Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27548; 6 Dec 91 3:36 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17321 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 6 Dec 1991 01:49:02 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26844 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 6 Dec 1991 01:48:51 -0600 Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1991 01:48:51 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199112060748.AA26844@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1001 TELECOM Digest Fri, 6 Dec 91 01:48:42 CST Volume 11 : Issue 1001 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Sneaky! Michigan Bell Pulls a Fast One (Ken Jongsma) Re: Sneaky! Michigan Bell Pulls a Fast One (olsen@eos.ll.mit.edu) Re: Sneaky! Michigan Bell Pulls a Fast One (Fred R. Goldstein) Re: Sneaky! Michigan Bell Pulls a Fast One (Tim Gorman) Re: Control Tone Frequencies (Toby Nixon) Re: Pseudo-Area Code 311 (Jay Ashworth) Re: Oddities About Area 809 (Tom Hofmann) Re: 900-Number Trade Show and Exposition (Warren Burstein) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 3 Dec 91 09:03:00 EST From: "Ken Jongsma" Subject: Re: Sneaky! Michigan Bell Pulls a Fast One Tim Gormon <71336.1270@compuserve.com> writes: > Let me also make one other observation. I made it in another message > and was amazed to get no response. I have never seen anyone question > usage based charges in the toll arena. Yet the switches and facilities > (i.e. investment) are exactly the same as are used in the local > network. If usage based charges in the toll network are acceptable, > why not in the local network? Is it just perception? Let me state at the outset that I very much appreciate Tim's contributions to the Digest over the years. So, this in no way should be considered a personal putdown. But, this line of thinking is precisely what seems to be permeating the minds of all the LEC management that have visions of dollar signs in their eyes as usage goes up. The reason that usage based billing for local service is different that that for the toll network is that the local network *is a regulated monopoly!* I do not have any choice for local service, I must deal with the LEC. Now, there are many long distance companies. Some are just resellers, but they all offer different plans. Some sell flat rate, some sell bulk, some sell on a per six second basis. The point is that I have a choice. I would support any type of billing arrangement the LEC proposed, as long as I had the option of selecting a carrier that offered the billing I prefered. I do not mean the regulated duopoly that exists with Cellular, either. Until that time comes, local service should be strictly cost based. Once the plant is in place, the marginal costs of providing service are so small that billing becomes more expensive than the call itself. This has been proven many times. Most telcos are guaranteed a certain rate of return already. In fact, since RoR is largely based on the cost of funds, there should be some massive rate reductions about now, considering how low interest rates have dropped. Well, I've gone on enough. Tim touched one of my "hot buttons!" Ken Jongsma jongsma@benzie.si.com Smiths Industries Grand Rapids, Michigan ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Sneaky! Michigan Bell Pulls a Fast One Date: Tue, 03 Dec 91 14:42:55 -0500 From: olsen@eos.ll.mit.edu Tim Gorman writes: > Those whose use the network not at all (or very little) want their > bill to be very low. Those who use the network a lot want their bill > to be very low. In the first case, having all usage based pricing > makes the most sense. In the second case, strictly flat rate pricing > makes the most sense. Economically, what makes the most sense is to bill for usage-insensitive things (like the subscriber loop) at a flat rate, and bill for usage-sensitive things (like peak-hour capacity) by usage. When measuring the usage is more expensive than the usage itself, flat-rate charges should also be used (i.e., "too cheap to meter"). > I also agree with Mr. Lewis: "Usage-based pricing is part of a general > trend towards cost-based pricing; It recovers costs based on the use > of resources in way which is generally deemed by regulators to be fair > and equitable, and the usage of those resources is relatively easy to > measure." *As*implemented*, usage-based pricing is not a part of cost-based pricing, since the usage charges are not commensurate with the incremental cost of the usage charged for. Usage charges are in fact a more efficient way for telcos to reap monopoly profits. Like all monopolies, telcos dislike cost-based pricing, much preferring demand-based pricing (i.e., what the market will bear) instead. Measured service allows telcos to much more efficiently extract the "perceived value" of telephone service from their subscribers, independent of costs. As profit-making monopolies, this is precisely what they should do. The problem is that far too many PUC's are going along with this natural desire of the telcos, instead of fighting for cost-based pricing as they should. The telcos know how to play the game, and they can often talk a PUC into letting them maximize their monopoly profits, under the guise of minimizing residential rates. > Let me also make one other observation. I made it in another message and > was amazed to get no response... If usage based charges in the toll > network are acceptable, why not in the local network? The cost of a subscriber loop is completely independent of its usage. Any usage charges for it are therefore part of a strategy of demand-based (i.e., monopoly) pricing, or part of some subsidy scheme, or (most likely) both. The cost of local switching is dependent on usage, but the cost of measuring local usage can be greater than the cost of the usage itself (too cheap to meter, but it's metered anyway). A flat-rate component is therefore always appropriate in local telephone service; a measured component may also be appropriate, but it is dangerously susceptible to telco manipulation, as it tries to exploit its monopoly position. The cost of a long-distance network is much more dependent on its peak call capacity, and therefore on its usage. Usage-based pricing for long-distance service is therefore appropriate. Also, effective competition between long-distance companies reduces their ability to impose demand-based pricing. ------------------------------ From: goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) Subject: Re: Sneaky! Michigan Bell Pulls a Fast One Date: 3 Dec 91 21:59:00 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA In article , 71336.1270@CompuServe.COM (tim gorman) writes: > Let me also make one other observation. I made it in another message > and was amazed to get no response. I have never seen anyone question > usage based charges in the toll arena. Yet the switches and facilities > (i.e. investment) are exactly the same as are used in the local > network. If usage based charges in the toll network are acceptable, > why not in the local network? Is it just perception? The toll network is entirely traffic-sensitive with regard to cost! While the facilities don't cost "to use" them, the amount required is directly dependent upon usage. If nobody made any calls, the toll network would be much smaller. As it stands, high-capacity fiber optics and 4ESS switches don't come cheap. The cost is divided amongst the total usage. Some of the cost is distance sensitive, some isn't. Those aren't the same switches used in the local network. The toll networks are quite separate. Even the trunks between COs are usually separate for toll and local services. Be that as it may, a large proportion of inter-LATA toll goes to the local telcos, as their cut. Inter-LATA toll is competitive, though, so some customers (like FTS-2000) pay under 10c/minute. Fred R. Goldstein goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 486 7388 ------------------------------ Date: 03 Dec 91 19:43:59 EST From: tim gorman <71336.1270@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Sneaky! Michigan Bell Pulls a Fast One Let me reply to comments made by Ken Jongsma (JONGSMA@benzie.si.com): Ken, I appreciate your reply. Let me throw out a couple of things I see from my viewpoint. First, when talking about toll, there is intraLATA toll as well as interLATA toll. IntraLATA toll is still billed based on usage whether the individual PUC has allowed competition or not. Therefore, this still falls under the "regulated monopoly" umbrella. Yet, I have seen no complaints on this either. > local service should be strictly cost based. Once the plant is in place, > the marginal costs of providing service are so small that billing becomes > more expensive than the call itself.... The problem I see with this is that it doesn't address the recovery of costs associated with the base investment. The "marginal cost" associated with a specific call is not what is at issue. Just because the initial investment has been made and is sitting in place does not mean you can forget about it. The cost of gasoline (i.e. electricity) is not the only cost associated with a new car. Wear and tear, saving for future replacement (depreciation), taxes, insurance, loan payments, etc. all take a toll. The problem with rate of return and cost of funds is that the base is so big and rates were so high for so long and turnover is so slow that the recent downturn in rates probably won't reflect in costs for quite some time yet. There should be a time, however, when it should. I'm not involved in the financial side (especially the HIGH finance side :-> ) so I can't really say when. Hopefully the PUC's will watch this closely. > I would support any type of billing arrangement the LEC proposed, as long > as I had the option of selecting a carrier that offered the billing I > prefered. I think this is what I was trying to say also. Different people want different kinds of billing based on what makes their service the cheapest. I personally think this is what is coming. It is only a matter of time now that it has been started. No going back. What results it will have on the urban, inner city, rural, suburban, rich, poor, etc. subscriber, Lord only knows because I certainly don't. And not much of the debate I have read (by the policy makers in this country, e.g. PUC's and Congress) leads me to believe they have a clue either. Not even a coherent, comprehensive plan to guide anything with. Anyway, hopefully what will be seen is not only a multitude of suppliers but a multitude of billing options. That's what competition is supposed to do isn't it? Hopefully, as a LEC employee, we won't be tied into one kind of billing but can have different strokes for different folks. Tim Gorman - SWBT * opinions are my own, any resemblence to official policy is coincidence* ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: Control Tone Frequencies Date: 4 Dec 91 02:33:25 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA In article , josephc@cco.caltech.edu (Joseph Chiu) writes: > Can anyone tell me the frequency/timing specifications for the > intercept three-tone sequence? I'm putting together a project (a > self-contained exchange :-) and would like to emulate the > look-and-feel (or is that sound-and-feel?) of The Real Thing. I don't remember where I got this information (may from the Telecom Archives!), but it's been sitting around in my Vax account for quite a while: Special Information Tones (SIT Codes) are used by some telephone companies for automating various reporting and network observation operations. They are special coded tone sequences transmitted at the beginning of network advisory recorded announcements. There are four sequences defined: Seq Symb Catagory Announcements 1 NC Trunk Blockage No Circuit, emergency. 2 IC Customer Irregularity Vacant Number, AIS, CENTREX Number Change and Non-Working Station, Access Code Not Dialed/Dialed in Error, Manual Intercept Operator. 3 VC Vacant Code Vacant Code. 4 RO Equipment Irregularity Reorder Announcement. The tone sequences are coded as follows: Seq First Tone/Duration Second Tone/Duration Third Tone/Duration 1 985.2 Hz / 380 msec 1428.5 Hz / 380 msec 1776.7 Hz / 380 msec 2 913.8 Hz / 274 msec 1370.6 Hz / 274 msec 1776.7 Hz / 380 msec 3 985.2 Hz / 380 msec 1370.6 Hz / 274 msec 1776.7 Hz / 380 msec 4 913.8 Hz / 274 msec 1428.5 Hz / 380 msec 1776.7 Hz / 380 msec Note that these tones are defined for 'advisory messages' and are not (usually) used for billing or supervisory purposes. 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: jra@psycho.fidonet.org (Jay Ashworth) Subject: Re: Pseudo-Area Code 311 Date: Tue, 03 Dec 91 12:03:00 EDT Organization: Psycho: The Usenet<->Fidonet Gateway of St. Pete Florida RN> From: nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) >> Many years ago, the old Bell System always had the number >> 311-555-2368 shown on the dial of phones in advertisements and >> display windows, etc. I think this would have been 1960-ish. > Why doesn't the FCC mandate a number (or two) in each exchange to be > permanently out of service? Then when someone wanted to use a fake > phone number for any purpose, they could use that number and be > assured that they weren't causing trouble for anyone. This used to be the case, and +1 311 555 2368 was, in fact, the dead number. Since 555 was almonst _always_ a dead exchange code, anyway, you'd see ads for call directors (probably tm) and such, with -2368, -2369, -2370, etc ... With the explosion in station addresses, some places assign 555 now. I expect someone from Bellcore could tell us if any or all parts of that special S.A. are actually reserved. Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@pro-scat.cts.com Ashworth & Associates Jay_Ashworth@{psycho.fidonet.org, An Interdisciplinary Consultancy f160.n3603.z1.fidonet.org, in Advanced Technology petexch.relay.net} Note:psycho is a free gateway between Usenet & Fidonet. For info write root. ------------------------------ From: wtho@cgch.uucp (Tom Hofmann) Subject: Re: Oddities About Area 809 Organization: Ciba-Geigy Ltd., Basel, Switzerland Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1991 08:00:04 GMT In article ctuttle@taronga.com (Colin Tuttle) writes: > While we are on the subject of the 809 area code, why is it that > Dominica has 809 for an area code, Martinique just south of Dominica > has country code 596, and St. Lucia just south of Martinique is in the > 809 area code? Does this have something to do in the way the local > phone companies charge for calls to each of these countries, or is > there some other reason? > Another oddity I've found is Haiti has a country code and the > Dominican Republic uses 809. My atlas shows that both countries are > on the same island. The system is as follows: country code Territories with connections to France (Guadeloupe, St. Barthelemy, St. Martin): +590 Exception: Martinique +596 Territories with connections to the Netherlands (Bonaire, Curacao, Saba, St. Eustatius, St. Maarten): +599 Exception: Aruba +297-8 Territories with connections to the USA or UK: +1-809 Independent countries: +1-809 or own country code Notice the island St. Martin/St. Maarten: Although there are no customs between the French and the Dutch part (St. Martin/St. Maarten is a free port) the French part has country code +590, the Dutch part +599-5. However, there are convenience codes for dialling from one part to the other. Tom Hofmann wtho@ciba-geigy.ch ------------------------------ From: warren@worlds.com (Warren Burstein) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 91 12:11:52 IST From: warren@worlds.COM (Warren Burstein) Subject: Re: 900-Number Trade Show and Exposition Date: 4 Dec 91 10:11:50 GMT Reply-To: warren@itex.jct.ac.il Organization: WorldWide Software nigel.allen@canrem.uucp (Nigel Allen) writes: > For information, call PPC Expo, Inc. at (718) 951-7770. Why not a 900 number? :-) warren@itex.jct.ac.il ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1001 *******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29162; 6 Dec 91 4:21 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17906 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 6 Dec 1991 02:32:49 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28614 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 6 Dec 1991 02:32:39 -0600 Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1991 02:32:39 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199112060832.AA28614@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1002 TELECOM Digest Fri, 6 Dec 91 02:32:25 CST Volume 11 : Issue 1002 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: ANI Numbers That I Know of (Patton M. Turner) Re: ANI Numbers That I Know of (H. Peter Anvin) Re: How Do I Contact PC Pursuit? (John Stanley) Re: 'Easy' Numbers, Teleslime, Wrong Numbers, etc. (Martin Harriss) Re: Wanted: Combination Answering Machine and Cordless Phone (B. Berbenich) Re: Legalities of Taping Phone Calls (Bill Sohl) Re: USWEST Voicemail Problem (Rick Wessman) Re: How Does a Cellphone Duplex? (Marcus Leech) Re: Logic Bombs (Haroon H. Dogar) Re: Where to Find Caller ID Devices? (John R. Levine) Re: KLondike and YUkon (Scott Fybush) Re: New Kinds of Roamer Charges ;-{ (Randall L. Smith) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 4 Dec 91 13:11:58 CST From: Patton M. Turner Subject: Re: ANI Numbers That I Know of Doug Krause writes: > I just tried this ["ANI" #] from my work phone and the voice gave me > the correct exchange, but wrong last four digits. I know that our > phone system is some sort of Ericson contraption, so it probably confused > things. The answer I think is obvious. The number read back to you has no relationship to the ANI, but rather is the number assigned to the physical pair the you call was routed to the CO on. These line-ID numbers are put into service for OSP, CPE, and perhaps CO techs. They have no interest in ANI, which is the process that pass the originating number outside the CO. This number used by IXC's to bill toll calls, and for a customer with multiple lines, the same number may be used for all calls being passed on any of their lines. This number, like the Line-ID number may not bear any resemblance to your published number. For example ANI from AU numbers passes a number that doesn't even contain our prefix, and intercepts if dialed. There are ANI numbers, but they are a different breed, and usually rely on ANI from 800 calls. I have heard of several, including one mentioned here that was a demo message for a security firm. You mentioned something about your "number". If you mean your (personal) office number, chances are it's DID, and bares no resemblance to any physical pair. Call to DID numbers are carried on DID trunks, and the dialed number is passed to the PBX which will then route it. Outgoing calls from a PBX with DID are hopefully never passed on the DID truck, as they are more expensive. For a residence, your ANI# = LOOP# = dialable number = CLID in most cases, for most people, John Higdon excluded. From what I understand CLID can be toggled in most CO's to deliver either ANI, or a line number. The former is more meaningful and consistent. A question of some of the CO experts: What happens if you dial a line-ID number on a PBX that is connected to the CO via T1? Are all 24 channels assigned a unique number? [I am assuming the format of the number/blocking, is such that the call is passed.] I know this is the case for T1's connected to SLC's, but I can't think of a good reason for it to be done with T1 trunks. Pat Turner pturner@eng.auburn.edu KB4GRZ @ K4RY.AL.USA ------------------------------ From: hpa@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (H. Peter Anvin N9ITP) Subject: Re: ANI Numbers That I Know of Reply-To: hpa@nwu.edu (H. Peter Anvin N9ITP) Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1991 19:40:45 GMT In article of comp.dcom.telecom, Doug Krause writes: > I just tried this from my work phone and the voice gave me the correct > exchange, but wrong last four digits. I know that our phone system is > some sort of Ericson contraption, so it probably confused things. It probably gave you the billing number for your office system. ANI does not necessarily give the number you call from, but the number your call should be billed to. That is a big part of the difference between ANI and Caller-ID. In my home town of V{ae}ster{aa}s, Sweden, which is served by a battery of Ericsson AXE exchanges, dialling 0058 and hanging up would cause your phone to ring, but when you picked it up it was only dial tone. INTERNET: hpa@nwu.edu TALK: hpa@casbah.acns.nwu.edu BITNET: HPA@NUACC HAM RADIO: N9ITP, SM4TKN FIDONET: 1:115/989.4 NeXTMAIL: hpa@lenny.acns.nwu.edu ------------------------------ From: stanley@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) Subject: Re: How Do I Contact PC Pursuit? Organization: Oregon State University, College of Oceanography Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1991 15:06:16 GMT In article wabwrld!bill@uu.psi.com (Bill Berbenich) writes: > What's the phone number for PC Pursuit Customer Service? Before you sign up for this service, be very sure you want it. 1. They will not bill you. They demand either a credit card number or a checking account number, which they will debit for you automatically. 2. If the first bill they sent me is correct, they will not even send you a statement of charges unless you exceed the hour limit you sign up for. You will have no way of knowing how many hours they think you used, and no way of detecting whether they are charging you for every attempt at connecting, even those less than 90 seconds, which they say they won't. 3. The only way of finding out how many hours of time you have used is by running THEIR software on your PC (at least this is the information that the billing department gave me -- billing has no way of knowing how much time you have used (?), and the product manager that was supposed to call me with more information almost two weeks ago has not yet bothered to call back.) 4. They will start billing you for the service before you receive the password you need to have to be able to use it. When you call them on that tactic, they promise a credit to show up in a month or so. When you mention that you intend to contest the charge when it shows up on your credit card bill, they immediately tell you that they will NOT credit you for their mistake, and continue by threatening that if the credit card company makes a mistake and includes the $30 signup fee in the contested amount, they will immediately cancel your service. Real friendly folks, eh? I think it was a mistake to sign up, but, unfortunately, it is the only game in town and they know it. [Moderator's Note: My experience with PCP has been a bit different. I've been a subscriber since approximatly a week after the service began in 1984. Billing was offered originally, and as might be expected, it was fraught with problems, not the least of which was fraud aplenty. Phreaks ruined the billing program at PCP with false billing information. We subscribers who have been with PCP since the beginning were encouraged to switch to the credit card or bank debit system, but if we chose to continue being billed, we were grand- fathered under that system. I find PCP to be an extremely useful and economical method of placing data calls long distance. Regardless of how newer users are required to pay, where else can you get long distance data transmission for $1 per hour (or 83 cents per hour under the $50 per month plan?). PAT] ------------------------------ From: martin@bdsgate.com (Martin Harriss) Subject: Re: 'Easy' Numbers, Teleslime, Wrong Numbers, etc. Reply-To: bdsgate!martin@uunet.uu.net (Martin Harriss) Organization: Beechwood Data Systems Date: Wed, 4 Dec 91 15:45:49 GMT In article tmkk@uiuc.edu (Scott Coleman) writes: [ stuff about rude numbers deleted ] Our office number here at Beechwood is 382 5xxx. I'll leave it to the reader to figure it out. You will notice that there are 999 other numbers like this, some of which are in fact also ours. Martin Harriss uunet!bdsgate!martin ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Wanted: Combination Answering Machine and Cordless Phone Date: Wed, 4 Dec 91 11:02:03 EST From: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu The answer lies as far as your nearest source of AT&T phones. They have a cordless phone/answering machine that meets ALL of the requirements that you gave. I don't know the model number off-hand. I've got one of them at home and it's great. Street Price on the thing is about $240, as I recall. I got mine at a bankruptcy sale about a month ago, new, unused and in the box, for $100. Sound quality is very good via the handset, inside my home. If the base unit was in a metal locker the transmission quality would likely suffer, though. Bill Berbenich, School of EE, DSP Lab Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 ------------------------------ From: whs70@taichi.cc.bellcore.com (24411-sohl) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 91 16:12:59 GMT Subject: Re: Legalities of Taping Phone Calls Reply-To: whs70@taichi.cc.bellcore.com (24411-sohl,william h) Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ In article damon@hp-vcd.vcd.hp.com (Damon Schaefer) writes: >> Speaking of recording phone conversations: >> The federal government does not require that all parties being >> recorded must give their prior consent or that all parties being >> recond must hear a 'beep'. According to FCC rules, as long as one of >> parties is aware of the conversation is been taped it is legal. > Okay so if *I* am taping every call that involves my home phone, > obviously I am aware that the calls are being taped. Legal?? Unless the state you are in (see below) has a more restrictive law, I'd say, yes that is legal. >> some states impose strict laws such as insisting both parties be >> aware. For example, in the state of Utah, there are no regulations. Maybe someone has a list of the states that require beeps or that otherwise require that both parties know that the call is being recorded. Now, even if a state requires that both parties know the call is being recorded, what is the probability that anyone would ever be be charged (if the violation on the state level is even a criminal offense) if such a recording was made? For example: If I live in a state that requires beeps or that both parties know the call is recorded and I "violate" that law by recording sveral calls that I received, obviously, unless I tell someone, there's no probability that I'd be able to be charged. Now, if the calls I recorded happened to be obscene calls and I took them to the police to help in the prosecution or to otherwise help catch the caller of these obscene calls, is it likely that I'd be prosecuted myself? I doubt it. Odds are that the calls might not then be admissable in court, but I don't think anything else would likly to happen to me. Any existing "case-law" in this area? 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 ------------------------------ From: rwessman@us.oracle.com (Rick Wessman) Subject: Re: USWEST Voicemail Problem Organization: Oracle Corporation, Redwood Shores, CA Date: Wed, 4 Dec 91 16:00:55 GMT In article varney@ihlpf.att.com (Alan L Varney) writes: > In article bitsko!ken@uunet.uu.net > writes: > If PAT will permit a borderline commercial message ... Why not? It's got to be better than the dreck that AT&T is broadcasting. :-) > AT&T offers the AUDIX system (I can't find a Trademark on my Quick > Guide!) off of both PBXs and COs -- lots of features, etc., but most > importantly, the recording quality is very good, with any DETECTABLE > cut-off of words. I don't know if it has the additional capabilities > a LEC might need to convert it to a PUBLIC Voice Mail System, but it > is excellent as a PRIVATE one. I heartily agree with Al. The AUDIX system that we have here at ORACLE has excellent sound quality. I have never had any problem with words being cut short. Rick Wessman rwessman@us.oracle.com [Moderator's Note: Nor is this a problem with Ameritech voicemail here in IBT-land. All messages are loud and clear. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 4 Dec 91 12:28:00 EST From: Marcus (M.D.) Leech Subject: Re: How Does a Cellphone Duplex? In article is written: > How does a cellphone duplex its antenna for send and receive? A > traditional cavity duplexor wouldn't fit in a shirt-pocket phone, even > at 800 MHz. Even if it would, it wouldn't be frequency-agile enough. > So how do they do it? The newer phones use these rather expensive SAW filters -- Motorola has a line of them specifically for cellular. The older ones (base unit/handset) used cavity filters. Marcus Leech, 4Y11 Bell-Northern Research |opinions expressed mleech@bnr.ca P.O. Box 3511, Stn. C |are my own, and not ml@ve3mdl.ampr.org Ottawa, ON, CAN K1Y 4H7 |necessarily BNRs ------------------------------ From: motcid!dogar@uunet.uu.net (Haroon H. Dogar) Subject: Re: Logic Bombs Date: 4 Dec 91 17:55:37 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com writes: > According to the seminar I attended last week, your only safe > alternative is to reload the system from backups that were secure > before the miscreant hit. You might reload the system from the > original disks, or from replacement disks from the vendor. You > absolutely CAN'T be sure that the relative didn't leave any more > little presents in the code, although you can choose to compromise > between your security and your efforts at some point. It seems to me that if faced with the threat of prosecution or financial damages, the vandal would be willing to remove any other bombs that he may have planted. He/she may have installed the first bombs in a fit of anger and, having considerd the consequences (or having been presented with the possible punishments), may be regretting that rash action. hd ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Where to Find Caller ID Devices? Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 4 Dec 91 14:40:40 EST (Wed) From: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) In article is written: > I would appreciate it if people would send me phone numbers for > suppliers of caller ID devices. I've seen C-ID boxes at K-Mart for about $50. It wasn't at all clear whether anyone at the store understood what it was, even though there was a little countertop display with some explanatory flyers. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1991 14:01 EDT From: Scott Fybush Subject: Re: KLondike and YUkon Here in Waltham MA, the 89x- phone numbers (originally 893, 894, and 899, with later additions of 890, 891, and 895) were TWinbrook numbers. A few old signs downtown still show TW4-XXXX numbers on them. Watertown, next door to Waltham, had WAtertown numbers, today's 923, 924, and 926 exchanges. If anyone is familiar with other exchange names in today's 617/508 area codes, I'd be happy to summarize in e-mail. Scott Fybush - voice 617/TWinbrook 1-5261 :) - ST901316@pip.cc.brandeis.edu ------------------------------ From: rls!randy@cis.ohio-state.edu (Randall L. Smith) Subject: Re: New Kinds of Roamer Charges ;-{ Date: 4 Dec 91 17:04:12 GMT Organization: The Internet reb@ingres.com (Phydeaux) writes: > Daily surcharges and high per minute rates -- that's what you have to > pay for roaming. But now it seems that *everyone* wants to get a > piece of the pie. [...] > It appears that Celular One here in Chicago recently realized that > there is more money to be made from roamers than just this. [...] > I'd consider switching carriers, but their 'friends' across town > probably have already matched this 'offer' ... nickel and diming > customers sure adds up when it's $1 here and $2 there ... Largely the market or physical regions of expansion for cellular communication is gone forever. All the cellular competitors have mapped out their turf and no longer have that type of growth to fuel their companies. What you describe is the new fuel for cellular carriers, roaming charges. That is their way of stealing their competitors nickel. Cheers! randy randy@rls.uucp | !osu-cis!rls!randy | rls!randy@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1002 *******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27875; 8 Dec 91 2:40 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31951 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 8 Dec 1991 00:52:22 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21521 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 8 Dec 1991 00:52:09 -0600 Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1991 00:52:09 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199112080652.AA21521@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1003 TELECOM Digest Sun, 8 Dec 91 00:52:00 CST Volume 11 : Issue 1003 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson News From Rochester Tel Land (Scott Fybush) Caller ID for Dallas/Ft Worth Area? (Russ Latham) Caller ID in Oklahoma (Stan Hall) Interesting Caller ID Experience (Ron Schnell) UK Area Codes (was How IL Bell Chose AC 708) (John Slater) AT&T Spirit Phones -- Where to Get? (Maxime Taksar) Just Dial 1-900-Pizza (Jeff Wasilko) Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed? (Richard Thomas) Dougie Howser's Phone (Randall C. Gellens) Info on Watson 2400 VIS Wanted (Natural Microsystems) (Scott Hinckley) A Question on Digital Switches (References) (Krishnan Sakotai) A Short Story Telecom Readers Might Enjoy (Warren Burstein) No Surcharge 950 Company (Hansel Lee) Michigan Bell Gets Christmas Early (Ken Jongsma) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1991 16:06 EDT From: Scott Fybush Subject: News From Rochester Tel Land I've just returned from a Thanksgiving trip home, to the territory of Rochester Telephone. Roch Tel is doing some innovative things that the RBOCs might want to imitate someday. Here are two of them: *Miniature Phone Books. Last year, an independent directory publisher, White Directory Publications, introduced a reduced-size edition of their _Talking Phone Book_ (716/427-7777 if you want to try it out :) The same thickness as the regular directory, the small edition's pages were photo- reduced so the whole book measured about the same size as a standard paperback. The new books were popular with car-phone owners and others who didn't want the bulk of a large directory. Roch Tel followed suit with its 1992 books, which came out in October or thereabouts. Roch Tel subscribers received both the standard-size white and yellow pages directories and the miniature-size books. The mini books even came packaged with a plastic Fresnel-lens-type magnifying sheet! With the standard-size books growing every year, this is certainly an improvement when it comes to storing the books in kitchen drawers and other small spaces. BTW, Roch Tel, as an independent telco, also operates an info-line similar to the "Talking Phone Book." The Roch Tel "Informer" is on 716/777-3000. The 1992 books have a strong environmental theme, from the green covers with paintings of trees (and Joyce Kilmer's poem!) to the recycling message inside. With paper and disposal becoming so expensive, I wonder if Roch Tel isn't working towards eliminating the large-size directories entirely? *971 numbers. I wish the RBOC's would imitate Roch Tel's pseudo-900 service, only because the Roch Tel service failed so miserably. 971 numbers were supposed to be the Rochester LATA's equivalent of 976 numbers elsewhere -- numbers which incurred a largish charge to call. According to a recent article in the Gannett Rochester Newspapers, though (I don't have the exact paper or date with me), only two customers ever signed up for 971 service. One, a hotel-reservations service, moved off the exchange after customers complained about the charge. Seems the service was attracting customers through one of those wonderful autodialers. Customers had no way of knowing what a 971 number was (there's almost no mention in the phone book, and you don't have to dial a 1 before the number), and as a result yelled and screamed when the bill arrived. The other 971 customer is a dating voice-mail service. It's still active. I don't know if 716-971 numbers are dialable from outside the Rochester Tel service area. I suspect they're not. Roch Tel also has some information services (time and temp, etc.) on 974 numbers. These bill 8.3 cents per call ... again, with no leading "1." The newspaper article says Roch Tel is no longer actively selling 971 numbers to customers. Good riddance, IMHO. Scott Fybush -- ST901316@pip.cc.brandeis.edu -- Waltham, Massachusetts USA ------------------------------ From: Russ Latham Subject: Caller ID For Dallas/Ft Worth Area? Date: Wed, 4 Dec 91 16:28:01 CST Does anyone know when Southwestern Bell and GTE are going to start offering Caller ID service to the Dallas-Ft Worth area? I've talked to a customer service rep, and they weren't much help. Any info appreciated. Thanks! Russ Latham (rlatham@mailbox.fwrdc.rtsg.mot.com) motorola, inc radio telephone systems group fort worth research and development center internet address: rlatham@mailbox.fwrdc.rtsg.mot.com ------------------------------ Subject: Caller ID in Oklahoma From: Stan Hall Date: Wed, 04 Dec 91 05:20:15 CST Organization: The Obelisk I have seen references saying that CNID is available in Oklahoma, yet I haven't seen any mention of it locally. The word from the SWBell rep is that the Tulsa and Muskogee areas already have it and that the service will be available in Oklahoma City sometime next year. I'll be waiting. Stan Hall The Obelisk [ uokmax!obelisk!kilgore kilgore@obelisk.okc.ok.us ] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Dec 91 13:30:11 -0500 From: Ron Schnell Subject: Interesting Caller ID Experience As I have already posted, I have CLID for my phone line in South Florida (Southern Bell). As many of you already know, CLID only displays calls from phones that are in your LATA. If a call is coming from outside the LATA, the CO still passes the date and time of the call and an "out of area" message. I was very surprised the other day to have a call come in with a local phone number displayed, but when I picked up the phone it was a friend of mine calling from Los Angeles! After insisting that he was really in Florida for a while, he finally convinced me that he really was still in California. I forced him to call me right back, and the same number appeared. I asked him to find out what crazy long distance service his office was using, and he asked someone who told him it was MCI. I told him I didn't believe him and forced him to call 700-555-4141 via three-way. The message was from "ExpressTel." I called the local number and got a brief ring, followed by a click, then a busy signal (not a reorder). If the Moderator finds it appropriate, I will post the number. I have called it several times since then, and always have gotten the same thing. What method of completing long distance calls would account for this happening? Whatever it is, it seems to me like it would be more expensive than most other methods. While I'm on the subject, will CLID always only show intra-LATA calls? If not, when will it work for long distance? Ron [Moderator's Note: I don't care about the number. The carrier for the call was getting it from El Lay to your town via whatever method, and dropping it off at its local POP (point of presence) in your town, where the call was then patched into a local outgoing line and dialed as a local call to you. If you get calls from a cell phone locally you will get the same kind of reaction from Caller ID: The box will show some number which turns out to be an outgoing line from the cellular company's switch rather than the actual cell phone number. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Dec 91 10:56:32 GMT Subject: UK Area Codes (was How IL Bell Chose AC 708) From: john.slater@UK.Sun.COM (John Slater - Sun UK - Gatwick SE) In article 15@eecs.nwu.edu, goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) writes: > In article , clive@x.co.uk (Clive > Feather) writes: >> However, the real winner is going to be the Great Renumbering on >> Easter Sunday 1994 -- *every* number in the UK is going to change. For >> those interested in the details, simultaneously: every area code will >> be prefixed with a 1, the international access code will change from >> 010 to 00, and a second emergency number (112) will be added to the >> existing number (999). Thus dialing will change: >> National 0 223 462 131 -> 0 1223 462 131 >> International 010 1 npa nxx xxxx -> 00 1 npa nxx xxxx > Well, don't leave us hanging -- why is the "1" change necessary? Are > they planning something special for sequences beginning with 02 > through 09 (which will otherwise be rendered completely unassigned by > the change)? If so, what? If not, then why the extra digit for area > codes? Enquiring minds want to know :-). First of all, it gives a ten-fold increase in telephone numbers available. Secondly it indeed allows for special uses for 02 .. 09: cellular, 1-900 style services, GSM, more free exchanges (we have 0800-xxxxxx, so only a million numbers are available today). Thirdly, it is a long-term aim of Oftel (the government regulatory body) to be able to assign "portable" numbers. This means that you keep one phone number for life, and potentially you can always be reached at that number, whether at home, work, in the car, in a plane, whatever. Fourthly it is about the least painful way to expand the system: make a no-brainer change to area codes, with no cause for misunderstanding. Note also that 00 for international access is becoming standard across Europe. John Slater Sun Microsystems UK, Gatwick Office ------------------------------ Subject: AT&T Spirit Phones -- Where to Get? Date: Wed, 04 Dec 91 04:15:06 -0800 From: "Maxime Taksar" Before anyone takes out their flame-throwers, please examine the situation. A friend of mine not-so-recently acquired an AT&T Spirit controller box and two extension phones. Now, this system is pretty worthless with just the two phone sets. What is needed is at least two more station sets. I'm unsure as to how old this system is, but I've seen it in use at some small establishments. My question is: Is it possible to get station sets for this system for under $100? My friend's parents are perfectly willing to buy extra station sets, but I think that AT&T will sell them only for some obscene price. Please email me any leads. Thanks in advance. Maxime Taksar KC6ZPS mmt@diva.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ From: jjwcmp@ultb.isc.rit.edu (Jeff Wasilko) Subject: Just Dial 1-900-Pizza Date: Wed, 4 Dec 91 8:49:41 EST Organization: RIT Communications, Rochester, NY From the {Rochester Democrat & Chronicle}, in a story about 900 numbers: If there are teenagers in your house, don't be surpised if you find charges for pizza on your phone bill someday. That's right: Mr. Shoes Pizza in Rochester is about to launch its own 900-style phone number that will allow you to order pizza and pay for it on your phone bill, according to President John Natalie. Jeff ------------------------------ From: thomas@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Richard A. Thomas) Subject: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed? Organization: Brookhaven National Laboratory Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1991 18:11:47 GMT At our facility, people often step down the hall a few doors to confer briefly with someone in another office. Then a phone will ring and all the people who aren't in their own offices interrupt their conversations to run back to their office to see if it is their phone that is ringing. Or you may have just stepped down the hall to pick up your output from the shared printer, which you may find is a job or two backed up when you get there, and then you hear a phone ringing. Is it yours? Surely the companies that make telephone switches for large firms must now provide a way to give different ring patterns to the telephones located in the same region, but I've never heard of it. Does it exist? Is it possible? Of course, you could have people modify the hardware (supply people with different telephone sets that have different and distinguishable ringers), but that sounds like it would be much more expensive than making the ring pattern a programmable option in the switch itself. And if the firm has already supplied everyone with telephones, it certainly won't consider buying all new ones in order to avoid the confusion of identical rings. If this is a FAQ, please accept my apology for bringing it up again. Thank you. Richard Thomas [Moderator's Note: You might get a few beehive lamps, and mount them on the wall or ceiling in a common area. Then when a phone rings, the respective beehive will flash as well, and people will know which beehive belongs to which line. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Dec 91 06:06 GMT From: Randall C Gellens <0005000102@mcimail.com> Subject: Dougie Howser's Phone I happened to catch a few minutes of _Dougie_Howser,_M.D._ this evening, and noticed that Dougie (who supposedly lives in the Chicago area, I think) has a wonderful switch! Not only does he get call waiting on a three-way, but he can add incoming callers! And with only a flash of the switchhook! He added two callers to his existing conversation, ending with four people at once. I should note the characters seemed to realize how special their phone system is, since one remarked "I really love my phone; sometimes I pick it up just to hear the dialtone -- it's so reassuring." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Dec 91 09:01:14 CST From: scott@hsvaic.boeing.com (Scott Hinckley) Subject: Info on Watson 2400 VIS Wanted (Natural Microsystems) Reply-To: scott@hsvaic.boeing.com I am looking at purchasing (second hand) a voicemail system made by Natural Microsystems called Watson 2400 w/VIS. If you have any information on using this system (positive or negative) please send me mail detailing it. Thank you, scott@hsvaic.boeing.com ------------------------------ From: ksakotai@cs.ulowell.edu (Krishnan "krish" Sakotai ) Subject: A Question on Digital Switches (References) Organization: University of Lowell Computer Science, Lowell MA Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1991 16:14:53 GMT Could someone please let me know of THE most authoritative book/paper on Digital Switching technology, encompassing everything, including Broadband ATM switching? I am considering Stallings book on ISDN, but would be glad if there are some tutorial papers regarding the above or any other alternative. I would be very much interested in a book that has sample code (like the Stevens book on Unix networking). Please email, I will post a summary if there is sufficient interest. Thanks, Krishnan C.Sakotai ksakotai@cs.ulowell.edu ------------------------------ From: warren@worlds.COM (Warren Burstein) Subject: A Short Story Telecom Readers Might Enjoy Date: 4 Dec 91 10:23:10 GMT Reply-To: warren@itex.jct.ac.il Organization: WorldWide Software I just finished reading a story by Primo Levi, "For a Good Purpose". It appears in "The Sixth Day", a collection of his short stories under the Abacus label which belongs to Sphere Books. In the story, the European network begins to take actions on its own initiative. warren@itex.jct.ac.il ------------------------------ From: hansel@pain.chaos.spc.com (Hansel Lee) Subject: No-Surcharge 950 Company Date: 4 Dec 91 04:27:15 GMT Organization: Public Access Info Network (818/776-1447) Regarding a LD company w/ a 950 calling card w/o a surcharge, I feel that ITT/Metromedia (800) 275-0100 (I think) is the best. They are very reasonable regarding local calls. They breakdown their calls of between 1-10 miles, 10-20 miles, 20-100 miles, etc. each with differnet prices. For local calls it is the best; for long distance calls they are better. Both Allnet and ITT have no surcharges for 950 calls. (ITT does charge for the use of their 1-800 port and Allnet only has a 1-800 port). Allnet 800-783-2020 ITT 800-275-0200 Hansel Standard Disclaimers Apply hansel@pain.chaos.spc.com usc.edu!celia!techsys!pain!hansel ------------------------------ From: jongsma@esseye.si.com (Ken Jongsma) Subject: Michigan Bell Gets Christmas Early Date: Thu, 5 Dec 91 19:59:28 EST Well, it looks like Michigan Bell has received a very nice Christmas present. In a compromise between House and Senate versions of a telecommunications reform billed passed a few weeks back, the consolidated bill expected to be signed by the Governor provides for the following: o Freezes basic rates for two years, raises thereafter less than inflation will automatically be approved. o Flat rate residential service eliminated. Local calls in excess of 400 per month to be billed at 6 to 8 cents per call. o Explicitly allows Michigan Bell to enter cable TV, information, paging, alarm and other services at will, subject only to federal regulation. Oh well. Ken Jongsma ken@wybbs.mi.org Smiths Industries jongsma@esseye.si.com Grand Rapids, Michigan 73115.1041@compuserve.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1003 *******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23863; 8 Dec 91 16:34 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29158 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 8 Dec 1991 14:48:17 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29483 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 8 Dec 1991 14:48:05 -0600 Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1991 14:48:05 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199112082048.AA29483@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1004 TELECOM Digest Sun, 8 Dec 91 14:48:00 CST Volume 11 : Issue 1004 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Tricomm 92 High Speed Network Conference (Harry Perros) E-Mail Link to Japan? (Phil Tait) Re: GTE Screwups in NW Ohio (Alan Boritz) Re: CB vs Cellular in Accident (Alan Boritz) Prodigy Running Trial of 9600 Service (Seng-Poh Lee) Israel Briefly Allows Direct Dialing to Arab Countries (Warren Burstein) 410 Now Seen on a Pay Phone (Carl Moore) Could Cellular be Used as Competition for LEC's? (Robert Lindh) Suggestions Wanted For Books and Magazines (Kevin Crowston) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 5 Dec 91 13:12:07 -0500 From: hp@adm.csc.ncsu.edu (Harry Perros) Subject: Tricomm 92 High Speed Network Conference CONFERENCE ANNOUNCEMENT ======================= Tricomm '92 Fifth Triangle Conference on Computer Communications High Speed Networks February 27-28, 1992 McKimmon Center North Carolina State University Raleigh, North Carolina **Chairman** Harry Perros, NCSU **Program Committee** Brad Makrucki, BellSouth Arne Nilsson, NCSU Raif Onvural, IBM RTP Dan Stevenson, MCNC Yannis Viniotis, NCSU **Sponsorship** Computer Science Department, NCSU Center for Communications & Signal Processing, NCSU IEEE Communications Society, Eastern NC Chapter IBM RTP **Local Arrangements** Margaret Hudacko, NCSU Events and Arrangements ======================= The registration desk at McKimmon Center will open at 8:00 a.m. Thursday morning, February 27, 1992 Luncheon buffets served at McKimmon Center on Thursday and Friday are included in the registration fee. Please indicate on the registration form if you are a vegetarian. A reception will be held at McKimmon Center on Thursday evening immediately following Thursday's final session. Accommodations ============== A block of rooms has been reserved for attendees at the Mission Valley Inn Conference and Expo Center, 2110 Avent Ferry Road, Raleigh. If you plan to stay at the Inn, please make your reservations by February 13 to receive special rates: single or double $47 per night. After February 13, reservations will be subject to availability. To make reservations, call (toll free) 1 (800) 223-2252 and reference TriComm '92. Location ======== The Conference will be held in Raleigh at North Carolina State University's McKimmon Center on the corner of Western Boulevard and Gorman Street.If you like this conference, tell your friends about it! Additional copies of the program are available from: Margaret Hudacko Tri Comm '92 CCSP, Box 7914 North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC 27695-7914 (919) 515-5143 Email: margaret@ecesis.ncsu.edu Program ======= **Thursday, February 27, 1991** 8:00 Conference Registration 9:15 Welcome Harry Perros, NCSU Bob Funderlic, NCSU 9:30 Keynote Address Dennis Kekas, IBM RTP 10:00 Break Session 1: Local ATM Chair: Dan Stevenson 10:30 Architectures of Local and Metropolitan ATM Networks: New Trends G. Pujolle, Paris 6 Universite 11:00 Supercomputing Communication as an Application for ATM LANs D. Stevenson, MCNC D. Winkelstein, MCNC 11:30 Gigabit LANs A. Pierce, GTE Labs D. Casey, GTE Labs 12:00 Lunch Break Session 2: Congestion Control I Chair: Jerry Marin 1:30 A Framework for Bandwidth Management and Congestion Control in High Speed Networks L. Gun, IBM RTP R. Guerin, IBM Research 2:00 Performance Analysis of the Unbuffered and Buffered Leaky Bucket D. Holtsinger, NCSU H. Perros, NCSU 2:30 Gateway Congestion Control in High Speed Backbone Networks S. Fdida, Paris 5 Universite 3:00 Break Session 3: Congestion Control II Chair: Yannis Viniotis 3:30 Forward Notification Congestion Control B. MaKrucki, BellSouth 4:00 Backward Notification with Balloon Buffer I. Viniotis, NCSU S. Jagannath, NCSU Session 4: Standards Chair: Brad MaKrucki 4:30 What's New in Standards? D. Spears, BellSouth 5:30 Reception **Friday, February 28, 1991** Session 5: Routing in High Speed Networks Chair: Raif Onvural 8:30 Overview of Routing and Strategies in High Speed Networks R. Onvural, IBM RTP I. Nikolaidis, Georgia Tech 9:00 A Queueing Network Model for Half Duplex Routing and Data Communications V. Kulkarni, UNC-CH S. Sditham, UNC-CH 9:30 Break Session 6: Transport Protocols Chair: Alf Weaver 10:00 The Xpress Transfer Protocol A. Weaver, University of Virginia 10:45 Radiology Communications for Imaging Systems B. Chimiak, Bowman Gray 11:15 High Speed Transport Protocols Evaluation at VISTAnet Project Y.-H. Cheng, MCNC 12:00 Lunch Break Session 7: Traffic Measurements Chair: Arne Nilsson 1:30 Traffic Models for ISDN and B-ISDN Users P. Wirth, AT&T Bell Labs 2:00 Traffic Characterization in a Wide Area Network Laura Bottomley, NCSU Arne Nilsson, NCSU 2:30 Break Session 8: Telecommunications Software Chair: Mladen Vouk 3:00 Software Engineering of Telecommunications Software M. Vouk, NCSU 3:30 Reliability of Telecommunications Software W. Jones, BNR 4:00 Software Metrics and Quality of Telecommunications Systems T. Khoshgoftaar, Florida Atlantic University 4:30 EpilogueThursday, February 27 Workshop Reservation ==================== Registration fees include lunch each day and one reception ticket. Please circle the appropriate fees from the following list and indicate if you prefer vegetarian meals. Make check or money order payable to: TriComm '92 Please return this form, with full payment, to: Margaret Hudacko TriComm '92 CCSP, Box 7914 North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC 27695-7914 Before After 2/10/92 2/10/92 Registration $100 $120 Student Rate $50 $60 Vegetarian Meals? Yes No Name__________________________________________________ Organization__________________________________________ Address_______________________________________________ City____________________State___________Zip___________ email_________________________________________________ Let Us Know =========== If you plan to attend but cannot pre-register, please let us know so that we can better estimate our attendees. Please call Margaret Hudacko at (919) 515-5143, write to her or send her email at: margaret@ecesis.ncsu.edu ------------------------------ Subject: E-Mail Link to Japan From: b12635@ged.gedlab.allied.com (Phil Tait, (602) 231-7104) Date: 6 Dec 91 08:07:18 MST In article , trebor@foretune.co.jp (Robert J. Woodhead) writes: ... apparently from a location from Japan. If postings to this newsgroup must be mailed to the Moderator, how was this done in the absence of Internet E-mail connectivity to that country? Or is this no longer the case? Philip J. Tait Allied-Signal Aerospace, Garrett Engine Division, Phoenix, Az (602) 231-7104 Aeronet: GED::B12635 Internet: tait@gedlab.allied.com UUCP: tait@gedphx.uucp or ...!{hrc|mcdphx|asuvax}!gedphx!tait [Moderator's Note: We receive a number of submissions from Mr. Woodhead here and they come through with no difficulty, so my assumption is that email works as well from Japan as anywhere else. I know the Digest goes to a couple sites there which have telecom news groups. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Sep 91 08:25:07 EDT From: Alan.Boritz@f306.n269.z1.fidonet.org (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: GTE Screwups in NW Ohio In an article sbrack%bluemoon@nstar. rn.com wrote: > One of the people I consult for just got a strange call from GTE. It > seems that they just switched 419-88x over to a new electronic switch. > In the process they discovered that they had given him touchtone service > accidentally. Now they want him to pay for what he was receiving free > of charge. I would suggest that your client tell GTE to forget about collecting any money for a service he didn't order. However, be aware that GTE can get real nasty with collections. If they don't accept his refusal to pay for services previously rendered, be prepared to make a timely PUC complaint. Although, if it was a marketing call to get him to "change" his service, a simple "no" should suffice. If GTE is as greedy and vindictive as Rochester Telephone, your client should soon find that the switch will not accept touchtone digits (Rochester Tel has their newer switches programmed to intercept touchtone dialing on rotary lines and play extremely loud obnoxious noises so "encourage" you to "upgrade" your service). Alan Boritz alan.boritz@hourglas.fidonet.org * The Hourglass BBS * +1 201 612 0559 * Fidonet: 1:2604/101.0@fidonet.org 1:269/399.0@fidonet.org UUCP: tronsbox!hourgls!%s Internet: %s@hourglas.fidonet.org ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Sep 91 12:36:34 EDT From: Alan.Boritz@f306.n269.z1.fidonet.org (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: CB vs Cellular in Accident In an article written 17 Sep 91 07:59:00 GMT, djcl@bnw.debe.fl.us (Dave Leibold) writes: > The Associated Press reports of an traffic accident involving a woman > afflicted with muscular dystrophy. A flatbed truck ran her off the road > (State 2, south of Exit 11, Glastonbury, CT area). Her van overturned > when it was forced off the road. > One quote from the article mentioned that "As soon as she could, she > reached for her cellular telephone to dial 911 but got a busy signal". > Would this be the result of having a cell phone out of range (if so, > where does the busy signal come in?). Or is there a problem with dialing > 911 in some parts of Connecticut? Another question that could be asked > was whether she tried to contact other cell numbers such as 0 or 411 or > whatever. American media is stupid, where the details of how telecommunications devices function. If the disabled woman's van flipped, you don't really think her cellular mobile telephone antenna would still remain attached, do you? ;-) If it was a portable, would you trust equipment that may have been damaged in an accident rather than blame "the phone company" (other than AT&T :-)? 911 works fine on the non-wireline system in CT, but in that kind of situation I wouldn't be looking first at the carrier in the event of difficulties. > In any event, the woman managed to take her wheelchair battery and in > three hours splice wires to power her CB (the van battery had since died > out). After various calls on the truckers CB Channel 19 (why not the > emergency channel 9?) and having 20 people ignore calls for help, a > trucker finally took notice and arrived to help ten hours after the > incident. The answer to the question, "why not the emergency channel 9?," is pretty simple. There's nobody listening. Although FCC rules set aside the channel for "emergency communications or for traveler assistance," there is no effective organized monitoring effort that makes a difference. If you tried to use it for what it was intended (i.e. "traveler assistance, rather than purely emergency in nature) don't be surprised if more than one wanna-be radio "buff" tells you to shut up and get lost. When I drive cross-country I rarely monitor channel 9, but instead listen to the "washer-women" ;-) on channel 19. However, in the event of a real distress call on ANY channel, I wouldn't likely respond unless if I was sure it wasn't a phony. > [Moderator's Note: Citizen's Band Radio is still a viable alternative to > cellular phones; or perhaps it should be considered a way to complement > cellular service in poor/no coverage areas. No, Pat, it's not a "viable" alternative unless if OTHER people in your area rely upon it as much as you. It can be a great asset sometimes, but in reality is no more serious than figuratively shouting out the window of your car and hoping that someone (you trust) can hear you. Alan Boritz Moderator, FidoNet FCC Conference alan.boritz@f306.n269.z1.fidonet.org * The Hourglass BBS * +1 201 612 0559 * Fidonet: 1:2604/101.0@fidonet.org 1:269/399.0@fidonet.org UUCP: tronsbox!hourgls!%s Internet: %s@hourglas.fidonet.org [Moderator's Note: As you point out, channel 9 here receives little coverage other than some REACT people who monitor faithfully. The place here is Channel 19 which always has a lot of traffic. PAT] ------------------------------ From: splee@gnu.ai.mit.edu Subject: Prodigy Running Trial of 9600 Service Date: Sat, 7 Dec 91 9:52:54 EST Prodigy (tm) recently announced that they are conducting a trial of 9600 V.32 service in the Dallas/Ft Worth area. They are inviting participants to sign up to try the service at no extra cost (other than the cost of the phone call). The implication is that they will charge extra for 'premium' 9600 service if the trials go well. I wonder how they will handle the people who can currently call in to Prodigy at 9600 NOW, via Tymenet. Presumably, if they chose to go 9600 nationwide, they will still use Tymenet's network, but those people won't get a free ride anymore. Seng-Poh Lee ------------------------------ From: warren@worlds.COM (Warren Burstein) Subject: Israel Briefly Allows Direct Dialing to Arab Countries Date: 7 Dec 91 18:32:23 GMT Reply-To: warren@itex.jct.ac.il Organization: WorldWide Software According to stories in the December 6th editions of the {Jerusalem Post and Chadashot}, Bezeq (the Israeli telco), conducted a test of direct dialing, in preparation for the possibility of peace. The experiment began early in the week and ended on Thursday morning. While it lasted, it was possible to dial numbers in Jordan, Algeria, Yemen, South Yemen, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and Lebanon. While the experiment was not announced, rumors spread and many people made use of the connection to dial countries whose codes do not appear in the local phone books. Faisal Husseni took advantage of the opportunity to place a phone call to his brother in Amman, Jordan. Communications Minister Rafael Pinchasi, interviewed in Chadashot, refused to provide details of how the connection was established. No information was available concerning tarrifs. It will be interesting to see what shows up on the bills of people who used this service while it was available. warren@itex.jct.ac.il ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Dec 91 13:35:20 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: 410 Now Seen on a Pay Phone In North East, Maryland, there is a (C&P) pay phone on the street alongside the telephone building. Yesterday, I saw the sticker on it with 410 area code displayed instead of 301. Across the street from this is a convenience store with two C&P pay phones side by side, still displaying area code 301 and marked "no incoming calls" on such stickers. (These are touch-tone phones, so the sticker is displayed above the keypad.) Earlier this year in area 908 in New Jersey, the new stickers with (new) area code 908 were white numbers on black background, without the words "AREA CODE". ------------------------------ From: Robert.Lindh@eos.ericsson.se (Robert Lindh) Subject: Could Cellular be Used as Competition for LEC's? Reply-To: Robert.Lindh@eos.ericsson.se Organization: Ericsson Telecom AB Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1991 18:44:23 GMT Most people are connected to the local office by telephone wire (not radio). Would today's cellular telephones be able to access more than one cellular operator WITHIN the SAME area? My question is really: Does it sound reasonable to have a cellular telephone with a switch A/B on it? (When switch is in 'A'-position, my outgoing calls go through one cellular operator and when switch is in 'B'-position the other operator is used for outgoing calls.) Could this possibly be a way to get competition on local calls, not only on long-distance calls? (Assume that a cellular telephone will become much cheaper to buy and operate compared with today.) Standard disclaimer: "Only my personal opinion, of course." [Moderator's Note: As a matter of fact, dual-NAMS and quad-NAMS (four distinct settings) are very common on cell phones. There is no reason you can't subscribe to a different carrier for each setting since there are two in most locations. Cell phone service will only become competitive to wireline once the price comes down quite a bit. PAT] ------------------------------ From: crowston@zug.csmil.umich.edu (Kevin Crowston) Subject: Suggestions Wanted For Books and Magazines Date: Sun, 08 Dec 91 14:21:30 EST Organization: Cognitive Science Machine Intelligence Lab, Univ of Michigan I have a reasonable background in data communications but am fairly new to telecom. I'm trying to get up to speed and would appreciate suggestions about books and other things to read. It seems that the technology and details of companies' offerings are changing very quickly; are there particular trade journals that do a better job of covering the field? As usual, please reply to me and I'll post a summary. Kevin ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1004 *******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24581; 8 Dec 91 16:54 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21693 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 8 Dec 1991 15:14:47 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24908 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 8 Dec 1991 15:14:38 -0600 Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1991 15:14:38 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199112082114.AA24908@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu Subject: The Kinds of Work We Do This lengthy article was received from Stan Reeves summarizing responses he received to a recent posting in the Digest. Date: Fri, 6 Dec 91 14:36:27 CST From: Stan Reeves Subject: BS EE jobs in comm/DSP (summary) A few weeks ago I posted: > Sorry, I'm not offering any jobs here. :-) I am teaching an undergrad > class in communications. I was thinking that it would be instructive > to give the class an idea of some of the kinds of jobs that B.S.-level > electrical engineers do in the communications and DSP fields. The > experience and observations of the readers of this group should be > relevant, so I thought I would ask you. If you're in a position to > observe the kinds of jobs that B.S.-level electrical engineers do in > the areas of communications or DSP, then I would appreciate your sending > me a *short* description of the job (general problem being worked on, > particular responsibilities of B.S.-level people, etc.). It needs to be > pretty succinct because I won't be able to go into a lot of detail in > class. Please EMAIL your responses to me, and if there's enough interest, > I'll summarize to the net. Thanks. Here's a summary of the responses. First, I have an outline of what I actually mentioned in the communications class I'm teaching, which is a condensed version of what I thought people were saying. :-) After that, I have included all the actual net responses I got. The outline may also reflect some sources other than net sources included below. ------- Outline: Applications ------------ cellular phone switching transmitting voice over various media (telephony) transmitting data over various media (computer network) interfacing one medium (channel) with another modem design military applications: communications for AWACS electronic warfare and countermeasures spread-spectrum communications radar processing using DSP Activities ---------- hardware design determining appropriate equipment for particular job understanding and meeting industry standards software design (assembly, C) switching software encoding/decoding detection/estimation filters channel equalization troubleshooting Notes: 1) 95% of time to understand existing work, only 5% to implement new. 2) C seems to be the high-level language of choice. 3) Emphasis on digital communications and digital signal processing. ------- Responses from others: From: tedh@cylink.COM (Ted Hadley) Stan: I've had two jobs in datacom: former and current. I have a BSEE '83 UofAz. Former: Halley Systems, Inc. San Jose, CA (failed startup) Duties: Designed and implemented a non-source-routing Token-Ring bridge in local and multi-port remote flavors. I was project leader with 3 other engrs. My duties: Architecture design of software, hardware troubleshooting, designing and coding all low-level, utility, and systems software in 'C' and 80286 assembly for an AT-class PC (our base platform). Very little paperwork (this was the downfall: no specs meant little cohesion in the various modules of the design -- I was following my boses orders here, much to my dislike). Current: Cylink Corporation, Sunnyvale, CA (very successful small company) Duties: Much design and spec writing (yuck, but important). Many reviews of specs authored by others, interviewing new candidates, and significant software writing. I also do much of the troubleshooting of new hardware. The products I work on are all related to high-speed data encryption. I am not a project leader, but I _do_ consider myself a senior engineer. From: Thomas Lapp I work in telecommunications within my company (a Fortune 50 company), and work with a number of other people in information systems who do communications work. How's this for a list of things that a BSEE might do at one time or another?: o Voice networking. We have a fiber-optic network connecting all of the sites of our "campus" together which has T1 connections. EEs in our transport group take requests for end-to-end connectivity and design how it should be routed: local phone company, private fiber, private T1 muxs, etc. They also have to deal with how to back up circuits, how to handle new sites or a large influx, exflux of users/circuits, etc. o Data networking. Given the need to get a particular bandwidth data pipe from one computer to another, they design how to do it -- what set of equipment should be used, etc. They also look into future products and evaluate any potential use. o Data/Voice management. BSEE's design our networks. And part of that task is figuring out how to keep a handle on who is going where and pinpointing exactly where a problem is when it occurs. o Project management. I know one BSEE who was responsible for calling for RFPs, evaluating voicemail systems, choosing a particular vendor, and headed the project to install it and interface it with our existing telephone switches (PBXs). I could probably come up with some others, but those couple are off the top of my head. From: Robert_Bosse.DlosLC@xerox.com Stan, Hello. My name is Bob Bosse and I am an Engineer with Xerox Corp. in Dallas, TX (actually a business park area called Las Colinas that is in the city of Irving, TX but it's easier just to tell someone Dallas!) My job title is Manager, Technical Support. The following list defines job titles that we use here in Las Colinas for positions that "overlap" into Telecomm as well as being directly involved: Note: It might help to understand that I support only our own "internal" networks and systems (my "Customer" is Xerox) and that we are presently migrating into a tolal integaration of our internal voice and data systems throughout the U.S. Because of this, we are seeing a lot of "overlap" between the traditional "Telecom" and "Systems" functions. FTM - Field Telecom Manager & Sr Field Telecom Manager - This is a "Project" management position responsible for all "telecom" project planning and implementation throught the Southern Region. Technical Support Manager -This is another "Project" management position responsible for all "data systems" project planning and implementation throught the Southern Region. Systems Technology Specialist - New title for the "Technical Support Manager" above. System Analyst (IV, III, II, I, Sr, Systems Consultant) - Multi-grade position with ever increasing levels of responsibility and reduced supervision required. Responsible for project / program assisnments associated with coding, unit testing, system testing (which is primary responsibility here), documentation, test plans, project schedules, etc. Telecommunication Analyst (IV, III, II, I, Sr) - Responsible for monitoring and troubleshooting network / systems problems, equipment installations, configurations management, and operational documentation. The following "used" to reside here: Communications Network Specialist - Mainly associated with the data side of Telecom with responsibility for investigating / identifing network problems including Facsimile, PBX systems and other non-standard telephone interfaces. From: optilink!elliott@uunet.UU.NET (Paul Elliott x225) Stan- Here at Optilink/DSC, we design and manufacture a SONET (Synchronous Optical NETwork) - based digital loop carrier. This involves 155 Mbit/s optical interface, analog line and trunk interface, T1 (1.544 Mbit/s), ISDN, DDS, and other interface design, and lots of microcontroller and general high-speed logic design. Most of our engineers are BS with typically five to ten years of experience in the telecom field. We do have some engineers with only a few years in the field -- no fresh grads though. (I am non-degreed with about fifteen years of engineering experience.) Here are a few typical projects being worked on. (Mine:) Design of a peripheral interface card that transmits and receives a T1 digital trunk signal and maps it into the SONET format. The bulk of this consists of designing a CMOS gate-array that interfaces to the system backplane, performs rate-convertion and overhead termination and generation, timeslot mapping, and interface to an on-board micro- controller. The chip contains DSP filters and frequency synthesis circuitry. Other related tasks include locating and analyzing the relevant industry specifications, attending industry standards meetings, writing the architectural and functional specifications for the unit, and working with printed-circuit board designers, test engineers, and component engineers. (And supporting my existing designs.) Tools used include four computers in my office, and a hardware simulation accelerator. (Someone else, pretty senior guy:) Design a high-speed 4096 port time-slot interchanger (kind of a time-space crosspoint switch). This involves the design of a high-speed gate-array used to control banks of high-speed RAM. (Someone else, BSEE with a couple of years experience:) Design switching power-supply for use on remotely-powered line-card. This involves off-the-shelf ICs, custom transformer design, and the use of analog simulation tools (PSPICE, mostly). (Someone else, BSEE with five years experience:) Design analog line card detection circuitry, for use with proprietary signaling systems. All of these jobs involve documentation and working with other departments. Our design engineers all become heavily involved with the testing of the prototypes, and are proficient in the 'c' language (for use with the computers we hook up to the microcontrollers on the units we design), and use the standard tools of the trade, along with lots of telecom-specific test equipment. We hardly ever breadboard our designs, but go immediately into a PB board, and rely on lots of digital simulation. The power-supply and optical interface designers still do preliminary breadboarding though, due to the mostly analog nature of these areas. Hope this helps, Paul From: king@blue.rtsg.mot.com (Steven King, Software Archaeologist) Okay, I'll give you a little on my job. I'm a Software Engineer at Motorola, working on the EMX 500 family of cellular telephony switches. I graduated from Michigan Tech in 1988 with a BSEE. About a third of the software engineers here have EE degrees, the other two-thirds have computer science degrees. My job description is, roughly in order of priority: 1) Ferret out reported problems in our software 2) Discover fixes to the above problems 3) Provide assistance to other engineers doing similar work 4) Implement the fixes in software 5) Implement new features Finding where the bugs are requires a lot of time reading prinouts from customer sites, reading code, and futzing around in the lab trying to reproduce the situtations. This takes a lot of intuition and some solid knowledge about the way things work in our product. Once the problem is found the way to fix it usually pretty obvious. Implementing the fixes new features can be tricky, mainly because of limitations imposed by the existing code. It's not usually an option to tear out and re-write a module "the right way"; we've got schedules to meet, and just testing new code can take approximately forever! One piece of advice: If Motorola Cellular is any kind of example, 95% of all the work involves figuring out the way things *ALREADY* work and writing new code within the existing framework. Any schmuck can write code from scratch, but it takes real skill to successfully integrate a new feature into someone else's kludged-up, poorly documented code. From: jcarroll@craywr.cray.com (Jeff Carroll) I have a BSEE (1981) from Northwestern University and three years of part-time grad school, but no masters'. The graduate work was in electromagnetics, and thus not directly related to comm or DSP. Until I went into computer marketing recently, I worked on a variety of communication and DSP projects at Boeing. Among them: * writing and conducting test procedures for the AWACS system * designing and programming automatic test equipment for a radio factory * assisting in technical oversight of subcontractors and integration of their products into sophisticated spread-spectrum radio comm systems * investigating new approaches to airborne radio communications, including research and prototyping * doing system design of communication suites of military aircraft, including satellite link budgets, running and interpreting propagation models, and antenna design * designing and programming real-time DSP systems for a propagation experiment, and supporting them in the field * designing DSP architectures for radar processing Other things I've seen BSEEs doing: * marketing of DSP products * design of cellular mobile phone plant * consulting on low-voltage systems for buildings From: richard@cs.purdue.edu (Bryan Richardson) I think giving descriptions is a wonderful idea. When I was an undergrad, I didn't really have a clear idea what I might do when I graduated. The description below represents my particular division at Bell Labs. Of course, AT&T employs gobs of EEs in any number of positions. Hope this helps ... I work in the Development Planning of AT&T's 4 ESS (tm) switch, which acts as the backbone switching product of AT&T's long distance network. My job consists of working with AT&T Business Units to help define new products and features within the AT&T Worldwide Intelligent Network. Once a business need is identified, a technical implementation must be chosen, and system specifications and requirements must be developed. We then work with software and/or hardware engineers to implement these solutions. [Note: while it sounds and is largely a software-engineering type job, my office-mate, who did an almost identical job to mine, held a Ph.D. in EE] Stan Reeves Auburn University, Department of Electrical Engineering, Auburn, AL 36849 INTERNET: sjreeves@eng.auburn.edu   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29931; 8 Dec 91 19:52 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04772 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 8 Dec 1991 18:14:45 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17043 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 8 Dec 1991 18:14:33 -0600 Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1991 18:14:33 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199112090014.AA17043@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1005 TELECOM Digest Sun, 8 Dec 91 18:14:29 CST Volume 11 : Issue 1005 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson GTE Owns Dominican Republic Telco (was Strange Chatline) (Nigel Allen) Re: Long-Distance at Local Rates (Tony Harminc) Re: Long-Distance at Local Rates (Fred R. Goldstein) Re: Pay-per-Call Scam (Anthony E. Siegman) Re: Pay-per-Call Scam (Carl Moore) Need Brief Info on Frame Relay (DJH128@psuvm.psu.edu) Fax Machine Tried to Call Me Daily (Mark Ahlenius) Woman Abuses 911 - Gets Phone Disconnected (Jacob R. Deglopper) Are Phone Books Archived For Future Generations? (Gordon Grant) Re: How Illinois Bell Really Chose AC 708 (Carl Moore) Re: A Thousand of These Things! (Bob Izenberg) Re: A Thousand of These Things! (Robert J. Woodhead) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1991 09:52:15 -0500 From: Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.fidonet.org (Nigel Allen) Subject: GTE Owns Dominican Republic Telco (was Strange Chatline) ctuttle@taronga.com (Colin Tuttle) writes: > In TELECOM Digest volume 11 issue 974 Jack Decker mentioned a chat > line in the 809-544 area code and prefix. I checked with MCI and > found the number to be in Santo Domingo in the Dominican Republic. > They told me the call would be .94 for the first minute and .64 for > each additional minute, during the Economy time (after 10 PM in the > evenings). > Those are some hefty phone charges ... similar to the domestic 900 > chatlines. This could give the local phone company in the Dominican > Republic a bit of money to pass on to the chat line provider, as PAT > had suggested. Those of you who deal with GTE will not be surprised to hear that the phone company in the Dominican Republic, Compania Dominica de Telefonos (Codetel), is indirectly owned by GTE. I suspect it's even more horrible than GTE's California operation. For reasons that aren't clear to me, GTE's interest in GTE is held through a Montreal-based holding company, Anglo-Canadian Telephone Company, which also owns just over half of Quebec-Telephone, based in Rimouski, and about 40% of the British Columbia Telephone Company. A further 10% of B.C. Tel is held by GTE International, giving the GTE group just over 50% of B.C. Tel. This information is as of a few years ago, but as far as I know it's still correct. Nigel Allen - via FidoNet node 1:250/98 INTERNET: Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Dec 91 13:25:20 EST From: Tony Harminc Subject: Re: Long-Distance at Local Rates On Tue, 03 Dec 91 17:52 EST "Peng_H.Ang" <20017ANG@msu.edu> wrote: > The Japanese telecommunications company, Nippon Telegraph and > Telephone (NTT) In January 1991 began R&D of ATM. Their partners are: > Fujitsu, Hitachi, NEC, OKI, Mitsubishi, Toshiba (all Japanese), AT&T > (USA), Northern Telecom (Canadian company that has a HQ in Washington > and so is called American), and Siemens (German). Northern Telecom has become expert at chameleon-like behavior. When in Canada it proclaims its Canadian identity (majority owned by Bell Canada, etc.) When in the US it neatly forgets its roots and claims to be an American company (even the president is a US citizen). A couple of years ago NT managed to have both the US and Canadian governments supporting it as "one of ours" when trying to sell switches to Japan. Tony Harminc ------------------------------ From: goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) Subject: Re: Long-Distance at Local Rates Date: 5 Dec 91 21:24:36 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA In article , 20017ANG@msu.edu (Peng_H. Ang) writes: > The Japanese are really interested in ATM because of high- definition > TV (HDTV). Their HDTV signals require greater bandwidth so they are > looking for transmission technology that would allow them to reduce > costs. Indeed, ATM people are very interested in HDTV as an application. > I pointed out that a call going 100 miles would use up more plant > and equipment than a call going 50 miles. We went around in circles > on that for a while and he finally said that mine was the layman's > view while he was offering an engineer's perspective. Also, and this > is the kicker, *all* the smaller competitive carriers were afraid of > ATM. Engineers where he comes from must have a terrible sense of direction! > Meanwhile, because they believe that ATM will wipe out the smaller > carriers, NTT has set a five-year deadline for ATM deployment in > exchange and transmission systems. > Goldstein observes that "we'll be paying LD rates for local traffic, > not the other way around." From a policy perspective, this raises > interesting questions: is this what happens with true competition in > telecommunications? Is it the long-distance carriers or the RBOCs who > are out of business? In America, all of the major LD carriers are excited about ATM, while the local telcos are in less of a hurry. Since AT&T and MCI will be able to offer ATM next year (using dedicated T3 access lines), it'll be a "bypass" (of a sort) technology. The RBOCs are, of course, free to compete within their LATAs, but their investment model is different. If the cost per CO is high, then RBOCs need a very dense population to justify adding ATM (or anything else) to many little COs. LD carriers have relatively few COs (POPs), so it's cheaper for them to introduce new switched services. LD carriers spend more on long-haul transmission and less on switching (relatively) than RBOCs. So the RBOCs aren't totally sticks in the mud. They have some economic reason for not offering local ATM until demand grows more widespread. NTT has both LD and local services, so they have a different competitive model. Any big new investment probably raises the cost of entry, protecting the entrenched market entrant(s), here NTT. Fred R. Goldstein goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 486 7388 ------------------------------ From: Anthony E. Siegman Subject: Re: Pay-per-Call Scam Organization: Stanford University Date: Wed, 4 Dec 91 18:56:51 GMT > Some person or group is calling people's electronic pagers, and giving > a call-back number of 212-540-xxxx. (This prefix in New York acts > just like a 900 number.) When the callee dials 212-540-xxxx, s/he is > connected to a recording and is billed $55. Dear Mr. Moderator: I ask you once again: How can anyone argue that a contractual relationship, an agreement to pay, can ever be created SIMPLY BY DIALING A PHONE NUMBER, without _any_ _previous_ agreement between the two parties? It's legally absurd (not to mention bad public policy). The callee has NOT entered into ANY contract with answering party, and can't possibly be considered to owe them anything. Right? AES [Moderator's Note: Although the added charges resulting from calls to 900/976/540-like services is in a gray area, there is no question whatsoever about your 'agreement to pay simply by dialing a phone number'. When you subscribe to telephone service from any telco, you are bound by federal and state tariffs which govern telco operations. One such tariff of every telco says that you are responsible for the use of your instruments. Period. Would you agree that a contract (and only a verbal one at that) exists if you specifically request some service (ie a connection) verbally from an operator? The dial tone is telco's solicitation for your service request; your spinning the dial or pressing the buttons is your response. