored. What ever happened to the concept of the "common carrier." ------------------------------ From: Bob Kupiec Subject: The Telephone/Terminal: Any Information? Date: Tue, 5 Nov 91 14:58:56 EST Hello fellow Digest readers! I was wondering if anyone else has a beast called the "510a Touch-Tel Terminal/Telephone" built by AT&T? I have acquired one of these wonderful phones and I am looking for *ANY* info that you may have. [BTW, these are no longer sold by AT&T. I picked mine up at a computer fest (TCF).] The 510a is a Touch-Screen Speakerphone Telephone (w/handset) that allows one-touch dialing of numbers and is a vt100/510a compatible terminal all in one. Thanks for any replies. Bob (kupiec@cs.widener.edu) ------------------------------ From: Jonathan_Welch Subject: Telephone Registration to be Used at Umass/Amherst Date: Tue 5 Nov 1991 Monday, November 4, 1991 The Massachusetts Daily Collegian By REBECCA VOIGT Collegian Correspondent All University of Massachusetts graduate and undergraduate students will be using their telephones instead of the standardized "bubble sheets" to pre-register for next semester, according to the registrar's office. Registrar Nancy Fitzpatrick said the new Touchtone Registration System, similar to "Voice Mail," will have a pre-recorded voice that speaks instructions to students. Choices are entered through the telephone's keypads. Rotary dial phones will not work with this system, so students must use touchtone phones, she said. All undergraduates and some graduate students will need to get their Personal Identification Number (PIN) in order to access the new system. PINs will be available from students' major departments starting on Nov. 12. Pre-registration will be from Nov. 14 to Nov. 21. Students can begin calling on Nov. 14 but there will be different individual deadlines. These deadlines will be staggered up until Nov. 20. Then on Nov. 21, students will be "scheduled off of the system." The Registrar said it was very important for students to know their deadline. "People shouldn't rely on what their roommate's or anyone else's deadline is," she said. If students miss their deadline, they will not be able to pre-register and will have to register for all of their classes through Add/Drop. Each student's deadline will be sent to them in the mail along with instructions on how to use the system. Thirty-two telephone lines have been added to handle pre-registration, she said. However, the Registrar warned students still might get a busy signal when they try to call the system. She said students should call as early as possible in their access period and should keep trying until they get through. The lines will be open Monday-Thursday 8 a.m.-9 p.m., Friday 8 a.m.-5 p.m. and Sunday 10 a.m.-9 p.m.. With this new system, students will be told if they are eligible for the courses that they choose. They can verify they entered the correct course. They can change their requests. Choices can be marked Pass/Fail and students can choose an alternate for each requested course. With the old system, students could only choose two alternates. Engineering, and Hotel Restaurant and Travel Adminstration majors used this sytem last semester as a trial run, and many students thought it was a good idea. "It's very efficient because you could verify your choices. With opscans you didn't know if you marked them right," said senior civil and mechanical engineering major, Matt Valade. Junior HRTA major Erik Rothman agrees. "It's easy because you don't have to walk all the way over to Whitmore," he said. The Registrar said what order students pre-register in will not effect whether they will get the classes that they requested. "Students will be scheduled into courses during December and will receive their schedules in January," said Nancy Fitzpatrick. According to the Registrar's office, Touchtone Telephone Pre-registration is the first step in a plan to automate the entire registration process. Touchtone telephone Add/Drop will be piloted with selected students for the Spring 1992 semester and will be used for the entire campus for the Fall 1992 semester. ------------------------------ From: chafe@ucdavis.edu (Steve Chafe) Subject: Interoffice Trunk Traffic Engineering Question Date: 4 Nov 91 23:36:55 GMT Reply-To: chafe@ucdavis.edu (Steve Chafe) Organization: University of California, Davis I am trying to find information on telecom traffic engineering, especially with regard to calculating trunking needs based on CCS or Erlangs and call attempt peg counts. I understand that there is such a thing as a Poisson table that relates CCS with peg counts to give an optimum trunk group size. Does anyone out there know where I would find this type of table? I have been to the library and have only found the most horrendous mathematical equations based on statistical processes that I have never heard of. If anyone has any suggestions at all, I would love to hear them! Please mail to me: chafe@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu Thanks, Steve Chafe ------------------------------ Subject: ATT Outage in Massachusetts 11/5 Date: Wed, 06 Nov 91 17:22:10 PST From: Steve Elias CBS radio news reported another ATT outage in the New England area some time on 11/5. Does anyone have more info on this outage? CBS also reported that air traffic was unaffected. eli ------------------------------ Subject: Monopolies Date: 5 Nov 91 12:25:01 PST (Tue) From: john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) I think that it is time that we recall just what a monopoly is and how it is supposed to work. A utility has income and outgo just like any business. Traditionally, since a monopoly has no competition, it falls under the supervision of a regulatory body. Its revenues are set to provide a "reasonable" rate of return over expenses. In the past, this was not complex. Since telcos only provided "regulated" services, it was a simple matter for the regulatory agency to figure what the total rates should be with the only discussion coming in the area of rate distribution. Frequently the distribution was skewed somewhat to allow for the concept of "universal service". People who wanted "extras" paid a little more than the cost of providing them so that people who only needed the basics could pay a little less. The current scene bears no relation to the traditional monopoly concept. Pac*Bell is involved in more competitive services now than it is in regulated monopoly services. As more and more of its formerly regulated products move over into the competitive arena, the complexity of its regulated rate structure increases. Pac*Bell insists that the regulated customers do not subsidize the unregulated services, but the current proposal belies that on the surface. Pac*Bell comes right out and says that it has to raise local exchange rates so that it can COMPETE in the intraLATA toll market. What is this if not subsidization? We take its word for what costs what to provide and so does the PUC. The PUC has NEVER done an audit on Pac*Bell. This is a truly dangerous situation. Either we must put it all back the way it was (not very realistic) or we must go all the way and provide for full competition in the telecommunication industry. It is as simple as that. The Pac*Bell "working both sides of the street" dynasty must come to an end. John Higdon (hiding out in the desert) ------------------------------ Date: 05 Nov 91 18:11:02 EST From: tim gorman <71336.1270@CompuServe.COM> Subject: MCI and FAX Detection Brian Crawford writes in TELECOM Digest V11 #889: > I have just received what appears to be quite a juicy offer from MCI- > sign up for their MCI fax service and receive $100 worth of free fax the > first full billing period in effect. > She stated that their equipment could detect the carrier as > well as the typical short duration of a fax call relative to that of a > voice call. Anything done on call duration is suspect. Calls terminating to an answering machine are many times of short duration also :-). I also have my doubts that they are monitoring every call handled by their switching network for fax carrier tone. Not that it isn't possible, but it would probably take a significant investment to perform this task. Tim Gorman SWBT *my opinions are my own, not official* ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #896 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16512; 7 Nov 91 2:36 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21911 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 7 Nov 1991 00:50:49 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12659 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 7 Nov 1991 00:50:37 -0600 Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 00:50:37 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111070650.AA12659@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #897 TELECOM Digest Thu, 7 Nov 91 00:50:34 CST Volume 11 : Issue 897 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson KC Star on SWB and BBSs [William Degnan] PUC Absent at PUC Hearings and Transcript Inaccuracies [Nelson Bolyard] Who Benefits From Local Competition? [Lauren Weinstein] Unreasonable New Line Install Requirements? [Kirk Davis] New Pac*Bell *Info Service [Ron Dippold] Who Makes Discrete Modem Chipsets For 2400 bps? [Dave