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Dec 91 15:32:41 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Pay-per-Call Scam Please note that the Moderator's Note left out area code 516, found in the Long Island suburbs (NYC area). [Moderator's Note: Alright already. The point was the 212-540/pager scam works from NYC and environs. It does not work elsewhere, and the various memoranda being distributed at present merely contribute to a new Urban Legend. My thanks also to several other writers who made comments on this new Urban Legend, discouraging the repetition of the story. PAT] ------------------------------ From: DJH128@psuvm.psu.edu Organization: Penn State University Date: Thursday, 5 Dec 1991 17:36:20 EST Subject: Need Brief Info on Frame Relay Need brief rundown on Frame Relay. What is it? Where is it available? Advantages? Disadvantages? Thanks in advance. Shawn ------------------------------ From: motcid!ahlenius@uunet.uu.net (Mark Ahlenius) Subject: Fax Machine Tried to Call Me Daily Date: 5 Dec 91 14:15:37 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL I had a very bad experience with the phone number that our friends at Illinois Bell gave me when I moved to our new house. As it turned out every evening at 10:27 pm we would get a call from some machine. Thanks to help from this group, it turned out to be a fax machine trying to poll another fax machine at my number. I called Illinois Bell and they told me that a trap would cost me money to catch this pesty device. So I borrowed another fax machine and tried to catch the faxer, hoping that its cover sheet would reveal who it was and then I could call the folks and kindly request them to change one of the stored numbers in their machine so it would not call me anymore. Well the calling fax machine must have been looking for some password or ID, so my trap never worked. Fed up with things I called Illinois Bell and worked myself up through a few supervisors till I got someone who was sympathetic with my problem and dilemma. They first offered to change my number, but since we had already published it to a large number of friends and businesses, I declined. They then told me that the previous "owner" of that number (Mr and Mrs. X) had a similar problem, and that it was some bank fax machine that was the culprit. Apparently their efforts to catch and correct the problem failed. They had their number changed and that cleared that. Well, Illinois Bell let the number lie dormant for six months or so, and then when I requested phone service, gave it to me. So I then told them that this was "their" problem not mine. They gave me a number with a problem attached to it. They finally agreed to put a trap on the line at no charge to me. Within a few days of me calling them and telling them, we received the last call from this phantom fax. Mark Ahlenius voice:(708)-632-5346 email: uunet!motcid!ahleniusm Motorola Inc. fax: (708)-632-2413 Arlington, Hts. IL, USA 60004 [Moderator's Note: One major bank here in Chicago almost created an international incident by their irresponsible use of a Fax machine a few years ago. They had the machine programmed to call some number in (then) West Germany at 8 PM our time five nights per week to transmit some sort of report to their agent in that country. But they had the wrong number in the dialing sequence. The machine was to dial over and over again until it got through. So at 2 AM in Germany, a family got calls from a Fax machine in Chicago once a minute or so for about an hour until the machine would finally give up trying. This went on for about two weeks until Bundespost got AT&T to get on Illinois Bell's case and figure it out. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jrd5@po.CWRU.Edu (Jacob R. Deglopper) Subject: Woman Abuses 911 - Gets Phone Disconnected Reply-To: jrd5@po.CWRU.Edu (Jacob R. Deglopper) Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 91 21:55:20 GMT I'm familar with several cases of what are more or less abuses of the 911 system. There are some people who will call 911 for no other reason than that they are lonely and need someone to talk to. One woman in Oklahoma had a local ambulance stopping by her house each afternoon just to talk with her and drink tea. She wouldn't call if they stopped by, and they had the spare time. On the other hand, there was a woman in my rescue squad's area who would call at least once a week at three in the morning, and claim to be having trouble breathing. When we got there, she would always be sitting on the porch smoking, and her problem would miraculously clear itself up after five minutes, at which time she would refuse to go to the hospital. The calls finally ceased when, after months of being spoken to by both our duty officer and the county police had no effect on her, C & P disconnected her service. We got a few calls from her using her neighbor's phones, but nowhere near what the volume used to be. _/acob DeGlopper, EMT-A, Wheaton Volunteer Rescue Squad jrd5@po.cwru.edu -- Biomedical Engineering '95, Case Western Reserve Opinions my own... ------------------------------ From: gg@jet.uk (gordon grant) Subject: Are Phone Books Archived For Future Generations? Organization: Joint European Torus Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1991 12:29:23 GMT I am interested in researching my family's history, and use a wide variety of sources to piece together the social history of the time. It struck me that future generations doing the same thing would find telephone directories a useful source of information. They are neatly indexed in alphabetical order and while a two year old book ain't much good a fifty year old one would be interesting. So do any communities or countries kept old phone just because one day they will be very old.? gg@jet.uk Gordon Grant Jet Abingdon OX14 3EA UK Voice +44 235 528822 x4822 Fax +44 235 464404 Disclaimer: Please note that the above is a personal view and should not be construed as an official comment from the JET project. [Moderator's Note: The Chicago Public Library has the alphabetical directories of Illinois Bell (and its pre-1923 predecessor Chicago Telephone Company) on microfilm back to 1879. I think IBT also has quite a few old directories on microfilm also. Most large metropolitan area libraries keep the old directories on film. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Dec 91 16:15:23 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: How Illinois Bell Really Chose AC 708 The article mentions "every [UK] area code will be prefixed with a 1". But the only instructions listed are for calls within the UK and for calls from the UK to abroad. What does that new "1" mean for calls from abroad to the UK? In the case of your number, would it mean: access code + 44 + 1223 462 131 (i.e. insert that new "1") or access code + 44 + 223 462 131 (i.e. ignore that new "1", which would only affect calls within the UK)? ------------------------------ From: bei@dogface.austin.tx.us (Bob Izenberg) Subject: Re: A Thousand of These Things Date: Thu, 5 Dec 91 5:20:29 CST In Issue 1000, the proud parent wrote: > Four years ago we had 200+ issues per year, and two years ago we had > 603 issues. Where will it end? With a teletype in my living room, or the All-Telecom Channel on cable. :-) Bob DOMAIN-WISE: bei@dogface.austin.tx.us BANG-WISE: ...cs.utexas.edu!dogface!bei ------------------------------ From: trebor@foretune.co.jp (Robert J Woodhead) Subject: Re: A Thousand of These Things! Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1991 03:31:07 GMT telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: > Four years ago we had 200+ issues per year, and two years ago we had > 603 issues. Where will it end? Only when you go to that big telephone exchange in the sky, Patrick, where the lines are never busy, you never get put on hold, and long- distance is free. [sorry, but what a straight line, really ...] OBTELECOMJOKE The leader of the Mormons visits the Pope. During the audience he notices a shiny red telephone and inquires. "Oh, thats my direct line to God, just installed" says the Pope, "go ahead and give him a ring." The Mormon does so and chats for about 5 minutes. After the call he asks, "How much do I owe you?" The Pope tells him it's about a dollar a minute. A few months later the Pope pays a return visit to Utah. During the audience he notes the presence of an identical phone. "It was such a good idea I had one of my own installed," he is told," go ahead and use it." After the call, the Pope inquires as to how much he owes. "Nothing, it's a local call from here!" (Disclaimer: I'm neither a Mormon nor a Catholic, nor do I play one on TV) Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp [Moderator's Note: Thanks to everyone who send notes responding to this comment. There were far too many to be included here. I found out just recently from an article written by a Socially Responsible person in CuD that I am a toad, and I thank him for his input also. It does me good to be abused occassionally! PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1005 *******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06846; 8 Dec 91 23:52 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10392 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 8 Dec 1991 19:41:06 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01499 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 8 Dec 1991 19:40:47 -0600 Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1991 19:40:47 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199112090140.AA01499@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1006 TELECOM Digest Sun, 8 Dec 91 19:40:38 CST Volume 11 : Issue 1006 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: TV Show Ignores Risks of Radio Phones (Tim Tyler) Re: IMTS Mobile Phones (John Gilbert) Re: How Does a Cellphone Duplex? (Rob Warnock) Re: Panasonic KX-T3910 Info Wanted (Cordless Phone Security) (Tad Cook) Re: Wrong Numbers (Brian Matthews) Re: A Thousand of These Things (Richard Budd) Re: Intra-Lata LD Using PC Pursuit (Bob Peterson) Re: How Do I Contact PC Pursuit? (John Stanley) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: tim@ais.org (Tim Tyler) Subject: Re: TV Show Ignores Risks of Radio Phones Date: Wed, 04 Dec 91 22:14:20 EST Organization: UMCC In article king@blue.rtsg.mot.com (Steven King) writes: > nelson@cheetah.ece.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) writes: >> The screenwriter blew it, though. Instead of pointing out the >> insecurity of wireless communication, the Bad Guy had bugged the home >> office, and that end of the conversation had been overheard that way. > And, from the Bad Guy's point of view, wiretapping the home office is > much, MUCH easier. After all, the Bad Guy knew Our Heroine would > eventually phone home, right? He could just bug the office and wait. > If he had tried to tap the cellular transmissions he'd have had to > find the particular cell and frequency Our Heroine was using, which > would be difficult or at least time-consuming. Then, if she moved to > another cell in mid-conversation, he'd have to start over! > Cellphones are insecure, but not *that* insecure. Ho-hum, if you worked for Ma Bell, you'd be sprouting the party-line about how it is difficult to "wiretap." I knew after reading the first few lines of your response that you had to be connected with the cellular industry ... If you know the location of the target, it isn't tough to figure out what cell their conversation would most likely be using. It is easy to come up with the channel/frequency matrix used by cells, too, so it isn't like the bad guy would have to search thru 869.040MHz to 894MHz. It isn't too tough to have a physical surveillance on a target, and kick in some electronic surveillance by simply attenuating the gain on your receiver, and searching thru the CMT input frequencies until you locate the input frequency the target is using, then just add 45MHz to the input frequency to get the full-duplex output. It isn't tough to do at all. In fact, it is much simpler and in most cases less expensive then gaining physical access to a building, finding the right circuit pair, and covertly attaching some sort of device that would provide real-time intelligence. > The insecurity of a cellphone mostly comes from random people scanning > random channels. You can easily listen in to some random A lot of the insecurity comes from public ignorance, which the cellular phone industry uses to their advantage. Once the digital systems start to come on-line, the cellular industry will switch tactics, and start talking about how non-secure/vulnerable the 'old' analog CMTs are, and how people that want privacy (who doesn't?) should dump their old CMTs, and spend $1500+ on the digital ones ... > I'd say the screenwriter called this one pretty well, whether or not > they knew it. Bad Guys are a lazy bunch, and it's just too darned > much work to trail someone and constantly scan for their cellphone! I didn't watch the TV show in question, but apparently you think it is easier to find, access, tap, and monitor a particular office phone than it is to use a little 800MHz scanner and follow someone in a car? Tim Tyler Internet: tim@ais.org MCI Mail: 442-5735 C$erve: 72571,1005 P.O. Box 443 Packet: KA8VIR @KA8UNZ.#SEMI.MI.USA.NA Ypsilanti MI 48197-0443 ------------------------------ From: johng.all_proj@ecs.comm.mot.com (John) Subject: Re: IMTS Mobile Phones Organization: Motorola, Inc. Land Mobile Products Sector Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1991 02:19:05 GMT In article sprouse@n3igw.pgh.pa.us (Ken Sprouse) writes: >> I recall these mobile phones selling for about $1500-$2500 used back >> in 1980 -- and in some areas, someone literally had to die before a >> mobile phone number would become available.... > Very true! I knew of a Westinghouse corporate executive who waited > for over two years for a moble phone number. He told me that had he > not been with circle W (lots of pull in the Pittsburgh area) he would > not have gotten it when he did. Often times mobile numbers would be obtained in unpopulated rural areas in the midwest for use in the more populated cities. This created even more congestion in the cities. While working for a two-way shop in Florida I programmed several IMTS car phones for Kansas/Nebraska area codes. These guys lived in Florida and had these numbers because that was their only choice. The roaming information was kept on a common data base that allowed easy roaming all over the country. Land-to-mobile calls had to be operator handled, but that was a small price to pay. These IMTS car phones were programmed by using wire jumpers to program the area code and last four digits of the local phone number. As a result of this, only 10,000 IMTS phones can exist per area code. Changing a number was as simple as opening up the radio and moving the wires. John Gilbert johng@ecs.comm.mot.com KA4JMC Secure and Advanced Conventional Sys Div Astro Systems Development Motorola Inc, Land Mobile Products Sector Schaumburg, Illinois ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Dec 91 07:16:17 GMT From: rpw3@rigden.wpd.sgi.com (Rob Warnock) Subject: Re: How Does a Cellphone Duplex? Reply-To: rpw3@sgi.com (Rob Warnock) Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA Jim.Rees@umich.edu writes: > How does a cellphone duplex its antenna for send and receive? A > traditional cavity duplexor wouldn't fit in a shirt-pocket phone, even > at 800 MHz. Even if it would, it wouldn't be frequency-agile enough. Surprise! It's a pretty traditional duplexor! Made out of stripline, to be sure, but about what you'd expect. However, remember that the transmit and receive frequencies are 832 channels apart, so it's not as hard as if they were co-frequency. Rob Warnock, MS-1L/515 rpw3@sgi.com Silicon Graphics, Inc. (415)335-1673 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd. Mountain View, CA 94039-7311 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Panasonic KX-T3910 Information Wanted (Cordless Phone Security) From: tad@ssc.wa.com (Tad Cook) Date: 5 Dec 91 23:57:22 GMT Michael.Rosen@samba.acs.unc.edu (Michael Rosen) says: > I used to use a Southwestern Bell Freedom Phone that had a dip-switch > security code system. At times I could pick up other conversations > without them hearing me, which I assumed was due to the security code > -- they couldn't cut in on my phone but I could on theirs. Is this a > correct assumption? No! All the security code does is provide some sort of protection against other parties randomly accessing your dialtone and making unrestricted calls on your phone line. There is no fancy voice scrambling or any other kind of encryption going on. > Should I feel reasonably safe that no one will overhear my phone > calls on this Panasonic phone? No! Any cordless phone call can be easily monitored by anyone in the area, sometimes blocks away, who has a cheap VHF scanner radio tuned to the ten frequencies at 46 MHz that are assigned to the base units of cordless telephones. They can be listening much further away than you would normally operate the remote handset, so it is easy to get fooled by the range of these things. Depending on the cordless phone, the local RF environment and the placement of the base unit, sometimes monitoring can be done from over a quarter mile away. Privacy of cordless phone calls is specifically not protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If anyone is curious about what the frequency pairs are, email me and I'll send you a list. Some of the ten frequencies in the 49 Mhz band which serves the remote handset part of the unit are also shared with those Radio Shack room monitors, Fisher Price nursery monitors, and kids' walkie talkies. Tad Cook | Phone: 206-527-4089 | MCI Mail: 3288544 Seattle, WA | Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA | 3288544@mcimail.com | USENET: tad@ssc.wa.com or...sumax!ole!ssc!tad ------------------------------ From: 6sigma2@polari!sumax.seattleu.edu (Brian Matthews) Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers Organization: Seattle Online Public Access Unix (206) 328-4944 Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1991 17:17:09 GMT In article John Higdon writes: > For some reason, people who get a wrong number are hard to convince > that they could have dialed wrong ... > And for the most part they are very rude. Lately, I have noticed an > upsurge of wrong numbers on all of my voice-answerable lines. I thought I was the only one. Recently I've been getting far more wrong numbers than I ever have before. I've got the same number I've had for at least ten years, and there doesn't seem to be one specific person everyone is looking for. Every once in a while, one of the callers will be nice and apologize for distrubing me. Most of them are rude and obnoxious. > Now someone tell me: why, making forty or fifty calls a day, do I not > ever remember reaching a wrong number (at least in the past few > years), and yet I receive five to ten of them a day? The only time I can recall dialing a wrong number is when I was given a wrong number by someone. I only had to dial it once to realize it was wrong (unlike some people who insist on calling three or four times within a few minutes, even though I told them the first time that they got the number they were dialing but the party they are looking for isn't and has never been at this number). I guess I've never understood the difficulty in dialing a telephone. Brian L. Matthews blm@6sceng.UUCP [Moderator's Note: Why not use the Townson Plan For Rude Wrong Number Callers? I just use *69 to get them back on the line and say something like "uh, what did you want? you just called me." "Oh," they say, "I got a wrong number, sorry." I ask them in the future to say that automatically, without waiting for a callback. Since *69 only works within the 312/708 area, I don't worry that it might be a long distance call. The number of people who do not yet know about *69 is quite amazing, based on the number of 'how did you know who I was' replies I get from the people I call back and intimidate. :) PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Dec 91 17:30:11 EST From: "Richard Budd" Subject: Re: A Thousand of These Things! The Moderator writes in TELECOM DIGEST #1000: > Who would have expected TELECOM Digest to ever reach the point there > would be in excess of 1000 issues each year? It's a sign that TELECOMMUNICATIONS has become a CRITICAL issue in the Information Age. You also have many more subscribers receiving these newsletter than before, hence more contributors. The problem now is TELECOM is time-consuming to read that I and others must be more selective about which articles to look at. Some days the whole packet has to be deleted ... there is too much happening. Suggestions on how to scan for articles of interest would be well appreciated. (You may already have some, I'm sure.) Richard Budd Internet: rcbudd@rhqvm19.vnet.ibm.com IBM Sterling Forest Bitnet: klub@maristb.bitnet [Moderator's Note: I strongly encourage *selective* reading of TELECOM Digest. I don't know anyone who actually reads it all and absorbs it. I liken it to reading the daily newspaper. You don't cancel your subscription to the paper merely because you never read every single article in the paper. I use relatively little of what is received, and yet there still is a huge output as you have seen. Use software tools at your disposal to selectively find articles of interest. Use the index which appears at the start of each issue. If reading comp.dcom. telecom (like any other Usenet group) then use the '=' command which scans new article titles to select only the ones of interest. I try like a newspaper editor to have things here for everyone, not actually expecting everyone to read everything (except Moderator Notes of course, those are mandatory reading.) :) PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Intra-Lata LD Using PC Pursuit From: peterson@ZGNEWS.LoneStar.Org (Bob Peterson) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 91 19:40:08 CST Organization: The Zeitgeist BBS, Plano, TX 214 596 3720 /PN=GLORIA.C.VALLE/O=GTE/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/@sprint.com writes: > [Moderator's Note: You can get on and off of PC Pursuit in the same > city, although they discourage it since it ties up two ports and as we > have been reading here, they are not authorized to sell service within > the same LATA. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I don't understand why PC Pursuit falls under the same regulations as a long distance telephone company. I understood PCP offered offpeak time on a packet-switched data network, quite independent of the switched telephone service used for each end of the connection. That is, PCP never was a part of the "telephone" network, but a distinct entity. Your logic would imply the Internet could not send a message between two machines in the same city! Bob Peterson Waffle BBS: peterson@ZGNEWS.LoneStar.org P.O. Box 861686 Internet: peterson@csc.ti.com TelCo: 214 995-6080 days Plano, Tx USA 75086 BBS: 214 596-3720 @1200, 2400, 9600-14400 (HST & V.32bis) [Moderator's Note: Good point. I think you are correct and I stand corrected. Telenet has in the past objected to same-city calling over their network and it does not make a lot of sense to do it since you have to pay telco for a call to the PCP indial anyway ... why not just dial the desired seven digit number instead. PAT] ------------------------------ From: stanley@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) Subject: Re: How Do I Contact PC Pursuit? Organization: Oregon State University, College of Oceanography Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1991 15:21:42 GMT In article stanley@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes: > Before you sign up for this service, be very sure you want it. > [Moderator's Note: My experience with PCP has been a bit different. I don't doubt that. > I've been a subscriber since approximatly a week after the service > began in 1984. Billing was offered originally, and as might be > expected, it was fraught with problems, not the least of which was > fraud aplenty. So, are you saying that PC Pursuit's ability to commit fraud is more important than mine? They now have an open line into my credit card, and have open lines into many people's checking accounts. Think about it this way: if PC Pursuit doesn't trust me to pay my bill, why should I trust them not to clean out my checking account were I stupid enough to give them that number? > I find PCP to be an extremely useful and > economical method of placing data calls long distance. Regardless of > how newer users are required to pay, where else can you get long I didn't say otherwise. > distance data transmission for $1 per hour (or 83 cents per hour under > the $50 per month plan?). PAT] $50 for 50 hours is $1/hour. [Moderator's Note: It is not a question of their ability to commit fraud being more important than yours ... it is the fact that the likelyhood of them committing fraud which goes undetected and without restitution being made is much less than the likelyhood of their customers doing the same to them ... present readership excepted, of course. They have been in a fixed location for many years and the 'audit trail' left by their billing/bookkeeping practices is easy to follow. Unfortunatly the same cannot be said about all their 'customers' in the past, some of whom ripped them off repeatedly with bogus names, addresses and phone numbers for a couple years prior to the changes they implemented. Under the old system, you opened an account and said 'bill me'. They in good faith issued a user ID and password to you that day ... then they never heard from you again and the mail would bounce from the post office after you (and others you gave the password to) had used the service for several hundred hours over a couple months. If you like the present arrangement, thank the phreaks for making it possible! PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1006 *******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14496; 9 Dec 91 3:25 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25642 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 9 Dec 1991 01:36:05 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22728 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 9 Dec 1991 01:35:52 -0600 Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1991 01:35:52 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199112090735.AA22728@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1007 TELECOM Digest Mon, 9 Dec 91 01:35:43 CST Volume 11 : Issue 1007 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: E-Mail Link to Japan (John Higdon) Re: E-Mail Link to Japan (Robert J. Woodhead) Re: E-Mail Link to Japan (Robert L. McMillin) Re: ISDN on BBC (Alan Boritz) Re: Michigan Bell Pulls a Fast One (Jack Decker) Re: Non-PacBell Calls in SF Bay Area LATA? (Jack Decker) Re: Panasonic KX-T3910 Information Wanted (Richard McCombs) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 8 Dec 91 18:36 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: E-Mail Link to Japan b12635@ged.gedlab.allied.com (Phil Tait, (602) 231-7104) writes: > ... apparently from a location from Japan. If postings to this > newsgroup must be mailed to the Moderator, how was this done in the > absence of Internet E-mail connectivity to that country? Or is this no > longer the case? Depends on what you mean by "The Internet". There are many private individuals and companies who have e-mail links between locations in the United States and Japan. Many of these people and organizations also have Internet connectivity. If you look closely, you will notice a number of people who participate in this forum from Japan, as did I when in Tokyo earlier this year. In my case, the trans-Pacific hop was accomplished by a private company. Even this site has private connectivity with a site in Japan. Most of these gateways are documented in the UUCP maps. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: trebor@foretune.co.jp (Robert J Woodhead) Subject: Re: E-Mail Link to Japan Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1991 04:07:12 GMT b12635@ged.gedlab.allied.com (Phil Tait, (602) 231-7104) writes: [asking about email to Japan] > [Moderator's Note: We receive a number of submissions from Mr. Woodhead > here and they come through with no difficulty, so my assumption is > that email works as well from Japan as anywhere else. I know the > Digest goes to a couple sites there which have telecom news groups. PAT] Newsgroups are widely distributed in Japan. There are two main email links, one through Bitnet (supposedly, for academic use only) and one through "INET-CLUB," which basically dials up the USA and charges the Japanese senders/recipients for the costs of the calls. Also, in the near future, a consortium here is arranging to put up a proper inter- net link. In addition, inside Japan there are a number of "fj" newsgroups and mailing lists, both in English and Kanji, that are not distributed outside of Japan because they contain information that scrutable westerners are not meant to know. Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 8 Dec 91 20:09:58 PST From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) Subject: Re: E-Mail Link to Japan Phil Tait asks about Internet connectivity to Japan: > ... apparently from a location from Japan. If postings to this > newsgroup must be mailed to the Moderator, how was this done in the > absence of Internet E-mail connectivity to that country? Or is this no > longer the case? According to my copy of _!%@:: A Directory of Electronic Mail Addressing and Networks_ (Donnalyn Frey/Rick Adams; O'Reilly & Associates, Inc., 2nd Edition, May 1990), Japan has *several* links to the Internet, including the WIDE Internet link, JUNET (which connects to EUnet, USENET, UUCPnet, CSNET, and Internet), among about a dozen or so. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Oct 91 07:49:34 EDT From: Alan.Boritz@f306.n269.z1.fidonet.org (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: ISDN on BBC In an article Harold Hallikainen writes: > In article bei@dogface.austin.tx.us (Bob > Izenberg) writes: >> Speaking of heavy signal >> processing, I remember going to a New York SBE meeting and getting a >> tour of Andy Alford's multiplexor antenna. >> station's segments of the multiplexor had common household fans aimed >> at their exposed innards. Each of the stations with a fan punched up >> the bass and used companding. It was amusing to watch a VU meter >> measure their audio level: Never more than a 4db change in amplitude. >> (PPM metering told a much different story, however.) > I don't think "punched up bass and companding" would make the use of > a fan necessary on the multiplexor. The fans are made necessary because of seasonally high ambient temperatures within the mooring mast, since there is no ventilation system installed in that area of the building. The apparent sloppiness is a testimonial to something other than "ingenuity," since a few clever station "engineers" rigged more asthetically pleasing muffin fans under the reject loads. When I last inspected them in August, the "household fans" were gone and most of the muffin fans were seized or burned out. The extra fans were merely a precautionary measure, since the reject loads should be well within manufacturer's tolerance during normal operation. The system was designed with thermostatic switches and optional fans for the diplexor cavities, but it appears that after the power increase project in the 70's all thermostatic switches were gone in favor of everyone running their cavity cooling fans continuously. Unfortunately, that also means that the interlock has no temperature sense, but at least 10 of the 11 stations on the system have a VSWR alarm that will shut down all the stations in the event of a VSWR fault. However, none of the stations use "companding," just a garden variety of contemporary broadcast audio processors. I would hope the original writer wasn't referring to the uncalibrated reject load reflectometers as "VU" meters, since they look similar and are mounted on the diplexor supports. > The power on an FM should be > independent of the modulation, unless real high frequencies modulate > real heavily, going outside the bandbass of the multiplexor, which I > don't think was the case. Well, the last AEL transmitter in the US is still there, though not in daily use. Just fire up one of Arno Meyer's old half-finished AEL exciters into that thing and you'll see LOT'S of heat! ;-) Incidently, speaking of FM's and high temperatures, the system failure earlier this year wasn't caused by air temperature at all. The neoprene sleeve inside one of the diplexors (through which a tuning bullet slides) shrunk, allowing dust and dirt to enter the inside of one of the diplexor cavities and deposit itself within one of the RF hybrids. An arc across the contamination started it burning, and the rest is history. Funny thing was that Alford identified precisely that problem about 20 years earlier (even the section that recently burned), and presented a method of preventing it from happening. Needless to say, it was never followed, even though all of the stations received a copy of the inspection report. Sure gives you a warm fuzzy feeling to know that radio stations in the nation's largest radio market know their business so well, eh? ;-) Alan Boritz former Telecom Manager, Empire State Building alan.boritz@hourglas.fidonet.org * The Hourglass BBS * +1 201 612 0559 * Fidonet: 1:2604/101.0@fidonet.org 1:269/399.0@fidonet.org UUCP: tronsbox!hourgls!%s Internet: %s@hourglas.fidonet.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Dec 91 22:22:12 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: Michigan Bell Pulls a Fast One In a message dated 27 Nov 91 17:26:12 GMT, 71336.1270@CompuServe.COM (tim gorman) writes: > goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) writes in TELECOM > Digest V11 #971: >> While it's true that some tiny teeny amount of the telco's cost is >> related to local USAGE, it probably costs them more to measure it than >> the usage itself costs. >> The cost of hauling a LOCAL call usually ranges from about a penny a >> minute (in the highest-cost places) down to a small fraction of a mil >> per minute. So the proposed rates are literally ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE >> higher than the costs! > Exactly the same equipment, facilities, etc. are used on toll calls, > both intraLATA and interLATA. Technically, there is no difference > between the costs for an interLATA carrier and an LEC to provide their > network switches. Facility milage, of course, has a much wider range > but many interLATA toll calls are no longer than intraLATA toll calls. > Would you thus apply the same logic to toll calls? Is it a ripoff that > they are priced based on usage? Well, since you asked ... In some respects I DO in fact think it's a bit of a ripoff, and is becoming more and more so as technological advances yield greater circuit capacity at far lower cost. The problem is that some parts of the telephone system are still a monopoly and therefore they can still dictate how a call must be charged by the way they set their charges. Let's suppose for a moment that a company like MCI or Sprint were suddenly allowed to compete at the local exchange level. At that point they could offer end-to-end service, without the necessity of paying "per-minute" access charges to a local exchange carrier. At that point, they just might decide (especially if they have a LOT of excess circuit capacity) to offer some sort of flat-rate off-peak calling plan for residential users ... for example, pay a flat $50 a month and talk to anyone in the country, as long as you like, between (let's say) 8 PM and 8 AM and all day Saturday. Note that in this case, although there would be a time-of-day restriction, the calls themselves would not be charged based on usage. I think such a plan could be a very profitable one for a long distance carrier, but we'll never know because the local exchange companies keep insisting that somehow they have a commodity that can be "used up" in some sense. The ONE thing that is different about toll calls (I'll consider only intraLATA toll calls here) is that there may in fact be a finite amount of circuit capacity between two points that could conceivably be (and at present sometimes is) exceeded during heavy calling periods. However, most local exchanges have traditionally been designed with sufficient capacity to handle local calling volumes, including normal amounts of "extended area service" calls to adjacent exchanges. What really gets me is that, at least in this area, most of the interexchange trunking has been replaced with fiber-optic cabling in recent months. Where in the past, there might have been 20 or 200 circuits between a given pair of exchanges, now there is several thousand ... MORE than enough to handle ANY anticipated call volume and then some ... and if by some odd chance more capacity is needed, you simply hang newer eqipment on each end of the fiber that is capable of pushing even more calls through the same fiber. For the past fifty years or so, when the phone companies were dealing with metallic cable or microwave for interexchange connections, and had only a limited number of circuits available, they were perfectly able to offer flat-rate service within a local calling area. Now all of a sudden they have this marvelous increase in capacity, and suddenly they feel the need to charge by the call and/or by the minute! Why? Not because the have the NEED to do so, but because new computerized equipment gives them the CAPABILITY to do so. It all kind of reminds me of the German barons who used to build castles along the river and then set up lines across the river to stop any ships that happened along, and then charge hefty tolls to the hapless captains before they could proceed. On the one hand, I suppose you could say that the barons "owned" the river ... BUT, in no way were their costs increased when a ship passed; they just saw an opportunity to take money from someone else and they did it. The phone companies are doing the exact same thing, in my opinion. They could run a profitable system while charging everyone only a flat monthly charge, as they did for many years (for local calls), but GREED gets in the way. When AT&T first introduced outgoing WATS lines back in the mid-60's, you could purchase a flat rate option. For example, you could pay about $2,000 per month for a "Band 5" WATS line (all of the continental U.S. except your home state). This was later discontinued BUT I have to think that if there had been other competitors around at the time, not only might that option still be available but it would likely be priced much more reasonably. So to answer your question directly, I definitely think that LOCAL measured service is a ripoff, and there ARE times when I think that the lack of availablilty of flat-rate toll options may also constitute a ripoff as well. Just because flat-rate toll options have only rarely been offered in the past doesn't mean they couldn't be, and you wouldn't dare cite traditional pricing in this context anyway unless you wanted us to consider that local flat-rate service has been available in most areas since phone servive began! Jack Decker jack@myamiga.mixcom.com FidoNet 1:154/8 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Dec 91 22:31:48 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: Non-PacBell Calls in SF Bay Area LATA? In a message dated 1 Dec 91 04:10:00 GMT, fmsys!macy@usenet.INS. CWRU.Edu (Macy Hallock) writes: > Here in Ohio (wherever the heck that is ...), we have at least one > carrier (Litel) that takes any call dialed with a 700 area code and > routes it as a home area code call. I believe that Telecom USA (now owned by MCI, but still operated as a separate company) also offers this capability. You can reach their customer service department at 1-800-955-5444 if you want to check on this (no, I'm not affiliated with them in any way). > In Ohio, intra-LATA competition is entirely legal and open ... unlike > the People's Republic of California. The same is true in Michigan, although you must dial the 10XXX code of the carrier you want to use (or some other mechanism such as 1-700+ if your carrier allows it) ... if you just dial "1" plus the number on an intraLATA call, it defaults to Michigan Bell or GTE North, depending on which of those two provides intraLATA toll service to your exchange. Jack Decker jack@myamiga.mixcom.com FidoNet 1:154/8 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Panasonic KX-T3910 Information Wanted From: rick@ricksys.lonestar.org (Richard McCombs) Date: Sat, 07 Dec 91 19:16:08 CST Organization: The Red Headed League alan@acpub.duke.edu (Alan Marc Gallatin) writes: > In article Michael Rosen writes: [original poster said something about a security dip switch.] >> Should I feel reasonably safe that no one will overhear my phone calls >> on this Panasonic phone? > I'd like to think so, but I suppose we'll never know for sure!! I'm suprised someone else hasn't told you but the security dip switch thingy is so that you can prevent someone esle within range of your base from getting a dial tone and making long distance calls. It does _not_ prevent you calls from being monitored by scanner listeners and possibly other cordless phones. In fact there was a case a year or two ago where a guy recorded someone's conversations regarding some illegal activity and gave the tape to the police and I think the case went to the Supreme Court, and they ruled that when you give up the cord, you give up privacy. (I don't know why they don't see cellular the same way.) > Any other specific questions? E-mail, don't post! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Does that mean you aren't reading this and I should have sent you a copy? Rick Internet rick@ricksys.lonestar.org UUCP ...!ricksys!rick [use the maps] [Moderator's Note: I think he means that quite frequently an answer may be of interest mainly to the original poster, who wishes to help hold traffic in the newsgroup to a minimum. But his comment was a good one and your reply warrented inclusion here. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1007 *******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17036; 9 Dec 91 4:32 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12036 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 9 Dec 1991 02:32:44 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21743 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 9 Dec 1991 02:32:30 -0600 Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1991 02:32:30 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199112090832.AA21743@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1008 TELECOM Digest Mon, 9 Dec 91 02:32:23 CST Volume 11 : Issue 1008 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson C & P Stupidity (Baby Bell on the Loose) (Steven P. Miale) FAX Switch; Distinctive Ringing Switch Wanted (Ron Saad) Questions to Stimulate Conversation (Jack Decker) Cellular For Second Home Now Very Common in Sweden (Robert Lindh) Details Wanted on LogiTech "Fax Back" Number (Steven M. Palm) Recycling Phone Books (Nigel Allen) Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed? (F. Roeber) Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed? (Jon Allen) Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed? (A. Sherman) Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed? (V. Shipley) Re: Bell Canada to Offer Caller-ID "Alternate Number" Option (Paul Wallich) Last Laugh! Re: 900-Number Trade Show and Exposition (David Leibold) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: spm2d@cypress.cs.Virginia.EDU (Steven P. Miale) Subject: C & P Stupidity (Baby Bell on the Loose) Reply-To: spm2d@cypress.cs.Virginia.EDU (Steven P. Miale) Organization: University of Virginia Date: Sun, 8 Dec 91 01:08:10 GMT A phone company near where I live - C&P - has now got that great idea in its head to charge BBSs business rates. Seems someone gave them a list of about 15 or so. Apparently, they had a meeting and had 25 fliers printed to handle the expected turnout. 200 showed up :-). They quickly decided to rescind the rates -- temporarily. The BBSs which *do* make a profit have agreed to pay business rates, but as always, the vast majority make no profit. Once again, the "Baby Bell on the loose" syndrome. Steven Miale University of Virginia Undergraduate Researcher spm2d@uvacs.cs.virginia.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Dec 91 15:43:46 EST From: ron@whamg.att.com (Ron Saad) Subject: FAX Switch; Distinctive Ringing Switch Wanted Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories I am in search of two items -- a FAX/phone/modem/etc switch that checks for the FAX CNG but that can also be controlled by DTMF tones, and a switch that directs calls based on distinctive ringing ("IdentARing" in this part of the country). I have searched through the archives of this group to only discover one 800 number, which currently is answered by "Weber Grill, may I help you?" ... Any pointers would be appreciated -- especially for sources that are not as expensive as Hello Direct. (Is there a list somewhere of some of the mail order suppliers?) I'd be happy to summarize email responses if there's an interest. Thanks in advance, Ron Saad - WF2K ...!att!whamg!ron ron@whamg.att.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Dec 91 17:11:08 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: Questions to Stimulate Conversation There are a couple of questions that have formed in my mind for which I'd really like to get responses from others: 1) Suppose YOU were put in charge of your state's Public Utilities Commission (or the FCC) and could actually have a say in how telephone companies are regulated. What one or two things would you most like to see changed, keeping in mind that the phone companies DO have to make a profit? I would only say to please not limit your response because you think it's something that will never happen, or that it's a silly idea or some such. I'd really be interested to know what changes people would really like to see in the way telephone service is offered. 2) Let's say that you were a bit of a telephone enthusiast but had very little money to start a business (let's suppose that, heaven forbid, you just got out of jail after a 25 year sentence for phone phreaking and you went in when you were 15, so now you're 40 and have no money and no way to get a loan, but you want to start an HONEST telephone-related business. Okay, it's stretching a point, I admit, but I think you see where I'm leading). Is there any sort of honest business (not a scam of some sort) that a person with a fair amount of knowledge about the phone system, but very little capital or formal education could start and run successfully? The first thought that comes to mind is a telephone answering service, but that does require some equipment and in many areas there's already stiff competition. Any other thoughts come to mind? If you don't feel comfortable posting to the newsgroup, or if Pat prefers, you can send your responses to me and I'll summarize. Obviously, you need NOT answer BOTH questions, a response to either of the two will be fine. Jack Decker jack@myamiga.mixcom.com FidoNet 1:154/8 ------------------------------ From: Robert.Lindh@eos.ericsson.se (Robert Lindh) Subject: Cellular For Second Home Now Very Common in Sweden Reply-To: Robert.Lindh@eos.ericsson.se Organization: Ericsson Telecom AB Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1991 20:02:23 GMT According to an advertisment from one of the cellular operators in Sweden (Televerket) more than 100,000 new subscribers in the last six months have subscribed to the cellular service 'NMT 450 Red'. This may not sound very much, but Sweden only has eight million inhabitants. So 100,000 means that 2% of all households in Sweden have purchased a cellular telephone in the last six months. When you subscribe to 'NMT 450 Red', the cellular operator will not charge you anything unless you make any calls. (No fixed charge, regardless if you make calls or not.) If you make calls during business hours, they cost appr USD 2.50/minute. If you make calls outside business hours (including weekends) the cost for a call is approximately USD 0.50/minute. The advantage of the cellular solution is of course that when you make very few calls and more or less want to have a telephone available for an emergency only and the telephone is not for your first home, the cellular is cheaper. (To get a telephone for your first home cost USD 100, regardless if you have ten feet or 1000 miles to the telephone network.) Standard disclaimer: "Only my personal opinion, of course." ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Dec 91 10:18:27 CST From: "Steven M. Palm" Subject: Details Wanted on LogiTech Fax-Back Number I recently `discovered' a "Fax-Back" number. Actually it was mentioned on a BBS system in town here, but no details were given with it, and the person is not a regular user. It is operated by LogiTech, and the number is 1-800-245-0000. However, it mentions "Ordering" a catalog. There is no mention of pricing or of any billing method, but I am leary of this sort of thing. I'd hate to get a nice surprise on a phone bill for a $250 catalog or something. Does anyone have any information on it? smp@myamiga.mixcom.com Steven M. Palm ------------------------------ From: nigel.allen@canrem.uucp (Nigel Allen) Date: 7 Dec 91 21:37:00 Subject: Recycling Phone Books in Canada Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto Telephone books have traditionally been harder to recycle than old newspapers because the directories are glued together and have covers made of coated (shiny) paper. The following article from the Quebec edition of Bell News, Bell Canada's employee newspaper, describes how discarded phone books end up as paper towels. The article also refers to Tele-Direct (Publications) Inc., Bell Canada's directory subsidiary. Let Your Fingers Do The Mopping ... With the Yellow Pages When are Bell's and Tele-Direct's directories more green than their White or Yellow Pages? When they land on grocery store shelves as a new recycled product. The supermarket chain, Loblaws, is introducing recycled paper towels made of 33% used telephone directories. They are billed as the President's Choice G.R.E.E.N. Jumbo Club Pack Yellow Pages with the Yellow Pages name and logo featured prominently on the packaging. [President's Choice is the Loblaws' house brand for products of comparable quality to nationally-advertised brands. Some President's Choice products - chocolate chip cookies, for example - are extremely good. - NDA] Loblaws is selling the eight-roll Yellow Pages as another product in its variety of "environmentally-friendly food service products." The paper towels are also being sold in a number of other stores, including Mr. Grocers, Valumart and Hasty Market. Cascades, a Quebec-based manufacturer of paper products, recovers and recycles Bell directories and then produces the beige-colored paper towels which contain post-consumer recycled paper fibres exclusively. The two-ply towels are not bleached because this process is considered harmful to the environment. Cascades is also helping Bell to "close the recycling loop" by recycling material -- including directories and office paper -- collected from the company and then selling back to Bell the finished products, such as paper towels, toilet paper and envelopes. However, Bell's preference is to reduce the amount of solid waste leaving its premises. Automatic air dryers are being installed in Bell buildings to minimize paper towel usage. It is estimated that about 25% of the 40,000 tons of paper used each year to produce the phonebooks are collcted and earmakred for recycling through initiatives such as blue box [a receptacle for recyclable garbage such as newspapers and metal cans, itself made of recycled plastic -- nothing to do with the phreaker's blue box] or curb-side pick-ups and recycling depot collections. One of Bell Canada's environmental objectives is to find new uses for discarded directories. Last year, Bell and Tele-Direct provided approximately $300,000 in funding to Canadian universities to research alternative uses such as animal bedding and as a component in low-strength concrete. (end of Bell News article) Canada Remote Systems. Toronto, Ontario NorthAmeriNet Host ------------------------------ From: roeber@vxcrna.cern.ch Subject: Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed? Date: 8 Dec 91 14:58:44 GMT In article , thomas@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Richard A. Thomas) writes: > Surely the companies that make telephone switches for large firms must > now provide a way to give different ring patterns to the telephones > located in the same region, but I've never heard of it. Does it > exist? Is it possible? The phones in my building -- Swiss PTT "Tritel Davos" -- have a knob which changes the ring cadence. Well, not exactly the cadence: the PBX always sends one of two ring cadences, for internal and external. But the phones generate electronic noise, and the speed of this can be changed. For example: at one end of the spectrum, the two-second ring sounds like: "Doooo Daaaa Deeee." Crank the knob, and you get "Do Da De Do Da De Do Da De." 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: jrallen@devildog.att.com (Jon Allen) Subject: Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed? Reply-To: jrallen@devildog.att.com (Jon Allen) Organization: AT&T IMS - Piscataway, NJ (USA) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1991 16:21:10 GMT At my office most phones attached to our AT&T System 85 PBX have a switch to select one of several different rings/pitches. These are the fancier phones, I guess, that come with the switch (phone models 74XX??). I have found that the ring type/pitch can be adjusted on both analog and digital types of these phones. jon ------------------------------ From: andys@ulysses.att.com (Andy Sherman) Subject: Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed? Date: 8 Dec 91 23:21:35 GMT Reply-To: andys@ulysses.att.com (Andy Sherman) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Murray Hill, NJ The terminal sets (fancy telco-talk for phones) that came with System 85 (now the Definity(R) system) PBX had switch settable ring patterns on the phone. The AT&T 7xxx (I don't remember the number) ISDN set on my desk at work has a settable ring pattern. While I can identify the switch as a 5ESS(R), it is a property of the set. Definity and 5ESS are registered trademarks of AT&T. 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! ------------------------------ From: vances@xenitec.on.ca (Vance Shipley) Subject: Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed? Organization: SwitchView Inc. Date: Mon, 09 Dec 1991 04:20:04 GMT In article thomas@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Richard A. Thomas) writes: > Surely the companies that make telephone switches for large firms must > now provide a way to give different ring patterns to the telephones > located in the same region, but I've never heard of it. Does it > exist? Is it possible? Sure, this is common. As an example the Northern Telecom SL-1/Meridian 1 has selectable ring cadences for the digital business sets and the POTS style Unity sets have a frequency adjustment on the bottom. Vance Shipley vances@xenitec vances@ltg ..uunet!watmath!xenitec!vances ------------------------------ From: pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich) Subject: Re: Bell Canada to Offer Caller-ID "Alternate Number" Option Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1991 17:28:43 GMT In pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich) writes: > On the other hand, as a journalist I find this a potentially > interesting concept. Ever since Caller-ID started coming, I've been > having these horrible not-so-paranoid fantasies about trying to reach > a source at and finding > that their PBX no longer accepts calls from the media or else > transfers them to the PR office. (Ditto for blocked calls) Remember > that sources already have to think twice about calling reporters > because it's easy to compare the outgoing call log to published > numbers for people you don't want called. And PAT writes: > [Moderator's Note: If you 'have fantasies' about people not accepting > phone calls from newspaper reporters, has it ever occurred to you that > the way some reporters and newspapers abuse people, totally fabricate > some stories while mis-reporting others may be part of the reason they > would not accept your call? I am not singling you out -- I am saying > many reporters shape their stories to match their preconcieved ideas. > Consider the ridiculous things which have been printed about this net > at one time or another. People and companies have been burned by the > media many times. Then there are those reporters who always are given > gracious access to whomever they wish. Why is that? PAT] It has occurred to me, and I have discarded the idea. Many reporters are given gracious access by some (perhaps even many) companies, but _some_ companies and organizations have decided that they will either write a reporter's story word-for-word or attempt to have it killed. Those companies, for example, may refuse to connect a reporter's calls through the switchboard. With Caller-ID, they could block the calls even if the reporter had the direct-dial number of someone who wanted to talk. My point is that if people at an organization have decided they want to talk to me, it would be nice if the telecomm staff of that organization was not in a position to prevent such communication. In addition to certain large companies, institutions that I expect to put in PBX blocks include many local and federal government offices, especially the five-sided kind. If you believe that your boss should be able to control the phone calls you receive, fine. If you believe in even some limited version of a public right to know, this could be a problem. Paul [Moderator's Note: I believe the public has a right to know what the public finds out. I also believe a corporation has the right to insist that all communications come from the individuals they designate. Individual employees do not have an automatic right to speak for or about their employer without the employer's permission to do so. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Saturday, 7 Dec 1991 08:56:28 EST From: DLEIBOLD@YORKVM1.BITNET Subject: Last Laugh! Re: 900-Number Trade Show and Exposition Organization: York University warren@worlds.COM (Warren Burstein) wrote: > nigel.allen@canrem.uucp (Nigel Allen) writes: >> For information, call PPC Expo, Inc. at (718) 951-7770. > Why not a 900 number? :-) Must have something to do with the maxim regarding honour among thieves :-) dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca, and just about every other mail service known in the universe it seems.... ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1008 *******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11039; 10 Dec 91 6:59 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14700 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 10 Dec 1991 03:27:57 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11932 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 10 Dec 1991 03:27:33 -0600 Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1991 03:27:33 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199112100927.AA11932@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1009 TELECOM Digest Tue, 10 Dec 91 03:27:10 CST Volume 11 : Issue 1009 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Public Payphones on German ICE Trains (Nigel Roberts) FCC Information Seekers Guide (Dave Leibold) T1 on Fiber? (Juergen Ziegler) Illinois Bell Figures Out How to Charge Per Call (Phydeaux) Cancelling Pacbell's "Message Center" Service (Henry Mensch) Telcommunications BOF at ICIS in NY? (Kevin Crowston) FCC, COCOT's and DA (David Lesher) ATT Mail Minimum Monthly Billing Plan Cancelled (Van Schallenberg) Re: Are Phone Books Archives For Future Generations? (Nigel Roberts) Re: Are Phone Books Archived For Future Generations? (Carl Moore) Re: A Short Story Telecom Readers Might Enjoy (Cristobal Pedregal Martin) What is an RF1400 Noise Eliminator? (Michael Rosen) Re: AT&T Spirit Phones -- Where to Get? (Macy Hallock) Looking For Networks List (x91chandrapp@gw.wmich.edu) Just Dial 1-900-Pizza (Robert L. McMillin) Humour : Urban Legend (John Slater) Re: Pseudo-Area Code 311 (Larry Rachman) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 9 Dec 91 06:30:54 PST From: "Nigel Roberts, FRN-605, DTN 785-1018" Subject: Public Payphones on German ICE trains Last weekend, I had the occasion to travel between Frankfurt/Main and Hamburg on the new ICE train (InterCity Express, similar in some ways to the French TGV). There are two public telephones on the train, which are connected to the C-Netz cellular network. They are of a new design, quite dissimilar from the old B-Netz coin operated phones and look like one of the new generation of German public telephones. They don't take cash, but operate using 'smart cards` (either pre-payment or debit cards) from Telekom (Deutsche Bundespost). The pre-payment variety (costing DM 12 -- about five or six dollars) are readily available from the "ICE-Service" compartment, conveniently located close by. On Friday I had no problem making several calls; I got through first time and the connection quality was excellent. Returning on Sunday was a different matter, though, and it proved extremely difficult to get through, no matter whether the call destination was Germany or abroad. Call charges are expensive. There were no tariffs posted anywhere that I could see (Somehow I thought that was required in Germany ...) but timing the call showed that a national call within Germany to be charged at a rate of DM 2.00 per minute. ($1.25 or so) One *really* nice feature is that both BT _UK Direct_ service and AT&T _USA Direct_ service are available via the usual access numbers. (I didn't try MCI's _Call USA_, but that should work too.) You will still need to insert a pre-payment card but there will be no charge except in the normal way via BT or AT&T. (This is MUCH MUCH cheaper than dialing direct from these particular phones). There are a couple of technical oddities -- in the case of directly dialed calls, the distant ringing tone seems to be generated locally (a directly dialled call to the UK gave an odd mixture of German ringing tone with the British rhythm). Additionally, for some odd reason, supervision doesn't seem to happen until a couple of seconds after the called party answers (This was on a direct dialled call to the UK and was noticeable when I hung up on on a friend's answering machine and didn't get charged.). Oh yes, there always seemed to be a queue for the phones, at least in standard class!! Nigel Roberts +49 69 6672 1018 or +44 206 396610 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1991 02:31:00 -0500 From: Dave.Leibold@f524.n250.z1.fidonet.org (Dave Leibold) Subject: FCC Information Seekers Guide The FCC in the U.S. has various libraries and reference rooms, not to mention all kinds of sources of information. An Information Seekers Guide. This document gives addresses, types of information available (technical, legal, etc). Some places of note are the main FCC library (6th floor, 1919 M St NW Washington) or the Tariff Review Public Reference Room (5th floor, same address -- has documents such as AT&T Tariff #10 which lists NPA/prefix/V&H info) or the Treaty Library (2025 M St NW - ITU docs and other international stuff). To get a copy, these are available in the lobby of the building where the main FCC library is located (1919 M St NW, Washington DC) ... or try writing to The Consumer Assistance and Small Business Division, Offics of Public Affairs, Federal Communications Commission, Washington DC USA 20554. dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca dleibold1@attmail.com dave.leibold@f126.n480.z89.imex.org djcl@zooid.guild.org (please hold off on the new fidonet.org address until things settle down...) * Origin: The Super Continental/Toronto/HST&V.32bis (416)398.6720 Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:250/98 INTERNET: Dave.Leibold@f524.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Dec 91 15:59 MET From: S_ZIEGLER@iravcl.ira.uka.de Subject: T1 on Fiber? Recently I talked with an AT&T rep (for T1 service) about T1. Somehow we were talking about the 'wire'. And he mentioned that the wire would be FIBER. Well, 1.5Mbps and FIBER that does not sound reasonable, because fiber is very EXPENSIVE. So, is this true? Do they install some type of 'NETWORK TERMINATOR' at the customers premises, or how do they handle this? Juergen ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Dec 91 08:39:42 PST From: reb@ingres.com (Phydeaux) Subject: Illinois Bell Figures Out How to Charge Per Call When CallerID [sic] starts here in January, it will cost $6.50/month for the first 300 numbers displayed and $.02 for each additional number displayed. I'm waiting for the day when there is a surcharge on the bill for ringing your telephone when someone calls... it takes electricity to ring the bell, you know ... reb -- *-=#= Phydeaux =#=-* reb@ingres.com or reb%ingres.com@lll-winken.llnl.GOV ICBM: 41.55N 87.40W h:828 South May Street Chicago, IL 60607 312-733-3090 w:reb Ingres 10255 West Higgins Road Suite 500 Rosemont, IL 60018 708-803-9500 ------------------------------ From: henry@ads.com (Henry Mensch) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 91 14:06:52 -0800 Subject: Cancelling Pacbell's "Message Center" Service Reply-To: henry@ads.com Having overcome much inertia, I called today to cancel my Pacbell Message Center service (for those who don't know, Message Center is Pacbell's voicemail system). Snippets from the phone conversation follow: PacBell: ... and the main reason for cancelling your message center service? Me: Well, it doesn't do anything my answering machine doesn't do. (n.b. -- this isn't quite true in general, but for my application it is). PB: That's it? M: Yup. PB: Oh. I see. We'll have you service cancelled for . Can we have someone contact you about why you wanted to cancel yuor message center service? M: sure ... The Pacbell dude really was incredulous. It was fun. # henry mensch / advanced decision systems / ------------------------------ From: crowston@zug.csmil.umich.edu (Kevin Crowston) Subject: Telcommunications BOF at ICIS in NY? Date: Tue, 10 Dec 91 00:14:31 EST Organization: Cognitive Science Machine Intelligence Lab, Univ of Michigan I'm now teaching telecommunications and plan to organize a Birds of a Feather meeting (or whatever they call them) on teaching telecommunications at next week's ICIS meeting in New York. The session will be an opportunity to trade ideas about what works and what doesn't, information about useful resources, etc. If you're going to be at ICIS and are interested, you might let me know, but more importantly, please bring along copies of your course syllabus, reading lists, etc., look for the announcement of the meeting and attend. Kevin Crowston ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: FCC, COCOT's and DA Date: Fri, 6 Dec 91 20:49:29 EST Reply-To: wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (David Lesher) Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex I've run into several COCOT's here in VA that want $0.30 for local DA. What did the {proposed?} FCC regs have to say about that? wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu ------------------------------ From: oktext!schalle@swbatl.UUCP (Van Schallenberg) Subject: ATT Mail Minimum Monthly Billing Plan Cancelled Date: Mon, 9 Dec 91 21:56:18 CST [Moderator's Note: Mr. Schallenberg sent this along thinking other readers might be interested. PAT] Forwarded message: From UUCP Mon Dec 9 10:29 CST 1991 To: oktext!schalle Date: Mon Dec 9 11:04:27 EST 1991 From: attmail!els004!ecollyer (ecollyer ) Auto-Forwarded-From: attmail!schallenberg (Van H Schallenberg ) MTS-Message-ID: Subject: Minimum Monthly Billing To: attmail!schallenberg (Van H Schallenberg ) Cc: gbridge Cc: chewitt Dear Mr. Schallenberg; This is in response to your message of November 16, 1991. We have recently decided to suspend the minimum monthly charge on AT&T MAIL to give customers such as yourself the opportunity to choose a new billing arrangement that does not require a minimum monthly amount. We have included a notice of this on the December bill with details to follow shortly thereafter. You will be pleased to know that this new arrangement will include credit card billing as well as electronic delivery of billing detail. Thank you for your feedback. It has helped us formulate a plan we believe will be responsive to our customer's billing needs. Edward A. Collyer Product Director Electronic Mail Services [Moderator's Note: That *is* good news, isn't it! PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Dec 91 05:02:10 PST From: "Nigel Roberts, FRN-605, DTN 785-1018" Subject: Re: Are Phone Books Archived For Future Generations Gordon Grant asks about the use of telephone directories for researching family history. BT (formerly British Telecom) keeps telephone directories dating back to the 1890s at the British Telecom Museum in London. Odd you should ask this just now -- I read about it in a copy of "Family Tree" magazine only yesterday. Serendipity, perhaps. Nigel Roberts +44 206 396610 or +49 69 6672-1018 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Dec 91 11:01:06 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Are Phone Books Archived For Future Generations? I used microfilm to learn about the 305/904 split of July 1965: 1. Washington Post newspaper in 1973 announcement of 703/804 split in Virginia said that the last previous split was in Florida in 1965. 2. TELEPHONE DIRECTORY microfilm (in this case, Diamond State Telephone in the public library in Wilmington, Delaware) showed 305 including what is now 904. ------------------------------ From: pedregal%unreal@cs.umass.edu Subject: Re: A Short Story Telecom Readers Might Enjoy Date: Mon, 9 Dec 91 13:36:23 EST Reply-To: pedregal@cs.umass.edu warren@worlds.COM (Warren Burstein) writes: > I just finished reading a story by Primo Levi, "For a Good Purpose". > In the story, the European network begins to take actions on its own > initiative. Along the same lines: there's a very nice short story by Arthur C. Clarke entitled "Dial F for Frankestein", where the newly interconnected world telecom network acquires "conscience". It is in the book "The Wind from the Sun". The story is dated 1961 if memory serves (definitely before 1970). Cristobal Pedregal Martin pedregal@cs.umass.edu (internet) Computer Science Dept. - LGRC +1-413-545-1249 (facsimile) UMass / Amherst, MA 01003 +1-413-545-4753 (voice) ------------------------------ From: Michael.Rosen@samba.acs.unc.edu (Michael Rosen) Subject: What is an RF1400 Noise Eliminator? Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1991 00:15:57 GMT I'm looking at a 47th St. Photo catalog and found an item called an RF1400 Noise Eliminator. It says it "Eliminates noise and interference on telephone and data communication instruments. Great for cordless phones." It's priced at $6.95. How does this most likely work and do owners of the 3910 think I might need it? I don't get much line noise on my modem as it is. Mike ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 8 Dec 91 11:52 EST From: fmsys!macy@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu (Macy Hallock) Subject: Re: AT&T Spirit Phones -- Where to Get? Organization: A Fool's Paradise To buy used Spirit sets: Several used phone equipment brokers sell these. Glancing thru "Telecom Gear" magazine's December issue: DSI 800-462-5930 ComTeam 800-729-8326 Business Teleconsultants 800-627-7585 McParent 800-288-7466 Telephone Systems 206-695-7644 ATL 203-327-0907 Dorr-Ben 800-950-9998 CBT 408-462-9373 (Seem to have some 6 button sets for $50) Telesavers 800-277-5377 Telephone Exchange 800-777-8079 KTA 800-950-4KTA This is only a partial listing. I've got other things to do today, too [grin] ... Most advertise the six button sets for $125 and 24 button for $160 As always, haggling works with brokers. Be sure you buy guaranteed working/refurb equipment, some brokers take VISA/MC so you can have some recourse ... of course there's lots of "as-is" stuff out there to make deals on, too. "Telecom Gear" is the unofficial leader for used station type telephone equipment/key systems/PBX. Used by everyone in the industry I know of to sell and buy used stuff. If there is interest, I will compile a list of other similar publications and post. (For subscriptions to "Telecom Gear" call 800-866-3241) Regards, Macy M Hallock Jr N8OBG 216.725.4764 macy@fmsystm.uucp macy@fmsystm.ncoast.org [No disclaimer, but I have no real idea what I'm saying or why I'm telling you] ------------------------------ From: x91chandrapp@gw.wmich.edu Subject: Looking For Networks List Date: 9 Dec 91 15:47:56 EST Organization: Western Michigan University Hi netters, I am working on a project that requires all the K-12 schools to have on-line access to our database. I am interested in exploring the possibilities of using different networks that makes this feasible. So if anybody out there has any suggestions, it is most welcome. Thanks in advance. Regards, suresh ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 8 Dec 91 20:14:07 PST From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) Subject: Just Dial 1-900-Pizza Jeff Wasilko writes: > If there are teenagers in your house, don't be surpised if you > find charges for pizza on your phone bill someday. > That's right: Mr. Shoes Pizza in Rochester is about to launch > its own 900-style phone number that will allow you to order pizza and > pay for it on your phone bill, according to President John Natalie. I guess that won't happen in California ... Thanks to the new PUC ruling, if you don't like the way the pizza tasted, you can always refuse payment after you've ordered it. :-) Robert L. McMillin | Voice: (310) 568-3555 Hughes Aircraft/Hughes Training, Inc. | Fax: (310) 568-3574 Los Angeles, CA | Internet: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Dec 91 11:10:04 GMT Subject: Humour : Urban Legend From: john.slater@UK.Sun.COM (John Slater - Sun UK - Gatwick SE) I spotted this today on alt.folklore.urban. Enjoy. John --------- In article 640122@hp-vcd.vcd.hp.com, johne@hp-vcd.vcd.hp.com (John Eaton) writes: > ObUL: Ball Lightning will come into your house through the telephone lines, > and kill you. The only way to prevent this is to forward all your calls to another number before the storm arrives. John Eaton !hp-vcd!johne ------------------------------ Date: 09 Dec 91 21:16:56 EST From: Larry Rachman <74066.2004@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Pseudo-Area Code 311 In the Mel Brooks movie "High Anxiety", there is a brief scene where a character looks up a number in the niftiest phone book I've ever seen. *Every* number in the book begins with 555! Larry Rachman, WA2BUX Reply to 1644801@mcimail.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1009 *******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19845; 12 Dec 91 2:21 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27225 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 12 Dec 1991 00:39:33 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28996 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 12 Dec 1991 00:39:23 -0600 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1991 00:39:23 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199112120639.AA28996@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1010 TELECOM Digest Thu, 12 Dec 91 00:39:19 CST Volume 11 : Issue 1010 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed? (M. Hallock) Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed? (Berentsen) Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed? (M.Ferguson) Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed? (T. Roberts) Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed? (T. Perrine) Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed? (S. Sun) Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed? (R. Tilley) Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed? (C. Mingo) Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed? (D.Levenson) Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed? (S.Forrette) Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed? (Goldstein) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 8 Dec 91 12:37 EST From: fmsys!macy@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu (Macy Hallock) Subject: Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed? Organization: A Fool's Paradise In article is written: > Surely the companies that make telephone switches for large firms must > now provide a way to give different ring patterns to the telephones > located in the same region, but I've never heard of it. Does it > exist? Is it possible? A perceptive and all too often tough question. I have customers with open office areas full of phones that have had exactly the same problem: every doggone phone sounds the same when it rings. This is not a new problem, of course. There are some ways to deal with the situation: Single line (2500) sets: What works best here is good old fashoined hardware hacking, but of the mechanical variety. Standard two gong C4 type ringers can be modified several ways. Using black electrical tape on the gongs (not too large a piece!) can modify their sound. Note the the location of the tape on the gong affects the sound. Try reversing the gongs. Note that rotating the gongs affects the ring. (The gongs are intentionally drilled off center to allow adjustment). Perhaps a few notes are in order here: 2500 sets are easy to take apart. There are two screws in the base plate, one in the front center and one in the rear, slightly off center. There are usually "captive" type screws and you do not remove them completely. The top cover of the set will come off in your hand. It is wise to unplug the set when you disassemble it. Although 2500 sets do not have voltage which is really dangerous, ring voltage is enough to surprise and sting. For ring tests, plug the set back in, hold down the hookswitch arm and have someone call you. When reassembling the set (you are going to put it back together, aren't you?) the tricky part is getting the base and handset cord jacks back in the right position. It helps to look at an assembled set when you do this. Now, back to the fun ... You can also try gong swapping, especially from older phones. At one time WE made some different gongs just for this purpose. Its not too hard to make ten different 2500 sets sound differently from each other ... as delivered, the left and right gongs are slightly different tones. Different manufacturers of ringers/phones often tend to sound slightly different, too. All C4 gongs I know of interchange. Go to a hamfest and buy some old rotary dial phones just to steal parts ... None of this damages the phone or makes it unrepairable. Also note: You can install a ringing lite on a phone very easily. These are the same as the message waiting lights you see on hotel 2500 sets and similar to the beehive 19A type lamps Pat mentioned. Go to Radio Shark or any other electronic component store and get some 110VAC neon pilot lamp assemblies. Be sure they have the ballast resistor built in (they should be marked as ready to use on 110VAC with no additional parts). These can be installed on your 2500 set and wired directly accross the incoming telephone line (Green and Red wires coming from the base cord/wall jack) right in the phone. Note that buying the plastic cartridge type lamps with long leads works best ... then drill out a mounting hole carefully near the top right or left corner of the 2500 front faceplate ... making sure that the depth of the cartridge will not interfere with the hookswitch mechanism. Connect to the phone line neatly (don't want to make any trouble for the phone tech, do you?) and away you go ... Electronic sets: These can be tough. Some manufacturers are getting smart and putting ring tone switches on their sets as well as ring loudness switches. Many manufacturers hide small rotary adjustment pots on their sets for this purpose. In the past, the rule was only the more "deluxe" model had adjustments. Since production cost is related to parts count, most of the standard and economy set versions were not adjustable. This is beginning to change, though. Be sure to read your User's Manual ... There were exceptions: Mitel SuperSet 3's have adjustment pots hidden under the front label faceplate. Some older Fujitsu and Comdial sets have internal pots you have to disassemble the set to get to. Some newer Mitel SuperSet 4's have a small hole in the bottom (marked with a musical note symbol) for ring tone adjust. There are ways of altering ring tone on some (but not all) AT&T, Rolm and Nothern models ... I have swapped resistors in sets for customers just to alter the tone of ringers in office areas. Not a practice well liked by most manufacturers, though ... Your best bet is to treat your phone tech right. Sometimes they will show you if it can be done, and how. Sometimes they do not know themselves ... I agree that this should be a programmable option on a set or phone system. Sadly, this is the exception. I have seem a couple of sets that could actually be programmed by the user for ring tone. I have seem only one PBX that allowed ring tone to be programmed at the main PBX maintenance station/console. Perhaps this will begin to change. Now that the market is so competitive and systems so much alike, perhaps a few more manufacturers will add this feature in an effort to make their systems just a little better. That's what all this competition is supposed to be about ... Regards, Macy M Hallock Jr N8OBG 216.725.4764 macy@fmsystm.uucp macy@fmsystm.ncoast.org [No disclaimer, but I have no real idea what I'm saying or why I'm telling you] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Dec 91 13:29:00 EST From: guy@ihlpw.att.com (Guy R Berentsen) Subject: Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed? Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories One of the features of the ISDN Centrex System that we use here, is that each user may choose one of eight ring patterns. (This may be a feature of the phones (AT&T ISDN 7506) rather than the switch.) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Dec 91 10:46:59 PST From: fergusom@scrvm1.vnet.ibm.com (Mickey Ferguson) Subject: Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed? Organization: Rolm Systems In Richard A. Thomas writes: > At our facility, people often step down the hall a few doors to confer > briefly with someone in another office. Then a phone will ring and > all the people who aren't in their own offices interrupt their > conversations to run back to their office to see if it is their phone > that is ringing. Nearly any PBX I've seen has this capability. Our RolmPhone digital phones, when combined with our Rolm CBX, has multiple ring tones so that one can tell which one is his or hers. Of course, my tone-deaf friend can't tell the difference between any of them ... :) Mickey Ferguson Rolm Systems FergusoM@scrvm2.vnet.ibm.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Dec 91 16:01:12 CST From: tjrob@ihlpl.att.com (Thomas J Roberts) Subject: Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed? Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories From article , by thomas@bnlux1. bnl.gov (Richard A. Thomas): > [discussion of how people often don't know which phone is ringing] > Surely the companies that make telephone switches for large firms must > now provide a way to give different ring patterns to the telephones > located in the same region, but I've never heard of it. Does it > exist? Is it possible? Here at Indian Hill, a location of AT&T Bell Laboratories, we have an ISDN Centrex system implemented with a 5ESS(Rg) Switch. The ISDN telephones have 8 ring patterns, which each user can individually select. THe phones will prefix the selected pattern by 1 or 2 extra rings for special and priority alerting (those are part of ISDN user alerting (aka ringing)). These are AT&T 7505, 7506, and 7507 ISDN station sets (yes, standard production -- we don't get any special stuff). This service is from Illinois Bell (Ameritech), not AT&T, even though AT&T makes the hardware. There are three tones, varying in pitch. The eight patterns are variations in the number and sequence of these three tones. The switch does not know or care what pattern any user has selected. AT&T Bell Laboratories (where the 5ESS Switch is developed) Tom Roberts att!ihlpl!tjrob TJROB@IHLPL.ATT.COM ------------------------------ From: tep@tots.Logicon.COM (Tom Perrine) Subject: Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed? Date: 9 Dec 91 21:21:38 GMT Organization: Logicon, Inc., San Diego, California It would have helped if you had identified the phone system, but here goes ... We have a ROLM switch (PBX), and the ring *pitch* is user-selectable, although you have to dig into the reference book (not the Quick Reference Guide), to fing out that *572 starts your phone ringing; then you hit the numeric (1-8) buttons until you get a tone you like. When you hang up, that tone becomes the ring tone. Tom Perrine (tep) |Internet: tep@tots.Logicon.COM |Voice: +1 619 597 7221 Logicon - T&TSD | UUCP: sun!suntan!tots!tep | or : +1 619 455 1330 P.O. Box 85158 |GENIE: T.PERRINE | FAX: +1 619 552 0729 San Diego CA 92138 ------------------------------ From: spencer@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (S. Spencer Sun) Subject: Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed? Organization: Princeton Class of '94 Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1991 01:54:00 GMT In article , vances@xenitec.on.ca (Vance Shipley) writes: > In article thomas@bnlux1.bnl.gov > (Richard A. Thomas) writes: >> Surely the companies that make telephone switches for large firms must >> now provide a way to give different ring patterns to the telephones >> located in the same region, but I've never heard of it. Does it >> exist? Is it possible? > Sure, this is common. As an example the Northern Telecom > SL-1/Meridian 1 has selectable ring cadences for the digital business > sets and the POTS style Unity sets have a frequency adjustment on the > bottom. I figured this would be pretty common too, because a friend of mine and his brother had two separate phone numbers on what essentially was the same phone line (in layman's terms, I dunno how this is actually done technically) with something called Identa-Ring. He lives in Glenelg, Maryland (although I guess the phone number shows up as Ashton or Laurel or something). His dad works for C&P but I doubt that has anything to do with its availability ... I am trying to say, of course, that when the phone rang my friend and his brother could easily determine the intended recipient of the call by the pattern of the ring, even though it was all on the same physical phone line. S. Spencer Sun '94 - Princeton Univ. - spencer@phoenix.princeton.edu: : Clockwork Orange / Princeton Ultimate WWIVnet #1 @6913 ------------------------------ From: tilley@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Richard Tilley) Subject: Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed? Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1991 04:26:41 GMT Trivial solution: - get a $5 cheepo phone - disable the hook switch - turn off the ringer on your regular phone. ------------------------------ From: Charlie.Mingo@p0.f716.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Charlie Mingo) Date: 09 Dec 91 14:35:52 Subject: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed? thomas@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Richard A. Thomas) writes: > Surely the companies that make telephone switches for large firms must > now provide a way to give different ring patterns to the telephones > located in the same region, but I've never heard of it. Does it > exist? Is it possible? The Rolm PBX has in my office has an option allowing users to change the tone of their phone ring. There are ten different notes available. Ring patterns are reserved for identifying the party calling; the tone indicates the party called, and anyone can "pick up" any ringing phone in the office by typing a special code. Neat, eh? ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.WESTMARK.COM (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed? Date: 10 Dec 91 13:13:18 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , thomas@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Richard A. Thomas) writes: > Surely the companies that make telephone switches for large firms must > now provide a way to give different ring patterns to the telephones > located in the same region, but I've never heard of it. Does it > exist? Is it possible? AT&T's Merlin(tm) systems allow individual station users to program the sound of their alerting signals. You can program the ring cadence, pitch, and duration, allowing a large number of easily-distinguished sounds. (I used to work in a place where people had lots of fun with this feature. When several phones were ringing, the place sounded like a zoo!) Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Dec 91 04:21:56 pst From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed? Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA In article Richard Thomas writes: > Surely the companies that make telephone switches for large firms must > now provide a way to give different ring patterns to the telephones > located in the same region, but I've never heard of it. Does it > exist? Is it possible? We have a Lexar System 2000, and it allows exactly this feature. Each set can be individually configured by the user for one of six attractive ringing variations. When I first saw this feature, I thought it was quite esoteric, but then I realized that it's for just the sitation you describe. The six options are all difference frequencies. I would imagine that they could have added more possibilities by providing difference ringing cadences in addition to different frequencies, but I guess they thought six were enough. It's certainly much better than 1! All in all, I'm very pleased with the Lexar. It has all of the "little" things well thought out, such as sounding the actual tones when you dial a number, so you can audibly verify that you've hit the right key, and when generating tones in the middle of a call, it will sound them for as long as you hold down the key. Our previous system (a Toshiba) had neither of these and it was really annoying. I don't have anything to do with its administration, but from what I understand, it's really good from that end as well. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ From: goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) Subject: Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed? Date: 10 Dec 91 22:46:45 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA You want programmable ring pattern? The Ericsson MD-110 has a neat feature. The various ring functions (ring back when free, ring external, ring internal, ring intercom, etc.) can be programmed with arbitrarily defined cadences (up to some limit). So it's even possible to program in Morse Code for the different functions! (I've never seen it in practice, but I saw it in some documentation.) Fred R. Goldstein goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com +1 508 952 3274 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1010 *******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24621; 12 Dec 91 3:22 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06951 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 12 Dec 1991 01:35:22 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09993 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 12 Dec 1991 01:35:10 -0600 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1991 01:35:10 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199112120735.AA09993@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1011 TELECOM Digest Thu, 12 Dec 91 01:35:00 CST Volume 11 : Issue 1011 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Questions to Stimulate Conversation (Joe Konstan) Re: Questions to Stimulate Conversation (Daniel Herrick) Re: Questions to Stimulate Conversation (John Higdon) Re: Bell Canada to Offer Caller-ID "Alternate Number" Option (Michael Ho) Re: Bell Canada to Offer Caller-ID "Alternate Number" Option (Mark Fulk) Re: Bell Canada to Offer Caller-ID "Alternate Number" Option (John Higdon) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 9 Dec 91 22:30:31 PST From: konstan@elmer-fudd.cs.berkeley.edu (Joe Konstan) Subject: Re: Questions to Stimulate Conversation Jack Decker asked two questions: 1) what would you do if in charge of your state's PUC? I'd probably make two big changes. First, I'd change the reward structure so that the telephone companies' allowed profits (Pac Bell and GTE) were computed as s function of the amount of phone use in their area, weighted by the "featureful-ness" of the usage. For instance, phone companies would be allowed higher profits for an area where everyone used touch tone, call waiting, etc. Similarly, an area in ISDN service would allow for more profit than POTS or POTS with some features. Of course, the PUC would determine the weighting factor for each feature. I believe that this would encourage phone companies to price features in a more reasonable way. Second, and this is probably much harder and in the domain of the FCC, I'd like to encourage the move towards universal personal phone service (where everyone has one or more personal phone numbers that follow them around, and the possibility to attach those number to either cellular or wired phones whereever you happen to be). I imagine that the key parts of this involve allocating radio space for lots of digital cellular phones and arranging for a reasonable scheme for delivering and charging for routing and phone number lookup (after all, if I call someone whose number seems across the country but they are physically local, I might pay a small charge for finding them but would expect to pay for a local call thereafter). 2) what business can a telephone-knowledgeable person get into without education or capital? My best guess would be going to small and medium-sized businesses and offering to analyze their phone bills and set up appropriate call routing tables or hardware. If you arranged to do this for a percentage of the savings (after any new equipment cost) with nothing up front, I think you could get some business. Larger companies might be wary, but if you start small you could build a reputation. Joe Konstan ------------------------------ From: herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (daniel lance herrick) Subject: Re: Questions to Stimulate Conversation Date: 10 Dec 91 09:57:38 EST In article , Jack@myamiga.mixcom.com (Jack Decker) writes: > 1) Suppose YOU were put in charge of your state's Public Utilities > Commission (or the FCC) and could actually have a say in how telephone > companies are regulated. What one or two things would you most like > to see changed, keeping in mind that the phone companies DO have to > make a profit? First, remove the exclusive franchise that each LEC has for some geographical area. Then try to keep things fair until the dust settles. Probably the easiest way to prevent Ameritech from under pricing all possible competition is to make sure Michigan consumers (and the other Ameritech states) know what their rates are in Ohio. Second, invalidate the exclusive franchise that local governments gave to cable TV carriers. I suspect this could be effectively accomplished by prohibiting local governments from granting monopolies in future renewals, possibly overruling the franchise on ones that don't renew soon enough. I would be reasonably careful to preserve contracts, except the monopoly clauses which I believe were improperly granted in the first place. In particular, I would try to prevent any further use of eminent domain to build plant. Expected result is for the boundaries between companies to become fuzzy for residential customers and for second carriers to go after plums like apartment buildings and office buildings. Over time, prices come down and customer satisfaction goes up. dan dlh@NCoast.org dlh Performance Marketing POBox 1419 Mentor Ohio 44061 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Dec 91 11:54 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Questions to Stimulate Conversation Jack Decker writes: > 1) Suppose YOU were put in charge of your state's Public Utilities > Commission (or the FCC) and could actually have a say in how telephone > companies are regulated. All of the aspects of this topic, including billing details, costs of operation, distribution of revenues, etc., etc., could (and does) fill volumes. But after giving it a bit of thought, I have come up with one major change for which I would press: the abolition of the regional holding company. The root of many ills in the LEC business today comes from the fact that the entities that own the local exchange network also own and participate in related, non-regulated businesses. Profits from these endeavors never flow back into the regulated monopoly, however through slight-of-hand manipulations financing for these ventures frequently comes out of the pockets of ratepayers. What we need is Divestiture: The Sequel. In this production, RBOCs would be required to divest themselves of either their LECs or ALL of their other subsidiaries. There is no such thing as "arms length". There is not enough regulatory horsepower in the world that can supervise these tricky RBOCs. The only way to ensure a lack of funny business is to chop the "arms" off. When this is done, then the LEC would operate on its own revenues, period. They would not be siphoned off elsewhere. We, the ratepayers, would know that the money we paid each month really did go for telephone service, not to finance the latest loser scheme that attempted to put some other real company out of business. Of course, it might even be necessary to limit cross ownership of major blocks of stock. This is already done in the broadcast industry in order to "protect the integrity of a limited resource". Since there are not going to be any new local telephone companies required anytime soon, I would say that the LEC business could fall under the "limited resource" category. > 2) Let's say that you were a bit of a telephone enthusiast but had > very little money to start a business (let's suppose that, heaven > forbid, you just got out of jail after a 25 year sentence for phone > phreaking and you went in when you were 15, so now you're 40 and have > no money and no way to get a loan, but you want to start an HONEST > telephone-related business. Frankly, until something is done about common ownership of LECs and related non-regulated businesses, setting up such a business is a poor-odds crapshoot. If your enterprise requires the services of the LEC, you can bet that at some point, particularly if you are very successful, that the company that runs the LEC will try to figure out ways to shut you down and take your business away. This applies to answering services, paging services, alarm companies, equipment vending companies, information providing firms, and now even cable companies. In essence, if what you do requires a pair from telco, you are in potential trouble. I have friends and acquaintances in all of these businesses and have watched them struggle to survive as each one is targeted by Pacific Telesis. The first wave is tariff filings that make the requisite telco service unavailable or cost-prohibitive. The second wave is "technical difficulties" that create operational problems for the provider. Then, after they have been softened up by these methods, PacTel offers its own version WAY BELOW COST to grab what market share it can. Under the current regulatory climate, I cannot think of a telecom- related business that I would recommend to anyone. As long as the playing field is tilted at a steep angle toward the RBOCs, a person will have to be a real warrior to survive. Anyone getting out of the joint after serving a sentence for phreaking probably ought to become a lawyer. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: ho@hoss.unl.edu (Tiny Bubbles...) Subject: Re: Bell Canada to Offer Caller-ID "Alternate Number" Option Organization: A Figment of Your Imagination Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1991 15:47:37 GMT In a caustic reply to a reporter, the Esteemed Moderator writes: > [Moderator's Note: I believe the public has a right to know what the > public finds out. I also believe a corporation has the right to insist > that all communications come from the individuals they designate. > Individual employees do not have an automatic right to speak for or > about their employer without the employer's permission to do so. PAT] Does this include posting to netnews? If not, where do we draw the line? At reporters themselves? At media that might reasonably be read by reporters? At people who may be inclined to leak things to reporters? I sympathize with what you're saying, as there are many, many reporters out there who simply don't know a reorder from a busy signal. But to assert a company's absolute right to control the speech of its employees is downright IBM-like, and I really didn't expect that from you. I agree that persons who are not in public relations should not be able to claim that what they say represents the view of the organization. But to gag them from being about to speak "about their employer without the employer's permission" -- your term -- goes way beyond what I consider reasonable. Normally when people start threads like this (and there are but two people who generally do so, one of whom is in my permanent kill file), I simply unsubscribe from the group for a couple of weeks and let it blow over without replying. But folks, the dung is getting awful deep. Michael Ho | UNTIL JAN. 9: University of Nebraska, Internet:ho@hoss.unl.edu [Moderator's Note: Of course people can 'talk about their employers' without permission, but there has to be some understanding about what they are free to discuss and what they should be referring to the proper spokespersons. You think my comments were very 'IBM-like', but I happen to think IBM is a generally successful and well-run company. That probably makes me -- as our Socially Responsible commentators would point out -- a 'toady'. PAT] ------------------------------ From: fulk@cs.rochester.edu (Mark Fulk) Subject: Re: Bell Canada to Offer Caller-ID "Alternate Number" Option Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1991 15:59:22 GMT > [Moderator's Note: I believe the public has a right to know what the > public finds out. I also believe a corporation has the right to insist > that all communications come from the individuals they designate. > Individual employees do not have an automatic right to speak for or > about their employer without the employer's permission to do so. PAT] ^^^^^ Then you don't believe in the First Amendment. The right of free speech, about your employer or anyone else, is inalienable. An employer can restrict who speaks FOR it, but not who speaks ABOUT it. The thought of an employer restricting the speech of its employees is chilling; perhaps the following ``honor roll'' will jog your memory: Johns-Manville, for hiding evidence of the dangers of asbestos. American Tobacco, similarly tobacco. General Dynamics, for obscuring fraud and bribery. A Swiss chemical company (name forgotten), for hiding the health effects of working with vinyl chloride. A number of obscure generic drug manufacturers, for failing to meet production standards. Armour Meat Packing, for hiding the conditions of the packing plants (remember ``The Jungle''?). The list goes on for a very long time. The initial indications that these companies were not behaving properly came from employees, generally employees speaking to reporters. The freedom of employees to speak about their employers is critical to the continued functioning of our democracy. Judging from your statement above, I think you need to take Civics again. Mark A. Fulk Computer Science Department fulk@cs.rochester.edu University of Rochester Omit needless words -- Strunk Rochester, NY 14627 [Toady's Note: I don't need to take civics again ... you need to take a remedial course in learning what loyalty to the organization which pays your salary is all about ... or is there some Amendment I have overlooked which guarentees you the employment of your choice when you please and where you please? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Dec 91 10:47 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Bell Canada to Offer Caller-ID "Alternate Number" Option pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich) writes: > On the other hand, as a journalist I find this a potentially > interesting concept. Ever since Caller-ID started coming, I've been > having these horrible not-so-paranoid fantasies about trying to reach > a source at and finding > that their PBX no longer accepts calls from the media or else > transfers them to the PR office. What a frightening thought: Caller-ID can allow a telephone system owner to take more control over his very own telephone system. How dare people even think of such a thing. But all this reminds me of an incident a couple of years back when an phone system owner (and administrator) did some blocking in reverse. An associate of mine mentioned one day that his girl friend (who worked in the administration office of Shoreline Amphitheater) had complained that a certain salesperson from one of my client firms was using her "influence" to attempt to get free passes on a continuing basis. According to the report, the salesperson would call the office many times a day badgering the Shoreline staff. With the approval of authority, I devised a technical solution. The next time the salesperson attempted to call Shoreline, she got a recording that said, "We're sorry, but it is necessary to dial a '1' when calling this number. Please hangup and try your call again." If she followed directions, she would get the following, "We're sorry, but it is not necessary to dial a '1' when calling this number. Please hang up and try your call again." This behavior would only take place when one tried to call Shoreline. Naturally, this person reported the problem to me and I told her that I would "look into it". Apparently the inconvenience of having to place calls to Shoreline from another location (or paying toll from home) was enough to deter this woman from her "telephone mooching", since it was reported that the calls stopped. When this woman left the employ of my client, I removed the block from the system. This little bit of deviousness solved the problem and did not require any scene made by someone having to inform this person that her calls were inappropriate. BTW, if anyone tries to call a 900 or 976 number on that system, s/he gets a recording that says, "The call you have made requires a 20 cent deposit. Please hangup, deposit 20 cents, and dial your call again." And guess what happens when someone comes complaining about hearing THAT recording! > [Moderator's Note: I believe the public has a right to know what the > public finds out. I also believe a corporation has the right to insist > that all communications come from the individuals they designate. > Individual employees do not have an automatic right to speak for or > about their employer without the employer's permission to do so. PAT] I'll second that. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Toady's Note: The thing about newspapers and their reporters is they should practice what they preach; except as my pastor, the Reverend Bob Dobbs of the Church of the Sub-Genius would say, they're not the type of person they're preaching to. The reporter hinted that holding back information from the public is a Very Bad Thing to do. I'll bet his employer didn't feel that way about the identity of the alleged rape victim in Florida this past month. Newspaper reporters, you see, are qualified to decide what the public should know about ... corpor- ations are not to withhold anything from them however. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1011 *******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28716; 12 Dec 91 4:21 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19583 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 12 Dec 1991 02:38:29 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03086 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 12 Dec 1991 02:38:13 -0600 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1991 02:38:13 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199112120838.AA03086@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1012 TELECOM Digest Thu, 12 Dec 91 02:38:08 CST Volume 11 : Issue 1012 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Pay-per-Call Scam (Robert Thompson) Re: Pay-per-Call Scam (Henry E. Schaffer) Re: How Do I Contact PC Pursuit? (Curtis E. Reid) Re: How Do I Contact PC Pursuit? (tanner@ki4pv.compu.com) Re: Wanted: Combination Answering Machine and Cordless Phone (S Narasimhan) Re: Wanted: Combination Answering Machine and Cordless Phone (P. Bodenbach) Re: Are Phone Books Archived For Future Generations? (Jim Haynes) Re: UK 1994 "Great Renumbering" (was IL Bell/708) (Linc Madison) Re: Annoying Computer Payphones (Will Martin) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Robert Thompson (727-2597, X3012)" Subject: Re: Pay-per-Call Scam Date: 9 Dec 91 13:04:20 EST Organization: Forsyth County, Winston-Salem NC In article , siegman@sierra.stanford. edu (Anthony E. Siegman) writes: >> Some person or group is calling people's electronic pagers, and giving >> a call-back number of 212-540-xxxx. (This prefix in New York acts >> just like a 900 number.) When the callee dials 212-540-xxxx, s/he is >> connected to a recording and is billed $55. > Dear Mr. Moderator: > > I ask you once again: How can anyone argue that a contractual > relationship, an agreement to pay, can ever be created SIMPLY BY > DIALING A PHONE NUMBER, without _any_ _previous_ agreement between the > two parties? It's legally absurd (not to mention bad public policy). > The callee has NOT entered into ANY contract with answering party, > and can't possibly be considered to owe them anything. Right? > [Moderator's Note: Although the added charges resulting from calls to > 900/976/540-like services is in a gray area, there is no question > whatsoever about your 'agreement to pay simply by dialing a phone > number'. When you subscribe to telephone service from any telco, you > are bound by federal and state tariffs which govern telco operations. > One such tariff of every telco says that you are responsible for the > use of your instruments. Period. Would you agree that a contract (and > only a verbal one at that) exists if you specifically request some > service (ie a connection) verbally from an operator? The dial tone is > telco's solicitation for your service request; your spinning the dial > or pressing the buttons is your response. PAT] What you seem to be overlooking is that a contract can exist only if all of the necessary items obtain. I seem to remember from Contract 101 that one of these conditions is a "meeting of the minds," i.e. that both parties must understand that a contract is being entered into and further must understand at least the essence of what each is obligating himself to perform. While nothing in the law prohibits a competent adult from making a foolish contract, it does require that that person know that a contract is being made. Further, contracting requires an "exchange of consideration." While the $55 is certainly fulfilling that obligation on the part of the caller, my understanding of what was provided (or not provided) by the 540 vendor suggests that no such exchange occurred. Your comparison of this situation to placing an ordinary long-distance call is fallacious. It can safely be assumed that a "reasonable person" knows that placing such a call obligates him to pay for the service rendered, and has undertaken this implicit contract with full foreknowledge. The same assumption cannot be made vis-a-vis the 540 scam. In fact, the very fact that this scum succeeded in getting so many bites proves prima facie that a reasonable person might well not be aware of the obligation he was undertaking by placing the call. Robert Bruce Thompson thompson@forsyth.wsnc.org Forsyth County MIS Department (919) 727-2597 x3012 Winston-Salem, North Carolina USA (919) 727-2020 (FAX) [Moderator's Note: Well here we go again! To what extent is telco obliged to explain their tariffs in detail to their subscribers prior to the subscriber's use of the service? Is it merely sufficient to have the tariff on file for examination? In that case, 540 qualifies, since the paperwork has been filed where anyone can examine it and aquaint themselves with the rates. Suppose the two year old living here with us -- who obviously wouldn't know a tariff from a tomato -- takes our phone off hook and pushes buttons connecting him to Hong Kong ... am I financially responsible despite his lack of knowledge of the tariff and my lack of knowledge that a connection was even being established? Of course I am ... I'm responsible for my phones. PAT] ------------------------------ From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) Subject: Re: Pay-per-Call Scam Organization: Computing Center, North Carolina State University Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1991 23:29:33 GMT In article siegman@sierra.stanford.edu (Anthony E. Siegman) writes: > [Moderator's Note: Although the added charges resulting from calls to > 900/976/540-like services is in a gray area, there is no question > whatsoever about your 'agreement to pay simply by dialing a phone ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Pat, I do think that there is a question. I think that there is no question with respect to the phone charges, but that this does not extend to every other possible charge. > number'. When you subscribe to telephone service from any telco, you > are bound by federal and state tariffs which govern telco operations. > One such tariff of every telco says that you are responsible for the ^^^^^^^^^^^ BUT -- this doesn't mean that if I call someone, and they defraud me, that I still have to pay them because I used the phone. > use of your instruments. Period. Would you agree that a contract (and > only a verbal one at that) exists if you specifically request some > service (ie a connection) verbally from an operator? The dial tone is > telco's solicitation for your service request; your spinning the dial > or pressing the buttons is your response. PAT] No, I have to pay the telco for what they provided. If I order some clothes by phone and they don't send them, but bill me anyway -- why should I have to pay if they arrange to bill it through the phone company? Regardless of what other way I pay, a court will agree to have the amount paid returned to me if the court is convinced that I didn't receive the goods ordered. So if I call a telephone number for which I have no reasonable way of knowing that the recipient wants to charge a fee -- I maintain that I've not entered into a contract with *that* person, and I, at that point, do not owe *that* person anything -- either directly or billed through the phone company. I agree that I owe the telco the toll charges, if any. henry schaffer n c state univ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1991 14:25 EST From: "Curtis E. Reid" Subject: Re: How Do I Contact PC Pursuit? I found this bit of information from another BBS that contains 800 numbers TELECOM Digest readers have been asking for: The new phone number for getting information about the service is now: (800)736-1130 (voice) information, registration, and to learn your closest Sprintnet local access number. Shortened Summary: You can buy a 30 hour block of off-hours (18:00-07:00 local time, plus all day weekends) for $30 per month, fixed charge. Pay by credit card. There are also various prime time plans, too, and something for the disabled. With the local access number, you can get details on all these prior to registration by logging into the PC Pursuit guest account. Dial your local access number obtained from the voice service and after the modem CONNECT enter: @D (no prompt, must* be upper case D) (Sprintnet output shown in {} brackets) {TELENET} {nnn nnx} {TERMINAL=}d1 (reply d1 and hit return) {@}c pursuit (connect to PC Pursuit service) This will start PC Pursuit. Follow the displayed procedure to access the guest account. You can get details and costs of the various services offered, as well as much other information about use of PC Pursuit. You should probably confirm you can access the service okay before you register. You may also want to check with your phone company about your local charges to dial the number, if any. You can register on-line by dialing (800)877-2006, a 2400 baud service dedicated to PC Pursuit registration. Curtis E. Reid CER2520@RITVAX.Bitnet (Bitnet) CER2520@RITVAX.isc.rit.edu (Internet) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Dec 91 00:48 EST From: tanner@ki4pv.compu.com Subject: Re: How Do I Contact PC Pursuit? Organization: CompuData Inc., DeLand > where else can you get long distance data transmission for $1 per > hour (or 83 cents per hour under the $50 per month plan?). It's not the only game in town any more. OK, take that $1/hour for a 1200-baud connection. You can hope to pump something close to that through the lines if you're lucky. Now compare: AT&T offers" Reach Out America" service at $6.60 per hour. You subscribe for a minimum of one hour (not 30 or 50), and you can use a `blazer through it, pushing about 1400 cps (over ten times the rate of PCP). Divide by data rate, and PCP is already behind. Add in the charges to reach the nearest PCP dial-in ($4.80/hr here), consider whether the target city can be reached via PCP, and it doesn't appear to be such a bargain any more. Of course all this assumes that dealing with PCP dialing and outages has no cost. At one time, the raw phone charges were slightly cheaper via PCP (when we only had low-speed modems). I wrote a PCP dialer for use with UUCP at that time. We dropped PCP when they changed the rates. ...!{bikini.cis.ufl.edu allegra uunet!cdin-1}!ki4pv!tanner ------------------------------ From: sundar@fiber-one.nosubdomain.nodomain (Sundar Narasimhan) Subject: Re: Wanted: Combination Answering Machine and Cordless Phone Date: 11 Dec 91 00:05:20 GMT Reply-To: sundar@ai.mit.edu Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory In article , bill@eedsp.gatech.edu writes: > The answer lies as far as your nearest source of AT&T phones. They Let me add -- the Panasonic KX-T4300. It sells for around 150.00$. I looked into buying this, but still haven't made up my mind. I'm presently looking into all-digital answering machines.. (Does anyone have one they recommend? Does any of these come with a cordless phone?) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Dec 91 17:08:24 cst From: Peter.Bodenbach@ivgate.omahug.org (Peter Bodenbach) Subject: Re: Wanted: Combination Answering Machine and Cordless Phone Reply-To: peter.bodenbach@inns.omahug.org Organization: Inns of Court, Papillion, NE Harold, Yes, there is a combination answering machine/cordless phone. I have such a machine from AT&T called Model 5600 that does all that you ask and more. It can be bought at any Sears store for about $250, but I have seen it on sale for as low as $189. I hope you find this machine to your liking ... it has served me well. Take care, Pete Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.13 r.3 (1:285/27.0) ------------------------------ From: Jim Haynes Subject: Re: Are Phone Books Archived For Future Generations? Date: 10 Dec 91 01:30:23 GMT Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz Our library has a lot of phone books on microfiche. This hasn't been going on for many years, but would be a good way to archive them henceforth. haynes@cats.ucsc.edu haynes@cats.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 8 Dec 91 18:03:54 PST From: linc@tongue1.Berkeley.EDU (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: UK 1994 "Great Renumbering" (was IL Bell/708) Organization: University of California, Berkeley clive@x.co.uk (Clive Feather): > Other contributors have mentioned the cost of an area code split -- > One candidate for this prize may have been the UK's first ever > area code split [London (1) split into Inner London (71) and Outer > London (81)] (we don't often have area code splits -- we have area code > merges!). > However, the real winner is going to be the Great Renumbering on > Easter Sunday 1994 -- *every* number in the UK is going to change. For > those interested in the details, simultaneously: every area code will > be prefixed with a 1, the international access code will change from > 010 to 00, and a second emergency number (112) will be added to the > existing number (999). Thus dialing will change: This strikes me as being even more collossally STUPID than the plan to introduce 52x pseudo-area-codes for dialing Mexico from the U.S. In the case of the U.K., the only conceivable purpose to adding a digit to the city code is to allow for future splits. Given that they've been merging rather than splitting, why create this USELESS capacity? If the total of 9 digits for national numbers (3 city + 6 local or 2+7) is inadequate, the only reasonable solution is to add a digit to the LOCAL number. Or are we supposed to remember that (0171) is everything within a three-block radius of Parliament, the Tower of London is (0271) but St. Paul's is (0371), Buckingham Palace all by itself is (0471), and so on? The sign of real status will be having your own STD code, instead of just your own Post Code. In the case of the U.S. and Mexico, we *USED* to have pseudo-area- codes for dialing some parts of Mexico. They have been discontinued, so that the ONLY way to dial Mexico (excepting local border in places like El Paso/Ciudad Juarez) from the U.S. is via 011 + 52 + city + number. People will become accustomed to this method, if they have any reason to call Mexico. Now, three or four years from now, we will dial 1 + 52 + city + number for the same call, all for the sake of saving TWO DIGITS of dialing?? WHY???? Furthermore, {is | why is} Mexico willing to strap itself to the rigid configuration of U.S. numbers? All numbers in Mexico will have to be exactly eight digits. I seem to recall that some numbers in Mexico City are already eight digit local numbers, which means that it just WON'T WORK. What is the logic behind EITHER of these ideas?? It certainly escapes me. This is not a flame at Clive or anyone who has posted about the Mexico plan, but rather at the people who originated such nonsense. Linc Madison == Linc@Tongue1.Berkeley.EDU ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Dec 91 8:12:49 CST From: Will Martin Subject: Re: Annoying Computer Payphones Michael.Rosen@samba.acs.unc.edu (Michael Rosen) wrote: > I hate these damn independent computer payphones. Does anybody know > why, upon dialing a number, sometimes touchtones are disabled? > [Moderator's Note: ... COCOTS are very > seldom intended for anything except to make fast money for their > owners, and what you mention is not uncommon ... This "feature" of some/many COCOTs has been mentioned over and over throughout the years of discussions on Telecom, but I don't recall ever seeing anyone post the explanation of just *why* the extra effort in programming was ever made to tell the phone to turn off the touchtone pad after a call is completed. How does doing this "make fast money" for the owners? I would assume that there is some item in the phone's programming to "disable tone pad after call completion" versus leaving it alone, and there must be a programming manual for at least *some* of these COCOT models that has some level of explanation to tell the new owner why to chose one option over the other. So why? I know there are at least a few COCOT owners out there reading the list. Please post -- what reason would you have to set this option one way or the other? My first reaction would be like that of Michael; if the thing didn't let me do what I needed to do when making the phone call (use the tone pad to access an automated response system after completing the call), I would never use that phone again. Thus, setting this option to "turn off pad" would mean the owner was forfeiting potential future revenue. For that matter, someone angry enough after the phone did that to him might even destroy it. So all I can see for the COCOT owner is negative results from that option setting. So what are the possible positives that would outweigh these possible negatives and make the owner choose the "turn off" option? Regards, Will [Moderator's Note: For one thing, disabling the '#' forces people whose long distance carriers allow the use of that symbol to end one call and start another without redialing the 800 number and putting in their card number again to have to pay X cents for an additional 800 call, or whatever the COCOT guy is charging. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1012 *******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01173; 13 Dec 91 3:08 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22388 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 13 Dec 1991 01:15:11 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23762 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 13 Dec 1991 01:15:02 -0600 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1991 01:15:02 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199112130715.AA23762@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1013 TELECOM Digest Fri, 13 Dec 91 01:15:00 CST Volume 11 : Issue 1013 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: E911 System Brought to it's Knees By a Prank (Will Martin) Re: E911 System Brought to it's Knees By a Prank (Daniel Herrick) Re: Wrong Numbers (S. Spencer Sun) Re: Wrong Numbers (Larry Rachman) Re: FAX Switch; Distinctive Ringing Switch Wanted (Alan Marc Gallatin) Re: Caller ID For Dallas/Ft Worth Area? (Macy Hallock) Re: Caller ID For Dallas/Ft Worth Area? (Eric Dittman) Re: Intra-Lata LD Using PC Pursuit (Robert J. Woodhead) Re: IMTS Channel Designators (Macy Hallock) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 9 Dec 91 7:49:20 CST From: Will Martin Subject: Re: E911 System Brought to it's Knees By a Prank > [Moderator's Note: Had the same DJ aired a 'news bulletin' saying > several areas of the USA were currently under a nuclear attack from > some foreign nation, would you also blame the 'idiots' who would swamp > 911 asking for instructions or confirmation? I get the impression, from reading this thread, that people are using the "fake nuclear attack alert" as an extreme example of improper DJ behavior which a DJ would never do. They are wrong. This precise thing happened here in St. Louis during the Gulf War. John Ullett, a "Morning Zoo" DJ on station KSHE (94.7 MHz FM here in St. Louis), put together an edited and effects-enhanced tape of a '50s-era nuclear attack alert recording designed to give listeners the impression that an attack was really under way; he used the EBS tones in conjunction with the vocal announcement. This happened on Jan 29 '90. There was an uproar here about it, of course. The station got an FCC letter the next day, which contrasts with the usual three weeks or so it takes the FCC to formally notify a station regarding obscenity or other more-common offenses, so the reaction was an extraordinarily quick response. Ullett was fired from his other job as the baseball Cardinals' "field announcer". The station management claimed that the action was that of the DJ acting by himself alone. However, it was noted in local radio-news columns that other individuals at the station were involved in the preparation of the tape and were aware of the broadcast, but did not act to prevent it or immediately follow-up with a disclaimer or retraction. Some say the whole thing was a deliberate publicity stunt; the net effect some months later was that the FCC imposed a $25,000 fine on KSHE, and many local critics estimated that the station had gotten far more publicity than it could have purchased with that amount. The DJ is still on the air. KSHE was number two in the Arbitron ratings after all this, slightly up from its previous standing. Since my musical tastes more closely parallel that of our esteemed Moderator than coincide with "popular" taste, I never have listened to these "Morning Zoo" type of programs and have no idea how this incident fit in with their usual run of material. However, the net result of this being a negligable fine ($25,000 might seem hefty to an individual, but it is peanuts to a high-rated station; they give away more than that in contests to garner even less publicity) indicates that the FCC is pretty much of a "paper tiger" these days when it comes to large corporations. They can make miserable the life of a kid playing with a pirate radio station doing a low-powered shortwave broadcast, but they appear to be pretty much ineffective in controlling the actions of a large broadcaster. Regards, Will ------------------------------ From: herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (daniel lance herrick) Subject: Re: E911 System Brought to it's Knees By a Prank Date: 9 Dec 91 14:21:27 EST In article , our esteemed Moderator noted: > [Moderator's Note: Had the same DJ aired a 'news bulletin' saying > several areas of the USA were currently under a nuclear attack from > some foreign nation, would you also blame the 'idiots' who would swamp > 911 asking for instructions or confirmation? I'm not interested in Pat, Are you consciously modeling your example on the Mercury Theatre of the Air's presentation of H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds? There were several kinds of panic reaction to that dramatic production. A few years later, a station in Mexico ran the show. When listeners decided they had been hoaxed, they demolished the transmitter building and killed an announcer or two. I've listened to a recording of the original broadcast. It was a good piece of work. dan dlh@NCoast.org dlh Performance Marketing POBox 1419 Mentor Ohio 44061 [Moderator's Note: Your example occurred to me, yes. PAT] ------------------------------ From: spencer@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (S. Spencer Sun) Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers Organization: Princeton Class of '94 Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1991 02:05:17 GMT In article , 6sigma2@polari!sumax. seattleu.edu (Brian Matthews) writes: > The only time I can recall dialing a wrong number is when I was given > a wrong number by someone. I only had to dial it once to realize it > was wrong (unlike some people who insist on calling three or four > times within a few minutes, even though I told them the first time > that they got the number they were dialing but the party they are > looking for isn't and has never been at this number). I guess I've > never understood the difficulty in dialing a telephone. I think what's going on here is people who are given phone numbers, dial them, find out that the number they have REACHED is incorrect, are not sure if they just dialed wrong (by the time the other person picks up and says "Hello" and you say "Is ___ there?" and they say "Sorry, you have the wrong number" you've forgotten what buttons you actually pushed because the mind works that way) or if the number they were given was incorrect to begin with. The best way to avoid this, if someone calls twice in succession, is say something along the lines of "Sorry, you did it again, what number are you trying to reach?" Very straightforward and after you ask that it's impossible for them to call you again by accident. S. Spencer Sun '94 - Princeton Univ. - spencer@phoenix.princeton.edu ------------------------------ Date: 09 Dec 91 21:17:15 EST From: Larry Rachman <74066.2004@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers We've got a phone number here that was once assigned to an appliance repair shop, and is also only one digit off from a local doctor. The wrong numbers are fairly frequent, but usually fairly entertaining. Apparently, the appliance shop had *lots* of stickers printed up with the number, and these are now attached to refrigerators and stoves all around the area. Most people are quite reluctant to believe that we don't fix Kitchenaids. Often, they'll leave rather detailed messages on the answering machine about the problem they're having. One caller I answered was quite insistant about ordering a new washing machine. Despite my statements that I did not, and never have, sold washing machines, she repeatedly insisted that "... I don't need it right away, all I want is a quote". Calls for the doctor are also fairly frequent, and somewhat sadder, in their own way. People will call up the answering machine and leave rather detailed descriptions of their symptoms, sometimes with fairly gory specifics. I used to call them back and tell them that they had the wrong number, but I gave up because of the number of calls. The saddest one of all came from a woman on the verge of tears, telling the 'doctor' that her mother had died. I did try, repeatedly, to call her back but the line was continually busy, perhaps off the hook. I hope that everything worked out as well possible. Perhaps the most bizarre one was from a crematorium telling me that remains were ready to be picked up. I declined the offer. Generally, I try to be as polite to the callers as possible, and most are polite to me as well. Occasionally they just hang up in my ear, or curse at me, and then hang up. We don't have the call-back feature here yet. Do I have a social obligation to call back people who leave wrong number messages on my answering machine, to let them know they haven't reached their target? Larry Rachman, WA2BUX Reply to: 1644801@mcimail.com [Moderator's Note: You have no obligation to do anything with the callers except possibly not be deliberatly misleading. I once had a number for outgoing calls from the computer which was *so* polluted with wrong numbers ... how polluted, you ask? It was so bad (and since I never got any calls on that line myself), I put an old answering machine on the line which had as its announcement only message: "You have reached the Wrong Number Repository ... you have reached a wrong number. No messages will be taken. This is a wrong number; please hang up now. " Otherwise when I was on the computer, the line was busy of course. Imagine someone trying for hours to get through the busy signal only to get the above message with they finally did get through the next day, etc! PAT] ------------------------------ From: alan@acpub.duke.edu (Alan Marc Gallatin) Subject: Re: FAX Switch; Distinctive Ringing Switch Wanted Date: 9 Dec 91 15:55:12 GMT Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C. In article ron@whamg.att.com (Ron Saad) writes: > I am in search of two items -- a FAX/phone/modem/etc switch that > checks for the FAX CNG but that can also be controlled by DTMF tones, > and a switch that directs calls based on distinctive ringing > ("IdentARing" in this part of the country). Two products by "Lynx Automation" might be of interest to you: * Fax Director * Ring Director I know very little about the first, except that it is generally available for less than $100 and does basiacally what you wanted. I have more experience with Ring Director as I use it here. (I thought about getting Fax Director but it would be impossible to continue using telco voicemail since my phone line would actually have to be "answered" in order to detect a fax machine). Ring Director comes in two models -- one which detects two distinctive rings and one which detects four. (The second, third and fourth number ringing patterns are pretty much standardized) - When one "number rings" the switch passes the ring on to the relevant device and cuts off the other for the duration of the call. Similarly, when one device is picked up to make an outgoing call, anything plugged into the other port is disabled for that call. I have my Ring Director hooked in at the network interface. The two lines coming out of the unit (corresponding to each of the two ring formats) are then fed through my apartment's phone line distribution as a simulated "line 1 and line 2" -- The fax-modem is then plugged into "line 2" and my voice phones into "line 1" -- my modem never hears my voice calls ring and I never here the double-ring associated with the fax on my voice line. (A nice plus is that the switch makes it impossible for me to pick up in the middle of a data transmission!!!) Both models retail under $100 -- I bought the two ring version for about $70. Further questions? E-mail -- don't post (unless you believe the follow-up to still be of general interest!) ALAN M. GALLATIN Internet: alan@acpub.duke.edu Duke University School of Law alan@student.law.duke.edu Home: +1 919 493 8903 GEnie: A. GALLATIN ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 8 Dec 91 13:01 EST From: fmsys!macy@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu (Macy Hallock) Subject: Re: Caller ID For Dallas/Ft Worth Area? Organization: A Fool's Paradise In article is written: > Does anyone know when Southwestern Bell and GTE are going to start > offering Caller ID service to the Dallas-Ft Worth area? Bear in mind many of the GTE Central Offices are the GTE/Automatic Electric (now AG Communications) GTD-5's. GTE has exited the central office equipment market with the agreement forming AG Communications and at some point will not own any part of AG. I presume AT&T will eventually integrate AG into their own structure at some point. Although the GTD-5 seems to be a servicable central office machine (it beats the AE No.1 EAX, for sure), its not a production item anymore. All new GTE CO's in this area seem to be Northern Telecom DMS's (I thought they might be AT&T since GTE formed AG with AT&T, but not so ... GTE also seems big on selling Northern's PBX and key systems ...) I am not aware of CLASS services being offered on any GTD-5 machines anywhere. To the best of my knowledge, development on these has stopped as well. I know that ISDN has been scrapped on these, and I believe CLASS is not planned, either. That seems to mean Caller-ID in many GTE areas will be delayed ... perhaps until the GTD-5's are replaced many years from now. It would also seem to mean Signalling System No. 7 will not be used by the GTD-5, either. I know that many GTD-5 CO's are scheduled to have sophisticated DACS installed ahead of the machines to permit better access and some enhancement. These DACS are not GTE or AT&T made. My local GTE contacts tell me that CLASS services have no introduction date planned in Ohio and they comment that no one is talking about it inside GTE. I'd appreciate any GTE or AG staffers on the net who know what the current status of GTD-5 service enhancements are ... offering either the official version or actual first hand information. Regards, Macy M Hallock Jr N8OBG 216.725.4764 macy@fmsystm.uucp macy@fmsystm.ncoast.org [No disclaimer, but I have no real idea what I'm saying or why I'm telling you] ------------------------------ From: DITTMAN@skitzo.dseg.ti.com (Eric Dittman) Subject: Re: Caller ID For Dallas/Ft Worth Area? Date: 9 Dec 91 14:53:46 CST Organization: Texas Instruments Component Test Facility In article , rlatham@fwhnm1d.fwrdc. rtsg.mot.com (Russ Latham) writes: > Does anyone know when Southwestern Bell and GTE are going to start > offering Caller ID service to the Dallas-Ft Worth area? I've talked > to a customer service rep, and they weren't much help. The last time I checked the best guess Southwestern Bell had for Dallas was 1993. Their reason for such a long delay was the need for replacing most of the switches to support CID and other new features (like selective call blocking). Eric Dittman dittman@skitzo.dseg.ti.com Texas Instruments - Component Test Facility Disclaimer: I don't speak for Texas Instruments or the Component Test Facility. I don't even speak for myself. ------------------------------ From: trebor@foretune.co.jp (Robert J Woodhead) Subject: Re: Intra-Lata LD Using PC Pursuit Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1991 02:04:53 GMT peterson@ZGNEWS.LoneStar.Org (Bob Peterson) writes: > Telenet has in the past objected to same-city calling over > their network and it does not make a lot of sense to do it since you > have to pay telco for a call to the PCP indial anyway ... why not just > dial the desired seven digit number instead. PAT] Telenet often has several indials in a large city, so one is often a true, untimed local call from you. The modem you want to call, on the other hand, may be a more expensive call than the PC PURSUIT charge. Which brings up an interesting point! At the time I was using PC PURSUIT, it cost about $1 an hour after 6pm. I always wondered how they could make money at this, given that they had to pay business rates (even discounted ones) for the outdial phone line. Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Dec 91 20:16 EST From: fmsys!macy@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu (Macy Hallock) Subject: Re: IMTS Channel Designators Organization: A Fool's Paradise In article is written: > What is the reason/purpose behind the alphabetic IMTS channel > designations? > Low band freqs are called ZO, ZF, ZH, ZM, ZA, ZR, and ZB. > High band freqs are JL, YL, JP, YP, YJ, YK, JS, YS, YR, JK, and JR. > UHF freqs are QC, QJ, QD, QA, QE, QP, QK, QB, QO, QR, QY, and QF. There were used to: 1. Designate the channel the was your "home" channel and you were to monitor for calls on MTS. 2. It made the phone number look right. My old MTS number was JL5-1337. 3. The old low band channels are now abandoned and I believe the frequencies have been reassigned by the FCC. Macy M Hallock Jr N8OBG 216.725.4764 macy@fmsystm.uucp macy@fmsystm.ncoast.org [No disclaimer, but I have no real idea what I'm saying or why I'm telling you] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1013 *******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02409; 14 Dec 91 17:58 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19075 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 14 Dec 1991 15:46:39 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03061 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 14 Dec 1991 15:46:30 -0600 Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1991 15:46:30 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199112142146.AA03061@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1014 TELECOM Digest Sat, 14 Dec 91 15:46:27 CST Volume 11 : Issue 1014 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson AT&T: From Leading Edge to Bleeding Edge (Dave Niebuhr) British Cellular System Charge For Uncompleted Incoming Calls (N. Roberts) AT&T SDN Reselling (Martin Harriss) Message Express (Carl Moore) What Exactly in Georgia Goes Where (404/706 Split)? (Dave Leibold) Yet Another Teleslime Idea (Jack Winslade) The AC Split That Never Happened (Jack Winslade) Consumer's Guide to Cellular Information (Robert John Zurawski) 800 Discrimination (Bob Frankston) What's a "Turret"? (Roy Smith) Ring Detection Circuit (T.C. Peng) Teleconferencing System Manufacturing Companies (Sanjeev Tavathia) MCI Mail Student Rates (John R. Levine) Telephone Set Push Bottom signal (T.C. Peng) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1991 7:38:32 -0500 (EST) From: NIEBUHR@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (Dave Niebuhr) Subject: AT&T: From Leading Edge to Bleeding Edge In the 12-10-91 {Newsday} there was an article concerning AT&T and some of their recent problems and how fast they can recover. One section listed some of these, called Gnawing Problems. In each one of these the FAA had its communications disrupted and luckily no planes crashed due the them. Oct. 29, 1990: Operational error while converting to digital circuits in Garden City, NY. Lost multiple services for two hours. Jan. 4, 1991: Fiber cable cut by construction crew in Neward; 77 lines lost. Massive operational impace with 262 air traffic delays. Outage lasted nearly 12 hours. Apr. 9, 1991: Fiber cable hit by lightning near Decatur, Ala. Multiple services and land lines lost for nearly 16 hours. May 4, 1991: Four of the FAA's 20 major air traffic control centers shut down for five hours and 22 minutes. Fiber cable cut by farmer burying a dead cow at unspecified location. Massive operational impact. July 17, 1991: Vandals cut cables in three utility holes in Elkton, Mass. Sporadic outages for more than seven hours. Aug. 26, 1991: Fiber cut in Massachussetts during hurricane cleanup. Lost multiple services for more than 15 hours. November 1991: Kansas City, Mo. air traffic center lost communicatons for four hours and 16 minutes because a beaver chewed fiber cable. The article puts AT&T in a bad light, even though AT&T spokespersons tried to minimize the damage (as they would and should). Mention is made of the new FASTAR (Fast Automatic Recovery) system which brings lines back to service fairly quickly. Examples were 131 of 193 circuits between Colombus, Indiana and Louisville, Ky. and 114 on Sept. 17 in NYC. All in all, the article was somewhat disturbing since too much reliance is being put on machines and not people (meanwhile letting more and more employees go). Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Dec 91 15:17:31 GMT-1:00 From: "Nigel Roberts, FRN-605, DTN 785-1018" Subject: British Cellular System Charge For Uncompleted Incoming Calls Many of you will know of the British cellular phone system, operated as a duopoly by Cellnet (BT)and Vodafone (RACAL). Some of you will also know that the system charges you for uncompleted calls. This generates an enormous amount of revenue for them. As an example, supposing you decide to call me on my U.K. cellular number (+44 860 578600). If you get the ringing tone, the call will supervise when either I or Angelika answer. This is perfectly normal, and the expected behaviour. If, however, you get the message indicating that we couldn't be reached, perhaps because (usual reason) the phone is turned off or out of area then the call will supervise immediately and you will have to pay for the privilege of listening to the Cellnet intercept message. Worse, this can also happen even when the phone is active but the local cell is congested. You STILL will have to pay for the call. If you had used a calling card or similar means of placing the call, you could easily imagine having had to pay three or four dollars for an uncompleted call. A couple of years ago, it was suggested to me (by John Covert) that charging for such intercept messages was contrary to CCITT recommendations. I do hope so, because if so, I intend to complain loudly to Oftel about it. If you ever have had occasion to call a UK cellular number (+44 860, +44 850, +44 836 & +44 831 numbers) and this has happened to you, I believe you should complain to your LD carrier and demand a refund. I do have access to CCITT recommendations via the IEE/British Computer Society Library but unfortunately this is only a photocopy by post service, so I wonder if anyone can give me a reference to specific Recommendations which deal with this. Any suggestions? Nigel Roberts +44 860 578600 +49 69 6672-1018 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Dec 91 14:57:01 EST From: Martin Harriss Subject: AT&T SDN Reselling My company has recently been approached by an AT&T SDN reseller, and I would like to get some opinions on the service. I know this has been discussed in the Digest fairly recently, but currently I do not have ftp access to the archives. I would like to get any opinions you might have on the service, and I have a couple of specific questions: Is this set up as your 1+ carrier, or do you need to dial an access code (10-SDN?) to route your calls? In the case of billing inquiries, call handling difficulties, etc, who do you talk to? Do you go via your reseller, or can you talk directly to AT&T? Anything else, good or bad, about the service? I am also considering what we might save by connecting directly to a long distance carrier. I was therefore wondering at what volume of calls does it pay to start talking directly to a long distance carrier? Any opinions/information would be welcome. I will forward the information to anyone who requests it. Martin Harriss uunet!bdsgate!martin ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Dec 91 12:09:21 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Message Express I saw a few C&P pay phones in Baltimore which have, instead of the "out of change?" message, an announcement for Message Express at 800-477-0334. (I forgot to try this number from Delaware later, although I note that this is the same prefix as the C&P helpline at 800-477- 4704.) The Message Express offers (for 75 cents if the call is local, 1.75 if long distance) 10 attempts, beginning immediately and continuing for the next 24 hours, at the delivery of your message. I later sent a message to myself using the Message Express. The first attempt was made within the hour I had sent the message, and the sender's name and message were played only once. This is not as "nice" a service as AT&T Voicemark, where I have the option of replay. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Dec 91 18:25:32 EST From: DLEIBOLD@VM1.YorkU.CA Subject: What Exactly in Georgia Goes Where (404/706 Split)? I have a list of Georgia prefixes; the question is, what are the exact exchanges that will stay in 404, and what goes to 706? I've heard that "Metropolitan Atlanta" will remain in 404, but I'm looking at a more exact idea as to what exchanges are involved. Are these the current local calling area to Atlanta, or is this more a political metro boundary involved? dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Dec 91 18:25:46 cst From: Jack.Winslade@ivgate.omahug.org (Jack Winslade) Subject: Yet Another Teleslime Idea Here's an idea that a few of us were bouncing around this morning, but I doubt if any of us will seek to cash in on it. Maybe someone has already -- maybe someone will read this and do so. We were discussing two semi-related topics, one being COCOT slime and the other being the 976 slime that has tried many times (and failed) to run a successful time-temperature rip-off service here in Omaha. Is there anything to prevent the operator of COCOTs to install, either within the units or central to a whole gaggle of them, a private time and/or temperature box with digitized voice ?? This could be accessed either as a (otherwise unassigned) seven-digit number, perhaps a quickie code (dial *1 for time and temp, only $.50 per call), maybe even as a free public service from the generous operators of the COCOTs >>FAT CHANCE<<, or worse, maybe intercepting a 976 or $.25 local seven-digit time/temp line and pocketing the change. (Would anyone know the difference?) On a more general level, is there anything to prevent COCOT operators from connecting calls to anything other than the pair that comes from the local telco? Direct bypass to a LD carrier (or AOS slime) perhaps? Would it be legal/feasible to run several hundred COCOTs in a large shopping center out of, say, a private PBX to concentrate the many units into a group of trunks? (They wouldn't even have to have DID -- everyone knows that COCOTs cannot be dialed. ;-) Comments? Good day. JSW jsw@drbbs.omahug.org ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Dec 91 18:22:16 cst From: Jack.Winslade@ivgate.omahug.org (Jack Winslade) Subject: The AC Split That Never Happened The original message in this thread has long since fallen off the far end here, so I can't do a quote or same-subject reply, but .... In response to a recent post of area code splits which included a 402/308 split for Nebraska (which I doubted -- and still do) I posted a general query on the subject in a local conference (either OMAHA or oma.general, depending on your religion ;-) and I am posting excerpts from the responses here for your info. The bottom line seems to be that as long as area codes have been usable in Nebraska, there have always been two, 402 and 308. JSW>> A recent list posted [in TELECOM Digest] shows a Nebraska JSW>> 402-308 split sometime in the past. I can't remember, but DID JSW>> Nebraska at one time consist of only one area code ?? Does JSW>> anyone remember when, if at all, the split occurred? A Ma Bell employee responded ... JR> That's the FIRST I've heard of that, Jack. To my knowledge, JR> there were always the two NPAs. JR> Of course, the Numbering Plan was introduced in 1961 (or earlier), JR> so I can't REMEMBER back THAT far! :) And a long-time Omaha resident added, among other telephone trivia ... AJ> If my memory serves me well, Nebraska was always two area codes AJ> as long as Nebraska had Direct Distance Dialing. Now Omaha didn't AJ> get Direct Distance Dialing until 1962 or so. California had AJ> Direct Distance Dialing in the 1950's, so maybe you could call AJ> all parts of Nebraska that you could call with one area code at AJ> some time in the 1950's. AJ> ... A couple years later, we could dial long distance directly AJ> to the places that could take it. It was strange, because you AJ> could dial all the way to California, but Bennington {NE} was AJ> still long distance and you had to go through the operator. ... AJ> ... On the 342 lines you could dial long distance just like you AJ> can today. On the 346 lines, the operator would always come on AJ> and ask what number you were calling FROM. Not the number you were AJ> calling, the number you were calling from, as if they could not AJ> tell at the telephone office. I always thought I could lie and AJ> name any old number at random, but honesty got the best of me. That's about it. If anyone has anything concrete concerning a split of 402/308, I would be interested in seeing it. Good day! JSW jsw@drbbs.omahug.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Dec 91 12:35:52 EST From: rjz@iexist.att.com (Robert John Zurawski) Subject: Consumer's Guide to Cellular Information Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories I am looking into buying a Cellular phone as a Christmas gift, but I don't know anything about them. Is there a guide (like in any magazines) that tells about the features in these phones. I would like to know things like what differance does it make to get a phone with less watts, how to change from one carrier to another, how long the batteries will last, etc. Bob Zurawski ...!att!cbnewsc!rjz ------------------------------ From: Subject: 800 Discrimination Date: 12 Dec 1991 14:43 -0400 I was at a hotel and I guess I keyed in 81-800 too fast and got 8-00 which got me an ATT operator. I decided to simply ask for my 800 number. But it is a Cable and Wireless 800 number so she said she couldn't connect me! Is this new? [Moderator's Note: It has been the case for some time now that AT&T operators will only assist in dialing to 800 numbers which are assigned to AT&T. I guess they figure if an 800 customer of some other company needs assistance in being reached the caller should ask the operators of the LD company involved to spend their time placing the call. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Dec 91 15:34:23 EST From: Roy Smith Subject: What's a "Turret"? I'm trying to order a data circuit. I call our local business office, who said they would have to have somebody from marketing call me back. Since I was in a hurry, I asked for marketing's number so I could call them. Apparently, they are not supposed to give out this number, but did anyway. To get to the point, the person who answered the phone there twice mentioned that she couldn't help me because she was just answering calls that came into the turret, or something to that effect. What's a turret? Is this some special telcospeak for "order desk"? [Moderator's Note: A 'turret' in this instance is the operator or receptionist's telephone console where many lines are available on line buttons they depress, etc ... like a 'call director'. PAT] ------------------------------ From: T. C. Peng Subject: Ring Detection Circuit Date: Tue, 10 Dec 91 12:26:27 PST I received a CLID receiver with ring detector chip (MC145447) from Motorola lately. I am intested in the ring detection circuit within this chip or something performs the same function. I am working on a small experiment on my telephone set. If anyone knows the ring detect circuit (not necessary the same as the one of Motorola's design) and willing to share the information with me, please let me know. Thanks. Alan TC Penn email : tc@liszt.cdc.hp.com voice : (408) 553-3225 ------------------------------ From: tavat@iastate.edu (Sanjeev Tavathia) Subject: Teleconferencing System Manufacturing Companies Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1991 02:05:03 GMT I would like to get in touch with companies manufacturing teleconferencing system/or hands-free mobile telephones. I am working in Acoustic echo cancellation area and mainly interested in current technology companies using for teleconferencing. Please direct all mail to tavat@vincent.iastate.edu. Sanjeev ------------------------------ Subject: MCI Mail Student Rates Date: Tue, 10 Dec 91 23:36:02 EST From: John R. Levine MCI Mail recently announced a special pricing plan for students called College Mail. For $5 per month, you get up to 100 outgoing e-mail messages per month. Messages beyond that and their other services such as fax and hardcopy messages cost what they usually cost. Incoming messages are free, as always. There is a one-time $10 sign-up fee and you have to have a credit card (Amex, MC, or Visa) which they can bill. Proof of student status, a photocopy of the ID, must be provided annually. For students who don't have net access through their schools, this looks to be a very good deal, particularly considering MCI Mail's gateways to nearly every other e-mail system including the Internet. MCI has a nationwide 800 access number, so I'd expect this to be particularly attractive to students at out of the way little schools. Call 1-800-444-6245 for more info. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ From: T. C. Peng Subject: Telephone Set Push Bottom Signal Date: Wed, 11 Dec 91 10:24:44 PST Pat, I have a question about the telephone push bottom signal. When I call someone with the dial tone (or rotary) phone, first, I dial his phone number, then, before he picks up the phone, i.e. before the phone gets connected, I dial something else, for example 1234, can this extra stuff reach his telephone set or will the CO remove this stuff before it reaches the called person? Alan TC Penn email : tc@liszt.cdc.hp.com voice : (408) 255-5540 [Moderator's Note: It gets dumped. The other end does not get it. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1014 *******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04001; 14 Dec 91 18:57 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19971 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 14 Dec 1991 16:44:17 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28374 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 14 Dec 1991 16:44:08 -0600 Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1991 16:44:08 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199112142244.AA28374@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1015 TELECOM Digest Sat, 14 Dec 91 16:44:06 CST Volume 11 : Issue 1015 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson FCC Says No More Slamming Allowed (TELECOM Moderator) No More Slamming (Dave Niebuhr) House Panel Faults FCC (Dave Niebuhr) AMD and Motorola and ISDN (John P. Hascall) Telephone Directory on CD-ROM (Direct Access; Witold Dziewaltowski-Gintowt) Residential Toll Diversion (Jack Adams) Motorola Acquires GEOSTAR's Satellite Services For Iridium (Lloyd Buchanan) Seasonal Riposte Reposted (Jim Haynes) EFF Announces The Pioneer Awards (Gerard Van der Leun) Frame Relay (Steve Silverman) More Checking on 878 and 688 Prefixes in Maryland (Carl Moore) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: TELECOM Moderator (telecom@eecs.nwu.edu) Subject: FCC Says No More Slamming Allowed Date: Sat, 14 Dec 91 10:30:29 CST [Moderator's Note: I received several copies of the press release issued by the FCC Friday pertaining to 'slamming'. My thanks to everyone who submitted this. PAT] -------- WASHINGTON, D.C., U.S.A., 1991 DEC 13 (NB) -- The Federal Communications Commission adopted rules to halt a practice called "slamming," under which long-distance customers are switched to other long-distance carriers, often without their knowledge. The agency said slamming was a leading cause of consumer complaints. The practice took many forms. Telemarketing firms hired by MCI were once accused of getting spoken permission to "try" the carrier, then switched. AT&T was accused of "slamming" customers from smaller long distance carriers. Newsbytes reported earlier this year of how its Atlanta bureau felt "slammed" when it purchased MCI Fax service, then had its long-distance service transformed to that carrier's international division. Under the new rules, telemarketers must verify a customer's decision to switch either through a written authorization, through the consumer calling a toll-free number, through an independent third party, or through a pre-paid postcard. The long distance company would then have to wait 14 days before ordering the switch, which is made by a local phone company, giving customers time to change their minds. Some of the new requirements were proposed by the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, which represents state regulators. Other portions came from an agreement reached by AT&T and MCI to settle a lawsuit over the issue. In a press statement, MCI tried to claim credit for the decision. Its statement read that the new rules "are derived from recommendations submitted by MCI in December 1990." The statement ignores the part AT&T or state regulators played in the decision, or the legal background behind the recommendations. MCI also said in its statement it will continue to use telemarketing firms in an effort to get customers to switch carriers. In other FCC action, the agency clarified rules under which TV stations sell political candidates broadcast time, banned the use of cellular telephones on airplanes, because of interference with ground-based systems, except when authorized by the plane's captain, and proposed new rules to ease the entry of foreign phone firms with open markets, especially UK firms, into the U.S. market. (Dana Blankenhorn/19911213/Press Contact: FCC Press Office, 202-632-5050; MCI, Debra Shriver, 703-415-6904) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1991 10:52:05 -0500 (EST) From: NIEBUHR@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) Subject: No More Slamming According to today's {Newsday, 12/14/91}, the FCC has adopted rules that supposedly will prevent telcos from slamming the comptetion by requiring that they must document the customer's decision to switch from one long distance carrier to another. Let's wait and see if this comes to pass or not. Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1991 11:02:47 -0500 (EST) From: NIEBUHR@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) Subject: House Panel Faults FCC In today's {Newsday, 12/14/91}, there is an article that says that the House of Representatives fault the FCC for laxity for the recent phone outages. I quote: "A good deal of the blame ... belongs to the Federal Communications Commission which has been unwilling to acknowledge the severity of the problem," said Rep. Bob Wise (D-W.Va.) chairman of the House Government Operations information, justice and agriculture subcommittee. These comments accompanied a report by the Government Operations Committee on outages in local phone services that affected millions of phone lines on the East and West Coasts and disruptions in AT&T's domestic and international long-distance service, which tied up East Coast air traffic and forced the stranding of thousands of airline passengers. The FCC's rebuttal was that it would set up a council of government and telephone indurstry officials who will look for ways to improve the networks. They also said that the report was expected and that they don't act in a reactive manner. The FCC also said that the improvements were planned before this happened. Alfred Sikes, FCC Chairman, appointed Paul H. Henson, former chairman of Untied Telecommunications, to chair the FCC's Network Reliability Council. A unit is to be formed within the FCC to investigate outages in a similar manner to the National Transportation Safety Board with its handling of airplane crashes. The panel probably won't go so far as the NTSB and has not been fine tuned. While the article is good and makes some valid points, I wonder how the FCC and the telcos will respond when, not if, the next major outage occurs. Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ From: john@iastate.edu (John P Hascall) Subject: AMD and Motorola and ISDN Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1991 16:31:14 GMT I am a grad student looking for addresses (e-mail or postal) to write to request specifications, tech notes, and engineering samples for a project I am undertaking. In particular, I am interested in the Motorola MC68302 IMP and the AMD LANCE chipset (Am7990, Am7992B & Am7996). Any good reference on the nuts&bolts layer of ISDN would also be appreciated! John Hascall Project Vincent Iowa State University Computation Center john@iastate.edu Ames, IA 50011 515/294-9551 [fax -1717] ------------------------------ From: witold@gareth.business.carleton.ca (Witold Dziewaltowski-Gintowt) Subject: Telephone Directory on CD-ROM Organization: Carleton University Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1991 01:32:41 GMT From Direct Access, December 13, 1991: Nynex introduces national electronic telephone directory on CD-ROM ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ New York, N.Y. - Nynex Information Technologies Co. has introduced a national consumer and business digital telephone directory for use with personal computers. This new expanded national version of Nynex Fast Track Digital Directory will be available on a nine-volume set of CD-ROM discs. --------- So much for the quote. I just thought it might be of interest to some of the telecom readers. Merry Christmas! Witold Dziewaltowski-Gintowt Carleton University * School of Business * Computer Consulting net : witold@business.carleton.ca voice: +1-613-788-2600 x. 2362 ------------------------------ From: jadams@nvuxl.cc.bellcore.com (26350-adams) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 91 13:35:50 GMT Subject: Residential Toll Diversion Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ In contributing to the above discussion, I would like to point out that recent events in the industry (Ameritech, Bell Atlantic and Southern Bell experiments) surrounding "Advanced Intelligent Network" Release 0 technology has the promise of being able to support a toll diversion (Someone will come up with a clever marketing name for this) service affordable by residential customers. Without going into details, a database look-up against a table of "allowed" or "disallowed" toll NPA-NXX or simply NXX digits coupled with PIN overide (In case of a valid toll call) is almost a tamper proof solution to this problem. One might argue that controlling your households use of the telephone is a more straightforward approach to toll diversion, but situations can and do arise (babysitters for one...) where this service has merit. Of course tariffing, marketing, etc. issues still remain to be addressed, but the technology is there ... I know, I'm working on the Bell Atlantic approach to AIN and it works as advertised! Jack (John) Adams | Bellcore RRC 4A-253 (908) 699-3447 {Voice} | (908) 699-0231 {Facsimile} jadams@nvuxl.bellcore.com | kahuna@attmail.com ------------------------------ From: lloyd@axecore.com (Lloyd Buchanan) Subject: Motorola Acquires GEOSTAR's Satellite Services for Iridium Organization: Axe Core Investors, Inc. Date: Fri, 13 Dec 91 16:41:15 GMT I noticed on the Dow Jones News wire an article about Motorola acquiring the rights to the defunct Geostar with the intent of using them for Motorola's world-wide satellite-based cellular telephone system, Iridium. Wasn't Geostar a navigation system? If Moto can convert it into a phone system, they could revolutionize (and obsolete) cellular phones. Could this acquisition really jump-start a brilliant concept? Lloyd Buchanan lloyd@Axecore.COM Axe Core Investors uupsi!axecore!lloyd Axe Castle (914) 333-5226 (phone) Tarrytown, NY 10591 (914) 333-5208 (FAX) ------------------------------ From: Jim Haynes Subject: Seasonal Riposte Reposted Date: 13 Dec 91 18:40:54 GMT Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz "It is my heart-warm and world-embracing Christmas hope and aspiration that all of us -- the high, the low, the rich , the poor, the admired, the despised, the loved, the hated, the civilized, the savage -- may eventually be gathered together in a heaven of everlasting rest and peace and bliss -- except the inventor of the telephone." Mark Twain, 1890 haynes@cats.ucsc.edu haynes@cats.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1991 14:13:24 -0500 From: van@eff.org (Gerard Van der Leun) Subject: EFF Announces The Pioneer Awards -==--==--==-<>-==--==--==- THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION'S FIRST ANNUAL PIONEER AWARDS CALL FOR NOMINATIONS (Attention: Please feel free to repost to all systems worldwide.) In every field of human endeavor, there are those dedicated to expanding knowledge, freedom, efficiency and utility. Along the electronic frontier, this is especially true. To recognize this, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has established the Pioneer Awards. The first annual Pioneer Awards will be given at the Second Annual Computers, Freedom, and Privacy Conference in Washington, D.C. in March of 1992. All valid nominations will be reviewed by a panel of outside judges chosen for their knowledge of computer-based communications and the technical, legal, and social issues involved in networking. There are no specific categories for the Pioneer Awards, but the following guidelines apply: 1) The nominees must have made a substantial contribution to the health,growth, accessibility, or freedom of computer-based communications. 2) The contribution may be technical, social, economic or cultural. 3) Nominations may be of individuals, systems, or organizations in the private or public sectors. 4) Nominations are open to all, and you may nominate more than one recipient. You may nominate yourself or your organization. 5) All nominations, to be valid, must contain your reasons, however brief, on why you are nominating the individual or organization, along with a means of contacting the nominee, and your own contact number. No anonymous nominations will be allowed. 6) Every person or organization, with the single exception of EFF staff members, are eligible for Pioneer Awards. You may nominate as many as you wish, but please use one form per nomination. You may return the forms to us via email at: pioneer@eff.org. You may mail them to us at: Pioneer Awards, EFF, 155 Second Street Cambridge MA 02141. You may FAX them to us at: (617) 864-0866. Just tell us the name of the nominee, the phone number or email address at which the nominee can be reached, and, most important, why you feel the nominee deserves the award. You can attach supporting documentation. Please include your own name, address, and phone number. We're looking for the Pioneers of the Electronic Frontier that have made and are making a difference. Thanks for helping us find them, The Electronic Frontier Foundation -------EFF Pioneer Awards Nomination Form------ Please return to the Electronic Frontier Foundation via email to: pioneer@eff.org or via surface mail to EFF 155 Second Street, Cambridge,MA 02141 USA; or via FAX to USA (617)864-0866. Nominee:_________________________________________________________________ Title: __________________________________________________________________ Company/Organization:____________________________________________________ Contact number or email address: ________________________________________ Reason for nomination:______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ Your name and contact number:____________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ Extra documentation attached: _______ -------EFF Pioneer Awards Nomination Form------ ------------------------------ Date: Tuesday, 10 Dec 1991 08:32:31 EST From: m15368@mwvm.mitre.org (Steve Silverman) Subject: Frame Relay Frame Relay is a new packet mode that was defined by T1S1 and CCITT Study Groups XI & XVIII. It combines OSI layers 2 and 3 into one relatively small (& I think elegant) protocol. The data transfer state is based on a stripped down version of HDLC. The actual standards (for data transfer state) are T1.618 (the ANSI version) and Annex A of Q.922 (CCITT). This may be used as a PVC or Switched Virtual Circuit. The standards for SVC set up are T1.617 and Q.933. Under these standards, the network does error detection but the user is responsible for retransmission if it is desired. This allows less burden on the network and allows FR to run at T1. T3 (45 Mb/s) seems to work too and at least one carrier is promising this in a few years. Steve Silverman ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Dec 91 12:05:59 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: More Checking on 878 and 688 Prefixes in Maryland In Maryland, the 878 prefix is at Fort Ritchie and the 688 prefix is at Fort Meade. Both are listed as local calls from both Baltimore and Washington, and both are listed as remaining in area 301 after the 301/410 split. I tried 0+ calls to these prefixes (cutting it off before entering my card number) from Aberdeen and from Baltimore. Both prefixes are apparently NOT reachable in area code 410, so the remainder of this note refers to them in area 301 only. From Aberdeen, both prefixes are long distance; 688 got the AT&T prompt, and 878 got the C&P prompt! From Baltimore, both prefixes got the C&P prompt. (If you use 0+ for local calls, does the local company -- in this case, C&P -- handle it even if it crosses the LATA boundary?) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1015 *******************************   Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13301; 15 Dec 91 18:09 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00554 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 15 Dec 1991 15:50:25 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28646 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 15 Dec 1991 15:50:15 -0600 Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1991 15:50:15 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199112152150.AA28646@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1016 TELECOM Digest Sun, 15 Dec 91 15:50:10 CST Volume 11 : Issue 1016 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Administrivia - Archives Updates and Midwinter Doldrums (TELECOM Moderator) Merry Christmas from BellSouth! (Charles Hoequist) Merry Christmas From Cellular One/Chicago (TELECOM Moderator) Local Competition in Washington (Peter Marshall) ISDN: Estimate of Arrival? (George Herson) Students Registering via Touch Tone (tm) (Dave Niebuhr) France Telecom Offers Free Network Simulation Diskette (Nigel Allen) Vartec 1 Cent Calls - Revisited (James Hartman) Sprint For Local Calls Instead of Pacbell (Steve Elias) Source For PBX in a PC? (Larry Rachman) AT&T Mail Rate Minimum Suspended (Tony L. Hansen) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1991 15:03:36 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Administrivia - Archives Updates and Midwinter Doldrums In an issue of the Digest on Saturday, an article entitled 'FCC Says No More Slamming' was based on a press release from the FCC, but according to a couple notes I received was in fact written up originally in {Newsbytes}, from where the copy I reprinted first appeared. I guess the attribution to {Newsbytes} got missed in the process of editing it for the Digest. So sorry! For next: I've been working feverishly in the Telecom Archives for several hours getting some new files on display and organizing some old files. David Leibold has sent along a revised version of the Canadian area code / esxchange lists and these were swapped in for the older version of the files. He also sent along (in cooperation with Carl Moore I believe) the start of a very detailed country codes listing. A new sub-directory in the archives is called 'country.codes' and the new files are stored there by zone number. This file is not yet complete (we have only three of the zones installed), and Dave will tell us more about it when the directory is completed. Due to a nagging cold and stomach upset this past week I have gotten a long way behind in getting out messages waiting here, and as a result several hundred REply messages received more than a few days ago which have not already been printed here are being sent to the bit bucket. I am doing this so that space can be given to more recent news items of interest. There will be several more REply messages coming out later today however. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: 15 Dec 91 13:59:00 EST From: Charles (C.A.) Hoequist Subject: Merry Christmas From BellSouth! The following excerpts are from an article that appeared in the {Orlando Sentinel}, Dec. 2nd, under the headline, "Foreign guests learn America is land of the free (calls)." "A telephone computer glitch gave dozens of foreign travelers at downtown Orlando hostel early Christmas presents Saturday and Sunday. "The giving began when a guest at the Plantation Manor, an international youth hostel across from Lake Eola, discovered Saturday afternoon that pay phones were allowing free long-distance calls to virtually anywhere in the world. "As the news spread, the four public phones, which are normally deserted at the hostel, were busy non-stop until Sunday afternoon, when Southern Bell discovered the problem and dispatched technicians to shut off long-distance service. [quotes from delighted Aussies, Brits and Kiwis deleted, talking about how wonderful it was to call home and talk for one or two hours for 25 cents.] "Roger Swain, a clerk at Plantation Manor, said the discovery was made by accident. "'One of our guests said he tried to call Houston, Texas, from the second floor,' Swain said. 'The operator told him he didn't need to use coins because the phone was not listed as a public phone. He was on the phone for 40 minutes, and they didn't charge him.' [ section on recovering costs deleted. Basically, the BOC has no leverage on either called or calling party. ] "A spokesman for AT&T, which handles long distance for some of Southern Bell's phones, said the problem seemed to be with a Southern Bell computer. "'Our equipment is working fine,' said Randy Berridge, AT&T spokesman. 'If it's a Southern Bell problem, they would bear the costs.' "It's possible Southern Bell recouped some money: it stll cost 25 cents for a local call. "'This is a drop in the ocean to them', one English traveler said of the phone company, which had just covered the cost of his call home at the Sunday rate of $21.74 for each half hour." -------- Charles Hoequist |Internet: hoequist@bnr.ca BNR Inc. | 919-991-8642 PO Box 13478, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3478 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1991 14:52:41 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Merry Christmas From Cellular One/Chicago! Cellular One here in Chicago has announced that all air time will be free on Christmas Day and New Year's Day. (From 12:00 AM through 11:59 PM of each day.) Normal charges for long distance, directory assistance or other premium billed charges will apply ... but not airtime or local calls. I have no word yet if Ameritech will counter with the same gift to their subscribers or not. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Subject: Local Competition in Washington From: peterm@halcyon.com (Peter Marshall) Reply-To: peterm@halcyon.com Date: Sun, 15 Dec 91 11:04:42 PST On 12/6, the WA Utilities & Transportation Commission issued a split decision on the application of Electric Lightwave, Inc. for registration as a telecommunications company. The WUTC's order partially granted ELI's application. Splitting 2-1, the WUTC limited ELI's registration as a telecom company to interexchange private line or special access services and to intraexchange dark fiber services in only US West exchanges. According to the order, a key issue in the case was "Whether allowing the proposed service would unlawfully interfere with rights of local exchange companies currently operating in the area of the proposed service." ELI, a subsidiary of Citizens Utilities Capital Corp., controlled by Citizens Utility Co., planned to provide a fiber digital MAN, supplying services between IXCs, end-users and IXCs, and between end-user sites. ELI, said the order, had claimed its proposal did not interfere with LEC rights because the LECs have no exclusive rights re: local exchange boundaries; and that if so, such LEC rights were limited to basic switched voice services. US West supported ELI's proposal, denied there are exclusive exchange area rights, and maintained LECs should also be allowed to provide the same services as ELI in other than their own areas. In what was perhaps a relatively conventional analysis, two commissioners asserted that "The public policy issue ... is the effect on LEC consumers of basic, voice-grade, switched services ..." These two commissioners focused on what they called "imprudent and inopportune investment in transient technologies to the eventual detriment of the subscribers of basic telephone service." The decision states that "The local exchange company is entitled to be the exclusive provider of wholly intraexchange services." WUTC Chair Sharon Nelson's dissenting statement asserted "The majority opiniion errs both in its legal and policy analyses ... represents a step backwards in regulatory policy and could threaten reasonable technology deployment ..." Nelson stated "At a time when it is becoming clear to most economists that hardly any 'natural monopoly' remains in the telecommunications industry, this order would create a legal monopoly. Such an approach cannot endure against changing technology and economics." Nelson asserted that "To claim a perpetual monopoly over all intraexchange services currently offered or yet to be invented strains credulity," and that "the majority opinion flies in the face of emerging federal and state policies, which generally encourage interconnection of alternative local transport systems ..." Nelson added that "When information gateways evolve, the Commission may be limited to allowing one gateway per local exchange. This is hardly the way to stimulate the information economy." The WUTC Chairman concluded, "The majority's conclusions ignore legal precedent and technological realities and therefore will not be sustainable in the long run. This decision contravenes the state's goals of promoting diversity, efficiency and availability of telecommunications services, and is not in the public interest." The 23:00 News and Mail Service - +1 206 292 9048 - Seattle, WA USA PEP, V.32, V.42bis +++ A Waffle Iron, Model 1.64 +++ ------------------------------ From: George Herson Subject: ISDN: Estimate of Arrival? Date: 15 Dec 91 13:58:20 GMT I'm presently investigating investment in a wireless cable company. One of the drawbacks is I won't see any return on that investment for five or six years (FCC takes onee year to process application, takes a year to get a station on-line, and three or four to recoup costs). By that time I wonder if ISDN will be a long way off, and of course provide a superior conduit for video into the home. Anyone know, or have an idea as to find out? george Quick -- while there's still time -- dispatch your worthless $$$ to: George "Easy Money" Herson 5312 Verano Place, Irvine CA 92715 george@brooks.ics.uci.edu voice: (714) 856-2174 fax: (714) 857-0424 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1991 6:40:05 -0500 (EST) From: NIEBUHR@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (Dave Niebuhr) Subject: Students Registering via Touch Tone (tm) I subscribe to a LISTSERV, called OPERS-L, which is devoted to computer operations issues and has over 300 subscribers world-wide. Normally, the issues discussed there wouldn't pertain to c.d.t. with maybe one or two exceptions. One of which is student registration for classes via Touch Tone (tm) phones. It seems that more and more schools are going this way but are floundering quite a bit due to their "inexperience" with this method. I'm enclosing a recent post about a conference and what must be done for the schools to get up to speed, so to speak. ... start of text ... This is for all of the people with questions about student registration by phone, voice_response_technology. A good place to start would be the "TOUCH-TOME TELEPHONE CONFERENCE" at BYU Conferences and Workshops; 136 Harman Building; Provo, Utah 84602. It is a three day event, but was worth the money for our Registrar's programmers. The Registrar's programmers also suggested signing up for the Registrars discussion list, I do not know the address. The TWO things which always should be mentioned are, 1) Coordinate with your local phone company on the number of phone lines you will need etc. It is a lot easier to take out a phone system than most people will ever imagine. 2) Spend time on the "sell and instruction" of the system on the DEPARTMENTS NOT on students. The students will pick it up very fast, everything in the world is new to them in any case. The people you have to "convince" that phone mail is a good thing are the professors, deans, department heads, and MOST ESPECIALLY the clerk in each office who has been doing their job the same way for the last 10 years. These are the people who can make your life a lot more difficult. The Students will simply adapt and follow the already fluid life they are in. ... end of text ... Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ From: nigel.allen@canrem.uucp (Nigel Allen) Date: 14 Dec 91 (18:27) Subject: France Telecom Offers Free Network Simulation Diskette Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto France Telecom's New York office is offering a free network simulation diskette to promote France as a location for a multi-national company's European network hub. North American readers can obtain the diskette or more information about France Telecom's ideas on networking and hubbing from Gabriel Sidhom at France Telecom in New York (telephone (212) 977-8630; fax (212) 245-8605). Readers elsewhere can probably obtain the diskette from the nearest office of France Telecom (Beijing, Bonn, Brussels, Budapest, Caracas, Chicago, Jakarta, London, Moscow, Paris, Singapore, Tokyo). The ad didn't give a Paris address to contact for the diskette, unfortunately. Canada Remote Systems. Toronto, Ontario NorthAmeriNet Host ------------------------------ Subject: Vartec 1 Cent Calls - Revisited From: unkaphaed!phaedrus@moe.rice.edu (James Hartman, Sysop) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 91 20:37:50 GMT Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy In a not-too-scientific study, the same telephone number was called via SWB long distance vs. Vartec long distance. Since the SWB call was made during daytime rates and the Vartec call during evening rates, I used the list from the handy dandy white pages which states that evening rates are discounted 25% from daytime rates. Note also that I live by Hobby Airport (on the SE side of Houston, 713 area code) and the number called was on the west end of Galveston island (409 area code); your mileage/rates may vary. On SWB, the call (accounting for the discount) ran at around $.27/minute. On Vartec, the call ran at around $.20/minute. The sound quality seemed to be the same as SWB's long distance. Anyone else try this, or am I the only fool? :-) phaedrus@unkaphaed.uucp (James E. Hartman, Sysop) Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, near Hobby Airport, Houston, TX ------------------------------ Subject: Using Sprint For Local Calls Instead of Pacbell Date: Wed, 11 Dec 91 15:37:52 PST From: eli@cisco.com Lately I've begun using my US Sprint FONcard for intra-lata long distance. Pacbell's rates steam me so much that I prefer giving my money to Sprint. I save money if it's day or evening and I make a ten minute or longer call from San Jose to Santa Rosa, for example. I just thought I'd pass this along to see if others do this and what yall think of it. If it wasn't for the 75 cent access charge to 800 877 8000, Sprint would be cheaper for every call! During day or evening, for any length call, it's cheaper for me to call Boston than it is to call San Fran, from San Jose. Ridiculous. Steve Elias ------------------------------ Date: 11 Dec 91 13:48:38 EST From: Larry Rachman <74066.2004@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Source For PBX in a PC? In the past several years, I've heard quite a bit about firms offering a card that transforms a PC into a PBX. As usual, I can't find one now that I need to. What I'm looking for is a board (boards?) that live in the PC and provide station and trunk interface and switching capability. I'm planning to write my own software so I'll need either driver routines or a detailed description of the hardware. Please reply directly. Thanks in advance to anyone who does. Larry Rachman, WA2BUX Reply to: 1644801@mcimail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Dec 91 10:31:31 EST From: hansen@pegasus.att.com (Tony L Hansen) Subject: AT&T Mail Rate Minimum Suspended Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Recently, AT&T Mail put out a notice whereby they would install a minimum $25 monthly fee per billing address. Given that there used to be a $30 per year charge instead, this was a large increase for the "small customer". Well, given the feedback from many of those "small customers", AT&T Mail decided to suspend the minimum fee until other options are in place which will allow better service for those "small customers". Yes, someone WAS listening. The following is a note which was sent out to some of the customers who gave feedback. (A euphemism for "complained". :-) ) ------------- We have recently decided to suspend the minimum monthly charge on AT&T MAIL to give customers such as yourself the opportunity to choose a new billing arrangement that does not require a minimum monthly amount. We have included a notice of this on the December bill with details to follow shortly thereafter. This new arrangement will include credit card billing as well as electronic delivery of billing detail. Thank you for your feedback. It has helped us formulate a plan we believe will be responsive to our customer's billing needs. ------------- Tony Hansen hansen@pegasus.att.com, tony@attmail.com att!pegasus!hansen, attmail!tony ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1016 *******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13937; 15 Dec 91 18:39 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22207 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 15 Dec 1991 16:48:31 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00863 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 15 Dec 1991 16:48:20 -0600 Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1991 16:48:20 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199112152248.AA00863@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1017 TELECOM Digest Sun, 15 Dec 91 16:48:18 CST Volume 11 : Issue 1017 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Dial-up Data Connections: Recommendations Wanted (black@ll.mit.edu) AT&T's Fancy Payphone in LAX: Complain to Whom? (Cristobal P. Martin) Is Anyone Having Trouble With Easylink? (Derek Billingsley) Fibre Optic Network Planned for Moscow Metro (Nigel Allen) What is This Stuff? (Tom Perrine) Meteorite Burst Communication (Emmanuel Disini) C&P Allows 10XXX For Some Local Calls But Not All (Skip Collins) AT&T Mail $25 Monthly Charge Suspended; More News to Come (Toby Nixon) BT Gold / CLASS Features (Bryan Montgomery) Response From ATT Mail - Credit Card Billing Required (Steve M. Kile) VAX CIT Experiences Wanted (Lee C. Hauenstein) Telephone Company Employees (Gloria C. Valle) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: black@ll.mit.edu (TEST) Subject: Dial-up Data Connections: Recommendations Wanted Organization: Military-Industrial Complex (Thanks, Ike) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 91 09:26:29 -0500 I need to do inter-city binary data transfer, usually in the 5-15 megabyte range, about once or twice per month. The ideal would be a proper T1 connection to the internet, but really uneconomical for such infrequent use. 9600-baud modems are way too slow, and tests have had poor results, even at slower rates. (Usual connection is between Boston and Honolulu.) We've fallen back to express-mailing tapes, but this is a rotten compromise. Is there a reasonable way to do infrequent, high-speed data transfer, preferably with an internet gateway somewhere? ------------------------------ From: pedregal%unreal@cs.umass.edu Subject: AT&T's Fancy Payphone in LAX: Complain to Whom? Date: Thu, 12 Dec 91 10:38:35 EST Reply-To: pedregal@cs.umass.edu A friend of mine recently called me from the Los Angeles airport. He was using a credit card on an AT&T "computerized" payphone. I offered to call back, and he gave me the number on the phone (a 213 area code number). I hung up and called; I got a "the number is disconnected" intercept. After talking with my friend again (he called again after a while), I called the AT&T operator and explained what had happened. I figured the phone might be mislabelled. She tried and got the same intercept. After a while she transferred me to her supervisor, who tried again, same result. Finally she promised to find out, and in 15 minutes she called back. She said that the number was indeed one of AT&T's payphones in LAX. She said that (against her expectations), " [the disconnected number] intercept is what they use there [as opposed, I guess, to what they do in the East Coast] when it is not wired for incoming calls ". She also attempted to explain the "profit" reasons for wiring their phone that way. I am disappointed. I've generally had very good service from AT&T, and expected them to allow incoming calls to an airport's payphone. I'd also like to get a meaningful intercept and visible labelling on the phone (my friend can read, and saw no notice of this) when a payphone does not allow incoming calls. Yes I am being picky, but I consider that allowing incoming calls is part of the service they provide; and, no, I don't agree with disabling incoming calls by default: please don't give me the drug-dealers argument, it doesn't apply here. So, my question is: how do I complain about these things? The operator was nice but not very helpful on that. Regards, Cristobal Pedregal Martin pedregal@cs.umass.edu (internet) Computer Science Dept. - LGRC UMass / Amherst, MA 01003 ------------------------------ From: j2yc@jupiter.Sun.CSD.unb.ca (Derek Billingsley) Subject: Is Anyone Having Trouble With Easylink? Organization: University of New Brunswick, Fredericton Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1991 16:59:48 GMT Where I work (Avis Rent-a-Car), we subscribe to AT&T's Easylink service (Well, we don't, but the reservation center in Tulsa does) which sends out mail via fax machine. Now every time we get a reservation, it says, "ERROR, START OVER" and then calls us back three minutes later with the same reservation prepending a (Duplicate suspected) to the header. We do not personally get billed for every single reservation sent to us, but instead, every reservation received (Billed by head office, Avis). Who is causing this problem? The first reservation which comes through is fine and our fax is a typical Canon fax machine -- no garbled output or anything.) Is anyone else experiencing the same problem? or are we doomed to a life of wasted fax paper ... By the way, the return number that is given on the fax header is pretty weird. It doesn't fit the (npa) xxx-yyyy type of number, but instead it is something like a six digit number. Any takers? Derek Billingsley University of New Brunswick - Electrical Engineering j2yc@unb.ca - MUSIC Account (IBM something or other) j2yc@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca - A real computer, a UNIX box ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1991 10:03:15 -0500 From: Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.fidonet.org (Nigel Allen) Subject: Fibre Optic Network Planned For Moscow Metro Organization: FidoNet node 1:250/438, Echo Beach, Toronto The following article appeared in the Transit Outlook section of {Railway Age}, November 1991. Moscow Metro takes the capitalist line. Moscow's subway system has joined the ranks of Soviet institutions that want to cash in on capitalism. The Andrew Corp. of Orland Park, Ill., announced last month that it has signed a joint venture with the Moscow Metro to develop a fiber optic network covering the metropolitan Moscow area. Moscow Metro will own 69% of the joint venture, contributing the use of 162 miles of right-of-way, all 151 Metro stations, and a limited fiber optic network already in place. Dr. Floyd L. English, president and CEO of the Illinois company, said Andrew will provide network engineering design, and will also serve as general manager of the joint venture. Nigel Allen - via FidoNet node 1:250/98 INTERNET: Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG [Moderator's Note: Gee, maybe in the process of installing a fiber optic network all over, they might find a way to get some food for the many people who are starving over there at present due to the turmoil the government(s) are in right now ... it might seem a more appropriate use of the money and efforts being expended. PAT] ------------------------------ From: tep@tots.Logicon.COM (Tom Perrine) Subject: What is This Stuff? Date: 11 Dec 91 19:04:20 GMT Organization: Logicon, Inc., San Diego, California Our phone system was recently replaced. We had a DIMENSION (we all called it "demented"), which we replaced with a ROLM. After the ROLM had been running for a month or so, ALL the old phone equipment was removed from the telcom closets. I discovered several small chassis from this removal process beside the dumpster. When I asked the local telecom folks about it, they said that Pac Bell and "ATTIS" DID NOT WANT THIS STUFF BACK, NO WAY, NO HOW. PERIOD. END OF DISCUSSION. DON'T-CALL-US-WE'LL-CALL-YOU. This building was a recent acquisition, after being empty for several years. I suspect that what I "rescued" is the remnants of a phone system left over from the previous tenants. Anyway, I am now the proud possesor of two identical gray plastic, wall-mount widgets, approximately 8.5' wide by 18.24" high. There is a stamped label "620A" near the bottom. Each one has eight slots for circuit boards near the top. Some of the cards are labeled: 400D KTU SD-69513-01 ISS 15 and 400G KTU CO/PBX LINE CKT WE ISS2 and 400H2KTU CO/PBX LINE CKT and 400D KTU SD-69513-01 ISS 8 There are two pink 20 high by 10 wide (connections points) punch block at the bottom of each unit. There are 8 sets of lamp and fuse/circuit breakers in the center of the unit. What is this stuff?? Is there anything here that would be useful as part of a home PBX? Tom Perrine (tep) |Internet: tep@tots.Logicon.COM |Voice: +1 619 597 7221 Logicon - T&TSD | UUCP: sun!suntan!tots!tep | or : +1 619 455 1330 P.O. Box 85158 |GENIE: T.PERRINE | FAX: +1 619 552 0729 San Diego CA 92138 ------------------------------ Subject: Meteorite Burst Communication From: D1749@AppleLink.Apple.COM (Disini SW, Emmanuel Disini,PRT) Date: 12 Dec 91 11:39 GMT Hello, can anyone tell me what vendors out there carry MBC (Meteorite Burst Communication) transponders? I am very interested in MBC and I would like to know where I can learn more about it. (Magazine articles, books, company literature). Please respond by email. I am not a subscriber on this list. Thanks, joel disini ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Dec 91 15:52:45 -0500 From: collins@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu (Skip Collins) Subject: C&P Allows 10XXX For Some Local Calls But Not All Living in Virginia, near Washington, I am served by C&P. Doing a little experimentation, I found that I can make calls within my local area using a long distance company accessed via 10XXX0 or 10XXX1. The only restriction seems to be that the calls must be out of state, to DC or Maryland. Attempting to make a local call within VA using another carrier results in an error. I suppose this is true also for non-local calls usually handled by C&P. Going a step further, I tried using the AT&T operator to help me place a calling card call to a nearby phone. She said that she could not do it, but that she was able to place an AT&T call to local points in Maryland and Virginia. To the best of my recollection, trying normal 1+ dialing to a local number, no matter which state, yields an error message. Why would C&P not intercept all such attempts to bypass their non-toll and, presumably, toll service? Why make such restrictions for in-state calls only? B. Collins ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: AT&T Mail $25 Monthly Charge Suspended; More News to Come Date: 11 Dec 91 15:40:59 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA This afternoon, I received a telephone call from Jennifer Gilbert with AT&T EasyLink Services. She reports to Daniel Rosen; you may recall that in a previous posting I mentioned that Rosen was in charge of developing a "consumer oriented" email service for AT&T EasyLink. Ms. Gilbert apologized profusely for not having called or written to me sooner; she said that company policy is to respond within 24 hours whenever anyone writes or sends a message to Bob Allen (AT&T chairman), which I had done after hearing about the $25 per month minimum charge. Ms. Gilbert explained that the number of messages they received indicated on the issue indicated that they had not done an adequete assessment of the impact the new pricing plan would have on individual users. She apologized, and offered the following information. AT&T EasyLink Services has immediately suspended the $25 minimum monthly account charge. The December billing for all users will include information on several new billing options and programs designed to appeal especially to individual and small business users. She didn't say much more than that, but I was pleased that she would take the time to call me individually and explain the situation. I am also pleased that AT&T EasyLink is responding so well to the outcry from individual users. Those of us who have individual AT&T Mail accounts would probably be well-served to not cancel them right away, but look at the information they're sending before making a final decision. 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.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Dec 91 20:08:36 GMT From: eb4/91/92 Subject: BT Gold / CLASS Features Time for another posting while I wait for my ADA to compile (BTW are there any ADA experts out there??); isn't UNIX wonderful!! Anyway, following the recent discussion on CLASS type feature availbility and history I thought people may be interested to know that it is really only in the last couple of years that these have become available in the UK over most of the country with BT's digitalisation process (at least as far as I am aware). Even now most of Joe Public (John Doe) is unaware of call waiting, three way calling, phone last caller etc. Personally I have heard no mention of caller ID either. However, when I recently dialed 999 (911) instead of being asked for my number by the operator as in the past, she automatically gave it to the police. Is this ANI or C-ID or what? Personally I haven't heard mention of either over here. Finally as an aside, did you know that NYNEX is moving into the South of England? Not as a telecommunications operator per se, but in the new field (over here!) of Cable TV? Some food for thought? Bryan ------------------------------ From: Steve_M_Kile@cup.portal.com Subject: Response From ATT Mail - Credit Card Billing Required Date: Wed, 11 Dec 91 18:32:18 PST Pat: After seeing the letter from Ed Collyer at ATT Mail the other day I thought I would see if I could get my ATT Mail account reinstated (although I don't know why, I'm happy with MCI Mail.) Here's Mr. Collyer's response: Mr. Kile: It is our plan to offer reinstatement without charge to customers such as yourself. You will need to choose an alternative, credit card billing arrangement to avoid the minimum usage charge however. I have asked my staff to reinstate you immediately to give you the opportunity to make the choice. Details on making this choice will follow in the near future. This will not result in a minimum charge immediately since we have suspended same through first quarter 1992. Please advise if this is not acceptable to you. Ed Collyer ---------- Steve steve_m_kile@cup.portal.com stevek@netcom.com steve@biomed.vware.mn.org ------------------------------ From: "Lee C. Hauenstein - Phone # 393-3298" Subject: VAX CIT Experiences Wanted Date: 11 Dec 91 16:58:16 EDT Organization: Ziff Information Services, Medford MA I'm looking into the DEC product, "CIT" and some of the third party add ons. Is anyone out there familiar with the product, and/or using it? It looks like it lets you roll your own as far as managing your phone "system" from your VAX. Looks like lots of potential. Is this basically how others are using the product, what kinds of benefit have you seen in employing this software? Any comments? Any further comments on the NPRI product, TTMS which is a CIT application package? Thanks very much. Lee Hauenstein ------------------------------ From: /PN=GLORIA.C.VALLE/O=GTE/PRMD=GTEMAIL/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/@sprint.com Date: 12 Dec 91 22:33 UT Subject: Telephone Company Employees I'm sure you have all noticed articles in the newspapers about the telephone companies all over the US letting employees go in the name of saving money and compitioation. As a long time employee I'm one to agree that the companies in the past have had more personal and higher prices then needed, but much of that was and still is caused by overregulation, not regulation as we still need that no matter what they say. Well as you are seeing with this loss of trained people the service is getting less (not many payment offices). The systems around the world are getting better and it may seem like that is happening here with all the new equipment, but who will be around in just a few years to maintain it when we few are gone. Get your tin cans and strings out people! :) All this phone company bashing that is done here may make the person doing it feel good, but it sure does no good. Many of you are in education and just look at the condition of that now. My brother and sister are teachers and I was trained as one but was unable to stay with it since the pay is so low. These may have been to different subjects but as you can see we both are in the same situation and something needs to be done now. [Moderator's Note: The world is changing all around us ... or as Cardinal Newman said in his ode long ago, ' ... change and decay, in all around we see ... ' What would *you* suggest 'we' do? PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1017 *******************************   Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27466; 16 Dec 91 2:32 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13954 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 16 Dec 1991 00:27:12 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19452 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 16 Dec 1991 00:27:03 -0600 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 00:27:03 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199112160627.AA19452@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1018 TELECOM Digest Mon, 16 Dec 91 00:27:00 CST Volume 11 : Issue 1018 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Life on Hold: Unhappy Inbound Campers (Dave Leibold) Voice Response Technology (Colin Campbell) Prodigy at 9600 (Steve W. York) ISDN in Japan and USA (Jim Haynes) CallerID + Plus from Rochelle Communications (Joel Upchurch) CNID/Caller ID Profiled on Canadian TV (David Leibold) Wire vs. Fiber Expense (Bruce Perens) Cost-Effectiveness of PCP (was How Do I Contact PC Pursuit?) (Spencer Sun) Re: Bell Canada to Offer Caller-ID "Alternate Number" Option (R. Woodhead) Re: Bell Canada to Offer Caller-ID "Alternate Number" Option (Ted Timar) Re: 800 Discrimination (Steve Forrette) Re: 800 Discrimination (David G. Lewis) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1991 17:08:33 -0500 From: Dave.Leibold@egsgate.fidonet.org (Dave Leibold) Subject: Life on Hold: Unhappy Inbound Campers Reply-To: Dave.Leibold@f524.n250.z1.fidonet.org Much has been said in the Digest regarding "outbound" telemarketers and their effects on the general populace, namely telemarketing calls of all sorts at all sorts of hours. Let's look at the "inbound" side of things, specifically companies that keep people on hold for vast amounts of time to the tune of elevator music and frequent requests to "stay on the line, someone will be with you shortly". {The Toronto Star} circulation line is doing for inbound what the {San Jose Mercury} has done for outbound. Namely, the tendency to wait long periods of time to get at a "customer service" operator. By their frequent requests to stay on the line, they must want subscriptions desperately ... NOT. The {Sun-Sentinel} (Ft Lauderdale, FL) ran an article on the holding patterns encountered on some phone numbers. Several numbers were rated according to such factors as how long it took to answer the call (if the call was answered at all) and how long before a live operator was reached. Three call attempts were made at various times for each number. Then, each number was rated by a number of "bells" with three bells being the best response. A few numbers did get a high rating, while a few were awarded one or fewer bells. Yet, when people are staying on hold more and more, one can only conclude that putting callers on excessive hold ranks down there on the food chain with COCOTs, 540-xxxx pager scams, etc. For those who incur long distance or payphone charges (or local time-measured costs), such practices are a theft of time; those who have to call during working hours would no doubt feel the heat from their employers for being kept on hold. In cases where long distance or local time-measured costs are involved, camping out trying to get an operator on-line truly becomes a rip-off. Maybe some user-pay "services" (eg. 900- or 976-) already operate this way ... Expanding the use of touch-tone automated services could help; customers could get many transactions done without waiting. Indeed, this is done by an increasing number of companies. VIA Rail Canada has such a system to allow for automated schedule/rates information as does Gray Coach Bus Lines in Toronto and some cable TV companies. VIA Rail, in particular, used to waste vast amounts of time on their toll-free lines (years ago, some calls stayed on hold for 20 minutes or more). Other options include fax and e-mail if support for these can be improved. dave.leibold@f524.n250.z1.fidonet.org dleibold1@attmail.com dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca dleibold@zooid.guild.org Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:250/98 INTERNET: Dave.Leibold@egsgate.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ From: ccampbel@dsd.es.com (Colin Campbell) Subject: Voice Response Technology Reply-To: ccampbel@dsd.es.com (Colin Campbell) Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp., Salt Lake City, UT Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 01:31:03 GMT I am looking for smaller scale hardware that would enable me to write a voice response application similar to phone registration systems used by universities or account query systems used by banks and credit card companies. My investigation has led me to large systems compatible with CICS, but I have yet to find anything that could be used with personal computers. Any leads would be appreciated. Colin Campbell Internet: ccampbel@dsd.es.com Evans & Sutherland UUCP: !uunet!dsd.es.com!ccampbel Salt Lake City, UT 84108 (801) 582-5847 ------------------------------ From: Steve_W_York@cup.portal.com Subject: Prodigy at 9600 Date: Sun, 15 Dec 91 13:13:16 PST Recently there was a reference here to accessing the Prodigy service at 9600, as opposed to the routine 1200 or 2400 they publicize. Short of moving to Texas, how does one alter the various setup strings in order to do this from any access point. I'm sure it can't be all that difficult, but I don't have a 9600 modem with which to play and interested friends are bugging me. Please e-mail directly and I'll post a concise set of directions to the Digest. Thanks. Steve York Steve_W_York@cup.portal.com 2617.503 Compu$erve ------------------------------ From: Jim Haynes Subject: ISDN in Japan and USA Date: 12 Dec 91 00:40:47 GMT Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz At the Sun User Group conference this week a lunch speaker was David S. H. Rosenthal of SunSoft. He remarked that in Japan one can just call the telephone company and ask to have your home service converted to ISDN and it will be done the next day, no charge for the conversion and no extra charge for ISDN service. He contrasted with the U.S. where if you can get it at all ISDN is available only at high cost. He also noted that ISDN pay phones are becoming common in Japan; they have an RJ-45 jack on the side. haynes@cats.ucsc.edu haynes@cats.bitnet ------------------------------ From: joel@peora.sdc.ccur.com (Joel Upchurch) Subject: CallerID + Plus from Rochelle Communications Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1991 23:56:41 GMT Organization: Upchurch Computer Consulting, Orlando FL In the December 13th Issue of {PC Magazine} on page 93, John Dvorak mentions an interesting product called CallerID + Plus from Rochelle Communications. Apparently CID++ picks up the CID signal and looks up the phone number in the associated data base and pops the information in the data base up on the screen. If the call if from an unknown number then a form pops up so you can fill in information for the database. Apparently Dvorak thinks this is going to be a killer for for salespeople. Joel Upchurch/Upchurch Computer Consulting/718 Galsworthy/Orlando, FL 32809 joel@peora.ccur.com {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd,ucf-cs}!peora!joel (407) 859-0982 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Dec 91 23:02:24 EST From: DLEIBOLD@VM1.YorkU.CA Subject: CNID/Caller ID Profiled on Canadian TV The CBC program {Marketplace} will have a segment on Caller-ID and its effects on the general populace. This will be broadcast Tuesday night, 17th December 9pm (local CBC broadcast times in Canada). Just about anyone in Canada can get CBC; in the U.S., those not near a border station could try picking up the program on satellite on one of the Anik channels (such as E2 - I don't have exact transponder numbers for CBC feeds, and they occur at various times for the various time zones). Outside of North America, things get a bit difficult in this respect, but perhaps a synopsis or something can be done. dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca [Moderator's Note: Please send along a synopsis when the program is shown. Thanks. PAT] ------------------------------ From: bruce@pixar.com (Bruce Perens) Subject: Wire vs. Fiber Expense Organization: Pixar -- Point Richmond, California Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1991 21:32:37 GMT I would think that fiber is less expensive than wire for the telephone company, over the long run, even if you won't use all of the bandwidth today. I'd expect that the cost of installing a fiber cable is virtually same as that of installing a wire run of the same length. The labor and heavy equipment used to install it probably cost much more than a wire or fiber. And once it is installed, there is existing physical plant for 60 MHz or so of bandwidth per strand that can be divided up and sold to multiple customers without incurring that installation expense again. The materials that make up optical fiber are not expensive. Copper probably costs more per MHz/foot . Pacific Bell puts up fiber runs on speculation around here. They don't wait for an order before they establish a "fiber pole" near an industrial park. Bruce Perens ------------------------------ From: spencer@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (S. Spencer Sun) Subject: Cost-Effectiveness of PCP (was How Do I Contact PC Pursuit?) Organization: Princeton Class of '94 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 02:20:05 GMT In article , tanner@ki4pv.compu.com writes: >> where else can you get long distance data transmission for $1 per >> hour (or 83 cents per hour under the $50 per month plan?). > [mentions how PCP pales in comparison to direct-dial LD] Ditto that. For WWIVnet, I transfer an average of 80-150k per night long distance to McAllen, TX. Analysis of my phone bill shows that these calls run between $7-10 a month (not sure what the connect time is but it's way less than 30 hours). Compare to $30 for PC Pursuit, which would tie up my BBS for six times as much time (average 1400-1500 cps, two USR DS's connecting with v.32bis), and I'm saving myself $20 a month. Which means my modem will pay for itself in two years just on network connects alone. Not a bad investment. S. Spencer Sun '94 - Princeton Univ. - spencer@phoenix.princeton.edu Clockwork Orange / Princeton Ultimate - WWIVnet #1 @6913 ------------------------------ From: trebor@foretune.co.jp (Robert J Woodhead) Subject: Re: Bell Canada to Offer Caller-ID "Alternate Number" Option Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1991 08:03:09 GMT PAT writes: > [Toady's Note: I don't need to take civics again ... you need to > take a remedial course in learning what loyalty to the organization > which pays your salary is all about ... or is there some Amendment I > have overlooked which guarentees you the employment of your choice > when you please and where you please? PAT] * A Company should have the right to determine who speaks FOR the company, and also restrict the speech of employees made using it's facilities. * What an employee says on his/her own time, without using the Company's facilities, is their business. * If a Company is defamed or libeled by an employee's speech, there are many remedies under the law. Likewise, vice versa. Bottom line: PAT is right that a Company has the right to keep phone logs and decide not to accept or allow calls from/to certain phone numbers. It's their phone, and their dime. The recent case where (P&G was it?) went and got phone records was way over this line, of course, and I believe it's being remedied in the courts right now. At the same time, the employees are free to go to the nearest payphone and spill their guts, (although in an ideal world, they should be responsible for their actions). In the real world, any investigative reporter who is stupid enough to call a sensitive source at work from an non-payphone won't be in the business long. The first rule of leakdom for a source is to tell the reporter "Don't EVER call me, I'll call you!" and set up a signalling mechanism to let the leak know the reporter wants a call. Same goes for spies too. Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp ------------------------------ Date: 12 Dec 91 17:24:42 JST From: tmatimar@nff.ncl.Omron.co.jp (Ted M A Timar) Reply-To: tmatimar@nff.ncl.Omron.co.jp Organization: Omron Corporation Subject: Re: Bell Canada to Offer Caller-ID "Alternate Number" Option > [Toady's Note: I don't need to take civics again ... you need to > take a remedial course in learning what loyalty to the organization > which pays your salary is all about ... or is there some Amendment I > have overlooked which guarentees you the employment of your choice > when you please and where you please? PAT] Throughout Canada, the Engineering Codes of Ethics (one per province) states that a Professional Engineer's responsibility is to the public first, and to his employer second. While this code of ethics does not apply to anyone except for Professional Engineers in Canada, the logic does. If you believe that responsibility to your employer is more important than responsibility to the public, you won't find me as a customer of your company. (I guess that I won't be attending NWU :-) This does not mean that you should be spreading company trade secrets, but it does mean that you should be reporting 'evidence of the dangers of asbestos' even when this is contrary to the good of your employer. Otherwise, you will be morally (and probably legally) responsible for the damage (or deaths) caused by it. Ted Timar - tmatimar@nff.ncl.omron.co.jp - tmatimar@sunee.waterloo.edu Omron Corporation, Shimokaiinji, Nagaokakyo-city, Kyoto 617, Japan [Moderator's Note: I do not believe responsibility to the public and responsibility to one's employer are mutually exclusive. If you have problems with what your employer is doing, then *resign your employment* and seek something else. You have no right to take your employer's money while knifing him in the back. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Dec 91 02:04:05 pst From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: 800 Discrimination Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA > [Moderator's Note: It has been the case for some time now that AT&T > operators will only assist in dialing to 800 numbers which are > assigned to AT&T. I guess they figure if an 800 customer of some other > company needs assistance in being reached the caller should ask the > operators of the LD company involved to spend their time placing the > call. PAT] But have you ever tried to do this? As it turns out, no other carrier will even try to help you with 800 calls, even their own. So, if you need assistance in dialing an MCI, Sprint, or other 800 number, you're out of luck. The way I see it is this is another reason why AT&T provides better service to its customers (in this case, their business customers with 800 numbers). Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) Subject: Re: 800 Discrimination Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1991 16:37:03 GMT In article frankston!Bob_Frankston@ world.std.com writes: > I was at a hotel and I guess I keyed in 81-800 too fast and got 8-00 > which got me an ATT operator. I decided to simply ask for my 800 > number. But it is a Cable and Wireless 800 number so she said she > couldn't connect me! Is this new? > [Moderator's Note: It has been the case for some time now that AT&T > operators will only assist in dialing to 800 numbers which are > assigned to AT&T. I guess they figure if an 800 customer of some other > company needs assistance in being reached the caller should ask the > operators of the LD company involved to spend their time placing the > call. PAT] In addition, I believe there is a physical limitation that prevents AT&T operators from connecting a caller to another IXCs 800 number. Distribution of 800 calls to various carriers is done by the originating LEC based on the NXX of the 800 number. While I would not doubt that AT&T has in various databases the carrier associated with each NXX, it's not obligated to. Furthermore, so far as I'm aware, there are no trunks between AT&T and other IXCs, so the only way an OSPS operator could connect a call to another carrier's 800 number would be to crank it back into the originating LEC's network. I don't know if this is technically feasible or allowed from a regulatory standpoint. And if the hotel had direct connections into AT&T, there is no originating LEC involved, so there's nowhere to crankback to. David G Lewis AT&T Bell Laboratories david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!houxa!deej ISDN Evolution Planning ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1018 *******************************   Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29206; 16 Dec 91 3:07 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23641 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 16 Dec 1991 01:12:21 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14760 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 16 Dec 1991 01:12:12 -0600 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 01:12:12 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199112160712.AA14760@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1019 TELECOM Digest Mon, 16 Dec 91 01:12:07 CST Volume 11 : Issue 1019 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Illinois Bell Figures Out How to Charge Per Call (Gary W Sanders) Re: Illinois Bell Figures Out How to Charge Per Call (Lazlo Nibble) Re: Illinois Bell Figures Out How to Charge Per Call (David S. Greenberg) Re: Wrong Numbers (Paul Fuqua) Re: Wrong Numbers (Jamie Mason) Re: Wrong Numbers (Joel B. Levin) Re: Wrong Numbers (Carl Moore) Re: Bell Canada to Offer Caller-ID "Alternate Number" Option (Toby Nixon) Re: Bell Canada to Offer Caller-ID "Alternate Number" Option (Paul Wallich) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 10 Dec 91 09:59:46 EST From: gws@cblph.att.com (Gary W Sanders) Subject: Re: Illinois Bell Figures Out How to Charge Per Call Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article reb@ingres.com (Phydeaux) writes: > When CallerID [sic] starts here in January, it will cost $6.50/month > for the first 300 numbers displayed and $.02 for each additional > number displayed. I'm waiting for the day when there is a surcharge Oh great -- now we have measured rates on in comming calls. 300 calls, heck just the telemarketers alone could use that up. Gary Sanders (N8EMR) AT&T Bell Labs, Columbus Ohio gws@cblph.att.com 614-860-5965 ------------------------------ From: lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble) Subject: Re: Illinois Bell Figures Out How to Charge Per Call Date: Tue, 10 Dec 91 17:24:38 GMT Organization: Gizmonic Institute -- Cleaning-Up-After-Frank Division It sounds like that's what this amounts to anyway. Suppose you have CLID on your line. If you go on a week's vacation, what's to prevent J. Random Jerk from wardialing your line and running up your tab with Illinois Bell? If you're not there to see where he's dialing from ... Lazlo (lazlo@triton.unm.edu) ------------------------------ From: mgreeny@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (David S. Greenberg) Subject: Re: Illinois Bell Figures Out How to Charge Per Call Organization: Educational Computing Network Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1991 23:00:09 GMT Great, take a useful service which doesn't cost them a damn thing and charge for it -- just like Touch-Tone (TM). I could see charging for TT during the days of it's introduction when switches probably required some expensive box to decode the tones, but now that the switches have all that built-in, ya still have to pay 0.75 per month for the privilege of making use of touch-tone ... As for billing for the first 300 numbers, and then two cents for each additional number, is there any way to tell the box that you don't want to see that number? Say for instance, that you're only interested in the number of the caller who keeps wanting to chat at 3AM ... I think that this is just another IBT scam to rip off everyone who makes use of their phones (pizza places, homes with teenagers ...). How many phone calls do you get in a month? I know I get a lot, and sure don't think I ought to be billed on a monthly basis for what is basically a peephole ... I also wonder how the CID system is going to be set up ... will one be able to subscribe to CID so one can tell who's calling, but also be able to have "per call blocking" so that one's number won't show up if one doesn't want it to? Also, will it be possible to have your phone set up so that it will reject ALL blocked CID calls (i.e. BE-DE-BEEP ... 'At the request of the customer, blocked calls from annoying telemarketers are refused. Release blocking if you wish to contact this customer.' Or will IBT just offer some moronic whittled-down version of the block rejection by allowing you to only reject "pre-programmed" numbers (how many telemarketers have more than one line?!). I for one would like to see the CID provided free of charge to residences, and perhaps have a nominal charge for businesses (like $6.50 per month - FLAT RATE -- forget the sliding scales ...), and then give you the option to have blocking turned on or OFF for all of your calls. If you choose to have it OFF, then turning it on should cost you something -- say $0.05 per call. If you have it on, and want to turn it off, a similar charge ought to apply. The charge for rejecting any/all blocked calls should also be free IMHO -- with the peephole in my front door, if I don't like who I see or don't see because they've covered the hole -- I don't open the damn door. Just goes to prove the old TAP motto: "Ma Bell is a Cheap Mother". Microcomputer Support Specialist, Graduate Assistant, Student Residential Programs Western Illinois University, Macomb, IL 61455 Internet: mgreeny@bgu.edu (preferred) GEnie: GREENY (about 1 time per month) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Dec 91 12:52:11 CST From: Paul Fuqua Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers 6sigma2 at polari!sumax.seattleu.edu (Brian Matthews) wrote: > I thought I was the only one. Recently I've been getting far more > wrong numbers than I ever have before. I've got the same number I've > had for at least ten years, and there doesn't seem to be one specific > person everyone is looking for. I get a lot of wrong numbers, too, and they usually leave messages on my answering machine, even though I included my name in the outgoing message. I recently changed my outgoing message to: "You have reached 340 xxxx. If that's the number you *wanted* to reach, please leave a message." It gives my family a good laugh, and does seem to have eliminated many wrong-number messages (except those for the man who had the number three years ago, but that's another story). Paul Fuqua pf@csc.ti.com, ti-csl!pf Texas Instruments Computer Science Center, Dallas, Texas ------------------------------ From: Jamie Mason Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers Organization: University of Toronto Computer Services Advisor Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1991 07:09:27 -0500 The Moderator notes: > I once had a number for outgoing calls from the computer which was *so* > polluted with wrong numbers ... how polluted, you ask? It was so bad I > put an old answering machine on the line which had as its announcement > only message: "You have reached the Wrong Number Repository ... you > have reached a wrong number. No messages will be taken. This is a wrong > number; please hang up now. " I had a simmilar problem. Since it's just an outbound line for the computer, what's wrong with either: a) turning off the ringer and ignoring it, or b) "at s0=1" (Hayes-style command to enable auto-answer after one ring.) I like b) in particular. It seems to work quite well. Jamie ------------------------------ From: "Joel B. Levin" Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers Date: Fri, 13 Dec 91 08:57:21 EST In article , 6sigma2@polari!sumax. seattleu.edu (Brian Matthews) writes: > I guess I've never understood the difficulty in dialing a telephone. The wrong numbers I've received are mostly "typos" -- misdialed numbers. In the old days it was often off-by-one type errors (people not pulling the dial correctly, or possibly a missed pulse). Nowadays it is clear that the dialing errors are touchtone related; most notably I get two or three calls at work for a Cambridge hardware store; they are on the 876 exchange, while I am on 873; and the 3 is directly above the 6. Similar things happen at home from time to time. At home, where my number is of the form ABAA people occasionally dial ABBA or AABA; its easy to see why. Also, my home exchange is 880; but since the same city has all but one of the 88X exchanges, sometimes the error is in that digit. No, there is no difficulty in dialing a telephone; it is somewhat error prone, however. nets: levin@bbn.com | BBN Communications or: ...!bbn!levin | M/S 20/7A POTS: +1 617 873 3463 | 150 Cambridge Park Drive FAX: +1 617 873 8202 | Cambridge, MA 02140 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Dec 91 10:01:32 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers I had a recent case (before the 301/410 split) which I may have sent to the Digest before: I answered two calls at 301-278-xxxx where I was hung up on, apparently by the same person; I had been answering the phone with the extension number and my last name. The third time, I simply answered "hello" and was able to catch the caller and try to find out what her problem was. She told me she was trying to reach 301-278-xxxx, which matched the number I had answered at. She was trying to reach "Patterson" and I was thinking of the Patterson Park area in eastern Baltimore city, but then I managed to get "Paterson, NJ" (that Paterson is spelled with one "t") and realized that she had been given a wrong number (301 area code when 201 should have been used). ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: Bell Canada to Offer Caller-ID "Alternate Number" Option Date: 13 Dec 91 17:27:59 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA In article , fulk@cs.rochester.edu (Mark Fulk) writes: > Then you don't believe in the First Amendment. The right of free > speech, about your employer or anyone else, is inalienable. An > employer can restrict who speaks FOR it, but not who speaks ABOUT it. > The thought of an employer restricting the speech of its employees is > chilling... > The freedom of employees to speak about their employers is critical to > the continued functioning of our democracy. Judging from your > statement above, I think you need to take Civics again. I strongly disagree. The First Amendment says that _the government_ (specifically, Congress) cannot pass a _law_ restricting freedom of speech. This has absolutely nothing to do with corporate policies that say "If you comment about this company in public with our express permission and preclearance of the remarks to be made, then your continued employment here will be in jeopardy." Something similar to that is _in_ the employment agreement of many companies. It is a firmly stated policy at Hayes. > [Toady's Note: I don't need to take civics again ... you need to > take a remedial course in learning what loyalty to the organization > which pays your salary is all about ... or is there some Amendment I > have overlooked which guarentees you the employment of your choice > when you please and where you please? PAT] PAT is absolutely right. Nobody has a right to a job. If the employer wants to include in your employment contract that you must preclear any remarks about the company before releasing them, they have every right to do so. You can choose to not join the company, or you can choose to leave if something later occurs that you feel compelled to comment on. Of course, you can also try to blow the whistle anonymously, if you think you can get away with it and are willing to take the risk of being fired upon discovery. The Constitution does NOT restrict the actions of individuals or companies. It grants to the government certain specific powers, places certain limitations on those powers, and reserves to the people everything else. The idea that every limitation placed on government by the Constitution also applies to private companies and individuals has resulted in an obscene amount of government interference in private affairs, and it should be stopped. 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.com ------------------------------ From: pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich) Subject: Re: Bell Canada to Offer Caller-ID "Alternate Number" Option Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1991 01:46:33 GMT In john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich) writes: >> On the other hand, as a journalist I find this a potentially >> interesting concept. Ever since Caller-ID started coming, I've been >> having these horrible not-so-paranoid fantasies about trying to reach >> a source at and finding >> that their PBX no longer accepts calls from the media or else >> transfers them to the PR office. > What a frightening thought: Caller-ID can allow a telephone system > owner to take more control over his very own telephone system. How > dare people even think of such a thing. > But all this reminds me of an incident a couple of years back when an > phone system owner (and administrator) did some blocking in reverse. > An associate of mine mentioned one day that his girl friend (who > worked in the administration office of Shoreline Amphitheater) had > complained that a certain salesperson from one of my client firms was > using her "influence" to attempt to get free passes on a continuing > basis. According to the report, the salesperson would call the office > many times a day badgering the Shoreline staff. [story of how he fixed it so she could no longer call from work] > When this woman left the employ of my client, I removed the block from > the system. This little bit of deviousness solved the problem and did > not require any scene made by someone having to inform this person > that her calls were inappropriate. This is a cute story. Now of course you might also want to fix your phone system so that employees can't call OSHA or the EEOC from work, and that might not be so cute. Not to mention that telling the salesperson that her calls were inappropriate might have helped her to do her job better and might have contributed to a generally less devious work environment. Technical solutions to social problems is generally bad idea. >> [Moderator's Note: I believe the public has a right to know what the >> public finds out. I also believe a corporation has the right to insist >> that all communications come from the individuals they designate. >> Individual employees do not have an automatic right to speak for or >> about their employer without the employer's permission to do so. PAT] > I'll second that. As I used to say when the organization that owned my former employer asked how it could stop seeing stuff that zinged its members published in its own newspaper, "Don't do stuff you don't want published." Individuals, furthermore, most certainly have a right to speak about their employer without their employer's permission. All of us probably do it quite a lot. If you mean "speak for publication" that may be another matter. In either case, however, I do not relish the prospect of having both my job made more difficult and my friendships with any number of people disrupted because some telecom maven has a bright idea about who should be talking to whom. The press may be the scapegoat-du-jour, but I don't expect it will be the only organization on the list. (Trivia question: why don't some European countries record called numbers on long distance bills?) > [Toady's Note: The thing about newspapers and their reporters is they > should practice what they preach; except as my pastor, the Reverend > Bob Dobbs of the Church of the Sub-Genius would say, they're not the > type of person they're preaching to. The reporter hinted that holding > back information from the public is a Very Bad Thing to do. I'll bet > his employer didn't feel that way about the identity of the alleged > rape victim in Florida this past month. Newspaper reporters, you see, > are qualified to decide what the public should know about ... corpor- > ations are not to withhold anything from them however. PAT] Wasn't there someone who said something about not wanting to talk to any reporter unless they could veto the final story, and yet here postings get all these nasty little notes appended without notice or consent. Huh. (If you want to talk about publishing names of rape victims, you will find that reporters have been arguing about it for about 20 years. My employer, a fellow who bears a strong resemblance to a bantam rooster in a three-piece suit, would no doubt fire any of us if we published the identity of a rape victim.) Once again, I have never said that corporations shouldn't withhold anything, just that using fancy technology to prevent reporters from finding people who might help them print a little more than press releases and prepared statements is an idea that makes me uncomfortable. Think about it: if a company that employed a friend or colleague of yours put _you_ on their call-blocking list, wouldn't it make you a little uncomfortable? It may be their legal right, but is it _right_? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1019 *******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02119; 16 Dec 91 4:06 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25096 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 16 Dec 1991 02:03:32 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20168 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 16 Dec 1991 02:03:16 -0600 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 02:03:16 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199112160803.AA20168@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1020 TELECOM Digest Mon, 16 Dec 91 02:02:41 CST Volume 11 : Issue 1020 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: E-Mail Link to Japan (Ted M. A. Timar) Re: E-Mail Link to Japan (Bill Martens) Re: E-Mail Link to Japan (George Herson) Re: Annoying Computer Payphones (Michael G. Katzmann) Re: Annoying Computer Payphones (Sander J. Rabinowitz) Re: Annoying Computer Payphones (Linc Madison) Re: T1 on Fiber? (David G. Lewis) Re: T1 on Fiber? (Bud Couch) Re: Pseudo-Area Code 311 (Steven Leikeim) Re: Pseudo-Area Code 311 (Brett G. Person) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ted M A Timar Date: Tue, 10 Dec 91 11:59:55 +0900 Subject: Re: E-Mail Link to Japan b12635@ged.gedlab.allied.com (Phil Tait, (602) 231-7104) writes: > ... apparently from a location from Japan. If postings to this > newsgroup must be mailed to the Moderator, how was this done in the > absence of Internet E-mail connectivity to that country? Or is this no > longer the case? Was this ever the case? As long as I've been on the net (almost six years), Japan has been connected via BITNET (JPNSUT00) and UUCP (kddlabs). There have also been dozens of private links to uunet and I believe a CSNET link. !%@:: also lists an IP link via HEPNET. Also, the WIDE network has been operational for several months now. This is a full IP link to the NSFNET. It is presently only available for research purposes. Most (I think) universities and large companies in Japan are connected to it. Ted Timar - tmatimar@nff.ncl.omron.co.jp - tmatimar@sunee.waterloo.edu Omron Corporation, Shimokaiinji, Nagaokakyo-city, Kyoto 617, Japan ------------------------------ From: billm@fujisan.info.com (Bill Martens) Subject: Re: E-Mail Link to Japan Date: 14 Dec 91 16:02:26 GMT Reply-To: billm@fujisan.info.com (Bill Martens) Organization: Info Connections @ Mt. Fuji Well, I am one of those people who send mail to the U.S. from Japan, but I must make a note about this. Currently, my mail is sent through another machine which does connect to the States daily, but in reality there are several such sites. One of these sites is run by a company call TWICS which sends their stuff through KDD labs (KDD is the international long distance company here which is controlled by the government (or it used to be)). But KDD labs charges a large sum of money for this connection which the average user would not ordinarily want to pay. Many of us here batch up several user's stuff and send it all at the same time. This is fine for the time being. JUNET which is the Japan internet, charges for line coverage somehow. I'm not real sure how this is done. But government locations or educational institutions are charged nothing for these services. But ordinarily in order to reach someone in a japanese company here, you must either have a direct link like I have or you must go through a second party like KDD labs. ** Note ** On KDD labs, I think the receiver has to pay for the line charges for notes coming from the U.S. (I could be wrong on this but they did send my friend a nastygram.) ------------------------------ From: George Herson Subject: Re: E-Mail Link to Japan Date: 15 Dec 91 12:59:01 GMT In article trebor@foretune.co.jp (Robert J Woodhead) writes: > b12635@ged.gedlab.allied.com (Phil Tait, (602) 231-7104) writes: > [asking about email to Japan] >> [Moderator's Note: We receive a number of submissions from Mr. Woodhead >> here and they come through with no difficulty, so my assumption is >> that email works as well from Japan as anywhere else. I know the >> Digest goes to a couple sites there which have telecom news groups. PAT] > Newsgroups are widely distributed in Japan. There are two main email > links, one through Bitnet (supposedly, for academic use only) and one > through "INET-CLUB," which basically dials up the USA and charges the > Japanese senders/recipients for the costs of the calls. Also, in the > near future, a consortium here is arranging to put up a proper inter- > net link. > In addition, inside Japan there are a number of "fj" newsgroups and > mailing lists, both in English and Kanji, that are not distributed > outside of Japan because they contain information that scrutable > westerners are not meant to know. I get scores of the "fj" newsgroups here at UCalifornia, Irvine. This is probably because we have the highest Asian population by percentage than any other campus in the mainland US (as I read somewhere). Looks like random ASCII. George Herson george@brooks.ics.uci.edu fax: (714)857-0424 voice: (714)856-2174 ------------------------------ From: vk2bea!michael@uunet.uu.net (Michael G. Katzmann) Subject: Re: Annoying Computer Payphones Date: 13 Dec 91 18:11:49 GMT Reply-To: vk2bea!michael@uunet.uu.net (Michael G. Katzmann) Organization: Broadcast Sports Technology, Crofton. Maryland. In article wmartin@STL-06SIMA.ARMY.MIL (Will Martin) writes: > Michael.Rosen@samba.acs.unc.edu (Michael Rosen) wrote: >> I hate these damn independent computer payphones. Does anybody know >> why, upon dialing a number, sometimes touchtones are disabled? >> [Moderator's Note: ... COCOTS are very >> seldom intended for anything except to make fast money for their >> owners, and what you mention is not uncommon ... > This "feature" of some/many COCOTs has been mentioned over and over > throughout the years of discussions on Telecom, but I don't recall > ever seeing anyone post the explanation of just *why* the extra effort > in programming was ever made to tell the phone to turn off the > touchtone pad after a call is completed. How does doing this "make I have a COCOT at home (just a novelty item you understand), as I've mentioned before on TELECOM Digest. Many features of the phone are user-programmable with this model (electronics by ELCOTEL, housing by WECO). The keypad can be enabled after the call connected BUT as it warns in the manual, if the line can give a secondary dialing tone after the called party has hung-up, the possibility of fraud exists. So the process would be for the caller to call, wait for the called party to hang up, wait for the second dial tone and then dial a second and third etc call (still being billed at the original call rate). The telco can configure lines, apparently, not to give a secondary dial tone but perhaps the COCOT owners are being cautious, or more likely it costs money. Yes, yes I know what you're thinking ... if there is a dial-tone detector already in the phone to detect the first dial tone, why can't it be used to detect the second dial tone and hang up the line (preventing possible fraud). I don't know, but I suspect that it looks for energy in a particular band of frequencies and may be spoofed by non-dial tone stuff. Michael Katzmann Broadcast Sports Technology Inc. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Crofton, Maryland. U.S.A Amteur Radio Stations: NV3Z / VK2BEA / G4NYV opel!vk2bea!michael@uunet.uu.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Dec 91 02:02 GMT From: "Sander J. Rabinowitz" <0003829147@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Annoying Computer Payphones The Moderator notes: > [... COCOTS are very seldom intended for anything except to make > fast money for their owners, and what you mention is not uncommon ... Will Martin responds: > This "feature" of some/many COCOTs has been mentioned over and over > throughout the years of discussions on Telecom, but I don't recall > ever seeing anyone post the explanation of just *why* the extra effort > in programming was ever made to tell the phone to turn off the > touchtone pad after a call is completed. How does doing this "make > fast money" for the owners? If the touch tones cut off immediately after dialing your number, that means you can't use long-distance companies such as MCI, which allows you to call through their network via a 950 number. Or Sprint, through their 800 number. I once even encountered a COCOT that cut off the touch tones when I was trying to place a calling card call through the local telco. In any event, the COCOT owner is trying (no matter how much a pain in the *** this may be), to make you use *their* long-distance company or AOS, or pay *their* local rates. But I suspect what really makes "quick money" for the owner are the COCOTs which accept touch tones for a limited time or number of digits after call completion. That means, for example, you put in your money to make a call into your voice mail system, then you get part way into the session, and the touch tones get disabled. If you were in a hurry, you might place another call and try again. But what brings someone to the point of going after one of these things with an ax (** figuratively speaking! **) is when you try to contact customer service. You dial 211, then you're prompted to press "1" for a certain kind of trouble, "2" for another, and so on, but then the touch tones become inoperative. Now *that*'s a pay phone from straight out of hell. Needless to say, no complaints can be heard from within the COCOT company itself, as the employees are only allowed to make politically correct statements to the reporters. :-> Sander J. Rabinowitz (sjr@mcimail.com), Brentwood, Tennessee. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Dec 91 02:48:27 PST From: linc@tongue1.Berkeley.EDU (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Annoying Computer Payphones Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article : > Michael.Rosen@samba.acs.unc.edu (Michael Rosen) wrote: >> I hate these damn independent computer payphones. Does anybody know >> why, upon dialing a number, sometimes touchtones are disabled? >> [Moderator's Note: ... COCOTS are very seldom intended for >> anything except to make fast money for their owners, and what you >> mention is not uncommon ... > [Moderator's Note: For one thing, disabling the '#' forces people > whose long distance carriers allow the use of that symbol to end one > call and start another without redialing the 800 number and putting in > their card number again to have to pay X cents for an additional 800 > call, or whatever the COCOT guy is charging. PAT] I think the main point is to make you dial 0+ instead of 10XXX-0+ or a 950 or 800 access number to place your long distance call in a manner that gives them no revenue. If you use their carrier, they get a cut. If you dial 950-XXXX, they can't charge you (at a public payphone -- hotels can charge you for breathing near the telephone). Since they can't charge you money, they don't let you do it. Of course, it hasn't only been COCOTs that have done this -- AT&T blue phones used to, for the same reason, I expect. Linc Madison == Linc@Tongue1.Berkeley.EDU *I own neither a COCOT nor a law degree* ------------------------------ From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) Subject: Re: T1 on Fiber? Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1991 17:50:55 GMT In article S_ZIEGLER@iravcl.ira.uka.de writes: > Recently I talked with an AT&T rep (for T1 service) about T1. Somehow > we were talking about the 'wire'. And he mentioned that the wire would > be FIBER. Well, 1.5Mbps and FIBER that does not sound reasonable, > because fiber is very EXPENSIVE. > So, is this true? Do they install some type of 'NETWORK TERMINATOR' at > the customers premises, or how do they handle this? There are three parts to leased line (e.g. Accunet(R) T1.5) service: an access portion at each end and an interoffice portion. The interoffice portion is provided on AT&T-owned facilities, and I suspect this is what the rep was talking about. The access portion can be obtained from the LEC, an access provider such as Teleport or MFS, or on customer-owned facilities (e.g. microwave). Virtually all of the interoffice facilities for DS1 service are optical. (I say "virtually all" because digital radio is used in some places where physically placing fiber is not economically justified.) These facilities range from 90Mbps -- 56 DS1s -- up to 3.4Gbps -- 72 DS3s a.k.a. 2016 DS1s. A single T1 is not placed on a fiber pair; individual DS1s are multiplexed together into a higher capacity fiber optic system. In the access portion, DS1s can be provided on copper pairs (the original T1), on digital radio (microwave, either LEC owned, access provider owned, or customer owned), or on fiber. Single DS1s can be placed on an individual fiber pair; AT&T makes the FT-1 fiber modem, ADC has a similar product, and I believe there are other companies which also make similar products. However, since this varies by application and provider, I doubt that the rep was talking about access. In the access portion of the network, putting a single DS1 on a fiber pair could be justified for a number of reasons; for example, the customer could require the low bit error rate of fiber transmission. Or the fiber could be already in place. Fiber itself isn't that much more expensive than copper -- for most plant, the installation cost outweighs the material cost. It's the electronics that cause fiber plant to be more expensive than copper plant for low-usage applications. David G Lewis AT&T Bell Laboratories david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!houxa!deej ISDN Evolution Planning ------------------------------ From: kentrox!bud@uunet.uu.net () Subject: Re: T1 on Fiber? Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc. Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1991 19:33:07 GMT In article S_ZIEGLER@iravcl.ira.uka.de writes: > Recently I talked with an AT&T rep (for T1 service) about T1. Somehow > we were talking about the 'wire'. And he mentioned that the wire would > be FIBER. Well, 1.5Mbps and FIBER that does not sound reasonable, > because fiber is very EXPENSIVE. > So, is this true? Do they install some type of 'NETWORK TERMINATOR' at > the customers premises, or how do they handle this? It is unusual to install fiber to handle T1, but not unknown. Yes, it is expensive, *if* that is all that will ever be done with the fiber. However, if growth seems to be occuring in your neighborhood, then running the fiber now, operating it at T1 for a period, then upgrading it to T3 or SONET in a year or so may make good economic sense. BTW, last I looked (which was over a year ago) the crossover for fiber with a T3 mux vs. a 25 pair cable with T1 was at about 15 miles. It's probably lower today. Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox If my employer only knew... standard BS applies ------------------------------ From: steven@enel.ucalgary.ca (Steven Leikeim) Subject: Re: Pseudo-Area Code 311 Organization: ECE Department, U. of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada Date: Wed, 11 Dec 91 20:30:38 GMT In article doug@ee.ualberta.ca (Doug Konrad) writes: > The entire 555 exchange is reserved for telco use. And the telco's and > Hollywood have come to an agreement to prevent juveniles of all ages > from harassing people with phone numbers the same as are used in > movies. ... It appears that Alberta isn't reserving this exchange. In the Lloydminster telephone book there are a couple of numbers listed as 1-555-xxxx with the comment that long distance charges may apply. I don't know where these numbers are actually located, but I suspect that they may be cellular or otherwise special numbers. Steven Leikeim University of Calgary Department of Electrical Engineering Internet: steven@enel.ucalgary.ca [Moderator's Note: Didn't someone point out here in the Digest quite a while ago that the telephone exhibit at Disneyland in Florida had phones in the 555-9xxx series? The numbers were non-dialable and there apparently for billing purposes only. PAT] ------------------------------ From: plains!person@uunet.uu.net (Brett G Person ) Subject: Re: Pseudo-Area Code 311 Date: 13 Dec 91 05:24:12 GMT Organization: North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND In the early 80's there was a pop song about a girl named Jennie. The chorus of which gave her 'phone number'. Except that this happened to be a valid phone number in some parts of the country. These poor people got hundreds of calls for ther fictitious girl. Brett G. Person North Dakota State University uunet!plains!person | person@plains.bitnet | person@plains.nodak.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1020 *******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04699; 17 Dec 91 1:26 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16999 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 16 Dec 1991 23:06:16 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26596 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 16 Dec 1991 23:06:04 -0600 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 23:06:04 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199112170506.AA26596@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1022 TELECOM Digest Mon, 16 Dec 91 23:06:02 CST Volume 11 : Issue 1022 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Wrong Numbers (Chris Ambler) Re: Wrong Numbers (Tom Neff) Re: Wrong Numbers (Bill Berbenich) Re: Wrong Numbers (Phydeaux) Re: Wrong Numbers (Peter da Silva) Re: Wrong Numbers (David Lesher) Re: Interesting Caller ID Experience (Marcus Adams) Re: AT&T's Fancy Payphone in LAX: Complain to Whom? (Edwin G. Green) Re: ISDN in Japan and USA (Joe Talbot) Re: Telephone Company Employees (Steven H. Lichter) Re: Telephone Company Employees (Thomas Lapp) Re: AT&T's Fancy Payphone in LAX: Complain to Whom? (Carl Moore) Re: C&P Allows 10XXX For Some Local Calls But Not All (Carl Moore) Re: Pseudo-Area Code 311 (Carl Moore) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chris@zeus.calpoly.edu (The Squire, Phish) Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers Organization: Fantasy, Incorporated: Reality None of Our Business. Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 11:27:29 GMT jmason2@utcs.utoronto.ca (Jamie Mason) recently informed us: > I had a simmilar problem. Since it's just an outbound line for > the computer, what's wrong with either: > a) turning off the ringer and ignoring it, or > b) "at s0=1" (Hayes-style command to enable auto-answer after one ring.) > I like b) in particular. It seems to work quite well. Not really a wrong number, but a similar situation. A few days ago, our main voice line rang at 8AM. My room is pretty far away from the phone, and my policy this early in the morning is to let it ring. It rang five or six times, then stopped. Then my private line rings. Remembering that it's 8AM, I didn't want to yell at the person calling, so I let the machine get it. Sure enough, it's a "hanger-upper." Grrr... Then I saw the BBS get an incoming call. Wait ... nothing ... recycle. Hmmm. Shortly therefter, the UNIX box lights up as the telebit T2500 begins its most amusing Search-For-The-Perfect-Protocol singsong. The hangup click is obviously audible. By this time I'm pretty much awake and annoyed. The private line rings again. The answering machine does it's bit, and this time they decide to leave a message: Mr. Ambler, this is special agent _________ from the (3-letter-agency). I need to speak with you at your earliest --- I picked up :-) After getting over the initial adreneline rush (I wasn't the picture of an ethical computer user in my youth ...), he explained that he needed to interview me, as a friend was applying for a security- clearance related to his job (background check). Sigh... chris@zeus.calpoly.edu | Fubar Systems BBS (805) 54-FUBAR ------------------------------ From: tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers Date: 16 Dec 91 06:00:26 GMT Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) Button bounce (one 8 becomes two, etc) is one great way to get wrong numbers. The cheaper the phone, the more prone you are. I also suspected our Centrex for a couple of years on this, since EVERYONE seemed to be getting me at xxx-5880 when they wanted xxx-5800. The other is numeric dyslexia. I can't tell you how many people who wanted xxx-8550 got me at 5880. Both of the above are things you can do, again and again, and honestly have no idea you're doing it, although in the latter case most people can force themselves to get it right the second time if they want. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 11:30:27 GMT From: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu (Bill Berbenich) Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu Jamie Mason writes: > a) turning off the ringer and ignoring it, or > b) "at s0=1" (Hayes-style command to enable auto-answer after one ring.) I have found that your b) idea works well for me. I have a modem line with CLID on it. Every call that comes into that line gets its number sent to a line printer. I also keep the records on my hard disk, too. Once "wrong number" callers figure out that all they are going to get when they call my modem line is "that screeching sound" (as one person who called repair service said), they don't call back. The GREATEST number of times any of these people has tried to call is five times. I should qualify that by saying it was five times from the same calling number. And the nerve of someone who calls repair service because she calls my computer line and gets a "screeching sound." I suppose in her mind she was just trying to help (ha). The repair guy was real understanding about it. He thought it was a fax machine, but he had the right idea. I stood right by the repair guy when he called the "complainer" on his butt-set and told her that there was nothing wrong with my line and that I had asked that she not call my number again. She swore up and down that "that number belongs to my ex-husband and he needs to sent me some money!" I know he's there ... you men are all alike ... that sort of thing. The repair guy told her at least once that she apparently had the wrong number, then I got on the butt-set and told her who I was ("It's my phone that you reported to repair service") and asked her not to call my number any more. I don't think she was convinced, but she did stop calling. So, in concurrence with Jamie, I believe that hooking up a fax or a modem for a while is probably the best way to get wrong-number and junk callers to stop calling. I'm down from a peak of three to five wrong numbers per day to about one wrong number per week. Bill [Moderator's Note: I had a case just like yours several years ago. Some woman calling from a pay phone at the Clark and Division subway station called my modem line four times ... got the carrier four times, and lost four quarters in the process. She turned me in to repair service, and when the repair foreman told me about it later he said he got a big laugh when she asked how to get a refund of the money 'she lost because the number she called was out of order'! PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 10:26:31 PST From: reb@ingres.com (Phydeaux) Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers > a) turning off the ringer and ignoring it, or > b) "at s0=1" (Hayes-style command to enable auto-answer after one ring.) > I like b) in particular. ... until someone decides to call 611 to report 'trouble' on your line ;-) reb -- *-=#= Phydeaux =#=-* reb@ingres.com or reb%ingres.com@lll-winken.llnl.GOV ICBM: 41.55N 87.40W h:828 South May Street Chicago, IL 60607 312-733-3090 w:reb Ingres 10255 West Higgins Road Suite 500 Rosemont, IL 60018 708-803-9500 [Moderator's Note: Oh, has it happened to you also? :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (peter da silva) Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers Organization: Ferranti International Controls Corporation Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 19:12:29 GMT In article , 74066.2004@CompuServe.COM (Larry Rachman) writes: > Do I have a social obligation to call back people who leave wrong > number messages on my answering machine, to let them know they haven't > reached their target? Well, the simplest solution is the one I've applied: "This is NOT Allstate. There are NO insurance agents here. If you want to leave a message for Stephanie or Peter..." Occasionally we have had some variant of: "Hi, this is Peter. Right now Alien Creatures are eating my brain. Please leave a message at the tone and when they are finished one of the Alien Creatures will assume my form and get back to you..." I don't think we've used that one since we started getting Allstate wrong numbers, but I would assume that anyone receiving that message would figure they hadn't got Allstate. Or if they couldn't figure that out they're probably a poor insurance risk anyway. :-> Peter da Silva Ferranti International Controls Corporation Sugar Land, TX 77487-5012; +1 713 274 5180 [Moderator's Note: But just be sure some real Alien Creatures -- such as lawyers for the Hilton Hotel chain -- don't try to sue you for making trouble for them, as they tried to do to John Higdon. :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 19:31:09 EST Reply-To: wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (David Lesher) Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex There will likely be a few more wrong numbers coming up. DC/VA/MD just went through ten digit dialing, and now a 410/301 split is afoot. 410 will cover Baltimore and such. Well, the SW Bell "One Book" Yellow Pages has started listing 401 area codes. The trouble is they've lised such places as the Circuit City in Tysons Corners as having a 410 number. Here I thought that was up the road here in VA. Well, maybe it's a interstate FX line ;-? wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu [Moderator's Note: Rather than an FX line, (although it may be that) it is probably just a 'foreign directory listing'. Anyone can buy a listing in a directory other than that of the telco serving them. Just call the telco in question and be prepared to pay whatever they charge for extra listings in their book. PAT] ------------------------------ From: madams@aludra.usc.edu (Marcus Adams) Subject: Re: Interesting Caller ID Experience Date: 16 Dec 1991 10:10:26 -0800 Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA In article ronnie@EDDIE.MIT.EDU (Ron Schnell) writes about a LD call he got which had a local number listed by Caller ID. PAT responded with: > [Moderator's Note: I don't care about the number. The carrier for the > call was getting it from El Lay to your town via whatever method, and > dropping it off at its local POP (point of presence) in your town, > where the call was then patched into a local outgoing line and dialed > as a local call to you. If you get calls from a cell phone locally you > will get the same kind of reaction from Caller ID: The box will show > some number which turns out to be an outgoing line from the cellular > company's switch rather than the actual cell phone number. PAT] Is this something that happens a lot? Will this happen to Caller ID when more of the country is hooked up with CID? It seems to me that this would allow people to hide behind these tricks when they wish to prevent somone from finding out their real number. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 07:09:38 EST From: egg@inuxy.att.com (Edwin G Green) Subject: Re: AT&T's Fancy Payphone in LAX: Complain to Whom? Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article Cristobal Pedregal Martin writes: > A friend of mine recently called me from the Los Angeles airport. He > was using a credit card on an AT&T "computerized" payphone. I offered > to call back, and he gave me the number on the phone (a 213 area code > number). I hung up and called; I got a "the number is disconnected" > intercept. > After talking with my friend again (he called again after a while), I > called the AT&T operator and explained what had happened. I figured > the phone might be mislabelled. She tried and got the same intercept. > After a while she transferred me to her supervisor, who tried again, > same result. Finally she promised to find out, and in 15 minutes she > called back. She said that the number was indeed one of AT&T's > payphones in LAX. She said that (against her expectations), " [the > disconnected number] intercept is what they use there [as opposed, I > guess, to what they do in the East Coast] when it is not wired for > incoming calls ". I understand your disappointment, but I would like to set the record straight. AT&T does not make the decision about incoming service. LAX is the agent that is in charge of the configuration of that phone. AT&T puts card reader phones in airports, hotels, etc. only after we receive (win) the contract to provide long distance service to those facilities. The agents (owners, operators, authorities, etc.) make the decisions about advertising, speed dial numbers, second lines, incoming calls, etc. Since they make money from outgoing long distance calls and nothing from incoming calls, agents are generally not very interested in allowing incoming calls to these phones. A few states (Florida for example) require that these phones receive incoming calls. We have no problem complying. > I'd also like to get a meaningful intercept and visible labelling on the > phone (my friend can read, and saw no notice of this) when a payphone > does not allow incoming calls. I don't know about the intercept situation. However, since we design and administer the card reader phones here, I will hand carry your request for visible labeling to that group today. (I can't guarantee they will agree, but I am on your side.) > Yes I am being picky, but I consider > that allowing incoming calls is part of the service they provide; and, > no, I don't agree with disabling incoming calls by default: please > don't give me the drug-dealers argument, it doesn't apply here. No drug-dealers arguments! In this case "they" isn't AT&T. > So, my question is: how do I complain about these things? The operator > was nice but not very helpful on that. This forum is a good place to start. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 05:08 PST From: joe@zygot.ati.com (Joe Talbot) Subject: Re: ISDN in Japan and USA Reply-To: joe@zygot.ati.com.ati.com (Joe Talbot) Organization: Green Hills and Cows ISDN Pay phones are now becoming more common in Japan (they are ALWAYS right next to telco offices). They say you can order service, but that really isn't yet the case, as engineering limitations do apply. I wonder if anybody has EVER used the digital access. I kind of doubt it. ------------------------------ From: /PN=GLORIA.C.VALLE/O=GTE/PRMD=GTEMAIL/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/@sprint.com Date: 16 Dec 91 01:53 UT Subject: Re: Telephone Company Employees If you ask what my plan to stem the loss is to demand to talk to a real person everytime you call the telephone company and that includes long distance. You will notice that in every department you get a voice director. I find this to be very cold and in many cases not very helpful. I myself don't have to worry about a loss of a job since I have been with my job for 25 years and have seen more changes then I can or even want to remember. The need for more and better trained personal can be seen everytime there is an outage and there have been many and I'm affraid they will continue and get worse unless something is done to correct it. I can see the only way being more personal to take care of the work and routines that need to be done. Remember a computer is only as good as the person that programs it. Steven H. Lichter GTE Calif. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Dec 91 21:32:52 EST From: Thomas Lapp Subject: Re: Telephone Company Employees > Well as you are seeing with this loss of trained people the service is > getting less (not many payment offices). The systems around the world Although she was speaking to the subject of people service, the equipment uptime seems to be falling as well. At the data center where I work, we used to look at the telephone companies as role models for uptime for our computer network. Our goal, of course, was to "have the network as available as your telephone." I think we're getting very close these days, although I never intended that the phone service drop to meet us halfway as we got better :-). tom internet : mvac23!thomas@udel.edu or thomas%mvac23@udel.edu (home) : 4398613@mcimail.com (work) OSI : C=US/A=MCI/S=LAPP/D=ID=4398613 uucp : {ucbvax,mcvax,uunet}!udel!mvac23!thomas Location : Newark, DE, USA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 13:01:53 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: AT&T's Fancy Payphone in LAX: Complain to Whom? I am assuming that this phone is going to area 310, with 213 still being useable. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 13:05:07 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: C&P Allows 10XXX For Some Local Calls But Not All In the second paragraph of the message to telecom, it said "...using the AT&T operator to help me place a calling card call to a nearby phone. ... could not do it, but ... able to place an AT&T call to local points in Maryland and Virginia". Was that supposed to be "Maryland and DC", in order to be the same as what your first paragraph said? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 13:17:07 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Pseudo-Area Code 311 And in the early 1960s there was "BEechwood 4-5789". ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1022 *******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06971; 17 Dec 91 2:30 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15295 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 16 Dec 1991 22:20:18 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11375 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 16 Dec 1991 22:20:06 -0600 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 22:20:06 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199112170420.AA11375@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1021 TELECOM Digest Mon, 16 Dec 91 22:20:05 CST Volume 11 : Issue 1021 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: GTE Screwups in NW Ohio (John Higdon) Re: Caller ID For Dallas/Ft Worth Area? (James Sinclair) Re: Questions to Stimulate Conversation (John Holman) Re: Need Brief Info on Frame Relay (Paul Elliott) Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed? (V. Shipley) Re: Pay-per-Call Scam (Adam Thompson) Re: What Exactly in Georgia Goes Where (404/706 Split)? (Monte Freeman) Re: AT&T SDN Reselling (Mark Oberg) Re: AT&T: From Leading Edge to Bleeding Edge (Jeff Sicherman) Re: What's a Turret ? (R. Patrick MacKinnon) Re: CallerID + Plus from Rochelle Communications (Mike Bray) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 16 Dec 91 17:03 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: GTE Screwups in NW Ohio Alan.Boritz@f306.n269.z1.fidonet.org (Alan Boritz) writes: > In an article sbrack%bluemoon@nstar. > rn.com wrote: >> In the process they discovered that they had given him touchtone service >> accidentally. Now they want him to pay for what he was receiving free >> of charge. > I would suggest that your client tell GTE to forget about collecting > any money for a service he didn't order. GTE would probably not try this in California. Some years ago, Pacific Bell got its hands slapped really hard for enabling (and charging for) unordered custom calling features. Those mostly affected were senior citizens and others who did not know Call Waiting from Spring Planting. Even some of us telecom junkies found inexplicable problems with modem lines that turned out to be Call Waiting. "Accidentally" enabling any feature is the equivalent of sending unordered merchandise. Even if you go ahead and use it, it is yours for free if you never ordered it in the first place. (This is why I never had any problem using touch tone service that telco could not turn off.) This viewpoint is shared by the CPUC, who ordered Pacific Bell to refund every dime collected for these custom calling features to any customer who claimed he did not order them or did not understand that there were extra charges. A non-telecom-knowledgeable friend moved from Sunnyvale to Mountain View back in those slimy days. While talking to him on the telephone, he complained that Call Waiting was less convenient in MV than in Sunnyvale. Since both locations were served by a 1AESS, I asked why. When he had the MV service installed, the rep ordered "Commstar" (mini-Centrex) and Call Waiting. When a second call is received with this arrangement, it is necessary to flash the switchhook and then dial '*9' to answer the second call. To switch back and forth, it is necessary to flash and dial '*9' each time. I informed him that not only was it more inconvenient, but that instead of paying $3.50/month, he was now paying $10.00/month ($8.00 for the Commstar and $2.00 for the Call Waiting). Needless to say, he went back and had words with the business office. > If GTE is as greedy and > vindictive as Rochester Telephone, your client should soon find that > the switch will not accept touchtone digits (Rochester Tel has their > newer switches programmed to intercept touchtone dialing on rotary > lines and play extremely loud obnoxious noises so "encourage" you to > "upgrade" your service). I am so happy that in California, touch tone service is now accepted as a standard method of subscriber signaling and does not carry any premium charges. Now if the rest of the country would come around... John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: jcs1@gte.com (James Sinclair) Subject: Re: Caller ID For Dallas/Ft Worth Area? Date: 13 Dec 91 14:08:30 GMT Reply-To: jcs1@gte.com (James Sinclair) Organization: GTE Laboratories, Inc. Macy Hallock's article contains several inaccurate statements. In article , fmsys!macy@usenet.INS. CWRU.Edu (Macy Hallock) writes: > Although the GTD-5 seems to be a servicable central office machine > (it beats the AE No.1 EAX, for sure), its not a production item anymore. I'm not sure how Macy defines production, but a new SVR of the switching software is currently being rolled out, and I'm sure that AGCS would be more than happy to sell you a new machine. > I am not aware of CLASS services being offered on any GTD-5 machines > anywhere. To the best of my knowledge, development on these has > stopped as well. I know that ISDN has been scrapped on these, and I > believe CLASS is not planned, either. That seems to mean Caller-ID in > many GTE areas will be delayed ... perhaps until the GTD-5's are > replaced many years from now. CLASS is available on the GTD-5. I know for a fact that it is provided in Lexington KY. Reasons it is not offered in particular areas may be regulatory or economic, but they aren't technical. > It would also seem to mean Signalling System No. 7 will not be used > by the GTD-5, either. The new SVR does support Signalling System No. 7. > I'd appreciate any GTE or AG staffers on the net who know what the > current status of GTD-5 service enhancements are ... offering either > the official version or actual first hand information. Hope this helps clear things up. Jim Sinclair jcs1@gte.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1991 09:10:31 CST From: John Holman Subject: Re: Questions to Stimulate Conversation It sounds like question #2 is to stimulate our economy ... and a back pocket. :-) I have two ideas for start ups for you. There seem to be quite a few new LARGE HOMES being built. It would seem to me they could use telephone jacks in most of their rooms with a door box connection to a small key system. There are plenty on distributors out there to buy equipment from. A good down payment would go a long way and if you can wire befor the dry wall is up you don't need to put much time into the job. One could also sell and install answering machines or call processors to small business with very little capital. ------------------------------ From: optilink!elliott@uunet.uu.net (Paul Elliott x225) Subject: Re: Need Brief Info on Frame Relay Date: 13 Dec 91 16:56:50 GMT Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA In article , DJH128@psuvm.psu.edu writes: > Need brief rundown on Frame Relay. What is it? Where is it available? > Advantages? Disadvantages? The November 1991 issue of {BYTE Magazine} has an article on Frame Relay. (Page 173, Author: William Stallings, Title: _Faster Packet Networks_) ----- Paul Elliott - DSC Optilink - Petaluma, CA USA ------ {uunet,pyramid,tekbspa}!optilink!elliott -or- optilink!elliott@uunet.uu.net ------------------------------ From: vances@xenitec.on.ca (Vance Shipley) Subject: Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed? Organization: SwitchView Inc. Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1991 00:31:10 GMT In article goldstein@carafe.enet.' dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) writes: > You want programmable ring pattern? The Ericsson MD-110 has a neat > feature. The various ring functions (ring back when free, ring > external, ring internal, ring intercom, etc.) can be programmed with > arbitrarily defined cadences (up to some limit). So it's even > possible to program in Morse Code for the different functions! (I've > never seen it in practice, but I saw it in some documentation.) My Northern Telecom M3000 set (no keys just a touch sensitive LCD) gives me a piano keyboard to program my incoming "ring". I like "Smoke on the water". :) Vance Shipley vances@xenitec vances@ltg ..uunet!watmath!xenitec!vances ------------------------------ From: umthom61@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Adam Thompson) Subject: Re: Pay-per-Call Scam Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1991 06:01:57 GMT In thompson@forsyth.wsnc.org (Robert Thompson (727-2597, X3012)) writes: > In article , siegman@sierra.stanford. > edu (Anthony E. Siegman) writes: >> The callee has NOT entered into ANY contract with answering party, >> and can't possibly be considered to owe them anything. Right? >> ... there is no question whatsoever about your 'agreement to pay >> simply by dialing a phone number'. ... >> ... The dial tone is telco's solicitation for your service request; >> your spinning the dial or pressing the buttons is your response. PAT] > Further, contracting requires an "exchange of consideration." While > the $55 is certainly fulfilling that obligation on the part of the > caller, my understanding of what was provided (or not provided) by > the 540 vendor suggests that no such exchange occurred. Sorry ... the consideration involved is the privilege of public, electronic (?) means of rapid communication, as opposed to walking/driving/whatever over to where they are at that moment, and striking up a conversation with them. The use of a phone is *not* an "inalienable right" (in either Canada or US). It is a "privilege" that is made commonly available under certain restrictions imposed by law and the details of the contract you enter into with the telco for phone service. Adam Thompson ---- Computer Engineering ---- University of Manitoba umthom61@ccu.umanitoba.ca !uunet!decwrl!alberta! ccu.UManitoba.CA!umthom61 ------------------------------ From: ccoprfm@prism.gatech.edu (Monte Freeman) Subject: Re: What Exactly in Georgia Goes Where (404/706 Split)? Date: 15 Dec 91 14:53:15 GMT Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology In article DLEIBOLD@VM1.YorkU.CA writes: > exact idea as to what exchanges are involved. Are these the current > local calling area to Atlanta, or is this more a political metro > boundary involved? As I understand it, everything here that is *currently* in the local Atlanta dialing area will remain in the 404 area code after the split. All other areas that are in 404 now will go to the new 706 area code. So Atlanta, Decatur, Dunwoody, Norcross, Chamblee, Lawrenceville, Lithonia Snellville, etc (Metro-Atlanta communities) will remain in 404. Places like Rome, Augusta, Athens, Gainsville, etc that are in 404 right now will be moved to 706. Hope this helps. Monte Freeman -- Operations Department / Information Technology Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!ccoprfm Internet: ccoprfm@prism.gatech.edu ------------------------------ From: grout!mark@uunet.uu.net (Mark Oberg) Subject: Re: AT&T SDN Reselling Date: 15 Dec 91 14:25:13 GMT Organization: Grout, Beltsville, MD In article martin@bdsgate.bdsi.com (Martin Harriss) writes: > My company has recently been approached by an AT&T SDN reseller, and I > would like to get some opinions on the service. [....] > I would like to get any opinions you might have on the service, and I > have a couple of specific questions: > Is this set up as your 1+ carrier, or do you need to dial an access > code (10-SDN?) to route your calls? Yes, this usually must be set up as your primary interexchange carrier. Calling card access under SDN CC rates is also possible. > In the case of billing inquiries, call handling difficulties, etc, who > do you talk to? Do you go via your reseller, or can you talk directly > to AT&T? You will not be doing business *with* AT&T (even though your calls will be carried by them and your monthly billing usually will come from them). All adds and changes must be done by the SDN aggreggator. You should be comfortable with the aggregator's interest in providing any service beyond making the sale and collecting money. You may find that some SDN aggregators do not consider themselves to be in the customer service business and this will be important to you if/when you require assistance with your account. > Anything else, good or bad, about the service? Another option to consider is a good regional carrier or reseller that provides its own billing and customer service. I do not know where you are located, but if you are in a relatively populated area, you may find smaller carriers that give very personalized service, excellent rates for small and mid-sized users and provide very high quality connections. The bad old days of getting unusable connections and being required to dial an extra 18 digits before placing a call are over. With the advent of digital switching and fiber the quality of any decent small carrier can be every bit as good as the "Big 3" carriers. Disclaimer: These opinions are my own and do not reflect the views of NATel, Inc. (a regional long distance company serving NYC, NJ, PA, DE, MD, DC & VA), its subsidiaries or its carriers. Mark Oberg NATel, Inc. | UUCP: wb3ffv!grout!mark Voice: (410)964-0505 | Internet: mark%grout@wb3ffv.ampr.org BBS: (301)596-6450 | Fidonet: 1:109/506 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Dec 91 12:48:23 -0800 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: Re: AT&T: From Leading Edge to Bleeding Edge Organization: Cal State Long Beach Well, this isn't about AT&T's recent technical problems, but they appear to be bleeding a little elsewhere. Saw a short mention (sorry, can't recall exactly where) that AT&T was looking for either someone to buy some of the receivables of or form a joint venture with their credit card operation. ------------------------------ From: rpmackin@student.business.uwo.ca (R. Patrick MacKinnon) Subject: Re: What's a Turret? Date: 16 Dec 91 04:29:56 GMT Organization: University of Western Ontario A Turret, is a multi line ( 60 or 120 button ) high capacity, line intensive telephone. They are made by TEC which is a division of TIE telecommunications. They are a favorite of places that have a high line to telephone ratio ( rather than the usual tel to line. A Turret has a left and a right handset, and they can each access individual lines. The Turret also has a long vertical yellow release bar on both the left and right of the front panel. Stock trading locations, police departments, and centralized service providers are common places to find turrets. Bell Canada use them because they have many lines coming in from various exchanges. (service and internal voice links.) The Toronto Stock Exchange on Bay Street, Toronto, Canada has quite a few of them. I am very familiar with them mainly because I install and service them for both 911 systems, and for a few other applications. I hope this clarifies the matter. rpmackin@student.business.uwo.ca (R. Patrick MacKinnon) The Western Business School BBS -- London, Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 02:57:04 EST From: mike@camphq.FIDONET.ORG (Mike Bray) Subject: Re: CallerID + Plus from Rochelle Communications joel@peora.sdc.ccur.com (Joel Upchurch) wrote: > In the December 13th Issue of {PC Magazine} on page 93, John Dvorak > mentions an interesting product called CallerID + Plus from Rochelle > Communications. [some text deleted] Apparently Dvorak thinks this > is going to be a killer for salespeople. Indeed this product does look quite neat and has the ability to import and export its data in ASCII and dBase format. One local BBS even has one and uses it to identify you before you log in. The bad thing about this product is the cost. Their "ANI-232" adapter hardware and associated software was originally priced at $295, but a Rochelle salesdrone recently told me that the price has been reduced to $245. Still, I think $245 is a bit much to pay for something like this. Mike Bray on Campaign Headquarters, Fidonet 1:2606/533 70 Miami Trail, Rockaway NJ 07866 USA mike@camphq.FIDONET.ORG or ...!apple!camphq!mike ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1021 *******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10580; 17 Dec 91 4:02 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12941 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 17 Dec 1991 02:06:46 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21650 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 17 Dec 1991 02:06:32 -0600 Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1991 02:06:32 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199112170806.AA21650@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1024 TELECOM Digest Tue, 17 Dec 91 02:06:19 CST Volume 11 : Issue 1024 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Annoying Computer Payphones (Steve Forrette) Re: Wire vs. Fiber Expense (Marvin Sirbu) Re: Caller ID For Dallas/Ft Worth Area? (Jon Baker) Re: ISDN: Estimate of Arrival? (Marvin Sirbu) Re: Fibre Optic Network Planned For Moscow Metro (Charles McGuinness) Re: Caller ID For Dallas/Ft Worth Area? (William G. Becks) Re: Using Sprint For Local Calls Instead of Pacbell Swedish Telecommunications Network (Philippa Morrissey) CNID For a Computer (Roy M. Silvernail) Part 68 Registration (Mike Bray) Silent Night (Jeff Sicherman) Slooow Downloads on Datapac! Help!!! (Ed Gaudet) Disneyland (was Psuedo-Area Code 311) (Carl Moore) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 20:02:12 pst From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Annoying Computer Payphones Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA In article Michael Katzmann writes: > Yes, yes I know what you're thinking ... if there is a dial-tone > detector already in the phone to detect the first dial tone, why can't > it be used to detect the second dial tone and hang up the line > (preventing possible fraud). I don't know, but I suspect that it looks > for energy in a particular band of frequencies and may be spoofed by > non-dial tone stuff. This would also prevent the use of many calling card services, such as US Sprint's, which present their own secondary dialtone (standard frequencies) as a prompt. Then, the "live" keypad would be useless anyway in a lot of situations. I would think that most telcos would be clever enough to disable the second dialtone for lines that have a COCOT class-of-service. Even if this is not done, if the phone is at least as clever as my Panasonic answering machine, it could detect the momentary loss of loop current just before the secondary dialtone is provided. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 22:57:47 -0500 (EST) From: Marvin Sirbu Subject: Re: Wire vs. Fiber Expense Fiber strands cost about $.15 - $.20 per meter today as compared to $.02 - $.03 for copper. Add about $4.00/m for the sheath around a multi-fiber bundle, somewhat less for copper since you don't need kevlar strengthening members to avoid breaking the fiber when you pull on the cable. Fiber is more expensive to install, since a fiber splice costs $15 - 30 in time and materials as compared to $1.00 to twist a pair of copper wires together. Finally, the cost of electronics needed to make fiber usable are a significant fraction of a fiber loop plant cost. Recent estimates of the cost of an all fiber based local loop -- for telephone services only -- show fiber to cost three times as much as copper. Fiber to the curb systems with copper drops are 80% more costly than copper. See "Integrated Broadband Networks", Martin Elton, editor. Marvin Sirbu Carnegie Mellon University ------------------------------ From: bakerj@gtephx.UUCP (Jon Baker) Subject: Re: Caller ID For Dallas/Ft Worth Area? Organization: gte Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 22:43:30 GMT In article , fmsys!macy@usenet.INS. CWRU.Edu (Macy Hallock) writes: > Although the GTD-5 seems to be a servicable central office machine (it > beats the AE No.1 EAX, for sure), its not a production item anymore. The GTD5 is a 'production item', available to anyone who wants to buy one. GTE has made a strategic decision to not purchase any more GTD5's, though I belive that moratorium is under negotiation. > I am not aware of CLASS services being offered on any GTD-5 machines > anywhere. SS7 and CLASS services have been available on the GTD5 since SVR1631, released several years ago. Regulatory hurdles have delayed the universal deployment of CLASS, however. CLASS is available on GTD5's in Kentucky, at the least, and I think several other states as well. > To the best of my knowledge, development on these has > stopped as well. I know that ISDN has been scrapped on these, and I > believe CLASS is not planned, either. That seems to mean Caller-ID in > many GTE areas will be delayed ... perhaps until the GTD-5's are > replaced many years from now. Development of new System Version Releases, including hardware and software upgrades, continues on the GTD5. The possibility of providing ISDN services on or through a GTD5 has not been totally abandoned. > It would also seem to mean Signalling System No. 7 will not be used by > the GTD-5, either. I know that many GTD-5 CO's are scheduled to have It already is, and for several years now. > I'd appreciate any GTE or AG staffers on the net who know what the > current status of GTD-5 service enhancements are ... offering either > the official version or actual first hand information. Ask and ye shall receive ..... J.Baker asuvax!gtephx!bakerj) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 22:43:36 -0500 (EST) From: Marvin Sirbu Subject: Re: ISDN: Estimate of Arrival? George Herson wrote: > I'm presently investigating investment in a wireless cable company. > One of the drawbacks is I won't see any return on that investment for > five or six years (FCC takes onee year to process application, takes a > year to get a station on-line, and three or four to recoup costs). By > that time I wonder if ISDN will be a long way off, and of course > provide a superior conduit for video into the home. Anyone know, or > have an idea as to find out? "Wireless cable company" is another name for microwave multipoint distribution service. I wouldn't go anywhere an investment in such technology. It isn't the telcos that are a competitive threat, it is the CATV companies. 90% of households are currently passed by wired cable; about 60% of all households subscribe. Wireless cable generally offers fewer channels and if it is not competing head to head with an entrenched cable company, is in some rural area with few potential customers. Be sceptical of their subscriber projections. Marvin Sirbu Engineering and Public Policy Carnegie Mellon University ------------------------------ From: Charles McGuinness Subject: Re: Fibre Optic Network Planned For Moscow Metro Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 9:38:05 EST At the end of a posting of a new fiber optic network being planned for Moscow, the Moderator notes: > [Moderator's Note: Gee, maybe in the process of installing a fiber > optic network all over, they might find a way to get some food for the > many people who are starving over there at present due to the turmoil > the government(s) are in right now ... it might seem a more > appropriate use of the money and efforts being expended. PAT] Pat, you're missing the true problem here! People in Moscow wouldn't be starving if they could call Pizza Hut and have pizza delivered! It's only the sad shape of the local plant that keeps the people from the wide variety of delivered foods that all big city residents enjoy! ;-) [Moderator's Note: Well ... I know it was meant to be funny, and I agree with writers in an earlier issue of the Digest tonight about the need to 'teach people to fish', but there is still a very urgent need for humanitarian action in the (former) Soviet Union right now. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Dec 91 17:05:39 EDT From: "William G. Becks" Reply-To: ke8kb@pgd.adp.wisc.edu Subject: Re: Caller ID For Dallas/Ft. Worth Area? Macy M. Hallock Jr writes: In article is written: >> Does anyone know when Southwestern Bell and GTE are going to start >> offering Caller ID service to the Dallas-Ft Worth area? > Bear in mind many of the GTE Central Offices are the GTE/Automatic > Electric (now AG Communications) GTD-5's. > GTE has exited the central office equipment market with the agreement > forming AG Communications and at some point will not own any part of > AG. I presume AT&T will eventually integrate AG into their own > structure at some point. Stuff deleted... > I am not aware of CLASS services being offered on any GTD-5 machines > anywhere. To the best of my knowledge, development on these has > stopped as well. I know that ISDN has been scrapped on these, and I > believe CLASS is not planned, either. That seems to mean Caller-ID in > many GTE areas will be delayed ... perhaps until the GTD-5's are > replaced many years from now. The AGCS GTD-5 EAX digital switch is still very much alive and does support CLASS from it's introduction at SVR 1.6.3.2 with testing in the field dating back to early 1990, at Muskegon North, Michigan. The current load is SVR 1.6.3.3 as implemented at many of GTE North's 5-EAX switching sites. Still others in the regional company are on the docket to receive this load in the near future. Although SS7 has been supported for several years now on the GTD-5, there is still some software protocol development continuing with the next release expected in SVR 1.6.4.1. This prevents such CLASS services such as calling number delivery from outside area callers being displayed, but then the PSTN is still a long way from being ready for full SS7 deployment. Calling number delivery is technically available within any GTD-5 based clusters at SVR 1.6.3.3 without the aid of SS7. That is, among any Base Unit (DSO) and any of it's family of (RSO's) consisting of the GTD-5 EAX RSU/RLU and MXU (SLIC). By the way, switched 56K service is supported by the GTD-5 EAX, and it is my understanding that marketing is going to hit the streets with this product very soon! Much more development still in the works for the 5-EAX. Best regards, William G. Becks GTE North, Inc. GTD-5 Installation Test (COEI) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 09:36 EST From: "Peng_H.Ang" <20017ANG@msu.edu> Subject: Re: Using Sprint For Local Calls Instead of Pacbell Steve Elias wrote: > it's cheaper to call Boston than it is to call San Fran, from San Jose. Same thing in Michigan. It's cheaper to call Los Angeles than Detroit from the next LATA. Some politicians here have said that this was inhibiting investments in Michigan. I don't know how true that is but it certainly does not help. ------------------------------ From: philippa@picasso.cssc-syd.tansu.oz.au (Philippa Morrissey) Subject: Swedish Telecommunications Network Organization: Telecom Australia Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 23:43:03 GMT I'm looking for some information on the telecommunications network in Sweden - such as: What numbering system is used? What does the network look like? Is CLID available at all points in the network? The population in Sweden is similar to that in Australia. It would be interesting to see how their network is setup. Hope someone can help me. Thanks. Philippa Morrissey - Telecom |MHSnet: philippa@cssc-syd.tansu.oz.au Network Services |Snail : 8th Floor, 91 York Street, Sydney 2000. Customised Software Solutions | or PO Box A226, Sydney South 2000, Australia. Centre - Sydney |Phone : +61 (0)2 364 3348 Fax: +61 2 262 3813 ------------------------------ Subject: CNID For a Computer From: cybrspc!roy@cs.umn.edu (Roy M. Silvernail) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 19:35:13 CST Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN Well, someone has asked me a question I don't have a ready answer for ... but I'm hoping the erstwhile Telecom denizens can fill me in. I'd like to find out what the options are for receiving Calling Number ID with a computer. I know of a couple RS-232 interface boxes, but only that they exist. I hope to discover names and model numbers, along with support software (if any). I'm also aware of Motorola's CNID chip, and in fact, I have ordered a sample to play with. However, my inquisitor is interested in a currently manufactured solution. Perhaps it's best if you e-mail your findings to me, rather than post to the Digest. When I've collected what appears to be the canonical list, I'll submit a summary to the group. Thanks in advance! Roy M. Silvernail |+| roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Dec 91 18:49:18 EST From: mike@camphq.FIDONET.ORG (Mike Bray) Subject: Part 68 Registration Can any of our subscribers enlighten me/us a little bit to the exact requirements of passing FCC Part 68? Also, have any of our subscribers seen a product pass FCC Part 68? Are you familiar with what they do to your circuit and what they check for? How long does it take for certification? And how do they determine if your circuit must also pass Part 15? If folks want to answer privately, I'll create a mini-digest and pass it along to others who ask for a copy ... Mike Bray on Campaign Headquarters, Fidonet 1:2606/533 70 Miami Trail, Rockaway NJ 07866 USA mike@camphq.FIDONET.ORG or ...!apple!camphq!mike ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 03:46:27 -0800 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: Silent Night Organization: Cal State Long Beach I was catching up on some industry rag reading from a few weeks ago and caught sight of a short blurb that mentions that Illinois Bell is starting (as a pilot project, I guess) a new service that will let utility companies read meters remotely using the customer's telephone lines. It's called the Ameritech Automatic Meter Reading service. The current application is for water meter reading and a previous market trial was done with Consumers Illinois Water Co. in Kankakee in 1989. The test is being run in the Chicago suburbs of Bensenville and Niles. The meter is connected to the phone line through a special reading unit that can be polled by the switching center without ringing the customer's line. The polling can supposedly be interrupted by customer us of the line and the normal polling will usually be done at night to minimize conflicts and line usage. The readings are also delivered to the utility by phone. Time to replace the dog with a good RF source, I guess ... Know any more about this, PAT and how it works ? [Moderator's Note: My understanding is this: As the meters are otherwise replaced due to old-age and malfunctioning, etc. the new meters have little boxes on them with terminals which tie into your phone line. They are fixed so that anytime your phone is off hook, the terminals on the meter are cutoff, sort of like one of those things you buy at RS to protect your data. The utilities use a computer which accesses the pair -- without any reference to the phone number -- and poll or 'read' the meter. Meters are read once each month and the operation takes about two seconds, usually in the wee hours of the morning. If the subscriber is on the phone (or places/receives a call) during the two or three seconds the utility is on the line, the utility is unable to access the line (or gets cut off mid-reading) until the line is free again. There is no charge of any sort to the phone subscriber, and the subscriber is never denied the use of the line, even for a few seconds in the early morning. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 12:27:39 -0400 From: caegaude@atlas.cs.upei.ca (Ed Gaudet) Subject: Slooow Downloads on Datapac! Help!!! Help! I have a 2400etc. modem ane 90% of my telecommunications is with Canet/Internet. All my Canet work is done using Datapac as a carrier. Before the flames start, yes ... I did check for the information locally. The problem is slow downloads. Originally I couldn't download at all. After discovering PROF 3, I could download slowly (82cps). Currently I am getting about 105 cps. which is about half the speed I get on regular tel lines. I am using: prof 3 set 4:4,7:8 line(128) xxxxxxxx to log onto my university Atlas computer from my Olivetti computer. Does anyone out there in netland have any clues to help speed up downloads? send responses to: caegaude@atlas.cs.upei.ca If there is sufficient interest, I will post a summary. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 9:51:52 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Disneyland (was Psuedo-Area Code 311) To comment on a Moderator's Note: Do not confuse Disneyland in Anaheim, California, with Disney World near Orlando, Florida. They do, however, come under the same organization. I was at the one in California this year, and made a phone call from an enclosed booth where I did not have to hold an instrument to my ear, but rather just sit in the booth and talk! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1024 *******************************   Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11594; 17 Dec 91 4:29 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25353 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 17 Dec 1991 01:13:14 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03907 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 17 Dec 1991 01:13:03 -0600 Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1991 01:13:03 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199112170713.AA03907@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1023 TELECOM Digest Tue, 17 Dec 91 01:12:59 CST Volume 11 : Issue 1023 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: CLID and Answering Machines (John Boteler) Re: Voice Response Technology (George Herson) Re: Cost-Effectiveness of PCP (was How Do I Contact PC Pursuit?) (M. Ho) Re: ISDN in Japan and USA (Kenji Fujisawa) Re: The AC Split That Never Happened (Carl Moore) Re: What is This Stuff? - ANSWERED (Tom Perrine) Re: British Cellular System Charge For Uncompleted Incoming Calls (A Laird) Re: Annoying Computer Payphones and Further Comments on COCOTs (Frankston) Re: Fibre Optic Network Planned For Moscow Metro (Andrew Klossner) Re: Fibre Optic Network Planned For Moscow Metro (John Higdon) Re: Motorola Acquires GEOSTAR's Satellite Services for Iridium (Steve Pope) Teleconferencing System Manufacturers Wanted (Sanjeev Tavathia) Changes in New York (George S. Thurman) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Boteler Subject: Re: CLID and Answering Machines Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 1:50:35 EST Organization: Express Access Public Access UNIX, Greenbelt, Maryland USA In article rls!randy@cis.ohio-state. edu (Randall L. Smith) writes: > wex@cs.ULowell.EDU (Paul Wexelblat) writes: >> Does anyone know of any answering machine that has/plans-to-have the >> capability to access/store CLID info of caller? > Strangely enough, this was being discussed in rec.humor a month ago. > Furthermore, it was proposed (by me :-) that the answering machine > could discriminate by ID number and play an appropriate message. > Since, IMHO, there isn't a decent answering machine at any price in > the free world, (much less elsewhere) the chances of any > sophistication in the near future seems abysmal. I didn't find it so funny when I finished Phase 2 of my voice mail clone last month. In fact, I found it downright useful, when I was on the road with no way to contact a friend, to leave a custom outgoing message for him. Sure saved a lot of telephone tag! I have also found some very handy business uses for custom outgoing messages. It's even neater when you press '2' to reply to the message and it Centrex transfers you to the calling number, if available, with no pain, no strain. >> [If you think this is a good idea and make a fortune on it, at least >> send me one of the machines. I don't think I'll make a fortune on it by residential users; I mean, who wants to pay > $2000 for a spiffy computerized answering machine which does all that! Small businesses, well ... bote@access.digex.com Bote Communications 703.241.7818 ------------------------------ From: George Herson Subject: Re: Voice Response Technology Date: 16 Dec 91 14:05:57 GMT In ccampbel@dsd.es.com (Colin Campbell) writes: > I am looking for smaller scale hardware that would enable me to write > a voice response application similar to phone registration systems > used by universities or account query systems used by banks and credit > card companies. > My investigation has led me to large systems compatible with CICS, but > I have yet to find anything that could be used with personal computers. Vendors of call processing equipment are listed in a trade periodical {Networking Management}, 11/91, p52, "When hello isn't enough." The only one of the vendors I've contacted so far is Intervoice, which designs its hardware for PS/2s. I don't know which computers the others support; the article doesn't say. The numbers refer to those to circle on the magazine's "reply card." I assume that you don't need the card, you can just send your list of numbers to Networking Management, 1421 S. Sheridan, P.O.Box 21728, Tulsa OK 74121-9977 for more info, before 2/29/92. AT&T Bridgewater, N.J. #265 Applied Voice Technology, Kirklan, Wash. #266 Aristacom International Inc. Alameda, Calif. #267 Aspect Telecommunications San Jose, Calif. #268 Brite Voice Systems Wichita, Kan. #269 Centigram Corp. San Jose, Calif. #270 C-T Link Boston, Mass. #271 DEC Littleton, Mass. #272 Digital Sound Corp. Carpinteria, Calif. #273 Dytel Corp. Schaumburg, Ill. #274 Hewlett-Packard Co. Cupertino, Calif. #275 IBM Corp. White Plains, NY #276 InterVoice Dallas, Texas #277 Microlog Germantown, Md #278 Northern Telecom Santa Clara, Calif. #279 Octel Communications Milpitas, CA #280 Perception Technology Canton, Masss. #281 AB Preseco Solna, Sweden #282 Rockwell International Downers Grove, Ill. #283 Rolm Corp. Santa Clara, CA #284 Simpact Associates San Diego, CA #285 Syntellect Inc. Phoenix, AZ #286 Teknekron Infoswitch Fort Worth, TX #287 Unifi Communications Billerica, Mass #288 Willow Telecommuting Systems Inc. Richmond Hill, Ont., Canada #289 Viking Electronics Inc Hudson, Wis. #290 Voicetek Corp. Chelmsford, Mass #291 VMX Inc. San Jose, Calif. #292 George Herson george@brooks.ics.uci.edu voice: (714)856-2174 fax: (714)857-0424 ------------------------------ From: ho@hoss.unl.edu (Tiny Bubbles...) Subject: Re: Cost-Effectiveness of PCP (was How Do I Contact PC Pursuit?) Organization: A Figment of Your Imagination Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 14:44:56 GMT In previous articles, a laundry list of TELECOM Digest readers say: >>> where else can you get long distance data transmission for $1 per >>> hour >> [mentions how PCP pales in comparison to direct-dial LD] > Ditto that. Hey, Sprint Select is better than Reach Out America! Wait, MCI's PrimeTime with the Friends & Family option is better yet! Hold it, but I make lots of international calls ... say, what if I just post my usage patterns, and the Digest can analyze 'em figure out which calling plan on which carrier is best for me! ;-) Seriously, folks, the PC Pursuit arguments are as old as Telenet (uh, er, SprintNet) itself. Can we drop it now? Please? Michael Ho | UNTIL JAN. 9: University of Nebraska, Internet:ho@hoss.unl.edu ------------------------------ From: fujisawa@sm.sony.co.jp (Kenji Fujisawa) Subject: Re: ISDN in Japan and USA Date: 16 Dec 91 15:39:24 GMT Organization: Sony Corporation, Tokyo, Japan In article , haynes@cats.UCSC.EDU (Jim Haynes) says: > He remarked that in Japan one can just call the telephone company > and ask to have your home service converted to ISDN and it will be > done the next day, no charge for the conversion and no extra charge > for ISDN service. It's overstated. The time for instllation varies between one week to six months depending on the area, the availability of the digital exchanges. And you have to pay an instllation fee of about $100 - $150. Futermore, the monthly charge becomes twice of the analog telephone: ie, about $35. Kenji Fujisawa fujisawa@sm.sony.co.jp ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 9:46:36 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: The AC Split That Never Happened I take it that was me wondering about 402/308 split, if there ever was one. The reason this was listed was that I was seeing an N0X area code in a state having more than one area code. ------------------------------ From: tep@tots.Logicon.COM (Tom Perrine) Subject: Re: What is This Stuff? - ANSWERED Date: 16 Dec 91 19:23:37 GMT Organization: Logicon, Inc., San Diego, California In article tep@tots.Logicon.COM (Tom Perrine) writes: > What is this stuff?? Is there anything here that would be useful as > part of a home PBX? I got two responses: both agree that I am now the proud owner of parts of a 1A2 key system. Welcome to the wonderful world of telephony circa 1967 :-) Thanks to: zygot.ati.com!joe@ucsd.EDU (Joe Talbot) marshall@iastate.edu Tom Perrine (tep) |Internet: tep@tots.Logicon.COM |Voice: +1 619 597 7221 Logicon - T&TSD | UUCP: sun!suntan!tots!tep | or : +1 619 455 1330 P.O. Box 85158 |GENIE: T.PERRINE | FAX: +1 619 552 0729 San Diego CA 92138 ------------------------------ From: Alan Laird Subject: Re: British Cellular System Charge For Uncompleted Incoming Calls Date: 16 Dec 91 21:11:14 GMT Organization: Comp. Sci. Dept., Strathclyde Univ., Glasgow, Scotland. In article roberts@frocky.enet.dec.com (Nigel Roberts, FRN-605, DTN 785-1018) writes: > Many of you will know of the British cellular phone system, operated > as a duopoly by Cellnet (BT)and Vodafone (RACAL). Some of you will > also know that the system charges you for uncompleted calls. This > As an example, supposing you decide to call me on my U.K. cellular > number (+44 860 578600). If you get the ringing tone, the call will > supervise when either I or Angelika answer. This is perfectly normal, > and the expected behaviour. I was under the impression that charging started as soon as ringing started. This is certainly the case for calls made from Vodaphone to Cellnet. Every call attempt whether successful, intercepted, answered etc. gets charged for. Not so, luckily, for Vodaphone to Vodaphone calls and Vodaphone to BT. > Any suggestions? Wish I had some, I'm certainly not pleased about it. Alan I M Laird, Department of Computer Science, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow G1 1XH, UK. aiml@uk.ac.strath.cs, 041 552 4400 x3622, 0836 320786 ------------------------------ From: Subject: Re: Annoying Computer Payphones and Further Comments on COCOTs Date: 16 Dec 1991 16:51 -0400 Sounds like the source of fraud from things like getting a second dialtone is a classic "risk" of kludgery. The phone is trying to second guess the network with local spoofing of billing tables and actions. This is a prime example of why the network protocols need to be extended to the subscriber premises equipment. It also makes the point that the old Bell Galactic Monolith was conveniently able to ignore any problems by handwaving. Thus they didn't worry about the network costs of 800 number calls. Note that anyone really interested in fraud would simply carry one of the handheld DTMF generators and do what they wanted unless the phone actually filtered out the DTMF signals. It seems more reasonable for a COCOT provider to create a dedicated circuit (logical or leased line) for each instrument and provide full CO services to the instruments. In fact, this might already be occurring. While there is a concensus in this forum that all COCOTs and AOSs are sleazy operations, hopefully we'll make it past this immature stage to the point where there is competition on price and services. But a requirement is the level playing field where third parties can provide services integrated with **THE NETWORK**. (Sorry about shouting, but references to deities inspire awe). ------------------------------ From: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 17:21:57 PST Subject: Re: Fibre Optic Network Planned For Moscow Metro Reply-To: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville, Oregon TELECOM Moderator noted: > Gee, maybe in the process of installing a fiber optic network > all over, they might find a way to get some food for the many > people who are starving over there ... it might seem a more > appropriate use of the money and efforts being expended." I've no argument with spending money on food, but you've got to spend money to create some infrastructure as well or the Russian economy will never get moving. If they need a workable telephone system to attract new (foreign) ventures to create wealth to feed people, then let them do so. "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach him to fish (or give him a fishing reel?) and he eats forever." -=- Andrew Klossner (andrew@frip.wv.tek.com) (uunet!tektronix!frip.WV.TEK!andrew) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Dec 91 20:15 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Fibre Optic Network Planned For Moscow Metro Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.fidonet.org (Nigel Allen) writes: > The Andrew Corp. of Orland Park, Ill., announced last month that it > has signed a joint venture with the Moscow Metro to develop a fiber > optic network covering the metropolitan Moscow area. > [Moderator's Note: Gee, maybe in the process of installing a fiber > optic network all over, they might find a way to get some food for the > many people who are starving over there at present due to the turmoil > the government(s) are in right now ... it might seem a more > appropriate use of the money and efforts being expended. PAT] At the risk of sounding hard-hearted and cruel, I would suggest that in fact the best use of investment capital in the USSR would be to create an environment that would put that country into the economic mainstream. This means looking slightly beyond food handouts and planning for the practical future. The old saying, "Give a man a fish and you satisfy his hunger for a day; teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime", is most applicable here. Also, I would submit that these funds would not exist if it were not for investment opportunity. Money does not fall from heaven. Venture capital materializes in response to the opportunity for investment growth, not because people are hungry. Like it or not, right or wrong, this is reality. Again, the most appropriate use of money in the USSR is to bring that nation into the world community -- politically, economically, and socially. The immediate emergency of starving people is something best left to those who specialize in this endeavor. There are organizations, supported by those who are concerned with the suffering of people, who handle these matters. It is, frankly, not the place of venture capitalists to provide such relief. Better to teach the USSR how to fish with that money, as it were. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) Subject: Re: Motorola Acquires GEOSTAR's Satellite Services for Iridium Date: 17 Dec 1991 00:13:54 GMT Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL In article lloyd@axecore.com (Lloyd Buchanan) writes: > I noticed on the Dow Jones News wire an article about Motorola > acquiring the rights to the defunct Geostar with the intent of using > them for Motorola's world-wide satellite-based cellular telephone > system, Iridium. > Wasn't Geostar a navigation system? If Moto can convert it into a > phone system, they could revolutionize (and obsolete) cellular phones. More likely Motorola intends to use Geostar as part of a positioning system for the 77 (or thereabouts) Iridium platforms. steve ------------------------------ From: tavat@iastate.edu (Sanjeev Tavathia) Subject: Teleconferencing System Manufacturers Wanted Date: 11 Dec 91 01:58:53 GMT Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA I would like to get in touch with companies manufacturing teleconferencing system/or hands-free mobile telephones. I am working in Acoustic echo cancellation area and mainly interested in current technology companies using for teleconferencing. Please direct all mail to tavat@vincent.iastate.edu. Sanjeev. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Dec 91 03:37 GMT From: George S Thurman <0004056081@mcimail.com> Subject: Changes in New York I have not seen anything in the group about this, so I thought that I would mention it. Everyone should know by now that New York will get another area-code on Jan 1,1992 of 917. But it has now come out that the new code will be used for Cellular phones and pagers only. The new 917 code will sort of "overlap" what is now 212/718. All new Cellular/Pager subscribers in 212/718 will get a 917 number, and plans are to move all current Cellular/Pager exchanges in 212/718 into the new 917. Also, in a related matter, on July 1, 1992, all 212 numbers in the Bronx will be transferred to 718, leaving 212 for Manhattan numbers only. [Moderator's Note: We've had mention of this in the Digest over the past few months. I don't think there has been any definitive ruling on how 917 was to be used until recently. Thanks for passing on the note regards the Bronx. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1023 *******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23538; 18 Dec 91 3:57 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26617 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 18 Dec 1991 02:16:44 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30964 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 18 Dec 1991 02:16:30 -0600 Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1991 02:16:30 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199112180816.AA30964@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1026 TELECOM Digest Wed, 18 Dec 91 02:16:19 CST Volume 11 : Issue 1026 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson AT&T Exits Telegraph Business (Scott Loftesness & Alan Toscano) McGowan Steps Down as MCI Chief Executive (TELECOM Moderator) Tone Frequencies Used For Coin Deposits (Eric Kiser) Voice Mail and TDD: Rolm (Curtis E. Reid) Consumer's Guide to Cellular Information (Paul D. Nanson) PC Based Key-Systems/PBX's (Jeff Sicherman) Sprint Calling Cards and the 'Bong' Tone (Glenn Leavell) Bell Science Series (Joel B. Levin) How Can I Get an Area Code Updated Listing? (Manuel J. Moguilevsky) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: sjl@glensjl.glenbrook.com (Scott Loftesness) Subject: AT&T Exits Telegraph Business Date: Tue, 17 Dec 91 21:52:32 PST Organization: Glenbrook Systems, Inc. Reply-To: sjl@glenbrook.com [Moderator's Note: The end of an era! Thanks also to Alan Toscano for sending this AT&T press release. PAT] BASKING RIDGE, N.J. -- Familiar to the world over through the clickety-clack of ticker tape machines and teletypewriters, telegraphy has been gradually bowing out of the telecommunications picture during the last twenty years. The nonstop chatter has been replaced by the hum of laser printers and the electronic beeps on computer screens. AT&T, a leading innovator and major service provider of telegraphy, announced this year it is withdrawing the service due to the universal availability of lower-cost, higher quality digital telecommunications services. "The incredible advances in our industry means customers can get more for less," said Wes Bartlett, AT&T district manager, Business Communications Services. "Today's digital technology can transmit information hundreds of thousands times faster than telegraphy and is considerably more cost-effective for users. "Telegraphy has been to the twentieth century what state-of-the-art digital telecommunications services will be to the next century," Bartlett added. "We are proud of our contributions in both areas." The transmission of telegraph service is based on analog technology, which sends information by continuous electrical waves. Today's digital technology breaks information into its smallest components, the binary "ones and zeros" of computer language. However, telegraphy was the actually the first digital service -- although a very simplified version compared with today's technology -- since it was produced on the customer's premises in terms of "on or off," or "dash or space." It was converted to analog for transmission. Telegraphy usage accelerated rapidly during the 1920s when the financial industry adopted the technology to send records of transactions. At this time, news organizations began using telegraph service for transmitting stories between offices. In November, 1931 the Bell System inaugurated the teletypewriter exchange service, often called the TWX (pronounced "twicks") service. It provided a complete communications system for the written word, including teletypewriters, transmission channels and switchboards. Telegraphy was adopted by many kinds of businesses, including utility companies, alarm companies, airlines, and brokerages as well as government agencies. It was used heavily through the 1960s. Most of AT&T's telegraph service customers have been converted to digital private line services such as DATAPHONE (R) Digital Service and ACCUNET (R) Spectrum of Digital Services. "Our name remains American Telephone and Telegraph," Bartlett said. "It is an historic name and our legacy. We are proud to have a corporate name that spans generations of communications technology. "Despite rapid technological change, AT&T remains focused on helping people communicate," Bartlett added. "Telegraphy helped bring us to this point. Digital technology is taking us into a new era of global messaging." ### Background WHAT WAS TELEGRAPH SERVICE? Telegraph service made it possible to communicate large volumes of information between two or more locations. Telegraph circuits permitted customers to send to each other a printed or hard copy version of the information at reasonable cost, which was impractical with the telephone. A telegraph circuit consisted of four components: station equipment installed on the customer's premises, such as a teletypwriter and teleprinter; the local loop, or wires, between the customer location and the AT&T central office; the central office equipment in the AT&T telegraph serving test center (STC); and the wires connected to the telegraph STC serving the other customer. Here's how it worked: Customer A sent information to customer B by typing the information on a teletypewriter keyboard. The teletypewriter converted the message to a coded signal which was sent out on the local loop to the STC and central office equipment. There the signal was converted to make it compatible with the carrier's lines and sent on to the STC serving the distant city. The central office equipment then converted the signal again and sent it over the local loop to customer B's teletypewriter which decoded the signal and printed the information. The procedure was reversed if customer B wanted to send information to customer A. This method of sending information, where only one station could send at a time, was accomplished over a simple half-duplex, or two-wire circuit. When both customers wanted to send and receive at the same time a full-duplex, or four-wire circuit, was used. At its peak in 1970, telegraph service could transmit data at 150 bits per second. ### AT&T and Telegraph Service 1887: First private-line telegraph service, for L. H. Taylor & Co., brokers, between their offices in New York and Philadelphia. 1888: First service for news media customer, Globe Newspaper Company, between New York and Boston. 1915: Teletype offers speeds of 30 or 50 words per minute. 1920s: Press and financial markets create a boom for usage of the service. 1939: Speed reaches 75 words per minute. 1944: Speed reaches 100 words per minute. 1957: Teleprinter introduces speeds of 300 words per minute. 1970s: Decline in usage begins as electronic data processing replaces many telegraph functions. 1980s: Wireless and digital methods accelerate decline. 1991: AT&T exits telegraph service. ### Scott Loftesness Internet: sjl@glenbrook.com 515 Buena Vista Avenue Others: 3801143@mcimail.com Redwood City, CA 94061 76703.407@compuserve.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1991 01:27:54 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: McGowan Steps Down as MCI Chief Executive William G. McGowan, who founded MCI Telecommunications in 1968, stepped down Monday as the company's chief executive officer. He was replaced by President Bert C. Roberts, Jr. who will now serve in that capacity and as CEO. McGowan, 64, has had heart problems in recent years. He will remain as chairman of MCI, but take a much less active role in the day to day affairs of the company. Roberts, 49, joined MCI in 1972, and has held a variety of positions with the company. Observors commented that Roberts had been 'heir apparent' to McGowan for several years, and had been virtually running the company since McGowan's heart transplant in 1987. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Dec 91 15:28:49 EST From: kiser@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil Subject: Tone Frequencies Used For Coin Deposits 10 or 15 years ago, back in my younger, wilder college days, we could never seem to get a "box" (if you have to ask, you don't need to know!) to work on a pay phone for local calls. Is there some technical (or magical) reason why the tones used to account for coin deposit on LD calls function differently than those for a local call? Is the decoder that the CO uses to detect coin presence for local calls different than the one for LD ones? Our technical knowledge of the situation (limited even then) seemed to tell us that this should have worked. We even tried various experiments to rule out, for example, our "tones" not being loud enough to overcome the dial tone present during initial coin deposit. We guessed then that (a) there was some additional DC or even in-band signalling present on initial coin deposit, or (b) there were secret hidden cameras near each phone that allowed the operators to watch us pick up the phone :+), but neither of these seemed too feasible. I suppose that we just could have been screwing something up. Have things changed with the introduction of electronic switches, or would a phreaker still find it impossible to make a local call by less-than-honest methods? If you consider the details too "sordid", feel free to EMail responses. Thanks, Eric ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1991 19:30 EST From: "Curtis E. Reid" Subject: Voice Mail and TDD: Rolm I need to ask questions of the experts of Rolm PBX and Rolm Voice Mail. I don't have the product specifications on Rolm systems so I'm asking here. Recently last month, Rolm announced that it is provided TDD capability to its Voice Mail system. How does this work? Do you call a special mailbox number and the system responds in TDD navigating your way around the Voice Mailbox system? Is it only for Rolm system? Can the Rolm Voice Mail be integerated with other PBX system such as the AT&T System 85? Who is the best source of contact at Rolm to inquire about the Voice Mail and the TDD capability? The sales people don't seem to know about it and can't answer my questions. Prompt response is appreciated since we are in the process of investigating the advantages and disadvantages of Voice Mail system versus dual voice/TDD answering machines. Curtis E. Reid CER2520@RITVAX.Bitnet (Bitnet) CER2520@RITVAX.isc.rit.edu (Internet) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Dec 91 12:27:14 CST Reply-To: pdn@msnvm1.VNET.IBM.COM From: "Paul D. Nanson" Subject: Consumer's Guide to Cellular Information In Digest #1014, Robert John Zurawski writes: > Is there a guide (like in any magazines) that tells about the features > in cellular phones ... I recently picked up a magazine called "Mobile Office Magazine's: Cellular Buyer's Guide (Vol 1 Num 2, Fall/Winter 1991)." It contains the following articles: FEATURES o Cellular Advertising: The Bottom Line o Cellular Roaming: The New Deals o Choosing the Right Antenna o Accessorize Your Cellular Phone o Cellular Data Links CELLULAR o Portable Phones PHONE o Comparison Chart--Portables DIRECTORIES o Mobile and Transportable Phones o Comparison Chart--Mobiles and Transportables o Glossary o Manufacturers' Addresses The newstand price is US$4.95, CAN$5.95. The only subscription information contained in the guide applies to their magazine, "Mobile Office" (but might prove useful in locating the guide): MOBILE OFFICE Subscription Dept. P.O. Box 57268 Boulder, CO 80323-7268 (800) 627-5234 Paul Nanson FAX: (817) 962-3462 NET: pdn@msnvm1.vnet.ibm.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 23:58:40 -0800 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: PC Based Key-Systems/PBX's Organization: Cal State Long Beach Are there any PC-based key systems or PBX's commercially available? (Small scale). By that I mean systems that are composed of PC cards to which one hooks up CO and station lines instead of a custom designed box with proprietary cards. Absent that, are there any practical ways to roll-your-own? ------------------------------ From: glenn@rigel.econ.uga.edu (Glenn F. Leavell) Subject: Sprint Calling Cards and the 'Bong' Tone Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1991 19:23:23 GMT I recently had an interesting experience trying to use U.S. Sprint long distance. The phone I was using had AT&T default long distance, so I wanted to dial "10 333 0 xxx yyy zzz", get a " U.S. Sprint" message and then enter my Southern Bell calling card number (I've used this method before with AT&T, MCI, and Telecom*USA). Instead of getting the , though, I got a Sprint operator. I asked her if I would be charged operator-assisted rates if I gave her my calling-card number. She said that I would. So, I asked her why I got her and not the . She said that I should have received it, and that I should try again. I tried again, and got another Sprint operator who didn't seem to understand what I was talking about at all. I then decided to try entering the card number when I expected to hear the . I did this, and once again got a Sprint operator. I then called Sprint customer service. I had to be transferred once, and a woman told me that I didn't need to dial a zero after the 10 333. She also said that I wouldn't hear the , but just to go on as if I had. I asked her if she understood that Sprint is unique among at least MCI and AT&T in the way they operate, and she said something vague, trying to avoid the question. Well, of course her advice didn't work, as it makes no sense. So, is 800 877 8000 the only way to make a calling-card card with Sprint without talking to an operator? If so, I don't think everyone at Sprint really understands that. Glenn F. Leavell Systems Administrator glenn@rigel.econ.uga.edu 404-542-3488 University of Georgia Economics Department. 147 Brooks Hall. Athens, GA 30602 [Moderator's Note: At present, 800-877-8000 is the only way to make a Sprint calling card call without an operator. The only situation where calling card calls via zero plus (or 10xxx + zero +) can be placed without intervention is when using the (old) AT&T card, and that is mainly because until recently AT&T and the local telco used the same card number. ------------------------------ From: "Joel B. Levin" Subject: Bell Science Series Date: Tue, 17 Dec 91 14:25:25 EST The Bell Science Series of educational films produced by AT&T during the fifties has been mentioned here from time to time. I was browsing yesterday in the catalog described below and found the following available -- director and year given where available: ABOUT TIME - Jack Warner ALPHABET CONSPIRACY - 1959 (animation by Friz Freleng); host Frank Baxter GATEWAY TO THE MIND - Jack Warner 1958 HEMO THE MAGNIFICENT - Frank Capra; host Frank Baxter OUR MR. SUN - Frank Capra 1956; host Frank Baxter with Eddie Albert STRANGE CASE OF THE COSMIC RAYS - Frank Capra 1957 THE THREAD OF LIFE - Jack Warner; host Frank Baxter; new listing this edition UNCHAINED GODDESS - Frank Capra; host Frank Baxter ("Meteora" is the goddess) These are all listed for $19.95 each in: The Whole Toon Catalog (winter '91/'92 edition) P.O. Box 369 Issaquah, WA 98027 +1 206-391-8747 phone +1 206-391-9064 fax I don't know how dated these are. I saw them in elementary and junior high school and on television starting not long after they were made, and I thought they were great. Disclaimer: I have no connection with Whole Toon Access, even as a customer (yet). nets: levin@bbn.com | BBN Communications or: ...!bbn!levin | M/S 20/7A POTS: +1 617 873 3463 | 150 Cambridge Park Drive FAX: +1 617 873 8202 | Cambridge, MA 02140 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Dec 91 10:02:03 ARG From: Manuel J. Moguilevsky Subject: How Can I Get an Area Code Updated Listing I want to know if there exists any Area Code updated listing (is it called NPA?) I run a fax bureau, and it is very difficult to be updated with so many split areas and changes! Also I would like to know if there exists any list of fax bureaus around the world. Thank you, Manuel J. Moguilevsky Buenos Aires, Argentina FAX: +54 1 786-0344 [Moderator's Note: Bellcore publishes an up to date Area Code Directory each year. Order them from the AT&T Information Center in Indianapolis, IN. NPA refers to the numbering plan generally, and yes, these are the area codes. I don't know of any fax bureaus as such but there are fax directories published annually in the USA. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1026 *******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24751; 18 Dec 91 4:27 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31386 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 18 Dec 1991 01:19:23 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22109 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 18 Dec 1991 01:19:11 -0600 Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1991 01:19:11 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199112180719.AA22109@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1025 TELECOM Digest Wed, 18 Dec 91 01:19:05 CST Volume 11 : Issue 1025 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Wrong Numbers (Jeff Hibbard) Re: Wrong Numbers (David Cornutt) Re: Wrong Numbers (Carl Moore) Re: Wrong Numbers (David Lesher) Re: 800 Discrimination (H. Peter Anvin) Re: Fibre Optic Network Planned For Moscow Metro (Floyd Vest) Re: Annoying Computer Payphones (Alan L. Varney) Re: Merry Christmas From Cellular One/Chicago (Scott Reuben) Re: T1 on Fiber? (Tom Gray) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jeff@bradley.bradley.edu (Jeff Hibbard) Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers Organization: Bradley University Date: Tue, 17 Dec 91 08:08:39 GMT > [Moderator's Note: But just be sure some real Alien Creatures -- such > as lawyers for the Hilton Hotel chain -- don't try to sue you for > making trouble for them, as they tried to do to John Higdon. :) PAT] Gee, given where the fault actually lied, I wonder how firm of ground the lawyers would have been on if I tried John's tactic on the large quantity of wrong numbers I got a few years ago. (I didn't ... I was nice and referred callers to the correct number). The university where I work now has a System 85 and does its own billing, but years ago all the dorms and some offices were served by Illinois Bell Centrex, and Illinois Bell billed the students directly for toll calls. They sent one bill to each dorm room and, since there were typically two students to a room, they also included a card describing how to compute each roommate's share of the bill (allowing for state & federal taxes, etc.). The card also said "If you have any questions please call 672-3861". Although many years earlier this had been a not-otherwise-published number at the local Illinois Bell business office, at the time they *STARTED* stuffing these cards into student phone bills, that number had been MY OFFICE at the University for a couple of years. Every month when I got a new surge of these calls, I'd call Illinois Bell and get someone else there to promise that they'd have this problem fixed before the next billing cycle. Every month when the new bills arrived, it was quickly obvious that nothing had changed. Note that students didn't get me by misdialing, by using (or defaulting) the wrong area code, or any other such error; if they dialed exactly what Illinois Bell told them to dial in their current phone bill, they got ME. I had one of the students bring me his copy of the card (I still have it) so I could see for myself what it said. After about five months of this, when I decided they were too disorganized to ever stop stuffing these cards, I asked to have my number changed. They cheerfully agreed to do this FOR THE NORMAL CHARGE. When I said I thought they should waive the charge under the circumstances, my request disappeared into the bureaucracy for another couple of months. Eventually (only after I got very angry and very nasty) they changed my number for free. The one time I checked (about a year later I asked a student I knew) they were STILL stuffing that same erroneous card in every bill. Jeff Hibbard, Bradley University, Peoria IL [Moderator's Note: You need to practice guerilla (or do you say Gorilla?) warfare. You should have made up a recorded announement for that line which said something like this: "Your comments are too trivial to waste our time with a live human answer, so this recording will suffice. Please take note that we are not interested in listening to complaints from you. Either pay your bills on time in the amount you were billed or expect more drastic collection action in the near future. If you don't like the way you are treated when you call here, then feel free to file a complaint with the appropriate people. " PLEASE NOTE: Do not include the phrase 'telephone company', 'IBT', 'Illinois Bell' or ANY reference to ANY company or person in your message. Do NOT say who the 'appropriate people' might be. Then see to it the Illinois Commerce Commission gets a copy of the notice with that phone number on it, and watch the fun begin! If they try to nail you for 'impersonating a telco employee', ask them where your message says that, and stand your ground. Also, do NOT use the word 'business' in your message (they might say you are operating a 'business' using residential service, etc.) PAT] ------------------------------ From: cornutt@freedom.msfc.nasa.gov (David Cornutt) Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers Organization: NASA/MSFC Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1991 18:19:58 GMT Here's my favorite wrong number story. In the mid-'70s, when I was a teenager, we lived in Chattanooga, TN. At the time, Chattanooga was almost all ancient xbar and step equipment. (Some equipment used in the outlying areas was so old that the "ring tone" was just a padded- down version of the ring voltage sent to the called phone, or so I've been told ... it made this raspberry noise...) Anyway, one day I was doing some dreadfully dull homework and the phone rings. The caller asked for Jerry. I informed him that no Jerry lived there, and he hung up. A minute later, another ring. Same guy. Still no Jerry. He apologized, and hung up. A minute later, another ring. Yep, same guy again. I asked him what number he was trying to dial. "698-xxxx". "Hmmm, this is 698-xyxx", where y was a 2 and I belive he was dialing a 7, or something else not remotely close to a 2. I suggested that he call the operator. A few minutes later, the phone rings. It was a Southern Bell operator. Her: "Is this 698-xxxx?" Me: "No, it's 698-xxyx". "OK, thank you." She hung up. A minute later, it rings again. Same story. A few minutes pass. The phone rings. Me: "Hello." Operator: "Oh, no, not again." A second voice came on and started apologizing profusely for bothering me. Apparently, the operator had gotten her supervisor to try, just to make sure that she wasn't going mad. The supervisor went on to say that she had been working for SB for 12 years, and that this was the first time she had ever seen this happen. She promised me that a tech would be called out to the CO immediately to examine the switch, and then she gave me her office phone number and told me to call her directly if I got any more wrong numbers. She apologized once more for the bother, and I told her I actually didn't mind the comic relief, since I was just doing dreadfully dull homework anyway. When our phone bill came at the end of that month, there was a $15 credit for "interruption of service". I never did find out what happened to the switch, or if the original caller ever managed to get the party he was trying to call. 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." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Dec 91 15:25:37 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers David Lesher writes: > The trouble is they've listed such places as the Circuit City in > Tysons Corners [Va., near DC] as having a 410 number. Occasionally, I notice the Laurel-at-Waterloo-rates exchange in the DC area as a foreign exchange, to provide local service to and from Baltimore and suburbs. The prefixes that I know of for this service are 792 and 880, and are being moved from 301 to 410. (Other Laurel exchanges are local to DC and are staying in 301.) In response to wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu: You included a line which said "Well, the SW Bell 'One Book' Yellow Pages has starting listing 401 area". Did you intend to say 410 where you meant 401? 401 is in Rhode Island. Until 410 is fully cut over, there will be two ways you can mess up the area code and reach, say, me at Aberdeen where Rhode Island was intended. Years ago, I did answer a wrong-number call intended for Rhode Island, but I was in 301 and there was as yet no 410. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Dec 91 19:49:18 -0500 From: David Lesher Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews Abusers - Beltway Annex Reply-To: wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (David Lesher) I've gotten some mail on my posting, so I thought I'd better elaborate to clear up the confusion. 1) Yes, 401 was a typo. I meant 410. 2) Tysons Corner is in VA. 3) 703-821 is listed as McLean/Falls Church. That's pretty close to Tysons Corners, or includes it, depending on who you talk to. 4) Since Circuit City is a retail appliance store, with maybe a dozen storefronts in metro DC, I doubt that the VA store would want a Baltimore FX, or listing. They don't want to talk on the phone -- they want you come in and succumb to their salespitch. My point was and is: SWB has incorrectly translated some numbers in 703 into 410. This will likely create even more confusion in an area where even the guy at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue admits his VCR says 12:00 12:00 12:00. wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu ------------------------------ From: hpa@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (H. Peter Anvin N9ITP) Subject: Re: 800 Discrimination Reply-To: hpa@nwu.edu Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1991 22:01:45 GMT In article of comp.dcom.telecom, deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) writes: > Furthermore, so far as I'm aware, there are no trunks between AT&T and > other IXCs, so the only way an OSPS operator could connect a call to > another carrier's 800 number would be to crank it back into the > originating LEC's network. I don't know if this is technically > feasible or allowed from a regulatory standpoint. And if the hotel > had direct connections into AT&T, there is no originating LEC > involved, so there's nowhere to crankback to. Hmmm ... I have my own story on that one: My school, Northwestern University, has in an attempt to reduce the overcrowding of their dorms decided on a new in-house phone system for students. Although we are all required to use a particular AT&T calling plan for our DDD IXC, dialling 9-0 reaches a U.S. Sprint operator. Now, I wanted to place an international credit card call over AT&T. Dialling 9-10288-01-46-21-13XXXX# gave an "we're sorry..." intercept. Dialling 0 to call the local operator they told me to call 9-0 to reach U.S. Sprint, and ask the U.S. Sprint operator to connect me to the AT&T operator, who could place the call. The Sprint operator took the number and connected me to AT&T's "boing", by which I entered the AT&T credit card number and the recording announced "thank you for using AT&T." I have no clue how this would have worked, but it did ... after the most complicated connection experience I have ever had! INTERNET: hpa@nwu.edu TALK: 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: /BAD=FATAL_ERROR/ERR=LINE_OVERFLOW ------------------------------ From: Floyd Vest Subject: Re: Fibre Optic Network Planned For Moscow Metro Date: 17 Dec 91 11:44:41 CDT Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.fidonet.org (Nigel Allen) wrote: > The Andrew Corp. of Orland Park, Ill., announced last month that it > has signed a joint venture with the Moscow Metro to develop a fiber > optic network covering the metropolitan Moscow area. > [Moderator's Note: Gee, maybe in the process of installing a fiber > optic network all over, they might find a way to get some food for the > many people who are starving over there at present due to the turmoil > the government(s) are in right now ... it might seem a more > appropriate use of the money and efforts being expended. PAT] Pat, while fiber optic nets won't feed anyone, you must understand the problem in the Soviet DisUnion is not entirely a lack of food. The harvest this year was comparable to other years and by some accounts something of a bumper crop. Much of the blame for the hunger in Soviet cities is a collapse of the infrastructure -- transporation, _communication_, and distribution of resources. Admittedly most of these problems are political in origin. In the transition to a market economy, however, it is important to redevelop the means of production and distribution. Key to that rebuilding is a modern communications network. While the fiber net may not feed anyone today, it may provide the means to feed many in the future. Besides, it sounds like a pretty good deal -- 69% interest for providing right-of-way only. I wonder if I could get Ma Bell to make that deal for the right-of-way they have on my property? :-) Floyd Vest +1 205 826 6699 FIDO: 1:3613/3 Auburn, Alabama USA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Dec 91 12:59:50 CST From: varney@ihlpf.att.com (Alan L Varney) Subject: Re: Annoying Computer Payphones Organization: AT&T Network Systems In article stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) writes: > This would also prevent the use of many calling card services, such as > US Sprint's, which present their own secondary dialtone (standard > frequencies) as a prompt. Then, the "live" keypad would be useless > anyway in a lot of situations. I would think that most telcos would > be clever enough to disable the second dialtone for lines that have a > COCOT class-of-service. But this is part of the problem; there are several alternatives that COULD be used by COCOT phones to avoid that (and other) problem(s). But the COCOT phones are designed to operate on a Standard POTS line with no special features. The "phone company" may not even be aware that it IS a COCOT phone. Any new or existing interface to the phone that would prevent fraud is not the issue -- such an interface would (or does) cost extra, and the COCOT profit goes down. > Even if this is not done, if the phone is at > least as clever as my Panasonic answering machine, it could detect the > momentary loss of loop current just before the secondary dialtone is > provided. But your Panasonic answering machine won't work on ALL lines, because there is no guarantee of a loss of loop current before secondary dialtone. The COCOT phones have the same problem; they can detect second tones in many, but not all, places. That's why the phones can be set up to operate either way. Of course, a COCOT owner can have their service move from a "current loss" line to a "current hold" line without notice, so they are taking a chance with "active" pads. Al Varney, AT&T ------------------------------ Date: 17-DEC-1991 16:32:30.97 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Re: Merry Christmas From Cellular One/Chicago Cellular One/South Jersey is also offering a "free-airtime" Christmas deal: Sign up by Christmas, and get free (airtime only?) weekend calling until next Christmas. (ie, for one year) One problem: Cell One/SJ has three coverage areas, none of which are very large. (New Brunswick - SID 00173, Trenton - SID 00575, Flemington/Hunterdon County - SID 01487). You only get the free weekend airtime in your HOME system. You will pay $.99 per minute in the other two systems. (You will pay $.99 per minute in the other systems anyhow, regardless of the day or time.) So I'm not running out and singing up ... you can drive through one of their "coverage" areas in 20 minutes! Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ From: grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray) Subject: Re: T1 on Fiber? Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1991 11:40:24 -0500 Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada. In article S_ZIEGLER@iravcl.ira.uka.de writes: > Recently I talked with an AT&T rep (for T1 service) about T1. Somehow > we were talking about the 'wire'. And he mentioned that the wire would > be FIBER. Well, 1.5Mbps and FIBER that does not sound reasonable, > because fiber is very EXPENSIVE. Fibre is not EXPENSIVE. Fibre is CHEAP - to repeat - FIBRE IS CHEAP. > So, is this true? Do they install some type of 'NETWORK TERMINATOR' at > the customers premises, or how do they handle this? They install a fibre transceiver at the customer premises in the same way that they would have installed a transciever for copper cable. The only real difference is that the fibre transceiver is CHEAPER than the copper transceiver ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1025 *******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25190; 18 Dec 91 4:37 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22321 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 18 Dec 1991 02:54:07 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03897 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 18 Dec 1991 02:53:46 -0600 Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1991 02:53:46 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199112180853.AA03897@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1027 TELECOM Digest Wed, 18 Dec 91 02:53:31 CST Volume 11 : Issue 1027 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made! (Scott D. Green) The Wrath of Dave (Dave Parks) Re: Voice Response Technology (Colin Campbell) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 17 Dec 91 18:42 EDT From: "Scott D. Green" Subject: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made! Remember back in September/October when {USA Today} was having "network problems" on its 900-555-5555 line so that it was accessible via 800-555-5555? Remember how we speculated what, if anything, would happen with the charges? Wonder no more! I just received my November bill with the calls detailed as "USA Today 900-555-5555" at $.95 per minute. *And* I have 900 blocking on my line! Luckily, AT&T provides the billing, so I called 800-222-0300 and spoke with Barbara there who was somewhat surprised by my story. She was very cooperative and agreed to remove the charges ("one time only") if I agreed to call Bell of PA to verify the blocking. She also offered some interesting advice: 900 blocking should be requested for both outgoing *and* incoming calls! I asked her what that was all about, since I don't operate a 900 number. She told me that incoming blocking would prevent an IP from converting a non-900 call to them into a 900 charge on my bill. This I had never heard about. Is anyone else familiar with this kind of sleazy operation? What about the ethics of this situation? After all, we discussed, at length, the fact that the recording on 800-555-5555 clearly stated that the service cost $.95 per minute. Despite that notice, I (and I assume others) knowingly used that service, firm in our technological belief that our dialling "800" instead of "900" superceded the terms stated to us. {USA Today}, having fulfilled its IP responsibility by clearly stating the cost of the service, used its technological prerogative to gather the ANI data on the 800 number in order to recover that which was due them. Having already claimed my credit, I stand by the "800 Protection" viewpoint, but to me it doesn't seem that {USA Today} is entirely in the wrong here. scott ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Dec 91 15:13:02 -0500 From: kitenet!plex-1!kite@sharkey.cc.umich.edu Subject: The Wrath of Dave I called the phone company the other day because for ONCE I took the time to go over my phone bill (line by line) to track down where the heck my LARGE Kite-Net (ex. M-Net) bills were coming from. It all started when I noticed that since I opened up Kite-Net as a UUCP connection to the world (which requires a LOT of outgoing calls) my phone bill sky rocketed. I looked the bill over and noticed that I have been charged 6.2 cents per call for 1770+ calls ($109.00) and of course said "%^%#&^&*^*&". So I jumped on the phone to check on my account, "Well" the lady said nicely, "It looks like you have five lines flat rate and one measured line" (a measured line is one that get 50 FREE calls per/month and is charged 6.2 cents after) to which I replied "This isn't right I should have five measured lines and 1 flat rate, that's what I ordered". She of course put me on hold while checking this out (for 15-20 minutes) and returned with a pleseant "No, you have five flatrate and one measured". I asked when this went into effect and she again put me on hold and came back with the information of March of last year (which is when I called to have things changed so M-Net could use one of my Kite-Net lines for the Merit dialout). I explained to her that they have had my order turned around 180 degrees from what I wanted for over 1.5 years. I asked to talk to her supervisor and I explained that they had screwed up royal and she went right into the ole "Company ass kisser speech" that I must have ordered it this way because their operators are instructed to attempt to talk users out of this feature for this very reason. I took this opening to lay "The Wrath of Dave" upon her poor excuse for a company by explaining that I have my "First Class" Radio Telephone ticket, been a "Ham Radio Operator" since I was 9 and worked with telephones for YEARS and had to have their engineers come out three different times to point out where they had gone wrong in my order and on top of that I had to explain to their -operators- what the hell a "Trunk was"! After about 1/2 an hour of bantering "coulda been this way ..." she agreed that I was not a little ole lady off the street and knew what I was talking about so "PERHAPS" someone on their end could have misunderstood what I was ordering. Once we had agreed that the fault COULD have been on their end I asked for some kind of reduction in in billing since the ONLY line they were charging me 6.2 cents per call on was my DIALOUT! I guess she was tired of me by this time so she once again put me on hold to check something else out ... (waiting) ... (waiting) ... She then came back and said "Theres nothing they could do since I didn't find the problem for such a long time and I did indeed use the service, and further more ... she made it clear that the service I am receving SHOULD be business rates, so don't push it!" Boy was I steamed at this! I asked for her supervisor (and she had to call me back) and was even MORE pleasent and made it very clear that she did care about my problem, I was for an instant happy to hear this, well she had been "FILLED IN" on my problem and checked all the records and was ready to talk. Her first point to be made was that if I had caught this 30 - 60 - 90 days even 1/2 a year into the problem we could have worked something out but "A YEAR A A HALF" there just nothing they can do. So, I say ... "What I'm hearing is that if there is a problem it is first of all up to the customer to track down and we have a certain amount of time to do this in"? to which she replied "NO, What I'm saying is ... that if there is a problem it is up to the customer to find and they must find it in a certain amout of time". Hmmmmmmm, glad she cleared that up for me! "OK, we're getting nowhere here I'll just pay the damn thing and you fix it today, I'll be calling YOU directly each day for ONE month to make sure that this had been done and NOT changed with out my consent durning that time" to which "Miss Thing" came back with yet ONE more analogy to my problem. "Mr. Parks ... if you started using lots more electricity in your home do you think Detroit Edison would notify you?" I said "Yes and they DID, thank you very much, but thats not the point, I KNOW when I'm using more electricity because *I* plugged the extra stuff in ... they can't punch in the wrong numbers into the computer to MAKE me use more like you can". Hmmmmm she thought, BAD analogy ... "When I asked to talk to the supervisor I knew I wasn't going to get anywhere, I just wanted to tell you people that *IF* (I say *IF*) there was another game in town I'd take my business there right now, since there isn't ... good day! (SLAM)! ...sharkey!m-net!kite Altos 68020 UNIX Sys-III (313) 994-6333 ...sharkey!kitenet!kite Altos 68000 UNIX Sys-III (313) 663-6207 ...sharkey!kitenet!plex-1!kite Plexus P/35 68000 UNIX SysV.2 USENET You can mail Dave Parks at these addresses, or phone (313) 663-6873 -- ------------------------------ From: ccampbel@dsd.es.com (Colin Campbell) Subject: Re: Voice Response Technology Reply-To: ccampbel@dsd.es.com (Colin Campbell) Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp., Salt Lake City, UT Date: Tue, 17 Dec 91 19:55:26 GMT In article I wrote: > I am looking for smaller scale hardware that would enable me to write > a voice response application similar to phone registration systems > used by universities or account query systems used by banks and credit > card companies. Here is a summary of the responses I received: Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 10:16:04 EST From: David Wood The Autovox call processing system includes a full "application generation" programming language along with integration with Paradox databases. It is PC-based. This might be what you are looking for. Contact: Liberty Communications (412)221-8810 Ask for Steve. I believe that their toll-free number is 800-876-7656. Dave Wood Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 11:42:53 EST From: Mark Kern I just finished up a proposal for a VRU (Voice Response Unit) to be installed at our University. I can tell you right now that this is a pretty specialized market, and that the companies marketing these systems design the hardware and software themselves. The key to the whole system is the VRU which can be either PC bassed or proprietary. This unit is responisible for maintaining any number of telephone lines tied to a single pilot number which the user can dial into. The VRU also includes on the average, about one hour of voice recording time in RAM. The VRU uses this memory to store all the voice prompts needed during the interaction with the user and is also responsible for running the program that performs this interaction. The VRU can also handle the student records themselves, updating the host Mainframe during off-hours, or the VRU can just send the packets to the Mainframe on a real-time basis. The former method is better, since you don't tie up the Mainframe, but can also add to your costs in that you need large storage capacity on the VRU itself. It is also very important that the VRU be able to recover from a system failure by itself, with little or no operator intervention. If the power should go out, once power is back, the unit should be able to restore itself in under five minutes. The average cost of a VRU, including software, is about $40,000 for the base unit. Some companies that you might want to contact are : Perception Technology (617)821-0320 Syntellect (602)789-2800 Our school's telecommunications division has already implemented a test system using a PC based VRU, but the PC proved to be too limiting to handle the tasks needed to register 4800 students. Hope this helps. Mark Edward Kern NET : mek4_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu GEnie : M.KERN1 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 12:43:53 -0500 From: rv01@gte.com (Robert Virzi) I know of at least three systems that would allow you to build small voice response systems. Two are IBM-based and the other mac-based. For the IBM machines their are two boards, the Watson board and the Dialogic d-40 board. The Watson boards (sorry, don't know the manufacturer) come in multi- and single-line varieties. I guess this is a critical point, as the other two boards are only single-line, to the best of my knowledg. I have used the Dialogic stuff and been unipressed. It seems a little flakier than need be, and you have to write your own C code to support the application. I am working with someone using the Watso board, and he is reasonably happy with it. Same story as the dialogic, however, in that you have to write your own application code from scratch. This isn't all that easy, especially if you aren't familiar with telephony applications. For the mac, their is a system called TFlex or teleflex, which has a very nice visual programming language. This makes building applications very easy, even if one is not familiar with telephone applications. It has a lot of built in routines, and the whole system can be programmed using visual icons. I believe it is only single-line, however. TFlex can be flakey in terms of getting it running. Once running, though, it seems reasonably robust. Those are the choices I know about. Good luck! Bob Virzi Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 20:38:27 CST From: "Andrew Luebker" You might want to look into computing-devices for the disabled. I think there are some voice-control PC products for people with physical handicaps. Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 23:50:04 -0600 From: Tron MindTech is working on a product that will do this. It has three parts, the ring detector which connects to the phone outlet and it detects rings and picks it up, the voice play back and a simple voice digitizer (11 kHz MACE compression). You can program this thing to function as a voice mail system. I don't know if MindTech has released it yet. You can try to call them at 708 655-2105 or fax them at 708 655-2104. Be prepared, they might give you a bunch of we don't know what you are talking about, if they do so just tell them Chuan told you about it. Hope this helps. Chuan Date: 17 Dec 91 08:21:39 EST (Tue) From: dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson) Check out Diaglogic Corp, Parsippany, NJ. They offer a family of voice-response hardware for the AT-buss, with drivers for both UNIX and MS-DOS. They probably have everything you need to build the voice-response system you want. We use their hardware as the basis of a voice-response banking application we market in the NYC area. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 Date: Tue, 17 Dec 91 09:51 EST From: gerry@dialogic.com (Gerry Lachac) See my .signature. We make all this equipment, Voice Store And Forward, Voice Recognition, Fax, etc. All cards for PC compatibles and Microchannel. Keep in mind that we make hardware, and supply development kits consisting of libraries, device drivers, and sample code. We sell to VARs who make things like voice mail systems, and application generators. If you don't want to do things from scratch, you may want to talk to one of our VARs. (As a matter of fact that list that was posted today from the magazine contained a number of our VARs) gerry % EMAIL: gerry@dialogic.com % USMAIL: Dialogic Corp. % 300 Littleton Rd Parsippany, NJ % PHONE: (201)334-1268 ext 193 From: george@brooks.ICS.UCI.EDU (George Herson) Date: 16 Dec 91 14:05:57 GMT Vendors of call processing equipment are listed in a trade periodical {Networking Management}, 11/91, p52, "When hello isn't enough." The only one of the vendors I've contacted so far is Intervoice, which designs its hardware for PS/2s. I don't know which computers the others support; the article doesn't say. The numbers refer to those to circle on the magazine's "reply card." I assume that you don't need the card, you can just send your list of numbers to Networking Management, 1421 S. Sheridan, P.O.Box 21728, Tulsa OK 74121-9977 for more info, before 2/29/92. AT&T Bridgewater, N.J. #265 Applied Voice Technology, Kirklan, Wash. #266 Aristacom International Inc. Alameda, Calif. #267 Aspect Telecommunications San Jose, Calif. #268 Brite Voice Systems Wichita, Kan. #269 Centigram Corp. San Jose, Calif. #270 C-T Link Boston, Mass. #271 DEC Littleton, Mass. #272 Digital Sound Corp. Carpinteria, Calif. #273 Dytel Corp. Schaumburg, Ill. #274 Hewlett-Packard Co. Cupertino, Calif. #275 IBM Corp. White Plains, NY #276 InterVoice Dallas, Texas #277 Microlog Germantown, Md #278 Northern Telecom Santa Clara, Calif. #279 Octel Communications Milpitas, CA #280 Perception Technology Canton, Masss. #281 AB Preseco Solna, Sweden #282 Rockwell International Downers Grove, Ill. #283 Rolm Corp. Santa Clara, CA #284 Simpact Associates San Diego, CA #285 Syntellect Inc. Phoenix, AZ #286 Teknekron Infoswitch Fort Worth, TX #287 Unifi Communications Billerica, Mass #288 Willow Telecommuting Systems Inc. Richmond Hill, Ont., Canada #289 Viking Electronics Inc Hudson, Wis. #290 Voicetek Corp. Chelmsford, Mass #291 VMX Inc. San Jose, Calif. #292 George Herson george@brooks.ics.uci.edu voice: (714)856-2174 fax: (714)857-0424 ----- Colin Campbell Internet: ccampbel@dsd.es.com Evans & Sutherland UUCP: !uunet!dsd.es.com!ccampbel Salt Lake City, UT 84108 (801) 582-5847 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1027 *******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17236; 19 Dec 91 10:19 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31653 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 19 Dec 1991 08:02:33 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06240 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 19 Dec 1991 08:02:22 -0600 Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1991 08:02:22 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199112191402.AA06240@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1028 TELECOM Digest Thu, 19 Dec 91 08:02:18 CST Volume 11 : Issue 1028 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Extremely Unlisted Phone Numbers in China (Andrew C. Green) MOST Interesting Telco Recording! (Will Martin) EIA/TIA 568: Information Wanted (Michel Dalle) Is My Phone OK in the UK? (Ian Watson) Signaling System #7 (Wynn Quon) ECPA Invoked by Virgina Governor (John Boteler) Other Data Over That TV Cable? (was ISDN Arrival?) (Laird P. Broadfield) Sales Tax on Interstate LD Calls (Dennis G. Rears) Information About Modem Chips Required (M.J. Crepin-Leblond) Disneyland Speakerphones (Scott Reuben) Re: Disneyland (was Psuedo-Area Code 311) (Marc T. Kaufman) Help Needed Wiring Telco Headsets (Doctor Math) Progress in Email Addressing (Ed Greenberg) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 11:33:26 CST From: acg@HERMES.DLOGICS.COM Reply-To: acg@hermes.dlogics.com Subject: Extremely Unlisted Phone Numbers in China The following item is quoted in its entirety from the "News of the Weird" column by Chuck Shepherd as it appeared in the December 6, 1991 edition of the {Chicago Reader}. The column is a collection of strange and bizarre news stories from all over, sent in by readers: > The Chinese Government, concerned about secrecy, recently had its > entire telephone system rewired so that military officials can't > call, or be called from, outside the country. A {New York Times} > reporter trying to confirm the story with China's Bureau of Secrecy > found the bureau's phone number was classified. Researchers have > reported being told that, among other things, the number of sheep > in China and the number of potatoes grown every year are secrets. 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 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Dec 91 8:51:19 CST From: Will Martin Subject: MOST Interesting Telco Recording! Those of you who like to hear unusual or interesting telco recordings should try calling this number: 314-644-7542 This is the number listed in the St. Louis White Pages business section (Feb '91 edition) for TV station KTVI (channel 2). Here is the text of the recording; I've NEVER heard any telco recording that is as helpful or informative as this! -- [Beep tones (SIT?)] "We're sorry, area code 314-644-7542 has been changed due to an error made in the directory. KTVI's main telephone number is 647-2222 ^^^^ KTVI's news telephone number is now 644-7531 ^^^ Repeating... KTVI's main telephone number is 647-2222 ^^^^ KTVI's news telephone number is now 644-7531" ^^^ [End of recording] (The "^^^" indicates the voice-stress emphasis.) Since this is a telco error recording, calling this number from anywhere should be free (except from a COCOT :-). What I'm wondering is if the telco would create such a specialized recording and be as helpful for an ordinary citizen, or even an ordinary business. This being a television station, with a consumer hotline feature which could be used to cause the telco untold hassles, could probably be assumed to be a prime motivating factor in getting SWBT to be so accomodating! :-) Does current technology make such customized recordings easy to implement and maintain, or is this a major pain for the telco to do? Can we expect this sort of thing to become more common, or will it always be a rare exception? Are other Telecom readers aware of such recordings in their areas? Does this signal the end of the generic "intercept" recording? Regards, Will ------------------------------ Subject: EIA/TIA 568: Information Wanted Date: Wed, 18 Dec 91 16:55:17 MET From: Michel Dalle Hello there, you lucky people. It seems that in the USA, the standard EIA 568 on wiring in commercial buildings and campuses is (will be?) available. Is that right? Is there such a thing? I'd very much like to know how I could get a copy of it sent to me here in this underdevelopped country (--- at least concerning standards!). Even better would be that it existed somewhere in the Internet in electronic form, but I may be dreaming. Anyway, I'd very much appreciate any info or pointer to where I could get it. michel ... from Belgium. Michel Dalle Network Consultant (well, not yet! I just started...) SNIS Col. Bourgstraat 105 B-1040 Brussel BELGIUM e-mail: michel@d92.cb.sni.be ------------------------------ From: Ian Watson Subject: Is My Phone OK in the UK? Date: 18 Dec 91 12:03:04 GMT Organization: Hewlett-Packard NSG-PWD, UK. I received as a gift a novelty phone. It's one of those ones which is transparent so you can see the innards, and it has several coloured lights which light as the phone rings. It's marked as approved by FCC, MCI and Sprint, so is clearly made for the US market. However, it was bought here in the UK. My concern is that it carries the 'red triangle' sticker which says that it is prohibited from direct or indirect connection to the British Telecom system. I have connected it up and received a call OK, but have not yet tried to make a call. o What are the likely consequences of using this phone instead of my normal BT-rented phoneset? o Will it catch fire, refuse to work, trash the BT exchange, get me a criminal record? o Or am I likely to find it works fine? o If it really works fine as far as I can tell, why might it not have got the 'green circle' sticker of approval for BT connection? o Does BT have any influence over whoever does the certification, thus limiting the competition to BT? o Who does the certification? o If it really is a turkey piece of apparatus, how come it can be sold here in the UK? o Might I (or rather the person who bought it) have any redress under the Sale of Goods Act on the principles that it is "not of merchantable quality" or "unfit for the purpose for which it was sold"? o If not, what legitimate market might such a phone have in the UK? I don't want to electrocute myself or get thrown in jail. Please help before my curiosity gets the better of me and I (potentially) make a silly mistake. Ian Watson, HP Pinewood Information Systems Division, England. Phone : (Intl)+44 344 763015 Unix mail (Internet) : ian@hpopd.pwd.hp.com Unix mail (UUCP) : ...!hplabs!hpopd!ian OpenMail : ian watson/pinewood OpenMail from Unix : watson_ian/pinewood@hpopd.pwd.hp.com X.400 : SN=WATSON; GN=IAN; C=GB; ADMD=GOLD 400; ------------------------------ From: quonw@Software.Mitel.COM (Wynn Quon) Subject: Signaling System #7 Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1991 11:43:31 -0500 Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada. Hi, I'm looking for information about Signaling System #7 training seminars. Does anyone have any personal recommendations for good seminars on this topic? On the opposite side, are there ones that you would recommend staying away from? I'm also compiling a list of SS7 reading material, if you've come across any superb books/articles I'd like to hear about it. I'll post a summary later on. Thanks, Wynn Quon Mitel Corp. Kanata, Ontario ------------------------------ From: John Boteler Subject: ECPA Invoked by Virgina Governor Date: Wed, 18 Dec 91 2:13:08 EST The {Washington Post} Thursday, 12 December 1991 ran an article in the Metro section about the sentencing of Robert Dunnington for taping a cellular telephone conversation made by then-candidate for Virginia governor Doug Wilder to a real estate developer. The tape eventually made its way to Senator Chuck Robb, Wilder's political rival. Dunnington, "who had a hobby of electronically eavesdropping on calls made from car phones in Virginia Beach", got 30 nights at a halfway house, allowing him to run his restaurant business during the day, and a $500 fine. Apparently, the ECPA was invoked in this case, although the article leaves one with the impression that it was the political personalities who made sure it went this far. An attorney was even quoted as saying that if Joe Citizen were listening to John Citizen's cellular conversations that nobody's eyebrows would have been raised. Might this be the first and last time we hear about the ECPA? bote@access.digex.com (John Boteler) Skinnydipper's Hotline => 703.241.BARE Touch-Tone info at your fingertips [Moderator's Note: I don't think it will be the last time. You are correct that normally there is no effort to hunt down and prosecute people who listen to cell phone calls on their scanner, but at the same time the authorities do not like having their noses rubbed in things. An obvious flouting of the law frequently brings a response, and the violator's status in life (ie, senator, movie actor) will be the guide for detirmining the harshness of the punishment. PAT] ------------------------------ From: lairdb@crash.cts.com Date: Wed Dec 18 10:15:58 1991 From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) Subject: Other Data Over That TV Cable? (was ISDN Arrival) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1991 18:15:56 GMT In ms6b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Marvin Sirbu) writes: > It isn't the telcos that are a competitive threat, it is the CATV > companies. 90% of households are currently passed by wired cable; > about 60% of all households subscribe. Wireless cable generally > offers fewer channels and if it is not competing head to head with an > entrenched cable company, is in some rural area with few potential > customers. Be sceptical of their subscriber projections. (I'd be interested in your assesment of direct-from-satellite's potential, (as used pretty extensively in Japan currently) but that's not really the subject ...) 90%? Jeeezus. I had no idea they'd gotten that far. (Talk about "The Devouring Fungus" ...) My real question is what's available in bandwidth on those things; I assume the cable folks would be a little peeved if I hooked up a baseband tranceiver to the end of my cable, and started blasting data down it, but are there serious technical limitations involved? (You see, most of our company lives in the same neighborhood, several of us in the same apartment complex, and we could really use a network ...) Laird P. Broadfield UUCP: {ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb INET: lairdb@crash.cts.com ------------------------------ From: drears@pilot.njin.net (Dennis G. Rears) Subject: Sales Tax on Interstate LD Calls Date: 19 Dec 91 03:45:09 GMT Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. I just got my NJ Bell phone bill. There were a lot charges to AT&T that I placed in Florida last month. I was shocked that I was charged Floridia sales tax for calls placed in Florida to out of state locations. I believe that is unconstitional (interference with interstate commerce). This post is not about constitionality issues but more about pragmatic issues. What would happen if I sent my payment minus the charge for Florida sales tax? I would state that I do not pay Florida sales tax. I am aware that NJ Bell is merely a collection agent for AT&T and that AT&T is merely is collection agent for Florida. Could NJ Bell cut off my service for nonpayment? Could AT&T cut my service (I am on Reach Out World) but Sprint is dial 1 carrier. Another point is that NJ Bell does not have a physical presence in Florida, so how can they be required to collect sales tax? When the Supreme Court rules on the North Dakota case that point may be moot. I am cross-posting this to misc.legal and misc.taxes for discussion on theory only. Flames to /dev/null. I will pay the tax amount as it only a few dollars. Dennis [Moderator's Note: They cannot cut your service off for non-payment of tax. This was a regular occurrence during the Viet Nam war by protestors. You have to indicate what it is you are not paying so that your entire payment is not taken as a short-pay or partial payment against the entire bill. The telcos will short-pay the government with advice that you would not pay them, and it is up to the government to then collect from you or prosecute you as appropriate. In order to do business in a state, a company has to have at least a registered agent for process of service and an office there. Some local telco in Florida probably handles that task for Sprint to comply with the law. Whether or not the sales tax laws supercede the FCC tariffs and the Uniform Commercial Code relating to interstate commerce is tricky. Ask in misc.legal for a more precise (and probably correct) answer. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 18:21 BST From: "Olivier M.J. Crepin-Leblond" Subject: Information About Modem Chips Required I am looking for information about MODEM or FAX/MODEM ICs which could be used as a network end to a design of a FAX/MODEM on the PSTN. (normal telephone service). In other words, I'd like some references of manufacturers, chip number code and/or name, so that I can get the data sheet directly from the manufacturer. Please answer directly to my email address Thanks for your help. Olivier M.J. Crepin-Leblond, Elec. Eng. Dept., Imperial College London, UK. ------------------------------ Date: 17-DEC-1991 16:02:02.53 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Disneyland Speakerphones Pat noted: [Moderator's Note: Didn't someone point out here in the Digest quite a while ago that the telephone exhibit at Disneyland in Florida had phones in the 555-9xxx series? The numbers were non-dialable and there apparently for billing purposes only. PAT] I believe I may have posted on this previously, but I can't recall if all (or any) of the payphones were 714-555-9xxx. They may have been -1444 and other non "9xxx" numbers. They are not standard "payphones", but rather Speakerphone Booths. There is a rather large speaker mounted in the ceiling with a LARGE "Bell System" logo on it in blue. (Pac*Bell may have changed this, however.) If I get a chance to get to Anahiem soon, (and find a friend who still buys those "frequent visitor" admission books!) I'll try out the ANI numbers that I have and see what the computer returns. I have "1223" and "114" for Pac*Bell ANI in LA - will these work in Orange County as well (Non-GTE)? (BTW, dialing "958" on the 212-516-xxxx payphones in Penn Sta. NY yields a re-order. Dialing the 660 ringback WILL ring them back just fine, however.) Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ From: kaufman@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Marc T. Kaufman) Subject: Re: Disneyland (was Psuedo-Area Code 311) Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA Date: 17 Dec 91 17:10:52 GMT cmoore@BRL.MIL (VLD/VMB) writes: > To comment on a Moderator's Note: Do not confuse Disneyland in > Anaheim, California, with Disney World near Orlando, Florida. They > do, however, come under the same organization. I was at the one in > California this year, and made a phone call from an enclosed booth > where I did not have to hold an instrument to my ear, but rather just > sit in the booth and talk! A payphone/speakerphone combination at the AT&T pavilion in Tomorrowland. The listed numbers on the phones are all of the form 555-xxxx, and I once made a long distance call to see what the recorded number would be, but it was long ago. After all, these wonders of technology were installed in 1957. Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Neon.stanford.edu) ------------------------------ From: drmath@viking.rn.com (Doctor Math) Subject: Hel Needed Wiring Telco Headsets Date: Wed, 18 Dec 91 02:08:58 EST Organization: Department of Redundancy Department I have two of the old-style Genuine Bell headsets (made by Plantronics) which sort of hang over one ear and terminate in a little box with two 1/4" phono plugs. A few years ago, I actually had one of them interfaced to a phone. It worked great, but I can't for the life of me remember exactly how it was done. Symbols inside the box seem to indicate that sleeve/sleeve goes to the earpiece, and that tip/tip is amplified output from the microphone, but recent attempts to hook them up fail miserably. Can anyone out there in Telecom Land give me (a) instructions (b) pointers to where instructions may be found on how to hook these headsets up to a standard 500 or 2500 set? Any help appreciated. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Dec 91 09:22 PST From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Subject: Progress in Email Addressing A recent post was listed as from: >From: /PN=GLORIA.C.VALLE/O=GTE/PRMD=GTEMAIL/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/@sprint.com This is progress? edg [Moderator's Note: It was beautiful, wasn't it ... :) PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1028 *******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16675; 20 Dec 91 3:34 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04840 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 20 Dec 1991 01:34:11 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28321 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 20 Dec 1991 01:33:56 -0600 Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1991 01:33:56 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199112200733.AA28321@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1029 TELECOM Digest Fri, 20 Dec 91 01:33:49 CST Volume 11 : Issue 1029 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Poland: Nickel Payphones and USA Direct (Fred E. J. Linton) A Product I'd Like to See (Invented AND Widely Used) (Jack Decker) How Much Does Distinctive Ringing Cost YOU? (Steve Vance) Line Tapping and CO's (Randall L. Smith) Rail Phone (Michael Rosen) Looking for Network Security/Fraud Information (Sean E. Williams) AT&T Echo to the UK (Scott Reuben) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 17-DEC-1991 13:53:34.45 From: "Fred E.J. Linton" Subject: Poland: Nickel Payphones and USA Direct Just back from a week in Warsaw, Poland, I can report the following: 1. The nickel payphone is alive and well in Poland -- Polish payphones (which as little as two years ago used a 20 zloty coin for an unlimited local call -- 20 zloty being valued at circa 0.2 cents) now offer three minutes local calling for a "jeton" costing 600 zloty --circa 5.2 cents -- and feature a jeton-queuing ramp that will ingest the next jeton in line when the current three-minute period expires, but let you retrieve the jeton if it wasn't needed. 2. Card phones are becoming available, but very slowly -- there are a few at the main phone/fax/telex/telegraph office in Warsaw on Nowogrodska Street, and there are two at the International Departures building of Okecie airport. Cards may be bought at post offices. Service is provided by an outfit called P.P.T.T. -- none of my Polish friends knew for sure, but P.P.T.T. just *might* stand for Polish Post, Telephone, and Telegraph. An instruction placard hung near the airport card phones lists countries direct-dialable from those phones, along with their country codes -- conspicuous on that list both by its presence at all, and by the *absence* of any dialing information for it, is an entry for USA Direct . [No other "Home Country Direct" entries appear at all.] [For some time AT&T International has apparently been "negotiating" with the Polish PTT for USA Direct rights, or so I have heard.] 3. Both the fax and the telex service at the Nowogrodska center are reasonably priced, by Western standards -- and those who have telex messages to send get to compose them themselves, on old punched paper tape machines, seemingly Polish clones of old WU Telex machines, before handing the tape to an attendant for transmission. Lovely old clunkers, those PPTM's. 