Mc Mahan] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William.Degnan@p0.f39.n382.z1.FidoNet.Org (William Degnan) Date: 04 Nov 91 10:44:50 Subject: KC Star on SWB and BBSs The {Kansas City Star} - Front page Business Tuesday Pull-out Tuesday, November 5, 1991 Computer users see threat in costs Southwestern Bell plan portends changes, they fear by Martin Rosenberg Some computer bulletin board operators in Missouri say they might have to shut down the increasingly popular computer networks if Southwestern Bell Telephone Co, succeeds in raising their rates. Southwestern Bell says its only trying to fairly price its services by charging the bulletin board operators business rates instead of residential rates. The company is seeking approval for the changes from Missouri regulators. Industry experts say the issue could be the opening volley in a broad campaign by telephone companies to change the way consumers and businesses pay for electronic communications. Residential customers might one day have to pay more to use their personal computers and modems than they pay for voice communications, experts say. And businesses might have to pay more to use fax machines. Southwestern Bell denied that it is attempting to change any rates other than those affecting a small number of data communications customers who should be switched to a flat business rate, more expensive than the residential rate. The bulletin boards, frequently operated out of homes, allow users to exchange messages, advice and software programs. Many are free to use, and operators often get no revenue from them. Hundreds have formed across the state in the last few years. Southwestern Bell's proposal is meant for only those who have set up a bulletin board through his or her personal computer. Not affected are computer users who merely access the bulletin board computer over telephone lines. The proposal comes at a time when telephone companies' plans for information services have moved to center stage. On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for seven regional telephone companies, including Southwestern Bell, to start providing information services. Those services could eventually compete with electronic bulletin boards, newspapers and data base operations such as CompuServe Inc. and Prodigy Services Co. (CompuServe is owned by H&R Block Inc. of Kansas City.) Revenues for telephone-delivered information in the United States amounted to an estimated $750 million last year and are projected to grow to $2 billion in 1992, according to industry sources. Southwestern Bell's proposal, if approved, would take effect by mid-November. Bulletin board operators are operating like businesses, said William Bailey, company district manager of rate administration for Missouri in St. Louis. "Some customers on residential lines would more appropriately be on business lines," Bailey said. Bailey said current business customers also would be affected. They would be allowed to switch to the flat business rate ($33.55 a month in metropolitan Kansas City) and avoid paying a higher "information terminal service" rate (currently $43.60 a month), he said. Southwestern Bell mounted a similar effort to get bulletin boards under business rates in Texas. It later decided to allow free bulletin board services using three or fewer lines to continue to enjoy residential rates. That was "an enormous mistake," Bailey said. Phone companies are unable to monitor whether a bulletin board is collecting money from users, he added. Many Kansas City bulletin board operators are upset with Southwestern Bell's proposal. "If they start charging business rates, some bulletin boards will shut down," said Lanny Conn, who operates a free bulletin board called SOLO-Quest. Bill Hirt, who operates the Amiga Central bulletin board for Amiga computer users, said he would close down if he is charged the business rate. His bulletin board also is free to use. Currently, about 200 personal computer users - some as far off as Australia and Sweden - call his bulletin board, he said. Conn and Hirt serve as spokesmen for the Greater Kansas City SysOps Association, made up of about 22 bulletin boards. (SysOps stands for system operators). Hirt estimates there are 100 bulletin boards in the city; most have been set up as hobbies. Attorney Robin Martinez, who is representing the association, said that Southwestern Bell's proposal would hurt information-age pioneers. "People running bulletin boards and people using them are on the cutting edge of the information age," he said. Southwestern Bell wants to thin the ranks of bulletin board providers so there will be fewer competitors to its own offerings, he said. "To a certain extent, they are trying to get a stranglehold on information services," Martinez said. Bailey denied there is a link between his company's proposals and its own plans for information services. "I'm not getting any direction from on high to do what I am doing," he said. "I'm really not aware what my company intends to do in terms of information services." But William Degnan, a telecommunications consultant in Austin, Texas, said, "The majority of these folks (bulletin boards) are underpricing these services that Southwestern bell would like to provide at a grander scale." Degnan had advised the group of Texas bulletin board operators who had opposed Southwestern Bell's efforts to charge business rates there. "I think Southwestern Bell is concerned that (it) won't be able to sell what other people are giving away," Degnan said. Martha Hogerty, public council representing consumers in Missouri, said after reviewing Southwestern Bell's filing, "This looks like anybody with a modem would have to be on a business rate." Most regional Bell telephone companies are now developing strategies for offering information services. Phone companies may soon try to get customers to pay a measured rate for data communications, said Howard Anderson, president of the Yankee Group of Boston. Under such a system, the monthly cost of data communications would increase the longer you are connected during the month -- like a running taxi meter. A change to metered rates would be reasonable and enable telephone companies to increase revenues as usage and expenses mount, he said. The average residential customer uses the phone 21 minutes a day, while a customer with a personal computer and modem uses a phone line an average of 62 minutes a day, Anderson said. Anderson predicted that telephone companies may decide to offer customers high-speed data communications for a rate higher than voice communications. Usage above a fixed number of hours would increase the size of the monthly phone bill, he said. To encourage use of the new line, phone companies may take steps to lower the quality of standard lines so that they will not cleanly carry electronic information, Anderson said. Bailey disagreed, saying Southwestern bell has no plans to introduce measured service for voice or data communications. And, he said, "I know of no plans to degrade our service to migrate customers from one service to another." --------------- William Degnan, Communications Network Solutions -Independent Consultants in Telecommunications- P.O. Drawer 9530 | ARPA: wdegnan@f39.n382.z1.FidoNet.Org Austin, TX 78766-9530 | !wdegnan@attmail.com | Voice +1 512 323 9383 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Nov 91 14:02:40 PST From: nelson@bolyard.wpd.sgi.com (Nelson Bolyard) Subject: PUC Absent at PUC Hearings and Transcript Inaccuracies Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA John Higdon wrote about his experience speaking at a PUC hearing. He enumerated the attendees as including representatives of the LECs, TURN (a consumer advocate group), the PUC consumer advocate office, and "The judge" by which I assume he meant an administrative law judge. In short, not ONE commissioner from the PUC was present at this hearing, just as was the case when I spoke at a CLID hearing in San Francisco. The implication of this absence is that the PUC commisioners will NOT hear what you said, but will be limited to how you were "quoted" in the transcripts. These transcripts can be amazingly inacurate. I obtained a printed copy of the transcripts of my comments to the PUC. I was shocked at the inaccuracies. I had advocated CLID and call trace as solutions to the problem of obscene callers who call too infrequently for PAC*BELL to do anything about it (with their present schemes), and I had argued that call trace should not be billed as a monthly service charge, as this was analgous to fee-prepaid police services. By getting words wrong, the transcripts completely changed the meaning of what I said, and my comments must surely have not had the intended effect on the PUC. Here are some of the transcription errors (some are howlers). I said: "because the phone calls are not often, about six or seven days apart, the police and phone company will not get involved." The transcipt read "days a week" instead of "days apart" :-{. I said "After two years of this, I can joke and be light hearted about it" but the transcript said "light headed" instead of "light hearted" :-{. I said "We don't want to have our police services fee-prepaid." but the treanscript said "fee be mad" instead of "fee prepaid". I described my "two-line solution" as "an adequate solution for CLID" but the transcript said "already the solution for CLID". Imagine how changing "uninvolved" into "unavailable" affects your message. In short, John, I hope your remarks got more accurate treatment than mine did. If somebody knows of a way to solve this problem I'd like to know about it. I already thought of presenting a written copy of your remarks to the transcriptionist in advance of making them orally to the hearing. I don't know if the transcriptionist will use them or not, and I wouldn't want the transcriptionist to be insulted (whether or not such insult was deserved). Nelson Bolyard MTS Trusted IRIX Silicon Graphics, Inc. nelson@sgi.COM {decwrl,sun}!sgi!whizzer!nelson 415-335-1919 Disclaimer: Views expressed herein do not represent the views of my employer. [Moderator's Note: There is a procedure by which you can file a motion to have the transcripts stricken as the official record and then re-written. You'd need to ask the PUC for the exact way to do this, and I think it involves filing a complaint with the PUC. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Nov 91 10:54:33 PST From: lauren@vortex.COM (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: Who Benefits From Local Competition? Greetings. The big problem with local competition is that it will be a disaster for all but a certain class of subscriber. Remember, even if local competition were allowed, there would likely be no requirement that *everyone* have all of the competition available in all areas. Any attempt to mandate this would probably result in competition proposals being withdrawn -- potential competitors are only interested in the "cream" markets. Competitors want to serve large businesses with *big* communications bills -- especially those concentrated in urban centers (such as downtown areas) where physical plant (i.e. fiber, wiring, etc.) can be deployed in an area of concentrated potential customers. As has already been pointed out, most primary systems will continue to be based on physical cable of some sort for the forseeable future. You can bet potential competitors aren't going to be lining up to serve suburban or rural areas, or residence or small business customers. Those will be left to the original telco, who will continue to go screaming back to the PUCs demanding ever more basic service increases to make up for the lost revenue. Such revenue requirements could be at least partially controlled if it were mandated that the telcos must concentrate on their core businesses as regulated utilities -- and not keep trying to venture off into speculative sidelines and enhanced services that usually don't benefit the average customer in any significant way and would be best provided by outside entities in any case. Now, of course, the telcos are busily setting up services in ways that their outside competitors can't match, since the telcos won't provide the same sort of access to their switches on the same basis that they use. I have no faith whatsoever that the cable companies are going to be able to compete with the telcos in the short to medium term. Their current physical plants are totally inappropriate for such operations (for a vast number of reasons which I won't even try to enumerate here). For them to compete in this arena would require a totally new physical plant -- that is, all new wiring, drops, etc. from end to end. And once again, I don't see them rushing to spend that kind of money except in dense areas where they can go after the *big* fish. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ From: kirkd@ism.isc.com (kirk davis) Subject: Unreasonable New Line Install Requirements Organization: Interactive Systems Corp. Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 02:44:55 GMT I got a somewhat unique problem that I'd like to bounce off everyone for feedback. About a year ago I bought a older (20 years) house. Before closing, I of course checked the phone wiring and it had six pairs (enough for my needs ... I don't need 15 lines like *some* people :-). I just got around to having the third line set up and it turns out that although the builder wired the house for six lines, Pacbell only ran two pair from the street to the protector on the side of the house (wait, it gets better). It also turns out that they just buried the cable without running a conduit so this of course means that it would have to be dug up and redone to current Pacbell requirements (1' by 2' trench dug from street up 150' driveway to side of house, lots of roots in the way etc). All well and good, but the friendly folks at Pacbell engineering say I have to supply the trench. Considering the fact that Pacbell didn't run conduit in the first place, I feel it's unreasonable for me to have to pay to have it done correctly now. Any one ran across this before? Any suggestions on how to pursue getting them to do it? Email or Post, Thanks, Kirk Davis (kirkd@ism.isc.com -or- uunet!ism!kirkd) ------------------------------ From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) Subject: New Pac*Bell *Info Service Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 02:20:12 GMT Pac*Bell is offering a set of new services here called *Info (so-called because you use a "*" in dialing the numbers) which their cellular subscribers can call. There are over 280 information services, including stocks, traffic reports, weather, directory assistance, etc. The cost to the customer is the cost of the air time. ------------------------------ From: mcmahan@netcom.com (Dave Mc Mahan) Subject: Who Makes Discrete Modem Chipsets For 2400 bps? Date: Wed, 06 Nov 91 03:56:42 GMT Organization: Dave McMahan @ NetCom Services I am trying to locate manufacturers of chipsets that implement 2400 baud modems. I know that Silicon Systems and Rockwell make such chips, but who else? I am looking for both the raw 'data pump' and also people who have integrated the data pump with a CPU to implement the AT command set. I am not looking for external modems or modems that have been soldered onto a half-card. I would like to be able to provide it +5VDC, +/- 12 VDC, and data/address buses for direct access. I want something small that I can solder or socket into place. I can also deal with systems that use a serial link as the interface to the chipset. If you know of companies that make either the raw data pump or have taken a data pump and inserted a CPU with it, please E-mail me at the address below. Thank you. Dave McMahan mcmahan@netcom.com {apple,amdahl,claris}!netcom!mcmahan ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #897 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01220; 7 Nov 91 10:13 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20143 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 7 Nov 1991 07:58:24 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05394 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 7 Nov 1991 07:58:14 -0600 Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 07:58:14 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111071358.AA05394@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #898 TELECOM Digest Thu, 7 Nov 91 07:58:00 CST Volume 11 : Issue 898 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Impartiality and Due Process? [John Higdon] New NETel Rates for Metro Boston Customers [Scott Fybush] Last Week at the FCC [Forwarded From Fido by William Degnan] What Proof is There of Alleged AT&T Mail Rate Increase? [Toby Nixon] TAT-10 and TAT-11 [John R. Levine] Modems For Democracy [Rudi Westerveld] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Impartiality and Due Process? Date: 6 Nov 91 11:06:36 PST (Wed) From: john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) A number of correspondents have taken me to task for speaking as though Pac*Bell had already been granted its "screw the little guy" rate increase. While it is true that the grant is possibly more than a year away, it is inevitable. To understand why, it is necessary to quickly review the tariff-making procedures in California. The informal public hearings have just concluded. Members of the public have said their piece. Now the formal hearings will begin before the same administrative law judge. This is where the utilities drag out their essentially unsupported dog-and-pony figures explaining why they will all instantly go bankrupt if their wishes are not granted. After all of this testimony is in, complete with "expert" witnesses (who are paid cronies of the utilities), the judge along with the PUC staff will prepare a report and recommendation to the full commission. The commission will study the report and will have to option to: 1) approve the recommendations intact; 2) make modifications and then approve it; or 3) throw it out entirely and decree something completely different (as Monty Python would say). What will actually happen is that the commissioners will have lunch (and maybe dinner) with some key Pac*Bell people and they will grind out what the people of California will be stuck with. It will be almost exactly what Pac*Bell originally proposed with some cosmetic changes to pacify TURN, who will then be able to go back to its constituency (little old ladies) and crow about how much it saved the people of the state. My personal prediction is that even more of the burden of the increase will be shifted to small business, a group that TURN seems to feel has infinitely deep pockets. You may ask: why do they bother with all of these hearings if the commission is not bound by any of it? Good question. But to give you an idea of the "impartiality" of the administrative law judge, allow me to relate a comment made by him at the Victorville hearing. In my comments, I challenged the assertion made by the Pac*Bell rep that the company wanted a "level playing field". As in many other parts of the country, the proposed intraLATA competition does not provide for presubscription. In other words, to place a call over any carrier other than Pac*Bell will require the dialing of the usual '10XXX' code. I remarked that this does not by any stretch of the imagination provide for equal treatment of carriers when Pac*Bell will be the only default. After my remarks, the judge felt moved to "correct and clarify" my statement. He pointed out that there were telephones that people could buy that would prepend the five-digit company code automatically, and then proceded to hold one up to the audience! I see. This same public that I am constantly reminded by many in this forum that cannot even avoid accidentally dialing 900 numbers is going to purchase and program autodialer phones? This is a level playing field? I hope this gives some of you out-of-staters a glimpse of what a sham and charade the regulatory process is in California. Hopefully, someday, telecommunications will be a completely market-driven industry rather than idiot-driven. John Higdon (hiding out in the desert) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 17:41 EDT From: Scott Fybush Subject: New NETel Rates For Metro Boston Customers New England Telephone is changing its rate structure for customers in metropolitan Boston (most of 617 except for the Lynn area on the North Shore and the Rockland and Marshfield areas on the South Shore.) The current rate structure uses message-unit billing. Residential customers pay 8.98 cents per message unit. Calls to one's own exchange and to adjacent towns are billed at one message unit every five minutes. Calls to the next ring of towns around those are billed at two message units every five minutes, and calls further than that are billed at three message units (I think for a shorter amount of time per message unit, as well). NETel residential customers can choose between measured service and a variety of more expensive flat-rate services. My service gives me flat-rate dialing to my own and immediately adjacent exchanges, then message-unit billing outside those. The new rates, which take effect in mid-November, will eliminate the message units. Customers will pay one cent per call, plus one of the following rates: ZONE 1: 1.6 cents/minute ZONE 2: 6.5 cents/minute (I think--I don't have the bill insert here) Zone 1 corresponds roughly with the old 1-message-unit calls. Zone 2 is everything else. Along with this rate change comes a decrease in NETel long-distance rates to points outside metro Boston but within the Eastern Mass (617/508) LATA, an increase (second time in 12 months) in basic service rates (customers can still choose between a variety of plans that offer expanded flat-rate calling), and some changes in various service costs. Although NETel claims that the rate change will be revenue-neutral, I have a feeling it will end up costing me more. Currently, calls to the Boston Central exchange are two message units for me. That means about 18 cents for a five-minute call. At the new rates, that call will cost me 33.5 cents. On the other hand, a call to a point like Needham, which is within Zone 1 but outside my flat-rate calling area, will cost 9.0 cents for five minutes, as opposed to 8.98 cents before. A short call to Needham will cost me less. The two-minute call that used to cost 8.98 cents for one full message unit will now cost 4.2 cents. Coupled with the healthy increase in basic service charges, though, it still sounds like higher bills. Anyone know just what NETel is up to? Is this a move towards some sort of universal ZUM system here? Or is NETel making enough from extended-flat-rate premium deals like Metropolitan Service that it would want to avoid ZUM? No matter what, it's still embarrassing that I can call downtown Boston, 24 miles away, for half of what it costs to call the West Coast. There's still an inequity afoot. Scott Fybush -- ST901316@pip.cc.brandeis.edu ------------------------------ From: Karl.N6BVU@p0.f102.n103.z1.FidoNet.Org (Karl N6BVU) Date: 04 Nov 91 08:26:26 Subject: Last Week at the FCC Original to All @ 1:382/39 in FCC * Forwarded Mon Nov 04 1991 08:23:58 by William Degnan @ 1:382/39 ON OCTOBER 25th.... The FCC issued a 3 page TEXT Proposing Adoption of a Hoax Rule. As a result of several recent incidents of hoaxes by broadcast stations, the Commission has proposed adopting a hoax rule. Adoption of a hoax rule would enable the Commission to redress hoaxes with sanctions other than license revocation, such as monetary forfeiture, and codify licensee obligations in this area. MM Docket 91-314, by NPRM (FCC 91-335) adopted October 24. The FCC issued a two page TEXT Proposing Video Dialtone Policy; Interexchange Carriers Not Subject to Telco-Cable Restrictions. The Commission tentatively concluded that there should be regulatory policy with respect to video dialtone which will encourage a competitive video marketplace and permit telephone companies to develop broadband communication services. It has proposed, and asked for comments on, regulations to implement this policy. CC Docket 87-266. Action by the Commission October 24 by Further NPRM, First R&O, and Second Further NOI (FCC 91-334). The FCC issued a 3 page TEXT Amending Rules for the Private Land Mobile Radio Service; Clarifies Others; Establishes Finder's Preference Program. The Commission has amended its Private Land Mobile Radio Service rules and policies with respect to construction, placing stations in operation, continuance of station operations, and license renewal and reinstatement. The Commission also adopted a finder's preference program to establish new incentives for persons to provide the FCC with information about unconstructed or non-operational private land mobile radio systems licensed on exclusive channels. PR Docket 90-481, adopted on October 24 by R&O(FCC 91-339). The FCC issued a one page TEXT on Low-Earth Orbit Satellites. Extended to November 14 the time to file reply comments in the matter of amending the rules to allocate spectrum to the Mobile-Satellite Service for low-earth orbit satellites. (By Order Extending Time for Reply Comments adopted October 24 by the Chief Engineer, OET). The FCC issued the TEXT on Wireless Cable. The Commission has further amended its rules to facilitate the development of a wireless cable service by conforming the rules applicable to the 3 microwave radio services used in the provision of wireless cable. General Docket 90-54, by Second R&O (FCC 91-302), adopted Sept 26. * Origin: The Master's BBS <> Garden Grove, CA. <> HSTV42BIS (1:103/102) via "MDF" Central Texas Gateway - f39.n382.z1.fidonet.org I don't have a .sig file. - mdf.fidonet.org ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: What Proof is There of Alleged AT&T Mail Rate Increase? Date: 5 Nov 91 21:40:06 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA I have posted a message to !atthelp on AT&T Mail, scanned through all of the !atthelp:news shared folder, asked several of my friends and business associates who have AT&T Mail accounts, and in NONE of this have I found even the remotest reference to a rate increase or imposition of a monthly minimum. Is this just an unsubstantiated rumor, speculation based upon the integration of EasyLink? Does anyone have a message or something they can quote online? Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice +1-404-840-9200 Telex 151243420 Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. | Fax +1-404-447-0178 CIS 70271,404 P.O. Box 105203 | BBS +1-404-446-6336 AT&T !tnixon Atlanta, Georgia 30348 | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon Fido 1:114/15 USA | Internet tnixon%hayes@uunet.uu.net [Moderator's Note: Thus far we have only the original note posted here in the Digest (Issue 866) by Fred Linton on October 29. The same day I received his for-publication note, I got a not-for-publication note from someone else saying the same thing. Like yourself, I have yet to get anything from AT&T Mail on this, in the mail or otherwise. We were told there was a mailing out to all the subscribers of AT&T Mail that weekend. So ... I guess at this point we must turn to Fred Linton and ask for specific backup. Perhaps Fred will send us a copy of the letter he received, or advise us where his information came from. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: TAT-10 and TAT-11 Date: Tue, 5 Nov 91 23:47:04 EST From: John R. Levine AT&T sent out a press release today about the proposed new TAT-10 and TAT-11 fiber optic transatlantic cables. Both will run from Green Hill, R.I., to Europe. TAT-10 will run to Holland and Germany, should be complete next year, and will cost $300M. TAT-11 will run to the U.K. and France, will be complete in 1993, and will cost only $280M. Both will run at 560 megabits/sec, equivalent to 80,000 simultaneous calls. Each will be owned by large consortia of 35 and 25 carriers, respectively. The cables are designed so that traffic can be rerouted between them easily. FCC approval is needed but is likely. Green Hill currently serves TAT-6 and TAT-7, older copper cables with capacities of only 7,000 conversations each. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl From telecom Wed Nov 6 10:01:11 1991 ------------------------------ From: rudi@dutetvf.tudelft.nl (Rudi Westerveld) Subject: Modems for Democracy Organization: Delft University of Technology Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1991 15:58:08 GMT [Moderator's Warning: The information contained in this message has not been verified. Before responding, assure yourself of the legitimacy of the request. PAT] SITUATION: Message exchange, using modems played a very crucial role during the actions surrounding the Parliament buildings in the Baltic states. Also the people all over the former USSR and foreign press agencies were kept informed about the situation around the White House in Moskow during the coup attempt in August using FidoNet (PC-modem networking) and RELCOM (Internet version using dial-up modems). Imagine: Jeltsin did send his urgent statements through FidoNet !! Thus modems made history and in fact this technology of data- communication is part of the "The Freedom Technologies" : copying machines, Fax'es, TV recorders,telephones and modems. They all help to record and show reality. Unstoppable if the messages can be exchanged and discussed through multiple, diverse channels : bypassing bureaucracies. This development can be compared to the emerging of printing technology that made the publishing of free speech possible which started the Renaissance in the sixteenth century. URGENCY: The present situation in the Central- and Eastern-European countries is very unstable with living conditions deteriorating and with galloping inflation. This makes labour cheap and equipment astronomicaly expensive, just the opposite from our situation. People are confronted with harsh truths and are desparate to see any signs of improvement. The infrastructure, and especially message exchange using telephone and Fax; is very fragile which is a bottleneck for food-aid, logistics and business contacts. The ability to reach people is a pre- requisite for any improvement we can help to implement to get them through the wintertime! REQUEST FOR HELP: We propose to raise money to send modems to the east quickly to help the present FidoNet system operators to extend their networks and help pay their telephone bills. Also we ask people who have spare modems/ modemcards for PC's to send them to us. Because of the low quality of telephone connections and the difficulty to get a dial connection the modems should be at least: autodial Hayes- command compatible , V22bis and MNP5.The modems bought or collected will be geographically distributed according to the present distribution of Fido-nodes east of the EEC: Poland 19, Czechoslovakia 54, Hungary 16, Bulgaria 10, Estonia 14, Latvia 6, Lithuania 18, Ukraine 13, Byelorussia 6, Moldova 3, Russian Federation 70. <<-->>Please send your donation to Bankaccount nr 25.96.25.078 (Bank Mees & Hope, Amsterdam) of Jaap van Till, The Netherlands, stating "MODEMOCRACY". Ask your bank to use the SWIFT network because that decreases the handling costs. Don't send checks. An alternative is to send paper-money,with your name and adress,in an envelope to the postal adress below. <<-->>Send your spare Modem to : Consultancy Group STRATIX B.V. , Kostverlorenhof 2, 1183 HE Amstelveen, the Netherlands. This is because I do not want to store them at home. An independant Foundation will audit the handling of your gifts. We know that most of you are also in need of more equipment constantly but you also know what dramatic improvements in cooperation can be achieved with PC's and modems: "networking" means helping other people. Your contribution DOES make a difference! Please help our friends in the former soviet-dominated countries. How about a worldwide -X-mas with -X-modem ??? Sponsors for this charity are welcome: Fax +31 (20) 64 00 609. E-mail Jaap.Vantill@F105.N283.Z2.FIDONET.ORG E-mail BT-Dialcom adress: 12427:CGS003 [Moderator's Note: To repeat, this has NOT been verified. Before sending money or computer equipment to any stranger, always satisfy yourself the request is legitimate. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #898 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03959; 8 Nov 91 1:50 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16415 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 8 Nov 1991 00:07:07 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24264 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 8 Nov 1991 00:06:52 -0600 Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 00:06:52 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111080606.AA24264@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #899 TELECOM Digest Fri, 8 Nov 91 00:06:30 CST Volume 11 : Issue 899 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Radio Station Makes Dumb Change on Request Line Numbers [Linc Madison] AT&T Calling Card for NON-AMERICAN Citizens! [Juergen Ziegler] New 310 Area Code + FTS2000 - Not Installed Yet [Paul Robichaux] Need Call Sequencer [R. Patrick MacKinnon] Northwestern University Goes In-House For Dorm Phones [H. Peter Anvin] NetWatch by TelWatch [Clyde R. Visser] Digital PABXs and ISDN Switches [krish Sakotai] Free Samples of the Motorola CLID Chip [Mike Ardai] Limited Bandwidth PBX? [Doug Faunt] AT&T/Radio Connection to be Featured [Scott Fybush] Panasonic KT2445BE [Nigel Roberts] Telemarketing Prevented [Eric Dittman] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 6 Nov 91 02:23:24 PST From: linc@tongue1.Berkeley.EDU (Linc Madison) Subject: Radio Station Makes Dumb Change on Request Line Numbers The local radio station I most often listen to is based in San Francisco, but has always had a separate number for San Jose area listeners to call for requests, contest entries, etc. The two numbers are in the 415-478 and 408-986 exchanges, both of which I believe are choke exchanges. So far so good. Just a couple of weeks ago, they eliminated the South Bay 408-986 number and replaced it with an 800-696 number, dialable (at least according to their ads) only from the 408 area. This strikes me as a rather stupid move. For the people in the northern 408 area (their signal doesn't even pretend to reach south of the Santa Cruz Mountains, much less to Monterey), the only difference is that the old number incurred Zone 1 charges on measured phones, or 20c from a payphone, while the new number is free. (408-986 is local/Zone 1 to all of 408 north of the Santa Cruz Mountains.) However, there were a lot of people in places like Fremont and Los Altos for whom the 408 number was either local or at least a smaller toll charge than the San Francisco number. The radio station is paying loads of money for their 800 number, which only marginally improves service for some listeners and makes things worse for many others. Just not real bright, if you ask me. Of course, things might start to get competitive in terms of cost once you factor in the cost of forwarding the 408-986 number to San Francisco, but it still seems they should've expanded the area for the 800 number. Linc Madison = linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Nov 91 14:30 From: "Juergen, ZIEGLER" Subject: AT&T Calling Card For NON-AMERICAN Citizens! Hi TD-readers: Several weeks ago I (and others) reported how to get an MCI calling- card. Bye that time the MCI card was the best offer. But they increased some of their rate (e.g. from Germany by 5.8%) so it may be of interest to have a second calling card from another IEC. So I called US-SPRINT. The rep told me that I could get such a card, but I would need an American address and reference phone number. That did not satisfy me, since it would create extra hassle to send the card and bills from my relatives address to Germany. And of course, it would also create extra expenses. NO Thank You! Then I called AT&T. The last time I called them, the rep could not help me. So I called the USA-DIRECT INFO number (412-553-7458) what was printed on an AT&T advertisment in the WSJ Europe. The rep told me that I could get a NON-SUBSCRIBER calling card and gave me the number of an AT&T calling card center (813-654-6000). After I was transferred to an NON-SUBSCRIBER rep the rep told me 'NO PROBLEM'. But somehow I told him that I am GERMAN. Well, that seemed to be the end of my application. But he put me on hold and called a so-called SPECIALIST. That specialist told him that I could not get such a card. Again, the call seemed to be close to its end. Then I told the rep about the charges from Germany and that I would definitely not call the US. So he suggested to call a second SPECIALIST. And that one seemed to be a real specialist. So the rep told me that I could get the card and I was transferred to the last rep. Then the last rep took all neccessary information to get the application processed and checked my credit-card account during the call. So what should we learn about this? Never give up. If neccessary call many times and ask many SPECIALISTS. Maybe you will find one SPECIALIST who really is one. Just call the AT&T Calling Card Center for NON SUBSCRIBER cards on: 816 - 654 - 6004 (call collect from overseas) (open 8AM-8PM Central) And they will (hopefully) take your application. I have to mention that I do not have the card right now, but I hope that I will receive it soon. They told me it takes about two weeks to get the card. Many happy (and cheap) calls. Juergen BITNET : UJ32@DKAUNI2.BITNET Internet : UJ32@ibm3090.rz.uni-karlsruhe.dbp.de X.400 : S=UJ32;OU=ibm3090;OU=rz;P=uni-karlsruhe;A=dbp;C=de ------------------------------ From: robichau@freedom.msfc.nasa.gov (Paul Robichaux) Subject: New 310 Area Code + FTS2000 - Not Installed Yet Organization: New Technology, Inc. Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 14:19:52 GMT I had forgotten about the (recent) 213-into-310 split, but yesterday received a voice mail message from a vendor in Manhattan Beach, CA. He asked that I return his call, and left a 310-xxx-xxxx number. When I tried to call it with our outbound FTS line, I discovered that our switching system knows nothing about 310. Calls to 213-xxx-xxxx completed normally. A quick call to the Boeing people who run Marshall Space Flight Center's communications elicited the info that "FTS is going through a bunch of changes and they probably haven't gotten to installing that new area code yet." I thought that long-distance FTS calls were carried by Sprint/AT&T over normal PSTN lines. What else should they have to do to enable calls to "new" area codes? I'll have to try one of the other new codes and see what happens. Paul Robichaux | Disclaimer: NTI pays for my skills, not my robichau@freedom.msfc.nasa.gov | opinions. ------------------------------ From: ve3pmk@student.business.uwo.ca (R. Patrick MacKinnon) Subject: Need Call Sequencer Date: 6 Nov 91 16:43:07 GMT Organization: University of Western Ontario Can anyone suggest an eight line call sequencer suitable for loop lines? I have a friend who wants to sequence eight lines going into his service departmant. His in house system is a ROLM Redwood, and a PC based one would be preferred over a stand alone unit. Could anyone suggest a product, and source? Any help would be quite appreciated. I am also looking for a four or two port voicemail system. (again, PC based would be best.) Thanks a million ... ve3pmk@student.business.uwo.ca (R. Patrick MacKinnon) The Western Business School BBS -- London, Ontario ------------------------------ From: hpa@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (H. Peter Anvin N9ITP) Subject: Northwestern University Goes In-House For Dorm Phones Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 16:58:30 GMT This year Northwestern University let its in-house telephone support, Northwestern Technologies Group, provide phone service for students in a few dormitories. NTG has a deal with AT&T's ACUS service for this system. It overall seems to be very much like a "sweet deal" for AT&T and either Illinois Bell or Northwestern, depending on who gets the $'s: The features of the system are: 1. No installation charge (IBT charged $55 to activate the phone line each year). 2. Fixed charge of $7.00 a month that goes straight onto the housing bill. 3. Students get separate bills based on a 5-digit code that has to be dialed each time. 4. A 5-10% discount over standard AT&T rates for long distance. 5. No possibility to choose other carriers or even AT&T's own Reach Out plans; calling cards *are* permitted with 10xxx sequences. 6. Free on-campus calls. 7. IBT *business rates* for off-campus calls within the LATA; counted from the closest campus (Evanston or Chicago/downtown) -- no unmeasured local calling area (per minute even across the street). 8. An unspecified "credit limit" on phone calls. 9. NTG refer all billing questions to AT&T, who refused to forward to me an exchange-to-billing range chart like IBT sends you on request (I use it to find cheap BBS's); they told me I would have to ask specifically on the phone for each area code/exchange pair. 10. No possibility to turn off Call Waiting per call. 11. No other CLASS services like distinctive ringing offered. 12. Collect calls not accepted, no provisions for Call Me cards. 13. 900 numbers blocked; no option to enable. 14. Line quality occationally too bad to support V.32 modems. 90% of the students I have talked to are negative to this system. Is there some way to force a turnaround, except complaining, or is the setup solid enough that we are stuck with it? P. Anvin INTERNET: hpa@nwu.edu FINGER: hpa@casbah.acns.nwu.edu BITNET: HPA@NUACC HAM RADIO: N9ITP, SM4TKN FIDONET: 1:115/989.4 NeXTMAIL: hpa@lenny.acns.nwu.edu IRC: Xorbon X.400: FATAL ERROR, LINE OVERFLOW ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1991 11:09:54 PST From: dodeca!clyde@jarthur.Claremont.edu Organization: Ameritec Corporation Reply-To: "Clyde R. Visser" Subject: NetWatch by TelWatch The NetWatch product of TelWatch, Inc. of Boulder Colorado is now being sold and serviced by Ameritec Corporation of Covina, California since the demise of TelWatch earlier this year. I don't believe TelWatch nor Ameritec were able to contact all of the current NetWatch users due to a largely incomplete customer database. If you have a NetWatch, please refer to Ameritec (818-915-5441) for all future servicing. The customer support person for NetWatch is David Martinez. [Moderator's Note: The Ameritec mentioned here is not affiliated with Chicago-based Ameritech (with an /h/ on the end), the parent company of Illinois Bell. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Krishnan \"krish\" Sakotai " Subject: DIGITAL PABXs and ISDN Switches Date: Wed, 6 Nov 91 14:44:45 EST Hello, I am trying to keep pace with the fascinating developments in the BISDN area and would like to ask the knowledgable people in this group a few questions. 1. What are the basic differences between a Digital PABX and a BISDN switch ? Is the technology same in both, or is it different ? 2. What would be the distinct application areas for both ? 3. With new developments in ATM switching and the like can we see the Digital PABX market dying in the near future ? With my limited ISDN knowledge, I see that BISDN switch is a superset of the Digital PABX. Hence isnt the market for the latter shrinking ? 4. What does it require for a company having a Digital PABX to convert to ISDN(either Near or Broadband), in terms of switch, carrier technology, and application software ? Does the Digital PABX switch need to be thrown away ? I would appreciate any pointers on literature on the above topic. Thanks in advance. Krishnan C.Sakotai ksakotai@cs.ulowell.edu ------------------------------ From: ardai@teda.EDA.Teradyne.COM (Mike Ardai) Subject: Free Samples of the Motorola CLID Chip Date: 6 Nov 91 18:34:03 GMT Organization: Teradyne EDA, Inc. In the 10/28 issue of {EE Times}, Motorola has a full-page ad announcing their new MC145447 single-chip call identifier. This is a single-chip Caller ID chip and ring detector. They have a coupon for a free sample or you can call 1-800-521-6274. (I have no connection with Motorola; I just thought some readers may be interested.) Michael L. Ardai ardai@teda.teradyne.com N1IST Teradyne EDA East ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Nov 91 15:06:36 -0800 From: Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269 Subject: Limited Bandwidth PBX? This was in one of the modem newsgroups: Not necessarily. A lot of PBX's don't allow enough bandwidth with normal voice circuits to run a full v.32 session on it. There are cards for PBX's that do allow this, but if you are using a normal voice channel, you might see problems that look just like a dirty line or echo cancellation. When seeing people who try to do UUCP and PEP and get lots of alarms, one of the first things I ask is if they have a dedicated phone line or if they are running via a PBX. ------------- Is this real? Is it real for a AT&T System 75? Are there expanded bandwidth cards available for the 75? Thanks, Doug ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 17:24 EDT From: Scott Fybush Subject: AT&T/Radio Connection to be Featured The early connection between AT&T and radio broadcasting will be the subject of a short piece this Saturday night on Signals, which can be heard at 11:35 PM Eastern time on WWCR, 7435 kHz shortwave. It's the first of a series of pieces on radio history that I'll be producing for the show, and since it's telecom-related, I thought I'd let telecom readers in on the fun. Scott Fybush -- ST901316@pip.cc.brandeis.edu [Moderator's Note: How about a few excerpts from the show transcribed for the audience here, Scott? Thanks! PAT] ------------------------------ From: N Roberts Subject: Panasonic KT2445BE Organization: The IBM PC User Group, UK. Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 19:14:19 GMT Panasonic UK model KT-T225BE (Answering/Dialer/Speakerphone): Many moons ago I posted a request for information about this model. What I was after then was a way to disable the beep when recording conversations. I got one reply which seemed to indicate that it could indeed be done in programming mode, but I never got around to trying it as I didn't have a pressing need at the time. Inevitably, now I don't seem to be able to find the details when I do want to use it. (Such is life ...) Can anyone help? Please note that in the UK either party to a conversation (telephone or otherwise) is legitimately entitled to record it -- there's no requirement for the beep. I'm very pleased with the Panasonic. It does everything I want in an answering machine -- with the single exception of toll-saver features when picking up messages, though I suspect that this feature might also be in the firmware somewhere -- anyone know if this is true, and if so how to enable it? Any other internal firmware info, or tricks with this model or its American equivalent gratefully received. Nigel Roberts; P. O. Box 49; MANNINGTREE; Essex; CO11 2SZ; United Kingdom Tel: +44 206 396610 or +44 860 578600 (cellular). Fax: +44 206 393148 Email: nigel@ibmpcug.co.uk aka G4IJF (no, I'm NOT on packet radio!) ------------------------------ From: DITTMAN@skitzo.dseg.ti.com (Eric Dittman) Subject: Telemarketing Prevented Date: 6 Nov 91 23:42:09 CST Organization: Texas Instruments Component Test Facility I was getting my hair cut today. The guy that was cutting it was the owner of the shop. We were talking and he mentioned that he was going to expand the chain (right now there are three) and was thinking about buying a "telemarketing machine". Upon further questioning, I found out that he meant a machine that would call lists of numbers and play a message if answered. He asked me if I thought buying one would be a good idea. I went into a long explanation as to why I thought it would be a bad idea. After I was done, he decided not to get one. A small battle won in the war against telemarketing. Eric Dittman Texas Instruments - Component Test Facility dittman@skitzo.dseg.ti.com Disclaimer: I don't speak for Texas Instruments or the Component Test Facility. I don't even speak for myself. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #899 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21422; 8 Nov 91 8:59 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13798 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 8 Nov 1991 07:05:39 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01043 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 8 Nov 1991 07:05:20 -0600 Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 07:05:20 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111081305.AA01043@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #900 TELECOM Digest Fri, 8 Nov 91 07:05:05 CST Volume 11 : Issue 900 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Faircharge: Answer to VAN Surcharge? [Jack Powers] British Telecom Figures [Adam Ashby] Vacant Chair: Telecommunication Networks [Rudi Westerveld] Costs of Phreaking (was Two Cell Phones on Same Number) [Brad Hicks] What Does MCI and MTI Stand For? (ACRONYMwise That is) [Patrick MacKinnon] Why Not Use 300-600 as Area Codes? [Douglas W. Martin] Video Dialtone vrs. Info Services [Tom Streeter] Audio Quality: US-US Versus US-Elsewhere [Juergen Ziegler] Bell of PA *Offers* CallerID Blocking [Philadelphia Inquirer via D. Green] Question on Easments [Neil Kruse] Max Cable Lengths for V.35 [Jon Gauthier] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 00:24:43 PST From: powers@almaden.ibm.com Subject: Faircharge: Answer to VAN Surcharge? The FCC wants to require the VANs to pay the same kind of surcharge for use of the local phone network that the voice long distance companies do. The money collected by this surcharge goes to the local phone companies to help replace the internal subsidies of the old Bell System. In the bad old days (before 1984), long distance tolls paid a big part of the cost of the local network. I believe that, in principle, the FCC is correct: long distance calls should be treated the same whether they are voice or data. However, the amount of the surcharge should be based on the bandwidth actually used, and even *very conservative* estimates of that yield much lower surcharges than those for voice calls. For example, assuming the connection were 100% busy in both directions, a 1200 bps data call should only bear 1.5% of the surcharge imposed on a voice call. Higher rates would pay in proportion. This is based on the fact that a voice call is handled in the digital phone network as a bit stream of 64,000 bits per second. Since the start, stop, and framing bits aren't carried between switches the worst case formula (8 data bits, no parity, 1 stop bit) is: (8/10)*(R/6400)= .015 for R= 1200 = .030 for R= 2400 = .120 for R= 9600, etc. (Yes, there is some overhead for sync framing, but that's not counted in voice calls, either.) So, for even the highest common end-user rates, VAN users should only pay about 1/8 of the equivalent voice surcharge. And that's making some mighty generous assumptions. I say pay the surcharge ... but only a fair fraction of it. I call this "faircharge". Jack Powers powers@almaden.ibm.com jackp@well.sf.ca.us Opinions are my own. Mistakes are someone else's. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 11:41:05 GMT From: ashbya@zeus.swindon.rtsg.mot.com (Adam Ashby) Subject: British Telecom Figures I am surprised not to have seen mention of this yet, so I will! British Telecom released its half-yearly figures recently and announced a profit of L1.7 billion (1.7 billion pounds) for the six month period, that comes out to about L100 every second. For those that want the figures in American - its a lot of bread, man! just multiply by 1.7 to get dollars. Adam Ashby ashbya@zeus.swindon.rtsg.mot.com +44 793 545372 ------------------------------ From: rudi@dutetvf.tudelft.nl (Rudi Westerveld) Subject: Vacant Chair: Telecommunication Networks Organization: Delft University of Technology Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1991 15:36:21 GMT CHAIR IN TELECOMMUNICATION NETWORKS. Delft University of Technology (the Netherlands), Faculty of Electrical Engineering announces A vacant chair in Telecommunication Networks. The full professor will be appointed in the Telecommunications and Traffic-Control Systems group, where teaching and research responsibilities are shared by three chairs. Key areas of attention in this group are: tele-information systems, including data networks and mobile communications; radio location, navigation and traffic-control systems; teletraffic theory (ATM); systems integration. The successful candidate will assume responsibility for the area of network architecture, including protocols, interfaces and switching techniques, and for the systems engineering disciplines necessary for design and management of major communication infrastructures. He/she is required to have an outstanding research record and practical experience within this area. He/she should demonstrate strong didactic skills and the ability to stimulate joint research with other disciplines, in addition to directing and personally advancing the research of the chair. Send nominations or applications (including a C.V. and a list of publications) in confidence to: Prof. J. Davidse, Dean of E.E., P.O. Box 5031, 2600 GA Delft, the Netherlands, quoting vacancy No. ET9125/2731. More information available from Rudi Westerveld at Telecommunication and Traffic-Control Systems group. E-mail: rudi@dutetvf.et.tudelft.nl ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 17:01 GMT From: "J. Brad Hicks" <0004073044@mcimail.com> Subject: Costs of Phreaking (was Two Cell Phones on Same Number) > Some major carriers that employ this as well as alternative methods of > combatting fraud have six and seven figures in lost revenues. Must be > passing it on to the ratepayers! I run into this line of argument over and over again, in discussions of both telephone phraud and software piracy. Some Three Letter Acronym (TLA) is said to have lost 7.4 jillion dollars in revenue and therefore must pass this cost on to honest, hard-working, God-fearing, apple-pie eating American customers. When phone phreaking was at its worst, historically, what did it REALLY add to The Phone Company's (TPC's) costs? If you look at TPC's own stats, they were at the time routing millions of calls a day, maybe even tens of millions. At the worst, there were MAYBE a thousand people who knew how to really phone phreak ... which means that even if they all got home from school, opened a can of Old Coke, and hacked into a long distance trunk, and tied that trunk up from then until the school bus came in the morning, then the whole aggregate of them were using less than one tenth of one percent of the system's PEAK capacity. And mind you, almost all such phreaking, by all accounts, occurred at off-peak times. Did TPC have to add capacity to the network because the phreaks were using it up? Hardly. Sure, TPC had to spend some money to beef up their security ... but they should have been doing that, anyway. So what costs were there to be passed on to the ratepayers? Arguably, TPC has MADE money over the years off of the phreaks ... because some customers were dumb enough to pay when TPC billed them for phreaked calls. Same argument in software piracy. Another TLA, the SPA, is fond of claiming that billions of dollars are lost each year to software piracy. Hey, when Joe Starving College Student (who despite having four names like most of the Social Register, is really poor, and can barely afford the payments on his off-brand clone CPU) "steals" a copy of Well Known Spreadsheet to help him run his D&D game, how much has his "theft" of WKS technology cost the TLA who owns it? They would claim that they "lost revenue" ... as if there was any way that Joe would have run out and spent the Big Bucks for their WKS even if it was as hard to copy as a Nintendo cartridge. Fat chance. No, the TLA has MADE money off of this "theft," because when Joe Student enters the "real world," their Well Known Spreadsheet will be the one he knows, and wants on his desk. Then whatever TLA hires Joe can pay the TLA who owns the WKS for a copy, and everybody benefits (except maybe for the attornies who might have been employed if somehow the TLA had found Joe and brought him up on criminal charges). You think I'm making this latter example up? Word*Star was the ruling force in MS-DOS word processors for a *long* time, long after it was no longer the technological leader. Where did they get that dominance? Their software was small and easily copied, so it had a huge base of well-trained potential corporate users. J. Brad Hicks (jbhicks@mcimail.com) ------------------------------ From: ve3pmk@student.business.uwo.ca (R. Patrick MacKinnon) Subject: What Does MCI and MTI Stand For? (ACRONYMwise That is) Date: 7 Nov 91 17:31:27 GMT Organization: University of Western Ontario Hi, in the USA you have MCI. Are the letters and acronym and if so, for what? Also, in Canada, there is a company called MTI but I am not sure who they are, what they do, and if MTI is an acronym either. I know it is telecommunications realated but I was looking for more info ... thanks a million. ve3pmk@student.business.uwo.ca (R. Patrick MacKinnon) The Western Business School BBS -- London, Ontario [Moderator's Note: MCI = Microwave Communications, Inc. Sprint = outhern

acific ailroad nternal etwork elecommunications. The railroad was the original owner of Sprint, which was its internal telecom department. I don't know about MTI. In the Telecom Archives you will find three glossary files of interest. (ftp lcs.mit.edu). ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 11:25:47 PST From: martin@cod.nosc.mil (Douglas W. Martin) Subject: Why Not Use 300-600 as Area Codes? I know that some places use 200 for test numbers, but I've never seen any use for 300, 400, 500, and 600. Are these area codes allocated, identified, or accounted for in any way? Also, I hope someone will explain 710 (Government Special Services), else explain why no information is forthcoming regarding 710. Is it classified information or something? I've tried dialing many numbers in 710, and I always get the intercept: "Your call cannot be completed as dialed." Doug Martin martin@nosc.mil [Moderator's Note: I've been asking for a couple years for someone to explain 710. No information has ever been given out (at least to me for use here. PAT] ------------------------------ From: streeter@fletcher.cs.unca.edu (Tom Streeter) Subject: Video Dialtone vrs. Info Services Organization: University of North Carolina at Asheville Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 20:09:08 GMT This may be a dumb question. If I understand recent FCC rulings correctly, both local and long distance phone service providers are now allowed to provide a pathway into the home for full-motion video provided they do not have a financial interest in the production of that video (the so-called 'video dialtone'). Phone companies are also allowed to provide information services within their own service areas. My question is this: is there a provision in all of this which prevents the information services from providing full-motion video? I use the phrase 'full-motion video' to signify what we typically call 'television programs.' How are we to discriminate between the types of messages which are and are not allowed? Have I confused recent rulings on the MFJ with FCC actions? Has all this been hashed out and placed in the Telecom Archives? Inquiring minds. Tom Streeter | streeter@cs.unca.edu Dept. of Mass Communication | 704-251-6227 University of North Carolina at Asheville | Opinions expressed here are Asheville, NC 28804 | mine alone. ------------------------------ Subject: Audio Quality: US-US Versus US-Elsewhere Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1991 16:47:31 +0100 From: S_ZIEGLER@iravcl.ira.uka.de (|S| Juergen Ziegler) Date: 4 Nov 91 15:47:29 GMT Organization: University of Karlsruhe, FRG (Informatik Rechnerabteilung) Hi TD-readers, Here in Germany you can receive, on a channel which is primarily operated by the French program 'TV5-EUROPE', the US-program 'C-SPAN' several hours a day. For language training I usually watch that program. Last Friday I watched 'Journalist Roundtable' where they accept phone calls. While watching the program I was quite stunned by poor audio quality from most callers within the US as compared to a phone call from a correspondent who was calling from Madrid, Spain. The audio from the intra-US callers had a 'metallic' sound. So there was a relatively loud high-frequency spectrum compared to a virtual not existing low-frequency spectrum. The sound reminded me of an 'speaking' toy from Texas Instrument (I do not know the name), which was sold several years ago. But the audio from Madrid was perfect for a phone call. It was definitely a phone call. What was the reason for this odd thing? Juergen ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 16:24 EDT From: "Scott D. Green" Subject: Bell of PA *Offers* CallerID Blocking I'm not surprised that this wasn't caught earlier, because the {Philadelphia Inquirer} buried this item way back on page 18 in the Business section. You may recall that the PA PUC was ready to allow Bell to offer CID with no blocking (except for police officers, domestic violence intervention agencies, and a very few others) when the Commonwealth Court ruled that it violated the state wiretap law and constitutional rights to privacy. Well, Bell was appealing this decision before the State Supreme Court on October 24 and surprised everyone by saying that it would be happy to offer all customers free and unlimited ways of blocking the service. Apparently, the seven justices were dwelling on the fact that they would, in effect, be handing out their private phone number to anyone they happened to call. Justice Rolf Larsen: "Let's say I call all the attorneys in a case to arrange a conference call. Now they all have my number. I'm inundated with calls. You know how attorneys are." D. Michael Stroud, Bell's VP and general counsel, said that callers could press *67 to make a call untraceable. "I think that would cure every issue raised by every oponent," he said. Opponents of Caller ID were caught of guard. David Kluz of the Coalition Against Domestic Violence called it a "gaping surprise." He told that justices that if Bell had taken that stance earlier, his organization might never have opposed Caller ID. (summarized from the {Philadelphia Inquirer}, 10/25/91) ------------------------------ Date: 7 Nov 91 13:56:00 -0800 From: KRUSE_NEIL@tandem.com Subject: Question on Easments I have a question as to how does LEC determine what a easment is worth? My family has some land, and 20 years ago we gave the Public Works Dept. in our town a easment for sewer and water ONLY. Then, the LEC "snuck" in some buried lines without a easment or permission. Ten years later the LEC's contractor drives onto our property with their tractors ripping up the ground to install a new fiber optic cable. We say, "stop!" They say they now have a "perscriptive easment" for this half mile strip down our property. We settle for about $3,500 dollars in paving work done by one of their contractors. My question is, since they intalled the cable without our permission (we didn't even know it was there) and, then went to install new cable, did they have a right "with the perscriptive easment" to do that? And, were we suckered on what a half mile long easment is worth? Any ideas? Thanks, Neil Kruse (KRUSE_NEIL@tandem.com) [Moderator's Note: I think what they were trying to say is the law in many or most places grants easement rights to utilities as long as they act within reason, repairing/replacing roadways, grass, etc when finished with their work. Comments, anyone? PAT] ------------------------------ From: exujlg@exu.ericsson.se (Jon Gauthier) Subject: Max Cable Lengths for V.35 Reply-To: exujlg@exu.ericsson.se (Jon Gauthier) Organization: Ericsson Network Systems Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 22:22:08 GMT I've been looking for information about length restrictions on V.35 cabling, but can't seem to find anything documented. I know I can look it up in the CCITT Red or Blue books, but I figured this is easier than finding it in our company library ... Specifically, max lengths for V.35 at T-1 rates (1.544Mb/s) and at double the DS-0 rate (128kb/s) given in the electrical specs. Can anyone answer this? Jon L. Gauthier (214) 997-0157 exujlg@.exu.ericsson.se LAN/WAN Systems Programmer Ericsson Network Systems, Inc. EXU/IS/T P.O. Box 833875 Richardson, TX 75083-3875 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #900 ******************************