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: Wed, 18 Dec 91 16:52:01 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: A Product I'd Like to See (Invented AND Widely Used) You know, I've been giving some more thought to this business of local measured service and have thought of one way that consumers could fight back, IF the proper equipment were available. Perhaps you have read of the new 900 MHz DIGITAL cordless phones. I have, and I understand that they have a 1/2 mile range. With a decent antenna and a sensitive receiver (such as the type used to receive five watt satellite transponders from thousands of milers out in space!), I imagine that range could be upped a bit. Now, there are probably folks who never call anyone within a 1/2 to one mile range of their homes. But there are also folks who make frequent calls to neighbors, the store down the street, etc. My idea would benefit this latter group, particularly in areas where 1) all calls are measured, or 2) you live near an exchange boundary and some of your neighbors are toll calls. What I'd like to see is a COMBINATION corded/cordless phone, built to some standard so that phones from different manufacturers would talk to each other. When you pick up the phone, you'd key in the number and it would first try to reach that number via digitally transmitting it on a common "hailing" channel and listening for any response. If another phone in the area identified itself as being that phone number, the connection would be made via the airwaves and not over the landline. If there were no response, OR if prior to dialing you pressed a button labelled "landline only" (or something to that effect), your phone would get dialtone from the C.O. and attempt to place the call that way. A person purchasing such a phone would have to program in their area code and phone number (or explicitly tell the phone that there was no landline connection available, in which case a psuedo-number might be used). Calls placed by dialing only seven digits (in the U.S.A. and Canada) would be assumed to be in the same area code as the phone you are using. Both area code and number would be transmitted when trying to make an over-the-air connection, in case you happen to live along an area code boundary. At present these could use existing digital cordless phone frequencies under "Part 15" FCC regulations (low powered unlicensed devices), I believe. If the idea catches on, folks might begin to ask the FCC to allow higher power and/or operate on different frequencies. You could market these to folks who have friends or relatives living close by. They could be promoted as something that would save on phone charges AND provide limited-range communications even when the phone lines are down (they might be very popular with folks in rural and semi-rural areas who have elderly parents living nearby). They would also be useful for businesses that have locations that are close by but geographically separated (for example, a sales office with a warehouse a block away). Going one step farther, you could produce an upgrade model (one that goes beyond the basic model) with master/slave capabilities. That is, you could pick up a "slave" phone and place nearby calls over the airwaves as described above, OR get dialtone from the line connected to a "master" phone at a different location. Incoming calls would ring both the master and slave phones. This would be great for people who have, say, a garage or barn detached from the house. "Three way calling" (master, slave, and caller on C.O. line) would be allowed. In fact, three way and "transfer" calling should be allowed on the basic units... that is, you could "conference" a call between the C.O. line and a cordless connection, and the phone in the "middle" should be able to go on-hook while leaving the cordless-to-C.O. connection intact. Why? Well, consider a situation where "grandma" (who hardly EVER uses her phone) lives next door, and can't see to dial. You buy her a phone like this and you get one, and when she wants to make a call, she calls you (presumably using a "speed dial" button) and you complete the call for her via your landline, and then disconnect while leaving the connection intact. Or, perhaps she can dial for herself, but she wants you to screen incoming calls for her to keep the telesleaze that prey on the elderly away. When a call comes in and it's someone she would want to talk to, you three-way the call to her and then drop out of the conversation. If a cordless conversation is in progress and a wireline call comes in, the phone could beep or otherwise behave just as though you had "call waiting", but of course there should be a way to disable this. An upgrade unit might permit plugging in a modem, FAX machine, or other (normal) extensions. It would provide dialtone to these devices, and would then provide the cordless or wireline connection to the called number, as appropriate. Does anyone who builds telephones and telephone devices read this conference? I think this could become a very popular device, if it were designed and marketed properly. I'm available for consultation and beta-testing! :-) Jack Decker : jack@myamiga.mixcom.com : FidoNet 1:154/8 ------------------------------ From: well!stv@well.sf.ca.us (Steve Vance) Subject: How Much Does Distinctive Ringing Cost YOU? Date: 19 Dec 91 08:13:47 GMT I called up to see about getting this "Distinctive Ringing" Custom Calling Feature on my home phone. I described this to the Customer Service person as follows: "I still have just the one telephone in my house, and just one wire from the telephone pole to my house, but two different telephone numbers; when 555-1212 is called, it rings normally, and when 555-1313 is called, it has the double-ring like in England. When someone calls either number while I am on the phone, they get a busy signal." This seemed pretty descriptive, and is how "Distinctive Ringing" works as far as I know. The charge for me to get this in my service area is as follows: installation per-month New Phone number $34.75 $8.35 "Commstar II" 15.00 8.20 Distinctive Ringing option 4.00 5.00 Total: 53.75 21.55 My questions to the Net are: is this the typical charge for this service? If you have it, how much do you pay? If you don't mind typing in the description of this service from the front of your white pages, the Pacific Bell Customer Service person I talked to is interested in what this service looks like and costs in other parts of the country, and I promised I would post this and mail the responses to her. Steve Vance {apple,lll-winken,pacbell}!well!stv stv@well.sf.ca.us [Moderator's Note: Here in Chicago there is no 'installation charge' for the distinctive ringing numbers. We pay $4.95 per month for the first number (gives a short double ring) and $3.95 for the second number if one is desired (gives a short then long ring). Distinctive ringing lines can be programmed at the CO to either observe any call- forwarding instructions which are on the main number or to ignore call-forwarding of the main line and simply 'ring through'. They also have their own distinctive call-waiting tones, different from the tone given when the main line gets a call-waiting. PAT] ------------------------------ From: rls!randy@cis.ohio-state.edu (Randall L. Smith) Subject: Line Tapping and CO's Date: 19 Dec 91 19:36:26 GMT Organization: The Internet I just had an unusual event occur here at home. I have a two line phone here in my office and noticed one of the lines lit up. Hmmm. I figured the oaf of a Labrador Retriever that we have must have bumped one of the phones and took it off hook. Wandering around the house checking each of five phones, I found nothing unusual. On the last phone I picked up and listened to a conversation between a man and a woman which sounded like some official business with a good deal of formality. There was what sounded like a raspy radio with the mike being keyed on the other end, but the male sounded so close, it like he was in the house. The conversation being on my line was worrysome because my first reaction was long distance fraud. Since they weren't speaking in tounges, I figured it was more domestic. Given it may be a domestic happening, I decided to get my coat on and see who's playing out on the phone lines. Wandering up and down the back lots, I found a guy with a Bell telephone hat on up on a ladder with a phone and alligator clips on two leads. Yep, that had to be him. I talked to him a little bit and left. What I'm left wondering, is that how are lines traditionally tapped or is line tapping done at the central office? Anyone know? randy randy@rls.uucp | !osu-cis!rls!randy | rls!randy@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu [Moderator's Note: Tapping can be done in a variety of places including the CO or on the subscriber's premises or various points in between. Wherever your pair is multipled between you and the office is a possible tap point. I doubt the guy on the pole was 'tapping your line'. It is more likely he was working on some phone in the area and talking to someone in the office trying to find a working pair or get his next assignment, or?? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Michael.Rosen@samba.acs.unc.edu (Michael Rosen) Subject: Rail Phone Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1991 23:05:58 GMT I was riding the train home today and, on my way off the train, I noticed something new. They have "Rail Phones" in booths on the train. At least, I only saw one, in the car I was in just before the snack car. Does anybody know how these work? I assume they only take credit cards, calling cards, etc.? Of course, you can probably get operator assisted calls as well, for a nominal fee :). Mike ------------------------------ From: sew7490@ultb.rit.edu (S.E. Williams ) Subject: Looking for Network Security/Fraud Information Reply-To: sew7490@ultb.rit.edu Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology Date: Fri, 20 Dec 91 01:33:51 GMT I am writing a term paper on Telecommunications Fraud and how the telephone companies have been fighting back. I need information, however, and am asking for your help. Could anyone send me mail about software written to 'catch' customers 'wardialing', trying to break into VM systems, or any other such security programs? Calling card abuse? Whatever? I seem to recall reading somewhere that an ESS can print an exception report to show a list of callers who have dialed more than 'x' numbers in the past 'y' time period. I'm looking for examples of other things the telcos have done to catch people doing things they shouldn't have been doing. I'm already digging deeply in the telecom-archives, and have also been looking through 'phreaker' archives on other internet systems. Note: I'm not looking for ways to defraud the phone company, I'm looking for measures which the phone company has taken to keep fraud from occuring. Please keep this in mind. Thanks for your help! Sean E. Williams sew7490@ultb.rit.edu Rochester Institute of Technology Telecommunications Technology (ITFT) [Moderator's Note: ESS' can print out exceptions (to usual, or average) conditions and notify a human being to review what has been recorded. Exceptions in and of themselves are not evidence of illegal activity, of course, but these reports do guide security personnel in their investigations. ESS' can also detect tones that shouldn't be coming at them from the subscriber's side of the line and **allow the call to continue, as though all were well** while notifying a human being of what is happening, who in turn can tap a few keys on the terminal and see the whole sordid picture in seconds. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 19-DEC-1991 07:17:39.65 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: AT&T Echo to the UK I just got off the phone with someone in London, calling via AT&T. I heard her just fine, but she said there was "noise" after I spoke, and it sounded as if there was some slight delay. So I tried calling a FAX number in Oxfordshire, as well as some of those carphone numbers which supervise all the time, with both AT&T, MCI, and Sprint. AT&T *always* had a slight delay -- if you hit a Touch Tone key right when the other side was making some sound (FAX carrier or "not in area" carphone message), you could hear the touch tone returned to you. It wasn't as long as what one would expect from a satellite circuit, so maybe they are using fiber one way and satellite the other way? (Hey, AT&T *still* uses satellites to Hawaii!) MCI got static each time, so I didn't bother with them. Sprint has NO delay and NO echo to any of the numbers in the UK. I then called the person I was speaking to, this time using Sprint, and we could talk much more easily, as if it were a domestic call in the US. (Sprint does still have a delay to Hawaii however -- try 808-545-7610 for Tymnet for an experiment). This is not the first time that AT&T has had this echo problem to the UK. Any reason why AT&T is apparently so cheap that they can't have full fiber BOTH ways? I always use AT&T for all my calls, but if by dialing 10333+ for Sprint I get better connections than AT&T, and AT&T after all these years is STILL using satellites, I think maybe I'll give some of my business to Sprint instead. Sad to see that at least in some areas AT&T is offering inferior service ... :( Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1029 *******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19270; 20 Dec 91 4:35 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12791 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 20 Dec 1991 02:36:04 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28375 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 20 Dec 1991 02:35:52 -0600 Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1991 02:35:52 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199112200835.AA28375@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1030 TELECOM Digest Fri, 20 Dec 91 01:33:49 CST Volume 11 : Issue 1029 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Poland: Nickel Payphones and USA Direct (Fred E. J. Linton) A Product I'd Like to See (Invented AND Widely Used) (Jack Decker) How Much Does Distinctive Ringing Cost YOU? (Steve Vance) Line Tapping and CO's (Randall L. Smith) Rail Phone (Michael Rosen) Looking for Network Security/Fraud Information (Sean E. Williams) AT&T Echo to the UK (Scott Reuben) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 17-DEC-1991 13:53:34.45 From: "Fred E.J. Linton" Subject: Poland: Nickel Payphones and USA Direct Just back from a week in Warsaw, Poland, I can report the following: 1. The nickel payphone is alive and well in Poland -- Polish payphones (which as little as two years ago used a 20 zloty coin for an unlimited local call -- 20 zloty being valued at circa 0.2 cents) now offer three minutes local calling for a "jeton" costing 600 zloty --circa 5.2 cents -- and feature a jeton-queuing ramp that will ingest the next jeton in line when the current three-minute period expires, but let you retrieve the jeton if it wasn't needed. 2. Card phones are becoming available, but very slowly -- there are a few at the main phone/fax/telex/telegraph office in Warsaw on Nowogrodska Street, and there are two at the International Departures building of Okecie airport. Cards may be bought at post offices. Service is provided by an outfit called P.P.T.T. -- none of my Polish friends knew for sure, but P.P.T.T. just *might* stand for Polish Post, Telephone, and Telegraph. An instruction placard hung near the airport card phones lists countries direct-dialable from those phones, along with their country codes -- conspicuous on that list both by its presence at all, and by the *absence* of any dialing information for it, is an entry for USA Direct . [No other "Home Country Direct" entries appear at all.] [For some time AT&T International has apparently been "negotiating" with the Polish PTT for USA Direct rights, or so I have heard.] 3. Both the fax and the telex service at the Nowogrodska center are reasonably priced, by Western standards -- and those who have telex messages to send get to compose them themselves, on old punched paper tape machines, seemingly Polish clones of old WU Telex machines, before handing the tape to an attendant for transmission. Lovely old clunkers, those PPTM's. 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: Wed, 18 Dec 91 16:52:01 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: A Product I'd Like to See (Invented AND Widely Used) You know, I've been giving some more thought to this business of local measured service and have thought of one way that consumers could fight back, IF the proper equipment were available. Perhaps you have read of the new 900 MHz DIGITAL cordless phones. I have, and I understand that they have a 1/2 mile range. With a decent antenna and a sensitive receiver (such as the type used to receive five watt satellite transponders from thousands of milers out in space!), I imagine that range could be upped a bit. Now, there are probably folks who never call anyone within a 1/2 to one mile range of their homes. But there are also folks who make frequent calls to neighbors, the store down the street, etc. My idea would benefit this latter group, particularly in areas where 1) all calls are measured, or 2) you live near an exchange boundary and some of your neighbors are toll calls. What I'd like to see is a COMBINATION corded/cordless phone, built to some standard so that phones from different manufacturers would talk to each other. When you pick up the phone, you'd key in the number and it would first try to reach that number via digitally transmitting it on a common "hailing" channel and listening for any response. If another phone in the area identified itself as being that phone number, the connection would be made via the airwaves and not over the landline. If there were no response, OR if prior to dialing you pressed a button labelled "landline only" (or something to that effect), your phone would get dialtone from the C.O. and attempt to place the call that way. A person purchasing such a phone would have to program in their area code and phone number (or explicitly tell the phone that there was no landline connection available, in which case a psuedo-number might be used). Calls placed by dialing only seven digits (in the U.S.A. and Canada) would be assumed to be in the same area code as the phone you are using. Both area code and number would be transmitted when trying to make an over-the-air connection, in case you happen to live along an area code boundary. At present these could use existing digital cordless phone frequencies under "Part 15" FCC regulations (low powered unlicensed devices), I believe. If the idea catches on, folks might begin to ask the FCC to allow higher power and/or operate on different frequencies. You could market these to folks who have friends or relatives living close by. They could be promoted as something that would save on phone charges AND provide limited-range communications even when the phone lines are down (they might be very popular with folks in rural and semi-rural areas who have elderly parents living nearby). They would also be useful for businesses that have locations that are close by but geographically separated (for example, a sales office with a warehouse a block away). Going one step farther, you could produce an upgrade model (one that goes beyond the basic model) with master/slave capabilities. That is, you could pick up a "slave" phone and place nearby calls over the airwaves as described above, OR get dialtone from the line connected to a "master" phone at a different location. Incoming calls would ring both the master and slave phones. This would be great for people who have, say, a garage or barn detached from the house. "Three way calling" (master, slave, and caller on C.O. line) would be allowed. In fact, three way and "transfer" calling should be allowed on the basic units... that is, you could "conference" a call between the C.O. line and a cordless connection, and the phone in the "middle" should be able to go on-hook while leaving the cordless-to-C.O. connection intact. Why? Well, consider a situation where "grandma" (who hardly EVER uses her phone) lives next door, and can't see to dial. You buy her a phone like this and you get one, and when she wants to make a call, she calls you (presumably using a "speed dial" button) and you complete the call for her via your landline, and then disconnect while leaving the connection intact. Or, perhaps she can dial for herself, but she wants you to screen incoming calls for her to keep the telesleaze that prey on the elderly away. When a call comes in and it's someone she would want to talk to, you three-way the call to her and then drop out of the conversation. If a cordless conversation is in progress and a wireline call comes in, the phone could beep or otherwise behave just as though you had "call waiting", but of course there should be a way to disable this. An upgrade unit might permit plugging in a modem, FAX machine, or other (normal) extensions. It would provide dialtone to these devices, and would then provide the cordless or wireline connection to the called number, as appropriate. Does anyone who builds telephones and telephone devices read this conference? I think this could become a very popular device, if it were designed and marketed properly. I'm available for consultation and beta-testing! :-) Jack Decker : jack@myamiga.mixcom.com : FidoNet 1:154/8 ------------------------------ From: well!stv@well.sf.ca.us (Steve Vance) Subject: How Much Does Distinctive Ringing Cost YOU? Date: 19 Dec 91 08:13:47 GMT I called up to see about getting this "Distinctive Ringing" Custom Calling Feature on my home phone. I described this to the Customer Service person as follows: "I still have just the one telephone in my house, and just one wire from the telephone pole to my house, but two different telephone numbers; when 555-1212 is called, it rings normally, and when 555-1313 is called, it has the double-ring like in England. When someone calls either number while I am on the phone, they get a busy signal." This seemed pretty descriptive, and is how "Distinctive Ringing" works as far as I know. The charge for me to get this in my service area is as follows: installation per-month New Phone number $34.75 $8.35 "Commstar II" 15.00 8.20 Distinctive Ringing option 4.00 5.00 Total: 53.75 21.55 My questions to the Net are: is this the typical charge for this service? If you have it, how much do you pay? If you don't mind typing in the description of this service from the front of your white pages, the Pacific Bell Customer Service person I talked to is interested in what this service looks like and costs in other parts of the country, and I promised I would post this and mail the responses to her. Steve Vance {apple,lll-winken,pacbell}!well!stv stv@well.sf.ca.us [Moderator's Note: Here in Chicago there is no 'installation charge' for the distinctive ringing numbers. We pay $4.95 per month for the first number (gives a short double ring) and $3.95 for the second number if one is desired (gives a short then long ring). Distinctive ringing lines can be programmed at the CO to either observe any call- forwarding instructions which are on the main number or to ignore call-forwarding of the main line and simply 'ring through'. They also have their own distinctive call-waiting tones, different from the tone given when the main line gets a call-waiting. PAT] ------------------------------ From: rls!randy@cis.ohio-state.edu (Randall L. Smith) Subject: Line Tapping and CO's Date: 19 Dec 91 19:36:26 GMT Organization: The Internet I just had an unusual event occur here at home. I have a two line phone here in my office and noticed one of the lines lit up. Hmmm. I figured the oaf of a Labrador Retriever that we have must have bumped one of the phones and took it off hook. Wandering around the house checking each of five phones, I found nothing unusual. On the last phone I picked up and listened to a conversation between a man and a woman which sounded like some official business with a good deal of formality. There was what sounded like a raspy radio with the mike being keyed on the other end, but the male sounded so close, it like he was in the house. The conversation being on my line was worrysome because my first reaction was long distance fraud. Since they weren't speaking in tounges, I figured it was more domestic. Given it may be a domestic happening, I decided to get my coat on and see who's playing out on the phone lines. Wandering up and down the back lots, I found a guy with a Bell telephone hat on up on a ladder with a phone and alligator clips on two leads. Yep, that had to be him. I talked to him a little bit and left. What I'm left wondering, is that how are lines traditionally tapped or is line tapping done at the central office? Anyone know? randy randy@rls.uucp | !osu-cis!rls!randy | rls!randy@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu [Moderator's Note: Tapping can be done in a variety of places including the CO or on the subscriber's premises or various points in between. Wherever your pair is multipled between you and the office is a possible tap point. I doubt the guy on the pole was 'tapping your line'. It is more likely he was working on some phone in the area and talking to someone in the office trying to find a working pair or get his next assignment, or?? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Michael.Rosen@samba.acs.unc.edu (Michael Rosen) Subject: Rail Phone Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1991 23:05:58 GMT I was riding the train home today and, on my way off the train, I noticed something new. They have "Rail Phones" in booths on the train. At least, I only saw one, in the car I was in just before the snack car. Does anybody know how these work? I assume they only take credit cards, calling cards, etc.? Of course, you can probably get operator assisted calls as well, for a nominal fee :). Mike ------------------------------ From: sew7490@ultb.rit.edu (S.E. Williams ) Subject: Looking for Network Security/Fraud Information Reply-To: sew7490@ultb.rit.edu Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology Date: Fri, 20 Dec 91 01:33:51 GMT I am writing a term paper on Telecommunications Fraud and how the telephone companies have been fighting back. I need information, however, and am asking for your help. Could anyone send me mail about software written to 'catch' customers 'wardialing', trying to break into VM systems, or any other such security programs? Calling card abuse? Whatever? I seem to recall reading somewhere that an ESS can print an exception report to show a list of callers who have dialed more than 'x' numbers in the past 'y' time period. I'm looking for examples of other things the telcos have done to catch people doing things they shouldn't have been doing. I'm already digging deeply in the telecom-archives, and have also been looking through 'phreaker' archives on other internet systems. Note: I'm not looking for ways to defraud the phone company, I'm looking for measures which the phone company has taken to keep fraud from occuring. Please keep this in mind. Thanks for your help! Sean E. Williams sew7490@ultb.rit.edu Rochester Institute of Technology Telecommunications Technology (ITFT) [Moderator's Note: ESS' can print out exceptions (to usual, or average) conditions and notify a human being to review what has been recorded. Exceptions in and of themselves are not evidence of illegal activity, of course, but these reports do guide security personnel in their investigations. ESS' can also detect tones that shouldn't be coming at them from the subscriber's side of the line and **allow the call to continue, as though all were well** while notifying a human being of what is happening, who in turn can tap a few keys on the terminal and see the whole sordid picture in seconds. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 19-DEC-1991 07:17:39.65 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: AT&T Echo to the UK I just got off the phone with someone in London, calling via AT&T. I heard her just fine, but she said there was "noise" after I spoke, and it sounded as if there was some slight delay. So I tried calling a FAX number in Oxfordshire, as well as some of those carphone numbers which supervise all the time, with both AT&T, MCI, and Sprint. AT&T *always* had a slight delay -- if you hit a Touch Tone key right when the other side was making some sound (FAX carrier or "not in area" carphone message), you could hear the touch tone returned to you. It wasn't as long as what one would expect from a satellite circuit, so maybe they are using fiber one way and satellite the other way? (Hey, AT&T *still* uses satellites to Hawaii!) MCI got static each time, so I didn't bother with them. Sprint has NO delay and NO echo to any of the numbers in the UK. I then called the person I was speaking to, this time using Sprint, and we could talk much more easily, as if it were a domestic call in the US. (Sprint does still have a delay to Hawaii however -- try 808-545-7610 for Tymnet for an experiment). This is not the first time that AT&T has had this echo problem to the UK. Any reason why AT&T is apparently so cheap that they can't have full fiber BOTH ways? I always use AT&T for all my calls, but if by dialing 10333+ for Sprint I get better connections than AT&T, and AT&T after all these years is STILL using satellites, I think maybe I'll give some of my business to Sprint instead. Sad to see that at least in some areas AT&T is offering inferior service ... :( Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1029 *******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19952; 20 Dec 91 4:54 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01486 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 20 Dec 1991 02:37:30 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08917 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 20 Dec 1991 02:37:15 -0600 Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1991 02:37:15 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199112200837.AA08917@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1030 TELECOM Digest Fri, 20 Dec 91 02:37:15 CST Volume 11 : Issue 1030 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: AT&T Exits Telegraph Business (Jim Haynes) Re: Wrong Numbers (Stephanie da Silva) Re: Wrong Numbers (Peter da Silva) Re: Wrong Numbers (John David Galt) Re: E-Mail Link to Japan (Robert J. Woodhead) Re: E-Mail Link to Japan (Darren Alex Griffiths) Re: ISDN in Japan and USA (Kenji Fujisawa) Re: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made! (Ron Schnell) Re: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made! (Henry E. Schaffer) USA Today Number - An Update on Billing Procedures (Rob Boudrie) I Got Billed for "USA Today" 800 Calls, Too (Ron Newman) Last Laugh! 976 and 1-900: The Ultimate Solution (Mikel Manitius) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Path: darkstar!cats.ucsc.edu!haynes From: Jim Haynes Subject: Re: AT&T Exits Telegraph Business Date: 18 Dec 91 17:33:26 GMT Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz Thanks for the press release, but does anybody know exactly what services have been discontinued? haynes@cats.ucsc.edu haynes@cats.bitnet [Moderator's Note: TWX and Telex service. I'm told that since they bought out Western Union, they'll be getting rid of the standard, familiar telegraph ASAP also. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers Date: Wed, 18 Dec 91 7:45:11 CST From: arielle@taronga.com (Stephanie da Silva) peter@ficc.ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes: > Well, the simplest solution is the one I've applied: > "This is NOT Allstate. There are NO insurance agents here. If you > want to leave a message for Stephanie or Peter..." > ... but I would assume that anyone receiving that message > would figure they hadn't got Allstate. Let me clarify something here. We apparently were assigned number that used to be the number for an Allstate agent, so the people who are calling us aren't misdialling; they are actually calling our number. Now that's not so bad, except for the incredible bozos that I've had to deal with over this. They fall into several catagories. The usual call started with them asking for the agent. I would reply, "You have the wrong number." "Is this 568-xxxx?" "Yes, it is." "I'm sorry, I must have the wrong number." Click. Here's the good part -- at least *half* of them would call right back -- after I already verified the number! One guy actually called an operator and had her dial, and she was obviously annoyed once she realized what was going on. Then there were the ones who would keep calling back over hour or so intervals even after I told them they had the wrong number. After the third or fourth time of picking up the phone and hearing someone complain about how they lost their hubcap or about how their rates went up, I'd just go ahead and hang up. Yet they'd still call back! The third kind was the worst -- they were the ones who would insist they had the right number. "May I speak to Mr. Crosby?" "You have the wrong number." "Let me speak to Mr. Crosby." "There is no Mr. Crosby here." "Well, where is he?" "Look, you have the wrong number." "No, I don't -- I have it written down right here and I can't understand why I keep getting YOU." After a year and a half, we are still getting calls for Allstate, although it has progressed from people who just haven't got a clue to people who do. Typical call now is, "Hello?" "Uh ... is this Allstate?" Of all the countless people who called me and wasted my time, there were exactly two who apologized for bothering me. I can sympathize with Mr. Higdon. It was so annoying that I wanted to tell these people that Mr. Crosby ran off with the all the premium money and his secretary to a Carribean island and their policy was void but Peter didn't think that would have been a good idea. I also wanted to record the message on the answering machine that said, "If you're looking for an insurance agent, call xxx-xxxx" and leave a State Farm number but instead, I recorded the message we have now. It got to the point to where I just stopped answering the phone. Seriously ... what can one do? Stephanie da Silva a rielle@taronga.com ------------------------------ From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (peter da silva) Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers Organization: Ferranti International Controls Corporation Date: Wed, 18 Dec 91 18:48:07 GMT > [Moderator's Note: But just be sure some real Alien Creatures -- such > as lawyers for the Hilton Hotel chain -- don't try to sue you for > making trouble for them, as they tried to do to John Higdon. :) PAT] In our case I figured out the wording pretty closely before deciding that it would be childish. It would have been pretty close to: "I'm sorry, but this is NOT an insurance agency. There are NO insurance agents here. If you want an insurance agent call nxx-xxxx." (where nxx-xxxx is a State Farm agency) That way I'm not identifying myself as Allstate (in fact, I'm denying it), and not claiming that nxx-xxxx is Allstate. But, like I said, I decided it would be childish. But boy did I wish we had Caller-ID while this was going on. I'd love to get a list of the numbers and send them, with explanation, to Allstate and ask that they correct the problem. I notice that in another followup our esteemed Moderator suggested a similar course of action. Peter da Silva Ferranti International Controls Corporation Sugar Land, TX 77487-5012; +1 713 274 5180 ------------------------------ From: John_David_Galt@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers Date: Thu, 19 Dec 91 15:37:43 PST When I lived in San Francisco, I used to get a lot of wrong-number calls. It seems there was a company in town called "John Galt Computer Co.", but their listing in the white pages was under "John" rather than "Galt." So people would call information and be given my number. After a month or so I added the company's number to the outgoing message on my answering machine, and 90% of the problem went away. I also called the company, but they laughed and either weren't interested in changing their listing, or didn't understand the problem. I don't know if the company still exists. ------------------------------ From: trebor@foretune.co.jp (Robert J Woodhead) Subject: Re: E-Mail Link to Japan Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1991 01:20:43 GMT george@brooks.ICS.UCI.EDU (George Herson) writes: >> In addition, inside Japan there are a number of "fj" newsgroups and >> mailing lists, both in English and Kanji, that are not distributed >> outside of Japan because they contain information that scrutable >> westerners are not meant to know. > I get scores of the "fj" newsgroups here at UCalifornia, Irvine. This > is probably because we have the highest Asian population by percentage > than any other campus in the mainland US (as I read somewhere). Looks > like random ASCII. Sigh. I'm getting subtle in my old age. I should have made it more clear that I was being a tad wry. Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp ------------------------------ From: dag@ossi.com (Darren Alex Griffiths) Subject: Re: E-Mail Link to Japan Organization: Open Systems Solutions Inc. Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1991 19:29:26 GMT trebor@foretune.co.jp (Robert J Woodhead) writes: > In addition, inside Japan there are a number of "fj" newsgroups and > mailing lists, both in English and Kanji, that are not distributed > outside of Japan because they contain information that scrutable > westerners are not meant to know. They're not, huh. All of our systems have the fj groups. We are a Unix hacking shop just outside of Berkeley that is owned by a Japan based Fujitsu. While we currently don't have any Japanese engineers residing here a couple of the management folk are Japanese and we do get visitors from Japan. It's really rather funny to have engineers walking around wearing suits, I'm sure we'll get them to see the light when they start to stay here longer. I don't understand the Kanji, but the English groups are pretty boring. In any case, we do have the groups and a few people around here do read them. In addition, another Fujitsu company, Fujitsu America Inc (FAI), has a T1 link to Japan that is used for internal Fujitsu stuff, but I believe a number of sites like uunet route mail through FAI to Japanese sites. Darren Alex Griffiths Open Systems Solutions, Inc dag@ossi.com ------------------------------ From: fujisawa@sm.sony.co.jp (Kenji Fujisawa) Subject: Re: ISDN in Japan and USA Organization: Sony Corporation, Tokyo, Japan Date: 16 Dec 91 15:39:24 GMT In article , haynes@cats.UCSC.EDU (Jim Haynes) says: > He remarked that in Japan one can just call the telephone company > and ask to have your home service converted to ISDN and it will be > done the next day, no charge for the conversion and no extra charge > for ISDN service. It's overstated. The time for instllation varies between one week to six months depending on the area, the availability of the digital exchanges. And you have to pay an installation fee of about $100 - $150. Futermore, the monthly charge becomes twice of the analog telephone: ie, about $35. Kenji Fujisawa fujisawa@sm.sony.co.jp ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Dec 91 11:54:00 -0500 From: Ron Schnell Subject: Re: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made! > What about the ethics of this situation? After all, we discussed, at > length, the fact that the recording on 800-555-5555 clearly stated > that the service cost $.95 per minute. Despite that notice, I (and I > assume others) knowingly used that service, firm in our technological > belief that our dialling "800" instead of "900" superceded the terms > stated to us. {USA Today}, having fulfilled its IP responsibility by > clearly stating the cost of the service, used its technological > prerogative to gather the ANI data on the 800 number in order to > recover that which was due them. > Having already claimed my credit, I stand by the "800 Protection" > viewpoint, but to me it doesn't seem that {USA Today} is entirely in > the wrong here. I don't care what their recording said. The local phone company phone book clearly states that 800 calls are completed "toll-free". I am not going to pay for calls to an 800 number. I am a little worried by the fact that the phone bill shows no evidence that the calls were 800. Who's to say that AT&T will believe me when I tell them I dialed 800. I don't have 900 blocking. Could anyone who successfully gets these calls removed please e-mail me the name of the rep with whom they spoke? Thanks, Ron (ronnie@eddie.mit.edu) ------------------------------ From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) Subject: Re: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made! Organization: Computing Center, North Carolina State University Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1991 15:48:59 GMT In article GREEN@WILMA.WHARTON. UPENN.EDU (Scott D. Green) writes: > ... She also offered > some interesting advice: 900 blocking should be requested for both > outgoing *and* incoming calls! I asked her what that was all about, > since I don't operate a 900 number. She told me that incoming > blocking would prevent an IP from converting a non-900 call to them > into a 900 charge on my bill. This I had never heard about. Is > anyone else familiar with this kind of sleazy operation? What? We've had some arguments about the 212-540 calls, which are moot because apparently you can't get charged for these from out of that area. But this seems to say that calling *any* telephone number can result in an (unlimited?) charge. Say it ain't so! henry schaffer n c state univ ------------------------------ From: Rob Boudrie Date: Thu, 19 Dec 91 10:19:50 EST Subject: USA Today Number - An Update on Billing Procedures Some time ago (Nov 9th to be exact), I dialed 1-800-555-5555 after being told that it was an interesting information number (and subsequently heard about the 800/900 mixup with this number). I did this from my home phone (which had 900 blocking in effect at the time) because of the telco representation that 800 numbers are "free calls", and was therefore quite surprised that the number answered USA Today Information, and acted like some sort of 900 number. I was even more surprised when my November-December telephone bill showed an itemized call to 900-555-5555 -- at a cost of $1.90 (2 minutes billed). I called AT&T. They offered to remove the charge from the bill, but told me that they could not understand the problem I was describing. I mentioned that it was a now famous programming error, but that I should not be charged in any case since (a) I called an 800 number, with the implicit representation that such calls are free, and (b) I am on record with New England Telephone as having requested (and recieved) 900 blocking on my home phone. I appreciate NE Tel's cooperation in removing the unauthorized charge, however, the victory was somewhat hollow since I got the impression they were doing it as a courtesy to me, not because they understood (or admitted to) the error. Has anyone else out there in net land had a similar experience? Was this billing part of the programming error, or has USA Today arranged for a creative way to bill for calls which they offered on a toll free number? If this is the case, did they offer these calls on an apparantly toll free number by "accident", or did they intend to dpo an ex post facto "conversion" of 800 calls to 900 calls after they built up volume? Could anyone from AT&T comment? Rob Boudrie rboudrie@encore.com ------------------------------ From: Ron Newman Organization: Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Inc. Subject: I Got Billed For "USA Today" 800 Calls, Too Date: Thu, 19 Dec 91 12:29:43 EST Yesterday, I received my New England Telephone bill for "November 11-December 10", and was surprised to find an AT&T page billing me $28.73 for four calls to "USA TODAY", 900-555-5555, on Oct 17, Oct 30, and Nov. 9 -- all earlier than the current billing period. Since I've never called this 900 number, but did call 800-555-5555 a few times, I called AT&T at 1-800-222-0300 to explain the situation. The operator who answered asked me for the page number of my bill, as well as the date and exact billing amount of each call. After putting me on hold for about 5 minutes, he came back and told me he was taking the charges off my bill. I don't think he really understood what I had said, however, since he asked me "is there anyone else in your household who might have called this 900 number?" I was especially surprised to hear him say, "You should call your local phone company and order 900 blocking, because none of these 900 numbers are legitimate." While I generally agree, it was odd to hear this from a representative of AT&T, the very company that sells this service to Uselessly Today. Ron Newman rnewman@bbn.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 16:47:50 EST From: mikel@aaahq05.aaa.com (Mikel Manitius) Subject: Last Laugh! 976 and 1-900 Charges: The Ultimate Solution Organization: American Automobile Association, Heathrow, FL For all those people who have commented on the problems of disciplining their children on the proper use of telephones, especially where toll calls are concerned, I have a suggestion for you: get a COCOT! ;^) Mikel Manitius mikel@aaa.com [Moderator's Note: Very funny ... but it sounds like a bit of an overkill if you ask me. Its sort of like using a nuclear bomb to get rid of the cockroaches in your home. And we are told that in the event of a world-wide nuclear war, in all probability the only species to survive *would* be the cockroaches. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1030 *******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25106; 21 Dec 91 3:29 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14269 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 21 Dec 1991 01:32:18 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12151 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 21 Dec 1991 01:32:04 -0600 Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1991 01:32:04 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199112210732.AA12151@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1031 TELECOM Digest Sat, 21 Dec 91 01:32:00 CST Volume 11 : Issue 1031 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson GTD-5 SS7/CLASS (was Caller ID for Dallas/Ft. Worth...) (Lauren Weinstein) Re: Silent Night (Syd Weinstein) Meter Reading via Phone Line (was Silent Night) (Andrew C. Green) Re: AT&T's Fancy Payphone in LAX: Complain to Whom? (Peter da Silva) Re: AT&T's Fancy Payphone in LAX: Complain to Whom? (Laird P. Broadfield) Area Code Splits and our Phone System (S. Spencer Sun) Re: Caller ID For Dallas/Ft. Worth Area (Dave Strieter) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 23:32:31 PST From: lauren@vortex.COM (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: GTD-5 SS7/CLASS (was Caller ID for Dallas/Ft. Worth...) Greetings. For the record, there are GTD-5 switches in Southern California that are already hooked in to SS7, and more are slated for SS7 hookup in the near future. CLASS features exist in test modalities (not for customer use) in certain GTD-5 switches in the area. Any deployment of such features beyond that will depend on pending regulatory decisions. It is apparently true, as far as I know, that ISDN is not currently planned for the GTD-5. However, to be frank, I don't consider this to be a significant loss. Increasing evidence suggests that ISDN structures, marketing, and pricing will be such that they may well only be usable by large firms (especially those with large Centrex requirements). I've seen absolutely no indication of telco interest in ISDN services or pricing oriented toward individuals or small businesses. Even the trade publications that used to constantly sing the praises of ISDN are now starting to run articles postulating that the current incarnation of ISDN might never really pan out in the sort of large scale manner originally anticipated, particularly in the face of competing technologies. Time will tell. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ From: syd@DSI.COM (Syd Weinstein) Subject: Re: Silent Night Reply-To: syd@DSI.COM Organization: Datacomp Systems, Inc. Huntingdon Valley, PA Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1991 18:09:18 GMT TELECOM Moderator responded to Jeff Sicherman: > [Moderator's Note: My understanding is this: As the meters are > otherwise replaced due to old-age and malfunctioning, etc. the new > meters have little boxes on them with terminals which tie into your > phone line. Actually as a homeowner in an area that just converted to them, I can tell you a lot more about it. (Our area did a mass conversion, not due to age.) The meter is replaced with a meter that can report its reading via contacts to a side box. The side box sits passively on the phone line. When the utility wants to poll the meter, they access a special number at the CO that lets them access maintenance mode. This mode places both a voltage and a tone on the line. This voltage + tone makes the box come on line and answer the tone. Then it bursts the meter reading back to the CO. The CO then forwards this to the utility. It takes three seconds total. Note that going off hook changes the impedence that drops the circuit out of test mode, and an incoming call terminates the test mode automatically in the CO. There is no phone bell tap (the voltage is too low) and there is no way of knowing how often they read the meter. The meter's box is connected via a normal RJ11 jack, so you can unplug it if you need to. The system works well, and here Bell charges the utility $.02/reading for usage of the service, which is a big savings for them. Enough so that they decided it was worthwhile for a massive switchover. 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: Thu, 19 Dec 1991 11:28:01 CST From: acg@HERMES.DLOGICS.COM Reply-To: acg@hermes.dlogics.com Subject: Meter Reading via Phone Line (was Re: Silent Night) sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes: > ...Illinois Bell is starting (as a pilot project, I guess) a > new service that will let utility companies read meters remotely > using the customer's telephone lines. > The meter is connected to the phone line through a special reading > unit that can be polled by the switching center without ringing > the customer's line. and our Moderator notes: > [Moderator's Note: My understanding is this: As the meters are > otherwise replaced due to old-age and malfunctioning, etc. the > new meters have little boxes on them with terminals which tie > into your phone line. All well and good, I suppose, but in real life usage, I suspect this will open up a whole new field of inter-company bickering and finger-pointing when something goes wrong. For example, Joe Sixpack receives a phone bill running to three figures and promptly suspects the mysterious box on his water meter of dialing Switzerland. Another customer has phone line problems and now can't decide whether to call the plumber ("The phone company messed up your meter connection; call them!") or the phone company ("Sorry, you didn't purchase our in-home line maintenance service!"). Does the phone company now have to learn plumbing in order to install the box, or should the plumber subscribe to TELECOM Digest? (Well, everybody should anyway, of course :-). Who would have to do the connection work when the meter's at the back of the house, and the phone line is at the front? What if the phone service is disconnected? All right, this is not an earth-shaking concern, but I suspect that we may be stumbling into a new area of homeowner headaches here if our telephone lines are called upon (no pun intended) to monitor the financial aspects of our daily lives. 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 [Moderator's Note: Like the 'Security Front Door / Lobby Intercom' system IBT offered before divestiture (which other companies now offer) whether or not the phone gets network connections at the CO (ie, the subscriber is 'connected') is of no consequence. Both the door opener/lobby intercom and the meter reading device merely require a pair to the common equipment in the CO. A bigger problem I see than you mentioned above -- largely in jest, I note! -- is the absolute need for dedicated pairs where the meter reading devices are concerned. What happens if in the process of cable repair or in finding a pair for a new subscriber (an arduous task in older inner city areas where pairs are sometimes in short supply) telco accidentally 'undedicates' your pair by forgetting to open it on the pole where it would (as a result) multiple in someone else's basement (and *their* meter reading device)? Then, whose meter gets read? Record keeping mistakes in cable and pair assignments in the CO are all too common. I guess the way you find out is when you get the electric bill for the factory and your neighbor gets yours! :( PAT] ------------------------------ From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (peter da silva) Subject: Re: AT&T's Fancy Payphone in LAX: Complain to Whom? Organization: Ferranti International Controls Corporation Date: Thu, 19 Dec 91 00:19:07 GMT In article , pedregal%unreal@cs.umass. edu writes: > A friend of mine recently called me from the Los Angeles airport. He > was using a credit card on an AT&T "computerized" payphone. [...] Ah yes, the AT&T "COCOT"s. I encountered these some time ago and we had a bit of a to-do about them. We all know about "you're not dealing with AT&T", but when they get a little monopoly like this franchise, dealing with AT&T takes us back to "We're the phone company, we don't have to care". Remember, a corporation is a corporation, come hell or high water. It's not really a person (despite the legal fiction) and has "neither an ass to be kicked nor a soul to be damned". There's no mind or morality involved, beyond fiscal responsibility to the shareholders. There are exceptions, when the corporate culture is socially responsible and they can afford to be generous, but (a) AT&T still "thinks" it's "The Phone Company", and (b) is having some hard times itself. Don't take this as an attack on capitalism or anything like that. I'm pretty free market myself. It's just a reminder that loyalty to a company is not likely to be rewarded, and warm feelings should be suspicious. If you want to complain, make sure that you get a few hundred of your friends to join in. That will be seen as a market reaction, and they'll respond. Peter da Silva Ferranti International Controls Corporation Sugar Land, TX 77487-5012; +1 713 274 5180 ------------------------------ From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) Subject: Re: AT&T's Fancy Payphone in LAX: Complain to Whom? Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1991 17:54:17 GMT In pedregal%unreal@cs.umass.edu writes: > I am disappointed. I've generally had very good service from AT&T, and > expected them to allow incoming calls to an airport's payphone. I'd > also like to get a meaningful intercept and visible labelling on the > phone (my friend can read, and saw no notice of this) when a payphone > does not allow incoming calls. Yes I am being picky, but I consider > that allowing incoming calls is part of the service they provide; and, > no, I don't agree with disabling incoming calls by default: please > don't give me the drug-dealers argument, it doesn't apply here. On the instruments (I assume we're talking about either the sits-on-a-desk kind with an LCD panel, or the CRT variety) is a trouble number. If you call it (as I recently did with the identical complaint) you will get a polite, but easily confused, representative, who will be totally confused by the entire concept of receiving a call at a public phone. After you complain for a while, he will make reassuring noises, and then after you hang up (ref. AT&T SOP #xyzzy) discard it (since it's not a LD network problem.) Perhaps a letter would be more productive, as AT&T has a policy (as recently mentioned by another contributor) of answering such. In egg@inuxy.att.com (Edwin G Green) writes: > In article Cristobal Pedregal Martin > writes: >> [AT&T operator] said that (against her expectations), " [the >> disconnected number] intercept is what they use there [as opposed, I >> guess, to what they do in the East Coast] when it is not wired for >> incoming calls ". > I understand your disappointment, but I would like to set the record > straight. AT&T does not make the decision about incoming service. > LAX is the agent that is in charge of the configuration of that phone. Hmmm. The AT&T rep I spoke with specifically said (I pursued this very carefully) that the instrument was not equipped to handle incoming calls. (I then went on to the stickering suggestion.) > I don't know about the intercept situation. However, since we design > and administer the card reader phones here, I will hand carry your > request for visible labeling to that group today. (I can't guarantee > they will agree, but I am on your side.) Vital. I was in the New Orleans Convention Center when this struck, confronted by a bank of these Vader-phones, and no other instruments. I.e. no way to receive calls. Had I at least known, I (and those who were trying to reach me) would have wasted a lot less time. Laird P. Broadfield UUCP: {ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb INET: lairdb@crash.cts.com ------------------------------ From: spencer@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (S. Spencer Sun) Subject: Area Code Splits and our Phone System Organization: Princeton Class of '94 Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1991 17:32:32 GMT The phone system here at P.U. is a Centrex (at least I suppose so, that's what everybody calls our phone book, "The Centrex" so it sounds plausible. I'm ignorant when it comes to phone systems) ... from what I've been able to figure out from reading the learned opinions expressed here, whether an area code can be dialed or not depends on whether the people responsible for maintaining our phone system have programmed the system to accept it. Assuming all that is reasonably accurate, can anyone come up with an explanation for the fact that 410 is now dialable, but 310 is *not*? The 310 split happened first, after all ... (I was still able to reach my 310 party at 213) Might there be a good reason or is it just laziness/ bureaucracy on the part of the administrators here? (Wouldn't surprise me.) S. Spencer Sun '94 - Princeton Univ. - spencer@phoenix.princeton.edu [Moderator's Note: It is the latter. And no matter what you say or who you complain to, nothing will be done about it since in their eyes you are only a mere user and couldn't possibly know what you are talking about. The only way I got a Rolm programmed to accept 708-518 a few years ago was by giving them 708-518-xxxx as the ONLY way to reach me. After a couple months of that, someone finally wised up. PAT] ------------------------------ From: strieterd@gtephx.UUCP (Dave Strieter) Subject: Re: Caller ID For Dallas/Ft Worth Area? Organization: AG Communication Systems, Phoenix, Arizona Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1991 18:31:37 GMT In article , jcs1@gte.com (James Sinclair) writes: > In article , fmsys!macy@usenet.INS. > CWRU.Edu (Macy Hallock) writes: >> Although the GTD-5 seems to be a servicable central office machine >> (it beats the AE No.1 EAX, for sure), its not a production item anymore. > I'm not sure how Macy defines production, but a new SVR of the > switching software is currently being rolled out, and I'm sure that > AGCS would be more than happy to sell you a new machine. Additions for existing central offices are currently being manufactured, although we have not manufactured a "new start" for awhile. I believe that "new starts" are still available for production should a telco want to order one. Several future software releases, to be deployed over the next few years, are currently being planned/designed/tested. I'm involved in the planning. >> I am not aware of CLASS services being offered on any GTD-5 machines >> anywhere. To the best of my knowledge, development on these has >> stopped as well. I know that ISDN has been scrapped on these, and I >> believe CLASS is not planned, either. That seems to mean Caller-ID in >> many GTE areas will be delayed ... perhaps until the GTD-5's are >> replaced many years from now. > CLASS is available on the GTD-5. I know for a fact that it is > provided in Lexington KY. Reasons it is not offered in particular > areas may be regulatory or economic, but they aren't technical. Right again. I have (somewhere) marketing brochures from a couple years ago pushing the CLASS features. We're running SVR 1641 here on our GTD-5 and my desk phone has CLASS. I think that this is the "new SVR" that James refers to. >> It would also seem to mean Signalling System No. 7 will not be used >> by the GTD-5, either. > The new SVR does support Signalling System No. 7. Actually, SS7 was available in the *previous* SVR ("163x") release and its point releases. I worked on the team that initially developed the Layer 3 stuff. This was completed in 1988. If the telcos aren't using it, that's up to them and the regulators. >> I'd appreciate any GTE or AG staffers on the net who know what the >> current status of GTD-5 service enhancements are ... offering either >> the official version or actual first hand information. > Hope this helps clear things up. Hope I've helped too. This is of course not the official version, but it is first-hand information where indicated. Dave Strieter, AG Communication Systems, POB 52179, Phoenix AZ 85072-2179 *** These are not my employer's opinions, and I have no intent to advise. *** UUCP:..!{ncar!noao!asuvax | uunet!samsung!romed!asuvax | att}!gtephx!strieterd Internet: gtephx!strieterd@asuvax.eas.asu.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1031 *******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25455; 21 Dec 91 3:39 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24513 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 21 Dec 1991 01:55:51 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04692 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 21 Dec 1991 01:55:40 -0600 Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1991 01:55:40 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199112210755.AA04692@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1032 TELECOM Digest Sat, 21 Dec 91 01:55:40 CST Volume 11 : Issue 1032 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Telephone Company Employees (John Higdon) Re: ISDN: Estimate of Arrival? (George Herson) Re: AT&T Exits Telegraph Business (Allen Pellnat) Re: AT&T Exits Telegraph Business (Nicholas J. Simicich) Re: Swedish Telecommunications Network (H. Peter Anvin) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 17 Dec 91 20:53 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Telephone Company Employees Steven H. Lichter writes: > If you ask what my plan to stem the loss is to demand to talk to a > real person everytime you call the telephone company and that includes > long distance. You will notice that in every department you get a > voice director. I find this to be very cold and in many cases not very > helpful. In the case of Pacific Bell, there are still customers who do not have to deal with all of the 'automated attendant' garbage. These are the "major accounts", who call '811-1500'. Occasionally, there is a wait on the ACD, but never does one have to go through a touch tone maze to transact telco business. My business and most of my clients are "major accounts". However, on those occasions when I must deal with the residence department (for my home) or the standard business office, a trick is used which has proven quite effective. Just select "0" at every prompt. Two or three "0"s later, you will either be speaking to a live person or will be comfortably waiting in an ACD queue. I refuse to cooperate with Pac*Bell's flagrant "cost reductions" that affect the way one must do business with the company. PB got the great give-away of 1989; it now wants more and more. When it attempts to increase its bottom line on the backs of laid-off employees, it also degrades the service to its customers. No, thank you. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: george@brooks.ICS.UCI.EDU Subject: Re: ISDN: Estimate of Arrival? Date: 18 Dec 91 14:53:40 GMT In article I wrote: > I'm presently investigating investment in a wireless cable company. > One of the drawbacks is I won't see any return on that investment for > five or six years (FCC takes onee year to process application, takes a > year to get a station on-line, and three or four to recoup costs). By > that time I wonder if ISDN will be a long way off, and of course > provide a superior conduit for video into the home. Anyone know, or > have an idea as to find out? Below are the replies sans sigs that may be useful to those contemplating a similar investment (if so, call the FCC for their info. packet on the subject) or are interested in ISDN. From: Joe Talbot ISDN won't carry video (like a cable system). I wouldn't be concerned about competition from the telcos. They have a delusion that "fiber to the home" will somehow supplant existing technology (hahaha). The economics don't support this view. The telcos WILL try to do it, the ratepayers WILL be forced to subsidize it, and over the air cable will provide better service at lower rates. There's a system on the air in riverside called Cross Country Wireless cable, they're making quite a splash since EVERYBODY hates their cable company, and quality and service are terrible. One thing, beware of "License Mills" that crank out these applications to speculators. Many of these are advertised on TV (scams in many cases). Good luck! From: hes@unity.ncsu.EDU henry schaffer n c state univ Using today's technology, basic rate ISDN basically can't carry video, and even primary rate ISDN can't carry entertainment quality video. So it doesn't look like a "conduit" let alone a "superior conduit" for video. Broadband ISDN has more possibilities. From: "Samuel W. Ho" ISDN is presently available (at least here in Illinois), but is not a suitable medium for video. The ISDN BRI provides 2B+D, where a B channel is 64Kb/s. For full-motion video, you really want DS3 speeds of 45Mb/s. There is a lot of interest in compression technologies for video. With luck, we may be able to squeeze video into a DS1 (1.5Mb/s) channel consistently soon. Video over a DS0 (64Kb/s) is probably impossible, except as slow-scan frame transmission, like a bunch of faxes sent at about 10 per minute. As to whether wireless cable is worthwhile, it's hard to say. The main competition to wireless cable is wired cable, not the telco. From: "George R. Cross" I don't have any answers on when Broadband ISDN will be here, but you should be aware that there are numerous fraud investigations pending against wireless cable investment schemes. As I understand it, individuals get to put in something like $5K or so into a consortium to get a franchise. But since these franchise or spectrum issues haven't really been issued by the FCC, the investment company sends you nothing now and promises to do som stuff later. An analogy is made in the pitch to the Cellular lottery which, if you were savvy, you could have made big bucks on. As I remember, this came out about September on the wire services, but I don't have an exact reference except may the Boston Globe. Try some service offering access to WSJ. From: Tom Streeter ISDN could well be a competitor, but the more immediate problem has to access to program material; established cable programmers don't generally sell to wireless cable operators because large cable operators usually have a pretty big equity stake them, and don't like to see the service sold to potential competitors. Of course, the particular operation you're interested in may not be in this position, but I thought I'd point it out just in case ... From: ms6b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Marvin Sirbu) "Wireless cable company" is another name for microwave multipoint distribution service. I wouldn't go anywhere an investment in such technology. It isn't the telcos that are a competitive threat, it is the CATV companies. 90% of households are currently passed by wired cable; about 60% of all households subscribe. Wireless cable generally offers fewer channels and if it is not competing head to head with an entrenched cable company, is in some rural area with few potential customers. Be sceptical of their subscriber projections. (Thanks also to a "voice response" from (??) relating the high possiblity of fraud.) [Moderator's Note: In the text I received, there was no name given for the voice caller ... I did not delete it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: agp@cci632.cci.com (Allen Pellnat) Subject: Re: AT&T Exits Telegraph Business Organization: Computer Consoles Incorporated Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1991 19:09:19 GMT I retired from AT&T at the end of 1989 after a little over 33 years of service. I started out in 1956 in Buffalo, N.Y. in what was then known as the "Long Lines" department of ATT as a tester on a telegraph service board. We handled all the private line and TWX service for the Buffalo area. I'm saddened to see the end of yet another era with the demise of telegraph service. I thought perhaps some of the readers of this group would be interested in some observations from someone who has been there. In '56 when I started, there were still two working private line telegraph circuits in Buffalo. By this I mean real telegraph, manual key and sounder. Both went to New York for brokerage houses. Both were kept in service to provide employment for their operators until they reached retirement. (Try to tell some of today's MBAs, that). Telegraph service of the key and sounder variety was used quite extensively for internal company use between testboards, especially on the evening and night shifts which were usually populated with OTs. As a young kid of 18, but with four years behind me as a ham radio operator, I was able to pick up the American Morse code (key and sounder variety) fairly easy although it wasn't required of me. Several of the OTs that I worked with then had been professional telegraphers at one time. To the best of my knowledge, internal telegraph order wires were still in active use right up through the mid '60s, especially for communicating "ques" for television and radio network program switches. When I left Buffalo in 1966, the last remaining OT telegrapher there still had a sounder mounted in the false ceiling over his desk and he used to listen to stock quotes from somewhere on it. The background info at the end of the article is accurate up to a point. It describes telegraph service as it was provided more recently. The conversion to analog wasn't really necessary except to multiplex many signals onto a single four wire voice circuit. The earliest multiplex systems that I recall working on, model 40A, provided six telegraph grade channels on one voice circuit. The last version, model 43A&B provided 18 telegraph channels at speeds up to 100 WPM on a single four wire voice circuit. The multiplexed analog systems were used between cities and to large concentrations on a customer's premises. Customers who were too far out from the STC to be served by a regular series loop might be served by repeatered Polar DC telegraph signalling in a variety of forms. It was really slow speed digital transmission. I also think the dates given for speeds of teletype services are probably Bell Labs dates rather than general usage dates. To the best of my recall, the Model 28 Teletype machine was the first commercial machine I ever worked with that would handle 100 WPM. My guess is that that would have been somewhere in the late '50s or early 60's. We thought 100 WPM was really flying! Today we get annoyed at 1200 b/s screen paint speeds as too slow. (I think 100 WPM in 5 level baudot start/stop works out to about 75 b/s). Not mentioned in the press release or background info was some of the more sophisticated switching and selection systems employed on those teletype networks. The Railroads, Federal Reserve Bank, Airlines and most of the fortune 500 had private line teletype networks that were the precursors of todays SNA networks. They employed multi-drop, full duplex circuits with a "Host" polling each station for traffic to be picked up or selectively activating one or more stations to receive a message. The first American Airlines SABRE network was one of these. Today, SABRE sits in every travel agent's office. Two real big circuits are forever etched in my memory. The Dow Jones stock quote wire was TT 148. It originated out of New York and had at least a half dozen or more drops in every city in the country. The other was TT 8001, the CAA (predecessor of today's FAA) weather circuit. It originated out of Washington, I think, and went to every major airport in the country. The various press bureaus, AP, UPI, etc. also had enormous networks of private line teletype services. Well so, much for the trip down memory lane. I'd be curious of any of the readers of this group are former brass pounders like myself. I'm not all THAT old, yet my experience has gone from manual morse telegraph to multi-megabit digital services on satellites. Morse patented his telegraph more than a hundred years before I ever listened to a sounder and in only 35 years since that time we have global communications at the touch of a finger. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Dec 91 10:43:19 EST From: "Nicholas J. Simicich" Subject: Re: AT&T Exits Telegraph Business Reply-To: Nick Simicich I happened to be at a travel agent office last night, and this agent is a Western Union agent. A woman came in to send a telegram. She wanted to send Anniversary greetings to their daughter and son-in-law in Vermont. The travel agent called an 800 number to talk to Western Union, gave the information, and then she told the travel agent the message, and he repeated it to the W/U agent over the phone. The W/U agent looked up the address and told the travel agent to tell her that there would be no delivery available, but that they would call Vermont and deliver the message, and send a mail copy to the hotel. For about a 25 or so word message, which would be delivered by phone, after having a chance to be garbled three times, the cost was $14.90. To me, this really drove home how obsolete this service is in the modern day. I think that the only remaining service is wiring money, and AmEX or your local bank can probably do that more effectively. Nick Simicich (NJS at WATSON, njs@watson.ibm.com) -SSI AOWI #3958, HSA #318 ------------------------------ From: hpa@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (H. Peter Anvin N9ITP) Subject: Re: Swedish Telecommunications Network Reply-To: hpa@nwu.edu Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1991 16:46:06 GMT In article of comp.dcom.telecom, philippa@picasso.cssc-syd.tansu.oz.au (Philippa Morrissey) writes: > I'm looking for some information on the telecommunications network in > Sweden - such as: > What numbering system is used? Phone numbers in Sweden are in one of these patterns: 08-XXX XX XX 08-XX XX XX 0XX-XX XX XX 0XX-XXX XX 0XXX-XXX XX ... where the number before the dash is the area code and the number after is the subscriber code. The dash used (until the 70s) mean "wait for new dialtone", but that is now obsolete. Subscriber numbers begin with any number 1-8. The area code begins with 01-09. The zero is not dialled when calling from abroad. The following special codes are also used: 000 = Operator 009 = Foreign, dial: 009 + country code area code + subscriber. 00XX = Special functions (foreign operator and the like) 90 000 = SOS emergency number 90 XXX = Televerket (Telecom authority) 010- = NMT cellular phones (area code w/6-digit numbers) Caller pays for all charges, including airtime. 020- = Toll free numbers (area code w/6-digit numbers) 071- = Par-per-call numbers (area code w/6-digit numbers) 07975 = Information This used to be 90 140 until Televerked decided they wanted to charge per *second* for Information. 07975 is completely inconsistent with the numbering plan and in effect takes up an area code (0797) by itself. > What does the network look like? As far as I have understood it (I am sure someone at ericsson.se is going to jump on me for this) there is a digital fiber backbone going fairly straight through the country. All fairly major cities are serviced from Ericsson AXE electronic exchanges, while some rural areas still have old electromechanical switches. I would presume they have nothing with the backbone to do, though. The last electromechanical switch is to be retired in 2010. Televerket recently abolished subscribtion fees for most extended AXE services (similar to U.S. CLASS services); they are now provided automatically under the name PLUS. Some invoke charges upon usage, while others like 3-way calling apparently is offered free hoping that people will use their phones more. (There is no untimed local calling.) Televerket also provides various data services, as well as the transmitter network for Sveriges Radio and Sveriges Television. (The latter is microwave linked) Sweden shares a mobile phone network, NMT, with the other Nordic countries (Norway, Denmark, Finland and Iceland). The system, which uses one band at 450 MHz (NMT 450) with wide coverage and one band at 900 MHz (NMT 900) with higher capacity, is quite popular; it is sometimes used as the only phone for a remote second home to avoid expensive wiring costs. > Is CLID available at all points in If you mean customer Caller ID like in the U.S. I can only say: I haven't heard of it at all. In Sweden you only get an itemized bill if you ask for it in advance, otherwise it is just based on meter pulses. I would presume 020- customers can get ANI, but it is not certain. If you call a pager number, you have to dial your own phone number excluding area code; apparently the machine can ANI your area code but not your number. > The population in Sweden is similar to that in Australia. It would be > interesting to see how their network is setup. > Hope someone can help me. I hope this has been of some help to you. hpa INTERNET: hpa@nwu.edu TALK: 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: /BAD=FATAL_ERROR/ERR=LINE_OVERFLOW ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1032 *******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13942; 21 Dec 91 17:32 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31778 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 21 Dec 1991 15:45:19 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25090 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 21 Dec 1991 15:45:08 -0600 Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1991 15:45:08 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199112212145.AA25090@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1033 TELECOM Digest Sat, 21 Dec 91 15:45:02 CST Volume 11 : Issue 1033 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Wire vs. Fiber Expense (Adam Ashby) Re: T1 on Fiber? (David G. Lewis) Re: Tone Frequencies Used For Coin Deposits (Maxime Taksar) Re: Sprint Calling Cards and the 'Bong' Tone (Garrett Wollman) Re: Are Phone Books Archived For Future Generations? (Will Martin) Re: Illinois Bell Figures Out How to Charge Per Call (Ken A. Irwin) Re: Merry Christmas From Cellular One/Chicago (Wilson Mohr) Re: Sprint Calling Card and "Bong" Tone (Scott Reuben) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: motcid!zeus.swindon.SUBDOMAIN!ashbya@uunet.uu.net (Adam Ashby) Subject: Re: Wire vs. Fiber Expense Organization: Motorola Ltd., PEDC, Swindon, U.K. Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1991 04:48:25 GMT This is from an article in the British {Electronis Times} December 12th 1991. I will summarize it, as I can't be bothered to type the whole thing in!! "The Deutsche Bundespost Telekom announced a plan to connect 1.2 million homes in the former east Germany to a fibre optic network by 1995. This is the first time fibre has been used in the local loop for real. Until now, it has only ben on trial in different locations. One example is British Telecom's trial at Bishop's Stortford. No doubt suppliers will be keen to get the contract. It will be the first oppurtunity to acheive economies of scale for fibre in the local loop. But there is a catch. The Bundespost is demanding that the fibre should cost about the same as copper cable. this could well be a quest that turns out to be an impossible dream." It goes on to say that using fibre for the final drop from the kerb to the house is estimated to cost three times as much as copper and the companies are bound to make a loss, but one which they are willing to make as the long term benefits that will arise from proving that this sort of installation is feasible will be well worth it in the long run. I will fax this to anyone who is willing to scan it and post the whole article, I am not willing (or able) to 'two-finger' type it in myself. Adam Ashby +44 793 545372 ashbya@zeus.swindon.rtsg.mot.com ------------------------------ From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) Subject: Re: T1 on Fiber? Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1991 20:03:50 GMT In article grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray) writes: > In article S_ZIEGLER@iravcl.ira.uka.de > writes: >> ...because fiber is very EXPENSIVE. > Fibre is not EXPENSIVE. > Fibre is CHEAP - to repeat - FIBRE IS CHEAP. As Marvin Sirbu posted earlier, per-meter material costs for fiber are somewhat higher than per-meter material costs for copper. Yes, fiber has more bandwidth -- but if you're putting one T1 on a two-fiber cable versus one T1 on a four-pair cable, you've got to compare the cost of those two cables. I doubt that a two-fiber cable costs less than a piece of quad. (If you can even get two-fiber cable -- I don't know if anyone makes smaller than 12-fiber for outside plant use, or for that matter if anyone makes quad for outside plant use...) In addition, again as Marvin stated, installation costs are somewhat higher for fiber because splicing fiber is more difficult and time-consuming and requires more expensive equipment than splicing copper. >> So, is this true? Do they install some type of 'NETWORK TERMINATOR' at >> the customers premises, or how do they handle this? > They install a fibre transceiver at the customer premises in the same > way that they would have installed a transciever for copper cable. > The only real difference is that the fibre transceiver is CHEAPER than > the copper transceiver If the telco installs a DS1 on a copper loop, the termination is an RJ-48 jack or something similar. If the telco installs a DS1 on a fiber pair, the transceiver is an (AT&T) FT-1 fiber modem, (ADC) Fiber Loop Converter, or something similar. FT-1s run a couple of thousand dollars; RJ-48 jacks run about a buck ninety-five ... Even if you add the cost to the customer of the CSU, you're still talking hundreds versus thousands. While it is true that a single pair of fibers can carry much more traffic than four copper wires, and that if this capacity is fully used the cost per unit bandwidth is far lower, installing a single DS1 over copper will in most cases be significantly less expensive than installing the same DS1 over fiber. Especially for LECs, where the copper plant is in place and can be used for individual DS1s, saving the installed or new fiber plant for higher capacity service. David G Lewis AT&T Bell Laboratories david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!houxa!deej ISDN Evolution Planning ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Dec 91 03:34:12 -0800 From: mmt@latour.berkeley.edu (Maxime Taksar) Subject: Re: Tone Frequencies Used For Coin Deposits In article , kiser@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil writes: > 10 or 15 years ago, back in my younger, wilder college days, we could > never seem to get a "box" (if you have to ask, you don't need to > know!) to work on a pay phone for local calls. Is there some technical > We guessed then that (a) there was some additional DC or even in-band > signalling present on initial coin deposit, or (b) there were secret Actually, (a) is the right guess. Reversed DC voltage is used to test for the presence of an actual coin. The box to which you refer, a "red box", will be useful only once the phone actually admits it has a real coin in it. For local calls, the phone won't admit this below 20/25 cents, so the red box is useless. For long distance calls, I believe it will admit having a coin at a nickel. > Have things changed with the introduction of electronic switches, or > would a phreaker still find it impossible to make a local call by > less-than-honest methods? Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that the ACTS (Automated Coin Telephone System) still works the same way as it ever did, so it is still impossible to make a free local call using a "red box". Maxime Taksar KC6ZPS mmt@Berkeley.EDU ------------------------------ From: wollman@uvm-gen.uvm.edu (Garrett Wollman) Subject: Re: Sprint Calling Cards and the 'Bong' Tone Organization: University of Vermont, EMBA Computer Facility Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1991 13:53:13 GMT PAT writes: > The only situation where calling card calls via zero plus (or 10xxx > + zero +) can be placed without intervention is when using the (old) > AT&T card, and that is mainly because until recently AT&T and the > local telco used the same card number. New AT&T card, too, at least here in New England Telephone land. (BTW, where the area code was in the old system, my new AT&T card has 838...) GAWollman The opinions given above are provided under a non-exclusive license agreement to the University of Vermont, EMBA Computer Facility, which will probably ignore them. Garrett Wollman - wollman@UVM.EDU - uvm-gen!wollman ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Dec 91 8:54:35 CST From: Will Martin Subject: Re: Are Phone Books Archived For Future Generations? > [Moderator's Note: The Chicago Public Library has the alphabetical > directories of Illinois Bell (and its pre-1923 predecessor Chicago > Telephone Company) on microfilm back to 1879. I think IBT also has > quite a few old directories on microfilm also. Most large metropolitan > area libraries keep the old directories on film. PAT] I have looked at '50s-era paper phone books at the St. Louis Public Library, and I just called them to check on their holdings -- they have PAPER directories all the way back to the beginning of St. Louis phone books, but none on film. Unfortunately, their collection is not totally complete -- some of the years are missing. But the lady did use "1913" as an example year. They also have the Polk city directories both in paper and on microfiche up until they stopped publishing in 1980. (Since these have been mentioned from time to time in Telecom, I asked her if she knew why Polk ceased publication in 1980. She didn't know, but guessed that it was because "just about everybody was in the phone book by that time". That seems incorrect to me; I believe that non-pub numbers were always around, and probably began to actually increase in the '70s or so, which would make the Polk directories (which included non-pub numbers, and also provided criss-cross numeric and address listings) even more useful. I suspect they ceased publishing paper directories and instead went to offerring an on-line service.) Regards, Will wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil OR wmartin@st-louis-emh2.army.mil PS to Pat's comment on nobody trying to read all of Telecom: I do. I print out the Digests and take them home and catch up on reading them as I can. I'm usually a day or two behind. I had been saving the printouts to mail to a friend of mine, but a combination of the rapid increase in volume of Telecom, plus our office's move out of a building with a post office in it, has made it impractical for me to mail these paper copies any longer. I still have them saved and now sitting in boxes in my garage -- if anyone in the St. Louis area wants to come by my house and pick them up, they can have them (the past two years' worth, roughly); they can send me e-mail and we'll work out a time. They're laser print copies in good shape on regular bond paper. WM [Moderator's Note: Bless you! I didn't know there was anyone in the world who cared enough about TELECOM Digest to keep a garage full of them. I am inspired to try even harder with this journal in 1992. PAT] ------------------------------ From: motcid!irwin@uunet.uu.net (Ken A. Irwin) Subject: Re: Illinois Bell Figures Out How to Charge Per Call Date: 18 Dec 91 20:38:34 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL In article , mgreeny@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (David S. Greenberg) writes: > Great, take a useful service which doesn't cost them a damn thing and > charge for it -- just like Touch-Tone (TM). I could see charging for > TT during the days of it's introduction when switches probably > required some expensive box to decode the tones, but now that the > switches have all that built-in, ya still have to pay 0.75 per month > for the privilege of making use of touch-tone ... Personally I never thought residential CID was/is a very useful feature, and I have no problem with people paying out the nose for a service whose only unique feature amounts to revenge or apathy. The CLASS features do everything thats the least bit useful without knowing the number and without the silly box. > As for billing for the first 300 numbers, and then two cents for each > additional number, is there any way to tell the box that you don't > want to see that number? Say for instance, that you're only > interested in the number of the caller who keeps wanting to chat at > 3AM ... I think that this is just another IBT scam to rip off everyone > who makes use of their phones (pizza places, homes with teenagers > ...). How many phone calls do you get in a month? I know I get a > lot, and sure don't think I ought to be billed on a monthly basis for > what is basically a peephole ... Just out of curiosity why do you need to know the number of the early morning caller, if you can auto callback, or block last originating, or call IBT for a trace last originating? CLASS allows all of these features on a bill 'em as you use 'em basis. Now I for one answer my calls from the phone closest to the room I'm in, so in addition to the monthly charge I've got to buy several display boxes, or run to the room with the box. This is not a cheap or conveniant feature, and in all honesty I don't memorize the numbers of people I can't be bothered with, if they called often enough for me to remember their numbers they would be on my permenently blocked list, and I don't need CID to do that, nor do I even need to know their number. > I also wonder how the CID system is going to be set up ... will one be > able to subscribe to CID so one can tell who's calling, but also be > able to have "per call blocking" so that one's number won't show up if > one doesn't want it to? Also, will it be possible to have your phone > set up so that it will reject ALL blocked CID calls (i.e. BE-DE-BEEP > ... 'At the request of the customer, blocked calls from annoying > telemarketers are refused. Release blocking if you wish to contact > this customer.' One side says allow blocking, the other counters with automatic denial of blocked numbers, next IBT will offer a display if rejected feature to charge you for, I just can't believe people have bit on this feature to begin with. The analogy that CID is a peep hole for your phone is ludicrous, since I have never walked around a car dealer with my name, address, and credit history taped to my chest, though CID will no doubt give them this in the near future if I call them. CID for businesses is more of an electronic application than a peep hole. > I for one would like to see the CID provided free of charge to > residences, and perhaps have a nominal charge for businesses (like > $6.50 per month - FLAT RATE -- forget the sliding scales.) Businesses could profit big from CID, free market research, and a no work customer directory, why should businesses not pay heavy for this service, many would pay hundreds or thousands a month for this service, why shouldn't you as a residential customer enjoy a rate increase free period as businesses pay for network upgrades with steep CID bills. In answer to the second part, the BOCs pay for these features, why would they give them to you? Either you pay to use them or we all pay for you to use them. I don't want to pay your bills. I just wish people would look at the big picture as to what CID is, and not look at it as a nifty gadget, you give away a hell of a lot for what you get. Ken A. Irwin irwin@motcid.rtsg.mot.com ...!uunet!motcid!irwin ...!att!ihplt!kai Motorola RTSG, Arlington Heights, IL 60004 (708) 632-5528 [Moderator's Note: IBT allows reception of Caller-ID to be turned on or off as desired using *65/*85. And blocking is *67, of course. PAT] ------------------------------ From: motcid!mohr@uunet.uu.net (Wilson Mohr) Subject: Re: Merry Christmas From Cellular One/Chicago Date: 18 Dec 91 18:47:43 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL In article , DREUBEN@EAGLE.WESLEYAN.EDU (Douglas Scott Reuben) writes: > One problem: Cell One/SJ has three coverage areas, none of which are > very large. (New Brunswick - SID 00173, Trenton - SID 00575, > Flemington/Hunterdon County - SID 01487). > You only get the free weekend airtime in your HOME system ... There is a difference between a "coverage area" and your HOME system. A system may include many coverage areas. As an additional twist, coverage areas can be comprised of different systems! You should contact the sales dweebs and listen to their pitch *very carefully* if you are at all interested. As I recall, Cell One /SJ is the areas you mentioned plus the Long Branch MSA. Whether or not they consider them one system is all decided in their business office. Wilson Mohr - Motorola CIG ...!uunet!motcid!mohr ------------------------------ Date: 18-DEC-1991 15:33:31.87 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Re: Sprint Calling Card and "Bong" Tone You CAN get a "Bong" from the Sprint Calling card system designed to use BOC/"Old" AT&T Cards. You just have to be at a phone (or only a payphone?) which is presubscribed to Sprint. There are plenty of payphones that I've been at which 0+ out of LATA number calls are handled by Sprint, and you get the full "US Sprint " message. Frequently, it rings for a second before the message comes on, and takes a good deal longer than the AT&T Calling Card equipment to come on line. (Their system is pathetic anyhow -- the "Bong" is frequently screwed up, and their Touch Tone decoding can use some work. All Wesleyan-owned payphones use Sprint for out-of-Connecticut calls, since Wesleyan gets a cut from the profits, and we get the all the time, although most know to dial 10288 for AT&T by now.) I have noticed that 10333 from non-Sprint 1+/0+ phones (regardless of how they are labled) will result in an operator, and not a tone. BTW, Pac*Bell and NETel have sent mail about new AT&T cards (although I have received nothing from AT&T), SNET hasn't said anything about AT&T cards being changed, yet there are only 14 days or so until my "old" AT&T cards will presumably be invalid! Doug drereuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1033 *******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10062; 22 Dec 91 13:44 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19268 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 22 Dec 1991 11:59:29 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12055 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 22 Dec 1991 11:59:18 -0600 Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1991 11:59:18 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199112221759.AA12055@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1034 TELECOM Digest Sun, 22 Dec 91 11:59:15 CST Volume 11 : Issue 1034 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Sales Tax on Interstate LD Calls (Linc Madison) Re: Sales Tax on Interstate LD Calls (Steve Forrette) Re: Sales Tax on Interstate LD Calls (Dennis G. Rears) Re: How Much Does Distinctive Ringing Cost YOU? (Steve Forrette) Re: How Much Does Distinctive Ringing Cost YOU? (John Higdon) Re: MOST Interesting Telco Recording! (Kenton A. Hoover) Re: MOST Interesting Telco Recording! (Michael F Eastman) Re: ECPA Invoked by Virgina Governor (Harold G. Peach, Jr.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 21 Dec 91 01:49:19 PST From: linc@tongue1.Berkeley.EDU (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Sales Tax on Interstate LD Calls Organization: University of California, Berkeley drears@pilot.njin.net (Dennis G. Rears): > I just got my NJ Bell phone bill. There were a lot charges to AT&T > that I placed in Florida last month. I was shocked that I was > charged Floridia sales tax for calls placed in Florida to out of > state locations. I believe that is unconstitional (interference with > interstate commerce). This post is not about constitionality issues > but more about pragmatic issues. You are absolutely correct that it is blatantly unconstitutional, except for one minor problem: the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled otherwise, back in 1987. I checked on this because the City of Berkeley charges me its utility tax for my interstate calls, including calls I place from Oregon to Kentucky, if they are billed to a Berkeley address. An interesting case I haven't tested is what Berkeley would do with an intrastate call I place outside California -- e.g., Texas to Texas. Would I pay Texas taxes, Berkeley taxes, or both? (By the way, the state of California does NOT tax interstate calls, but it allows cities to do so.) What I'm waiting for next is for Berkeley to charge me city sales tax on all purchases billed to my Visa/MasterCard if it's billed to a Berkeley address. As for the pragmatic issues of withholding the tax, I don't know anything different from what PAT said in his Moderator's Note. Linc Madison == linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu The foregoing is neither legal advice nor official U.C. anything. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Dec 91 10:07:20 pst From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Sales Tax on Interstate LD Calls Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA In article Dennis writes: > I just got my NJ Bell phone bill. There were a lot charges to AT&T > that I placed in Florida last month. I was shocked that I was charged > Florida sales tax for calls placed in Florida to out of state > locations. I believe that is unconstitional (interference with > interstate commerce). This post is not about constitionality issues > but more about pragmatic issues. I had a similar reaction about a year ago when I noticed that my Sprint bill (mostly inter-state) had not only the state tax but the City of Berkeley tax, which was six or seven percent. On a $300 bill, this was quite noticable. So I gave Sprint a call, and of course the customer service department knew nothing about taxes or the rules thereof, but knew that "the computer" was probably correct. So, I called the City of Berkeley, and spoke with an aide to the city council. She was quite helpful, and researched the issue for me. She found the records where in the previous year the city council had enacted the tax based on a US Supreme Court ruling, which said that state and local governments could tax interstate long distance. She even sent me a photocopy of the newspaper clipping which announced the Supreme Court ruling, so I know it was not just made up. So, my guess is that you are out of luck on this one. That is, unless you wish to propose that the next amendment address interstate long distance! Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Dec 91 13:17:50 EST From: "Dennis G. Rears " Subject: Re: Sales Tax on Interstate LD Calls >> I just got my NJ Bell phone bill. There were a lot charges to AT&T >> that I placed in Florida last month. I was shocked that I was charged >> Floridia sales tax for calls placed in Florida to out of state >> locations. I believe that is unconstitional (interference with >> interstate commerce). This post is not about constitionality issues >> but more about pragmatic issues. > I had a similar reaction about a year ago when I noticed that my > Sprint bill (mostly inter-state) had not only the state tax but the > City of Berkeley tax, which was six seven percent. On a $300 bill, > this was quite noticable. So I gave Sprint a call, and of course > the customer service department knew nothing about taxes or the > rules thereof, but knew that "the computer" was probably correct. > So, I called the City of Berkeley, and spoke with an aide to the city > council. She was quite helpful, and researched the issue for me. > She found the records where in the previous year the city council had > enacted the tax based on a US Supreme Court ruling, which said that > state and local governments could tax interstate long distance. She > even sent me a photocopy of the newspaper clipping which announced > the Supreme Court ruling, so I know it was not just made up. So, my > guess is that you are out of luck on this one. That is, unless you > wish to propose that the next amendment address interstate long > distance! Actually, I wasn't fighting the legality of the tax but the collecting of the tax. I live in NJ and I was in Florida when I made those calls. My LD carrier is sprint but these were billed on AT&T. AT&T is the collection agent for Florida and NJ Bell is the collection agent for AT&T. The following are good questions: 1) If I refuse to pay the tax, can NJ Bell shut off my service? I say no but it is not a NJ Bell service that was provided to me. 2) If I don't pay the tax can AT&T do something to me? 3) If I don't pay it who loses AT&T or Florida? Dennis [Moderator's Note: Telco (*any* telco) cannot shut off service for failure to pay tax. Telco simply reports to the taxing authority that you have refused to pay. It is up to the taxing authority what they wish to do about it, if anything. The state levying the tax is the one which 'loses' since they do not get paid unless they choose to prosecute you to force payment. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Dec 91 01:05:31 pst From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: How Much Does Distinctive Ringing Cost YOU? Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA In article Steve Vance writes: > I called up to see about getting this "Distinctive Ringing" Custom > Calling Feature on my home phone. > The charge for me to get this in my service area is as follows: > installation per-month > New Phone number $34.75 $8.35 > "Commstar II" 15.00 8.20 > Distinctive Ringing option 4.00 5.00 > Total: 53.75 21.55 > My questions to the Net are: is this the typical charge for this > service? If you have it, how much do you pay? The reason this sounds so expensive is that you've been sold a bill of goods! What you were quoted was for a second number, ON A SECOND PAIR, with both of the lines in a mini-centrex group (that's what Commstar II is). "Distinctive Ringing" only provides differentiation between calls originated from within (regular ring) vs. outside (2 rings) the Centrex group. Pacific Bell does not currently offer any service which provides more than one directory number over a POTS line (okay, I'm ignoring Custom 800!). The problem is that what the rest of the country calls "Distinctive Ringing" is used by Pacific Bell to describe its Centrex feature. Every Pacfic Bell rep I've delt with on this issue is confused: None of them have ever heard of this "strange feature" that other parts of the country have that assign more than one Directory Number to the same line. In fact, most of them ask me what a Directory Number is! Then, they look up in their reference materials under "Distinctive Ringing" and lo and behold, there it is! But of course it's their Commstar II (i.e. Centrex) feature. It will indeed cause your phone to ring in two different ways, but in a manner completely unrelated to what you want. The sad thing is that the rep was probably so poorly trained that he/she didn't even know how foolish the quote was. So the bottom line is `Just Say No' to this feature, and ask them why California has to be so far behind the game when in comes to providing new custom calling features. When they tell you that they don't have the equipment to provide this, challenge them with the fact that their 1AESS, 5ESS, and DMS-100 switches are no different than the ones in the rest of the country that have been providing others with this and other features for years. Remind them that this is not a CLASS feature and does not require SS7. When they tell you that yes, it is because they haven't purchased the software for these features, ask them where they were able to get the money to invest in the Message Center, an unregulated "arms length" enterprise, which would lose money on every customer even if there were zero costs other than buying the busy and no-answer transfer custom calling features for subscribers' lines, or were able to buy Cable TV franchises in other parts of the country, or any of a whole bunch of other unregulated boondoggles. "Any Questions?" Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Dec 91 02:22 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: How Much Does Distinctive Ringing Cost YOU? well!stv@well.sf.ca.us (Steve Vance) writes: > This seemed pretty descriptive, and is how "Distinctive Ringing" works > as far as I know. > The charge for me to get this in my service area is as follows: > installation per-month > New Phone number $34.75 $8.35 > "Commstar II" 15.00 8.20 > Distinctive Ringing option 4.00 5.00 > Total: 53.75 21.55 You are being completely had. Pacific Bell does not offer the feature you are seeking. "Distinctive Ringing" in Pac*Bell territory means "differentiating between calls coming from inside versus outside the Commstar (mini-Centrex group)". You are being sold another line ($34.75 to install, $8.35/month for flat-rate residential) with CommstarII (mini-Centrex) and the distinctive ringing option which will ring normally for any call coming from another phone in the Commstar group and with a "European" ring for calls coming from anywhere else. Since you will not apparently have any other lines in the Commstar group, this is somewhat useless. Unless, of course, you are planning to add your original line to the group ($15 install, $8.20/month for that line as well). In essence, you will end up with two lines. With Commstar you will be able to answer calls coming in on one line from the other line, but I am positive that this is not what you had in mind. > If you don't mind typing in the description of this service from the > front of your white pages, the Pacific Bell Customer Service person I > talked to is interested in what this service looks like and costs in > other parts of the country, and I promised I would post this and mail > the responses to her. You are dealing with a clueless rep. The problem arises from the term, "distinctive ringing" which means one thing in Pac*Bell territory and another thing almost everywhere else. > [Moderator's Note: Here in Chicago there is no 'installation charge' > for the distinctive ringing numbers. We pay $4.95 per month for the > first number (gives a short double ring) and $3.95 for the second > number if one is desired (gives a short then long ring). Distinctive > ringing lines can be programmed at the CO to either observe any call- > forwarding instructions which are on the main number or to ignore > call-forwarding of the main line and simply 'ring through'. They also > have their own distinctive call-waiting tones, different from the tone > given when the main line gets a call-waiting. PAT] Yes, but what will happen to the hapless poster is that PB will show up to install another physical line and then add all the mini-Centrex stuff (that unless added to the original line as well will be completely useless to him). Again "Distinctive Ringing" as known by most of the country is NOT available from Pacific Bell, regardless of what ANY rep may tell you. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: shibumi@turbo.bio.net (Kenton A. Hoover) Subject: Re: MOST Interesting Telco Recording! Date: 19 Dec 91 17:01:28 GMT Reply-To: shibumi@turbo.bio.net Organization: GenBank Computing Resource for Mol. Biology wmartin@STL-06SIMA.ARMY.MIL (Will Martin) writes: > What I'm wondering is if the telco would create such a specialized > recording and be as helpful for an ordinary citizen, or even an > ordinary business. [...] > Does current technology make such customized recordings easy to > implement and maintain, or is this a major pain for the telco to do? The voice recorders used in 'intercept' recordings are pretty expensive. The grade of device used by telcos has an entry cost of about $15K (before the fittings for running off the CO battery), and you add about $5K per recording on each 'intercept' box. If you want extra things like ANI, the cost goes way up. An interesting source of information on devices like these is the Graybar Telecommunications Products catalog. Just about everything you need to start your own RBOC is in there -- except for the switches themselves (they do sell PBXs and key systems for businesses thru this catalog though). Kenton A. Hoover | shibumi@genbank.bio.net | GenBank/IntelliGenetics, Inc. 415 962 7300 | | ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Dec 91 13:29:41 EST From: mfe@ihlpy.att.com (Michael F Eastman) Subject: Re: MOST Interesting Telco Recording! Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article , wmartin@STL-06SIMA.ARMY. MIL (Will Martin) writes: > Does current technology make such customized recordings easy to > implement and maintain, or is this a major pain for the telco to do? > Can we expect this sort of thing to become more common, or will it > always be a rare exception? Are other Telecom readers aware of such > recordings in their areas? Does this signal the end of the generic > "intercept" recording? The technology to provide "customized" announcements does indeed make it much easier to implement and maintain. However, these announcements, as far as I know, are paid for by the subscriber as a special service (may be businesses only?). I don't think they are cheap either. Mike Eastman att!ihlpy!mfe (708) 979-6569 AT&T Bell Laboratories Rm. 4F-328 Naperville, IL 60566 ------------------------------ From: andreap@ms.uky.edu (Peach) Subject: Re: ECPA Invoked by Virgina Governor Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1991 20:23:31 GMT Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences bote@access.digex.com (John Boteler) writes: > The {Washington Post} Thursday, 12 December 1991 ran an article in the > Metro section about the sentencing of Robert Dunnington for taping a > cellular telephone conversation made by then-candidate for Virginia > governor Doug Wilder to a real estate developer. The tape eventually [Stuff Deleted for Space] > Apparently, the ECPA was invoked in this case, although the article > leaves one with the impression that it was the political personalities According to a similar thread running under rec.radio.shortwave, Mr. Dunnington was convicted of violating provisions of the Communications Act not the EPCA. Evidently the prosecutor felt there were some constitutional issues in the EPCA he did not wish to tackle. Harold G. Peach, Jr. N4FLZ ><> (606)257-3335 hgpeach@ca.uky.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1034 *******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11657; 22 Dec 91 15:11 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08988 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 22 Dec 1991 13:21:45 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13140 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 22 Dec 1991 13:21:29 -0600 Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1991 13:21:29 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199112221921.AA13140@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1035 TELECOM Digest Sun, 22 Dec 91 13:18:42 CST Volume 11 : Issue 1035 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Motorola Acquires GEOSTAR's Satellite Services for Iridium (R.W. Hyre) Re: Disneyland Speakerphones (Kathryn Fielding) Re: Is My Phone OK in the UK? (Philip Hull) Re: Source For PBX in a PC? (Vance Shipley) Re: Help Needed Wiring Telco Headsets (Laird P. Broadfield) Re: Progress in Email (Steven H. Lichter) Re: Progress in Email Addressing (Herman R. Silbiger) Re: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made! (Sean Petty) Re: USA Today Number - A Update on Billing Procedures (John Higdon) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: rhyre@cinoss1.ATT.COM (Ralph W. Hyre) Subject: Re: Motorola Acquires GEOSTAR's Satellite Services for Iridium Date: 19 Dec 91 14:52:39 GMT Reply-To: rhyre@cinoss1.ATT.COM (Ralph W. Hyre) Organization: AT&T OSS Development, Cincinnati In article spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 1023, Message 11 of 13 >> Wasn't Geostar a navigation system? If Moto can convert it into a >> phone system, they could revolutionize (and obsolete) cellular phones. > More likely Motorola intends to use Geostar as part of a positioning > system for the 77 (or thereabouts) Iridium platforms. Navstar GPS is the positioning system. I wouldn't think it would be that useful in space, it was designed for accurate positioning of objects on Earth. CMUs Autonomous Vehicle used a Navstar receiver. GeoStar (Gaerard K. O`neill of High Frontier fame) is (was?) the global messaging system. Ralph W. Hyre, Jr. E-mail: rhyre@cinoss1.att.com Snail: Box 85, Milford OH 45150-0085 Phone: +1 513 629 7288 Radio: N3FGW ------------------------------ From: kat@gtc.com (Kathryn Fielding) Subject: Re: Disneyland Speakerphones Organization: Genisco Technology Corp. Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1991 18:04:48 GMT In DREUBEN@EAGLE.WESLEYAN.EDU (Douglas Scott Reuben) writes: > Pat noted: > [Moderator's Note: Didn't someone point out here in the Digest quite a > while ago that the telephone exhibit at Disneyland in Florida had > phones in the 555-9xxx series? The numbers were non-dialable and there > apparently for billing purposes only. PAT] Sorry Pat, wrong Orange County - DisneyLAND is in Orange County, Calif. and is in the 714 area code, serviced by Pacific Telesis aka PacBell. DisneyWORLD is in Orange County, Florida. The telephone exhibit with the speakerphone enclosures is in Anaheim at Disneyland just outside the exit to the CircleVision Film. No one has yet said that there are any similar exhibits in Florida, so if you're looking for them in the Magic Kingdom at Disneyworld, it may be a long walk! Kathryn kat@gtc.com genisco!kat Solaris Systems, a Division of Genisco Technology Corporation My opinions are exclusively mine! ------------------------------ From: ffpvh@acad3.alaska.edu (HULL PHILIP V) Subject: Re: Is My Phone OK in the UK? Reply-To: ffpvh@acad3.alaska.edu Organization: University of Alaska - Fairbanks Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1991 02:47:02 GMT In article , ian@hpopd.pwd.hp.com (Ian Watson) writes: > I received as a gift a novelty phone. It's one of those ones which is > transparent so you can see the innards, and it has several coloured > lights which light as the phone rings. It's marked as approved by > FCC, MCI and Sprint, so is clearly made for the US market. However, > it was bought here in the UK. > My concern is that it carries the 'red triangle' sticker which says > that it is prohibited from direct or indirect connection to the > British Telecom system. I have connected it up and received a call > OK, but have not yet tried to make a call. > What are the likely consequences of using this phone instead of my > normal BT-rented phoneset? You have nothing to worry about (unless BT has started searching houses for "unauthorized" phones in the manner of the P.O. vans looking for "unauthorized" TVs. I installed seven U.S. phones (well, not U.S.-made but they were designed for the U.S.) in my parents' home in the the UK several years ago. They were not (apart from the Coca-cola bottle phone which lasted about six months) "gimmick" phones and, with the exception noted, all still work fine. The only problem is that BT deliberately designed the UK phone jacks to be incompatible with the US standard to stymie threats to its control of the UK phone market. In Hong Kong you can buy cheap, small converters. Without these, the best bet is to go to a Tandy store and buy a phone cord with a UK jack at one end. The other end you can attach directly to the phone (but you'll have to open it up to do so). The wiring conventions are different (I have them somewhere, let me know if you want them), but trial-and-error will find the right convention (without elecricuting you -- this would be VERY difficult as the voltage is very low). Sinc you bought this phone in the UK (mine were all bought in the U.S.), incompatible jacks may not be a problem anyway. The moral? Don't be concerned. Your phone (touch tone or pulse) will work fine in the UK and its use will threaten nothing more than BT's legitimacy as arbiter of UK phone standards. Philip V. Hull ------------------------------ From: vances@xenitec.on.ca (Vance Shipley) Subject: Re: Source For PBX in a PC? Organization: SwitchView Inc. Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1991 21:31:57 GMT In article 74066.2004@CompuServe.COM (Larry Rachman) writes: > In the past several years, I've heard quite a bit about firms offering > a card that transforms a PC into a PBX. As usual, I can't find one now > that I need to. There is a company called Unifi that claim to have a PC/Unix based system that "replaces ACD, Centrex and PBX systems". They however do not provide what you want. What they do have is software that interfaces with a Basic Rate ISDN board for the PC. This software takes advantage of a feature of ISDN which allows you to "deflect" a call without answering it. One BRA line can have as many as 60 or 70 (I don't have the exact number handy) line appearances, so you might have this many incoming calls presented to a single BRA line simultaneously. Their software analyzes the incoming CLID, current load on each agent, time-of-day etc., and redirects the call over the public network without answering it. The other end of the picture is a set of DOS based PS/2's that are also equipped with BRA and telsets. The agent PCs communicate their status etc. back to the server over D-Channel packet X.25 or any other data comm setup. Actually a pretty good idea, and a good looking product (it runs under SCO Opendesktop (X-windows). I however don't see the point in marketing it as a "replacement" for the ACD, Centrex, PBX. Vance Shipley vances@xenitec vances@ltg ..uunet!watmath!xenitec!vances ------------------------------ From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) Subject: Re: Help Needed Wiring Telco Headsets Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1991 21:56:22 GMT In drmath@viking.rn.com (Doctor Math) writes: > I have two of the old-style Genuine Bell headsets (made by > Plantronics) which sort of hang over one ear and terminate in a little > box with two 1/4" phono plugs. A few years ago, I actually had one of > them interfaced to a phone. It worked great, but I can't for the life > of me remember exactly how it was done. Symbols inside the box seem to > indicate that sleeve/sleeve goes to the earpiece, and that tip/tip is > amplified output from the microphone, but recent attempts to hook them > up fail miserably. Can anyone out there in Telecom Land give me (a) > instructions (b) pointers to where instructions may be found on how to > hook these headsets up to a standard 500 or 2500 set? Any help > appreciated. Yes! I still think these are the best headsets for normal use. Plantronics still makes them, although I don't see the 327-terminated (the two 1/4" phonos) version in my Anixter catalog. The proper name for these is "Starsets", the current edition is Starset II. Plantronics sells a "Jackset", their p/n JSO180-1, that connects from the 327 plug to the instrument (500/2500), with an "on-off rocket [sic] switch, switch-hook control, recall button." They also want $80 bucks for it, and that's wholesale. I have found that this works: Mount your two 1/4" phono jacks, properly spaced. Connect a handset jack, pin 1 to tip 1, pin 2 to sleeve 1, pin 3 to sleeve 2, and pin 4 to tip 2. (Plugs 1 and 2 are arbitrarily designated; it doesn't matter.) Anyone who can improve on this, particularly with regard to adding a volume control, please speak up. Laird P. Broadfield UUCP: {ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb NET: lairdb@crash.cts.com ------------------------------ From: /PN=GLORIA.C.VALLE/O=GTE/PRMD=GTEMAIL/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/@sprint.com Date: 20 Dec 91 02:12 UT Subject: Re: Progress in Email Addressing Well since my E-mail has to come over at least two networks I would guess it has to be this way. I have a script to do my addressing since I can never get it right the first time with all the (a) and < and ( that have to be included to get to you. Steven H. Lichter COEI GTE Calif. [Moderator's Note: But my question would be, who is 'Gloria C. Valle'? When the Digest gets produced by the software program used for that purpose, Gloria comes out as the author of your articles! PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Dec 91 22:36:29 EST From: hsilbiger@attmail.att.com (Herman R Silbiger) Subject: Re: Progress in Email Addressing Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article , Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com. com writes: > A recent post was listed as from: > From: /PN=GLORIA.C.VALLE/O=GTE/PRMD=GTEMAIL/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/@sprint.com > This is progress? It could have been simplified to: /PN=Gloria_C_Valle/O=GTE/P=GTEMAIL/A=TELEMAIL/C=US. The "@sprint.com is only necessary if you dont have a direct X.400 interconnection. /PN=Herman_R_Silbiger/A=ATTMAIL/C=US That's all you need for me. [Moderator's Note: I still say 'oooh, ick' everytime I see one of those addresses. Gimme the good old user@site style anyday! PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made! From: Sean Petty Date: Fri, 20 Dec 91 15:04:26 EST Organization: The Underground - Pennsylvania ronnie@EDDIE.MIT.EDU (Ron Schnell) writes: > I don't care what their recording said. The local phone company phone > book clearly states that 800 calls are completed "toll-free". I am > not going to pay for calls to an 800 number. I am a little worried by > the fact that the phone bill shows no evidence that the calls were > 800. Who's to say that AT&T will believe me when I tell them I dialed > 800. I don't have 900 blocking. Could anyone who successfully gets > these calls removed please e-mail me the name of the rep with whom > they spoke? Ron- I just got off the phone with AT&T and let me tell you, THEY WON'T BELIEVE YOU! The rep that I talked to said that there was no way that dialing an 800 number could connect you to the 900 service. He then said that he was looking at his copy of {USA Today} and the 900 part was cleary stated, so I knew what I was getting in to!! When I pressed the situation, he put me on hold and came back saying that "800 Directory Assistance has no listing of a number for USA Today!".. He was arrogant and accusing, saying that I HAD TO HAVE DIALED 900. When I tried to explain the programming error, he laughed at me. What am I to do? Sean Petty undr!seanp@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM [Moderator's Note: What are you to do? Is that your question? What you are to do is take your medicine like a man without wimpering. You and others who called that number took advantage of a programming error of which {USA Today} was not at fault. You did however use the newspaper's information service. You knew what you were doing -- or if you didn't the first time you called, you should have after that. See the next message from John and my response for further discussion on this. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Dec 91 03:50 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: USA Today Number - A Update on Billing Procedures Rob Boudrie writes: > Has anyone else out there in net land had a similar experience? Was > this billing part of the programming error, or has USA Today arranged > for a creative way to bill for calls which they offered on a toll free > number? If this is the case, did they offer these calls on an > apparantly toll free number by "accident", or did they intend to dpo > an ex post facto "conversion" of 800 calls to 900 calls after they > built up volume? It has been indicated that this was a programming error. It should also be mentioned that courts generally do not allow someone to profit through his own error, be it AT&T or {USA Today}. This means that if push comes to shove, anyone charged for dialing the 800 number will ultimately prevail if he (rightly) refuses to pay the charges. Unfortunately, there will be many who will not fight this and pay without protest. These people will have been had, but AT&T will have at least squeezed some of what might be otherwise "lost" revenue out of the public. Technically, {USA Today} might be able to collect (in court) the charges for its service from AT&T for the calls it directed via the 800 number, but I am positive that AT&T has lawyers that are any match for USA Today's law firm. It does appear, however, that someone has tried to sweep all this under the rug by billing the 800 callers as if they had actually called the 900 number. Is there some major sleaziness afoot? > Could anyone from AT&T comment? I doubt that you will see any acknowledgement from AT&T on this. I would like to be proved wrong, but more and more today the trend seems to be anything except being forthright with the public. Besides, you can bet that AT&T is hoping many will just pay and be quiet. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: You forgot to mention that neither are *you or I* -- or anyone -- permitted to benefit from these mistakes. Anyone who encounters a 'mistake' or 'error' or for that matter an accident on the street or whatever MUST make every effort to mitigate the losses involved. No one is entitled to deliberatly abuse or take advantage of the misfortune of someone else. In some instances, the legal name for it is 'unjust enrichment'. Anyone can misdial one time or two, but having been told repeatedly -- on each call -- that a charge will be applied is a sufficient basis for legally making the charges stick. How do you think Bulmash and his war on telemarketers manages to collect money? They tell the caller "If you call here you will be billed for the call..." and the caller persists in calling again. In the case at hand, people did not innocently dial the number once by accident thinking they were getting someone else (except perhaps the first person to post an article here, provided he was telling the truth on how he came to 'accidentally' discover the number). You people called the number (and I include myself since I called it also) knowing full good and well -- or thinking -- that you were getting something for nothing. You expected to hear the news and weather, or perhaps your horoscope, and you got what you called for. In other words, you called it expecting to rip off {USA Today} and/or telco. You got caught with your pants down ... the system was smarter than you thought. You made a legitimate call to a 900 information service regardless of the routing you took to get there. To put it another way, someone crossing the street is struck by a hit and run driver. As she lays in the street unconcious, you walk over and grab her purse laying in the street and abscond with the money. You ask 'what law did I break by picking up something of value I found laying in the street?' ... the context is all-important, and in this context you would be the scum, not the person laying in the street. Yet somehow you say {USA Today} is sleaze because *they* were victims and now wish to recover what was taken from them? There is no sleaze involved since {USA Today} has never once said to call 'for free' via 800. The newspaper got victimized by AT&T (or some telco somewhere, as yet unknown) with the routing error. The paper got victimized further by the people who deliberatly called the wrong number. When I called the paper, the gentleman who took my call said specifically 'please do not call the 800 number'. I put a message here in the Digest relaying his request. So now all you smart folks -- and again, I include myself -- can take your whippings and learn from your error, as I have done. The paper has a perfect right to demand payment from all parties concerned. That includes AT&T and *you*. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1035 *******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13071; 22 Dec 91 16:12 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16604 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 22 Dec 1991 14:16:35 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12002 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 22 Dec 1991 14:16:19 -0600 Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1991 14:16:19 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199112222016.AA12002@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1036 TELECOM Digest Sun, 22 Dec 91 14:16:14 CST Volume 11 : Issue 1036 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Annoying Computer Payphones (Andrew Klossner) Re: ECPA Invoked by Virgina Governor (Michael Harpe) Re: Signaling System #7 (Alan L. Varney) Re: ISDN: Estimate of Arrival? (Alan Boritz) Re: Looking for Network Security/Fraud Information (Laird P. Broadfield) Re: MOST Interesting Telco Recording (David Ptasnik) Re: EIA/TIA 568: Information Wanted (Toby Nixon) Re: Wrong Numbers (Jeff Sicherman) Re: Wrong Numbers (Alan Boritz) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) Subject: Re: Annoying Computer Payphones Date: 21 Dec 91 00:47:10 GMT Reply-To: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville, Oregon > if there is a dial-tone detector already in the phone to detect the > first dial tone, why can't it be used to detect the second dial tone > and hang up the line (preventing possible fraud). Because a dial tone isn't always a dial tone? The brain-dead PBX that my employer just bought plays a dial tone to the caller as their call is forwarded to an outside line. (Of course, this confuses *human* dial tone detectors: I lose a lot of calls when people hear the second "dial tone" and hang up. Sigh.) Andrew Klossner (andrew@frip.wv.tek.com) (uunet!tektronix!frip.WV.TEK!andrew) ------------------------------ From: meharp01@vlsi.ct.louisville.edu (Michael Harpe) Subject: Re: ECPA Invoked by Virgina Governor Organization: University of Louisville Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1991 14:48:20 GMT bote@access.digex.com (John Boteler) writes: > Dunnington, "who had a hobby of electronically eavesdropping on calls > made from car phones in Virginia Beach", got 30 nights at a halfway > house, allowing him to run his restaurant business during the day, and > a $500 fine. > Might this be the first and last time we hear about the ECPA? > [Moderator's Note: I don't think it will be the last time. You are > correct that normally there is no effort to hunt down and prosecute > people who listen to cell phone calls on their scanner, but at the > same time the authorities do not like having their noses rubbed in > things. An obvious flouting of the law frequently brings a response, > and the violator's status in life (ie, senator, movie actor) will be > the guide for detirmining the harshness of the punishment. PAT] I think we keep overlooking that this guy alledgedly SOLD the tape to some people who then used this tape against the politician. This is the kind of game that politicians understand very well. They know how to retaliate against this sort of thing and will not hesitate to do so. Where Dunnington screwed up was leaving a trail that led back to him. If you want to do this kind of thing, you MUST be as sleazy as the people you're going up against. A good politician would never get caught at something like this. Look what happened to Nixon, after all :-). I think that people who get caught deserve what they get. The only reason for announcing to the world that you've done something like this would be to try to sell the rights to the tape to some tabloid. There are more discrete ways to go about that. Mike Harpe University of Louisville (strictly my own opinion, I just work for U of L) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Dec 91 09:11:24 CST From: varney@ihlpf.att.com (Alan L Varney) Subject: Re: Signaling System #7 Organization: AT&T Network Systems In article quonw@Software.Mitel.COM (Wynn Quon) writes: > Hi, I'm looking for information about Signaling System #7 training > seminars. > Does anyone have any personal recommendations for good seminars on > this topic? On the opposite side, are there ones that you would > recommend staying away from? SS7 has not generated the flood of seminars and documentation in the manner of ISDN or OSI, so information is rather limited. Most training I am aware of is oriented towards someone OPERATING an SS7 network, not toward an in-depth understanding of the protocol(s). If you are asking from an OPERATIONS perspective on existing hardware, then Bellcore TEC offers a range of SS7-related courses, but tend to focus on existing vendor's equipment. I believe there is one course that does cover the basic protocols (MTP,SCCP,ISDN-UP and TCAP). Bellcore TEC is at 1-800-TEACH-ME (1-800-832-2463). Try ext. 918 for CCS/SS7. AT&T offers training on its SS7-capable equipment, again from the OPERATING viewpoint. The technical training main contact number is AT&T Product Training at 1-800-TRAINER (1-800-872-4637). Other than this operational training, I would recommend using the ANSI T1S1 documents directly. And remember the protocols are changing over time. > I'm also compiling a list of SS7 reading material, if you've come > across any superb books/articles I'd like to hear about it. Good Luck.... Al Varney, AT&T Network Systems ------------------------------ Subject: ISDN: Estimate of Arrival? From: Alan Boritz Date: Wed, 18 Dec 91 07:52:58 EST Organization: Harry's Place - Mahwah NJ - +1 201 934 0861 In an article george@brooks.ICS.UCI. EDU writes: > I'm presently investigating investment in a wireless cable company. > One of the drawbacks is I won't see any return on that investment for > five or six years (FCC takes onee year to process application, takes a > year to get a station on-line, and three or four to recoup costs). By > that time I wonder if ISDN will be a long way off, and of course > provide a superior conduit for video into the home. Anyone know, or > have an idea as to find out? You won't see ISDN in the consumer market in your lifetime. Unfortunately, though, you may not see wireless cable become a similar contender in your lifetime, either. MMDS is not doing well these days as conventional cable penetrates more markets. The MMDS industry may disappear almost completely if the operators aren't more creative about finding their optimum target market. aboritz@harry.hourgls.fidonet.org (Alan Boritz) Harry's Place BBS - Mahwah NJ - +1-201-934-0861 ------------------------------ From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) Subject: Re: Looking for Network Security/Fraud Information Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1991 16:16:19 GMT > [Moderator's Note: ESS' can print out exceptions (to usual, or > average) conditions and notify a human being to review what has been > recorded. Exceptions in and of themselves are not evidence of illegal > activity, of course, but these reports do guide security personnel in > their investigations. ESS' can also detect tones that shouldn't be > coming at them from the subscriber's side of the line and **allow the > call to continue, as though all were well** while notifying a human > being of what is happening, who in turn can tap a few keys on the > terminal and see the whole sordid picture in seconds. PAT] This is (technically speaking) pretty obvious, but the one I thought was interesting was when I was in a Chicago hotel (Hi Pat!) dialing back to CA to check my email. Because the dialup was solidly busy, I spent a few minutes stuffing the arcane get-outside-dialtone sequence into the terminal emulator, along with the destination number, and my calling card number, and the assorted appropriate delays (we're talking about a 60 character or so dialstring here.) Aaaaanyway, I turned this loose and waited until it got through (about an hour of attempts, as I recall.) The interesting thing is that once I had gotten in (only one entirely successful call, mind you) I checked my home answering set, and there's a call from PacBell: "Dear sir [blah blah] excessive use of your calling card [blah blah] call us collect [blah blah] and admit you lost the thing, you scumbag." (Paraphrased. But not by much.) I would expect *invalid* attempts to trap, but I was interested to see successful card-validation transactions, with no charge incurred, trap. The rep I talked to (who nearly refused to believe I *hadn't* lost my card) couldn't tell me if it was n-successive-incompletes, or n-attempts- (valid or not)-within-x, or what, but it was interesting nonetheless. (Completely off the subject, why does everyone tie the concepts of "a permanent number assigned to you, no matter where you are" and "PCN" together? I completely fail to see reasonable connection between them; I'd pay for the first today, the second seems a fundamentally flawed design. (Yes, I could get an 800 with variable forwarding, I've thought about it, but prefer not to open up that big a vulnerability. I'd also prefer it to *appear* to be an ordinary POTS number.)) Laird P. Broadfield UUCP: {ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb INET: lairdb@crash.cts.com ------------------------------ From: David Ptasnik Subject: Re: MOST Interesting Telco Recording Date: Fri, 20 Dec 91 9:02:12 PDT wmartin@STL-06SIMA.ARMY.MIL (Will Martin) wrote: > Here is the text of the recording; I've NEVER heard any telco recording > that is as helpful or informative as this! -- > What I'm wondering is if the telco would create such a specialized > recording and be as helpful for an ordinary citizen, or even an > ordinary business. > Does current technology make such customized recordings easy to > implement and maintain, or is this a major pain for the telco to do? > Can we expect this sort of thing to become more common, or will it > always be a rare exception? Are other Telecom readers aware of such > recordings in their areas? Does this signal the end of the generic > "intercept" recording? We do it ourselves at the University of Washington. All disconnected numbers are forwarded to a PC based audio library (AL) from Applied Voice Technologies. It receives the number dialed via ANI from the CO. At AL we can play a standard intercept which states that the old number has been disconnected and what the new number is. The caller is then switch-hook transferred to the new number. (Of course we can just play a no further information recording.) We can also play a customized announcement with the text recorded by our department or the department wanting the custom service. This custom service can also be configured to provide callers with a menu (press one for electrical engineering, press two for mechanical engineering, etc.). The price of this is quite low. We recharge these services to the departments, and attempt to recover the hardware cost in about five years. We charge $.50 per month for basic intercepts (forwarding from the CO costs $1.00 per month) and $2.50 for custom intercepts. We also use the device for other announcements and auto attendant features, but if you dedicated an AL to just intercepts of disconnected numbers I expect that the rates we charge would pay for the machine. If we can do it for this little, the Bells can almost certainly do it for less. Although I am not privy to our deal with US West, we generally only provide services that are less expensive than those from US West, so they are either charging more, or just don't provide this flexible a service. Those telecom departments who have voice mail or audio library systems in place might want to consider doing this themselves. Our departments are very appreciative of the service. It requires about 60 AL lines and 40 voice mail lines to support our 15,000 line campus. Even though we requre the departments to pay for what they use, and even though we do not "advertise" the availability of some of these services, we are getting dozens of requests every month for new services. These kinds of interactive voice products are letting us serve more callers more efficiently with no increases in staffing. It has been a real help to short staffed and limited budget departments. -End of Commercial- Dave ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: EIA/TIA 568: Information Wanted Date: 20 Dec 91 12:48:48 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA In article , michel@d92.cb.sni.be (Michel Dalle) writes: > It seems that in the USA, the standard EIA 568 on wiring in commercial > buildings and campuses is (will be?) available. Is that right? Is > there such a thing? I don't see EIA-568 in EIA's latest catalog, nor in ANSI's catalog or any of it's supplements for 1991. Perhaps 568 hasn't passed a vote yet. You could find out for sure by calling EIA; they're in Washington, DC. The sales department number is +1-202-457-4966; they might be able to sell you the latest draft of the document. > I'd very much like to know how I could get a copy of it sent to me > here in this underdevelopped country (--- at least concerning > standards!). Even better would be that it existed somewhere in the > Internet in electronic form, but I may be dreaming. The CCITT has made its documents available in electronic form, but they're about the only committee to do so. Neither EIA nor TIA has taken that step. You can buy copies of standards from MANY organizations through Global Engineering Documents. They can be reached at +1-714-261-1455, or by fax at +1-202-331-0960. 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.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Dec 91 02:55:42 -0800 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers Organization: Cal State Long Beach In article arielle@taronga.com (Stephanie da Silva) writes: > We apparently were assigned number that used to be the number for an > Allstate agent, so the people who are calling us aren't misdialling; > they are actually calling our number. Now that's not so bad, except > for the incredible bozos that I've had to deal with over this. They > fall into several catagories. > The usual call started with them asking for the agent. I would reply, > "You have the wrong number." "Is this 568-xxxx?" "Yes, it is." "I'm > sorry, I must have the wrong number." Click. Here's the good part -- > at least *half* of them would call right back -- after I already > verified the number! There is probably nothing you can do to stop the initial calls but you are compunding the porblem on the repeats by saying "you have a wrong number". They don't have the wrong number, they are getting the number that they intended to dial. It's just not servicing Allstate's office anymore. using the term 'wrong number' is a highly amiguous statement in the way you're using it because it's normally used to inform people they reached a number that they handn't intended to dial. Try telling them 'this number isn't assigned to Allstate anymore' and give them the right one if you can get it. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers From: Alan Boritz Date: Thu, 19 Dec 91 18:14:49 EST Organization: Harry's Place - Mahwah NJ - +1 201 934 0861 bill@eedsp.gatech.edu (Bill Berbenich) writes: > I stood right by the repair guy when he called the > "complainer" on his butt-set and told her that there was nothing wrong > with my line and that I had asked that she not call my number again. > She swore up and down that "that number belongs to my ex-husband and > he needs to sent me some money!" Geez, Bill, that's a nasty way to avoid your ex. :-) aboritz@harry.hourgls.fidonet.org (Alan Boritz) Harry's Place BBS - Mahwah NJ - +1-201-934-0861 [Moderator's Note: Not only do ex-husbands pull that scam on their impoverished former wives, but so do debtors when the bill collector comes a-calling! PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1036 *******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14212; 22 Dec 91 17:07 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01695 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 22 Dec 1991 15:23:52 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07196 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 22 Dec 1991 15:23:36 -0600 Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1991 15:23:36 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199112222123.AA07196@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1037 TELECOM Digest Sun, 22 Dec 91 15:23:30 CST Volume 11 : Issue 1037 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: What is This Stuff? (Barton F. Bruce) Re: Tone Frequencies Used For Coin Deposits (Eric Kiser) AT&T Telegraph vs. TELEX (William T. Sykes) Re: AT&T Exits Telegraph Business (Floyd Davidson) Re: AT&T Exits Telegraph Business (William J. Carpenter) Re: Sprint Calling Cards and the 'Bong' Tone (John R. Levine) Re: Extremely Unlisted Phone Numbers in China (Graham Toal) Re: Meter Reading via Phone Line (was Silent Night) (Syd Weinstein) Re: Meter Reading via Phone Line (was Silent Night) (Bob Frankston) Re: ISDN in Japan and USA (Kenji Fujisawa) Re: Pseudo-Area Code 311 (Doctor Math) Re: Silent Night (Doctor Math) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: bruce@camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) Subject: Re: What is This Stuff? Date: 21 Dec 91 02:41:45 EDT Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article , tep@tots.Logicon.COM (Tom Perrine) writes: > Anyway, I am now the proud possesor of two identical gray plastic, > wall-mount widgets, approximately 8.5' wide by 18.24" high. There is a > stamped label "620A" near the bottom. > What is this stuff?? Is there anything here that would be useful as > part of a home PBX? You have 1A2 KSUs with KTUs. This is very generic key system stuff, and is fine if you want to deal with 25 pair cabling and old phones. Each card you found does one outside line. You may NOT have the needed power supply ... You can get a used (scrap) KSU with power supply AND cards (but that would take your cards) for peanuts. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Dec 91 03:56:03 EST From: kiser@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil Subject: Re: Tone Frequencies Used For Coin Deposits I got a lot of responses from pholks claiming that the reason "devices" wouldn't work on modern pay phones was that, after the totalizer registered the prerequisite initial amount, it grounds tip (presumeably to sleeve?). I hope that my question didn't seem that dumb: I'm talking about coin-after (or would dial-tone-first be better?) phones - those phones, as most are today, that present dial tone first. It didn't take us very long to figure the "ground the tip" trick 15 years ago for coin-first phones that needed to be ground started. Am I hearing, though, that the totalizer on a modern pay-phone still grounds the tip, even though it's not for ground starting, in the purest sense, to signal to the CO that the initial amount was deposited? Or for that matter would a "device" actually work perfectly fine on a dial-tone-first phone? I'd like to think MaBell has progressed a little in those 15 years! Eric ------------------------------ From: wts1@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (wts1) Subject: AT&T Telegraph vs. TELEX Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1991 18:57:34 GMT Reposted from att.today and AT&T Corporate Media Relations: AT&T TODAY Friday, December 20, 1991 -- 10:30 a.m. EST [Stuff deleted] OF INTEREST *** TELEGRAPH VS. TELEX -- AT&T this week announced its exit from the telegraph business. This does not mean AT&T is exiting the Telex business. AT&T EasyLink Services is committed to the messaging business and to providing and supporting Telex services, TWX services and e-mail. William T. Sykes AT&T Federal Systems Advanced Technologies Burlington, NC UUCP: att!burl!wts att!cbnewsb!wts1 ------------------------------ From: floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) Subject: Re: AT&T Exits Telegraph Business Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1991 11:42:48 GMT In article agp@cci632.cci.com (Allen Pellnat) writes: > I retired from AT&T at the end of 1989 after a little over 33 years of What a fascinating story! I thought you, and maybe others, might be interested in some things that are related. > In '56 when I started, there were still two working private line > telegraph circuits in Buffalo. By this I mean real telegraph, manual > key and sounder. I never did see a real telegraph circuit. But I know where there are the remains of a real No. 9 Telegraph Test Board. None of the original jack fields or test equipment remains. About all that is left are the cords, the meter and switch keys ... and the sounder. Why this sounder ( 2B or 3B ??) is still there I have no idea. The nice old style brass key was lifted many a year ago. I think everyone realizes that if they took that sounder, and were to be found out, they would be whipped to death with patch cords by the rest of us. There is also a sign up about eight feet on the rack that says something to the effect of No. 9 TLG TST BRD. > Telegraph service of the key and sounder variety was used quite > extensively for internal company use between testboards, especially on > the evening and night shifts which were usually populated with OTs. As > a young kid of 18, but with four years behind me as a ham radio > operator, I was able to pick up the American Morse code (key and > sounder variety) fairly easy although it wasn't required of me. > Several of the OTs that I worked with then had been professional > telegraphers at one time. To the best of my knowledge, internal > telegraph order wires were still in active use right up through the > mid '60s, especially for communicating "ques" for television and radio > network program switches. When I left Buffalo in 1966, the last > remaining OT telegrapher there still had a sounder mounted in the > false ceiling over his desk and he used to listen to stock quotes from > somewhere on it. We even have exactly one real OT left too! This fellow is a graduate engineer who works as a testboard tech. He worked his way through school as a telegraph operator for one of the railroads, and worked for them as a communications engineer for a while too. His original job in Alaska was as a marine telegraph operator in Nome. My friend, whose name is Lake (Ed) Trump, is a real OT brass pounder. And one of his past times is networking over the phone with other OT BP's. I don't know how many are doing this, but they are hooking up old 300 baud modems so they can key the darn things with straight keys, and receive it with sounders! (I bet our sounder is the last actively used, even if not officially used, sounder on a real No. 9 board in a Toll Center anywhere in the country.) > Well so, much for the trip down memory lane. I'd be curious of any of > the readers of this group are former brass pounders like myself. I'm > not all THAT old, yet my experience has gone from manual morse > telegraph to multi-megabit digital services on satellites. Morse > patented his telegraph more than a hundred years before I ever > listened to a sounder and in only 35 years since that time we have > global communications at the touch of a finger. If anyone out there wants to know how to get in touch with a whole network of BP's intent on keeping it alive, send me your name and phone number and I'll pass it on to Ed. As I understand it they only use sounders and American Morse code. (I haven't discussed this with Ed, so he may throw your name and number in a round file and go back to work, but its worth a try.) Floyd L. Davidson floyd@ims.alaska.edu Salcha, Alaska ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Dec 91 11:05:56 EST From: billc@pegasus.att.com (William J Carpenter) Subject: Re: AT&T Exits Telegraph Business Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories > Thanks for the press release, but does anybody know exactly > what services have been discontinued? > [Moderator's Note: TWX and Telex service. I'm told that since > they bought out Western Union, they'll be getting rid of the > standard, familiar telegraph ASAP also. PAT] Not so. AT&T's telegraph offerings are going, but Telex and TWX are staying. Bill William_J_Carpenter@ATT.COM or (908) 576-2932 attmail!bill or att!pegasus!billc AT&T Bell Labs / AT&T EasyLink Services LZ 1E-207 [Moderator's Note: Both you and Mr. Sykes sent me a copy of the message from att.today correcting what I had said earlier, and I ran his message at the start of the thread in this issue. Thanks very much for clarifying this. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Sprint Calling Cards and the 'Bong' Tone Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 21 Dec 91 21:03:02 EST (Sat) From: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) Around here, if you dial 10333 + 0 + number, you get a bong and the word "Sprint" and if you dial your local telco card number the call goes through. Your Sprint FONcard number doesn't work. If you time out to the Sprint operator, it* can take either number but you pay about a dollar extra. Occasionally you get passed directly to the operator without a bong, but I've had that happen with AT&T and local telcos, probably due to a momentary shortage of bongers. If you dial 800-877-8000 the situation is the opposite -- the machine can only take your FON card but the operator can take either. AT&T hasn't yet sent me a new card so I don't know where the new numbers work. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ From: gtoal@robobar.co.uk (Graham Toal "gtoal@vangogh.cs.berkeley.edu") Subject: Re: Extremely Unlisted Phone Numbers in China Organization: Robobar Ltd., Perivale, Middx., ENGLAND. Date: Sat, 21 Dec 91 01:55:44 GMT In article acg@hermes.dlogics.com writes: > The Chinese Government, concerned about secrecy, recently had its > entire telephone system rewired so that military officials can't > call, or be called from, outside the country. A {New York Times} > reporter trying to confirm the story with China's Bureau of Secrecy > found the bureau's phone number was classified. Researchers have > reported being told that, among other things, the number of sheep > in China and the number of potatoes grown every year are secrets. No big surprise -- the location of the BT tower in London (yes, the one on all the postcards) is an official secret here... [Moderator's Note: The other day in the {Christian Science Monitor} I read a short piece saying a file relating to some American troop movements in World War *ONE* was still classified here, and for reasons not known the Pentagon still won't unclassify the file. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Dec 91 10:37 EST From: syd@dsinc.dsi.com Subject: Re: Meter Reading via Phone Line (was Re: Silent Night) In comp.dcom.telecom is written: > All well and good, I suppose, but in real life usage, I suspect this > will open up a whole new field of inter-company bickering and > finger-pointing when something goes wrong. Since here, the water company is responsible for the meter, it also took responsiblity for the meter box that sends the signal. I don't see the problem. > [Moderator's Note: Like the 'Security Front Door / Lobby Intercom' > system IBT offered before divestiture (which other companies now > offer) whether or not the phone gets network connections at the CO > (ie, the subscriber is 'connected') is of no consequence. Both the > door opener/lobby intercom and the meter reading device merely require > a pair to the common equipment in the CO. A bigger problem I see than > you mentioned above -- largely in jest, I note! -- is the absolute > need for dedicated pairs where the meter reading devices are > concerned. No dedicated pair is used here, My meter reading circuit is on my home phone line, and I am on a SLIC type circuit (I think its a real AT&T SLIC, but I am not sure) ... > Record keeping > mistakes in cable and pair assignments in the CO are all too common. I > guess the way you find out is when you get the electric bill for the > factory and your neighbor gets yours! :( PAT] No, the meters also include a serial number, and part of the burst is the serial number. That must match the line read. I do know when they tested mine on install, they double checked the 'meter number' as they called it. At least they have taken that one into account. 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: Subject: Re: Meter Reading via Phone Line (was Re: Silent Night) Date: 21 Dec 1991 11:15 -0400 The Moderator raises an interesting question, perhaps more for Risks. Does the meter indeed have enough self-idenfication and other smarts to handle miswiring situations? [Moderator's Note: See the previous item. Syd says they do. From my previous experience with the front door security system, it still seems a little chancy to me. PAT] ------------------------------ From: fujisawa@sm.sony.co.jp (Kenji Fujisawa) Subject: Re: ISDN in Japan and USA Organization: Sony Corporation, Tokyo, Japan Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 15:39:24 GMT In article , haynes@cats.UCSC.EDU (Jim Haynes) says: > He remarked that in Japan one can just call the telephone company > and ask to have your home service converted to ISDN and it will be > done the next day, no charge for the conversion and no extra charge > for ISDN service. It's overstated. The time for instllation varies between one week to six months depending on the area, the availability of the digital exchanges. And you have to pay an instllation fee of about $100 - $150. Futermore, the monthly charge becomes twice of the analog telephone: ie, about $35. Kenji Fujisawa fujisawa@sm.sony.co.jp ------------------------------ From: drmath@viking.rn.com (Doctor Math) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 91 03:00:19 EST Organization: Department of Redundancy Department Subject: Re: Pseudo-Area Code 311 plains!person@uunet.uu.net (Brett G Person ) writes: > In the early 80's there was a pop song about a girl named Jennie. The > chorus of which gave her 'phone number'. Except that this happened to > be a valid phone number in some parts of the country. These poor > people got hundreds of calls for ther fictitious girl. Not only was this a valid phone number in some parts of the country, a company in the San Jose area (Campbell, I think) bought (?) the number and set up something called MobyPhone. It was free to call, and it provided some sort of information, the nature of which I can't quite recall at the moment. It was certainly unique. This problem has also been reported in conjunction with a song by AC/DC, wherein the lead singer screeches out some random digits at one point in the song. They are apparently not intended to be a real phone number, but this does not stop people from trying :) ------------------------------ From: drmath@viking.rn.com (Doctor Math) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 91 01:52:13 EST Organization: Department of Redundancy Department Subject: Re: Silent Night sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes: > ... Illinois Bell > is starting (as a pilot project, I guess) a new service that will let > utility companies read meters remotely using the customer's telephone > lines. Moderator notes: > ... There is no charge of any sort to the > phone subscriber, and the subscriber is never denied the use of the > line, even for a few seconds in the early morning. - PAT I should hope there isn't any charge! Perhaps the customer should get reimbursed for the use of "their" phone :-0 Also, has anyone considered possible privacy aspects of this service, or am I just being paranoid? Such technology does enable the respective companies to compile even MORE information since they can read the meter at least nightly if not more often. Next thing we know, appliances are going to include little widgets that plug into your ISDN D channel so "they" can tabulate things like how often you do your wash and how much time the refridgerator door stands open. [Moderator's Note: There are no privacy violations merely because the reading is done electronically rather than manually. Making something easier and more convenient to tabulate (ie 'computerizing' the function) does not automatically mean the tabulators intend to abuse their new abilities. If the utility chose to send someone around daily to read the meter they could garner the same data. It seems very odd to me that the privacy freaks get so upset about every new electronic innovation used by the banks, utilities, etc ... but it concerns them not in the least the increasing number of young burglars with home computers who are out there intent on ripping them off good (all in the name of intellectual growth and good Socially Responsible Computing of course!). PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1037 *******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15615; 22 Dec 91 18:11 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25388 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 22 Dec 1991 16:27:55 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21484 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 22 Dec 1991 16:27:39 -0600 Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1991 16:27:39 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199112222227.AA21484@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1038 TELECOM Digest Sun, 22 Dec 91 16:27:26 CST Volume 11 : Issue 1038 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: MOST Interesting Telco Recording! (William J Carpenter) Re: Caller ID For Dallas/Ft. Worth Area? (Jack Decker) Re: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made! (Alan Boritz) Re: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made! (David E. Sheafer) Re: How Much Does Distinctive Ringing Cost YOU? (Andrew M. Dunn) Re: How Much Does Distinctive Ringing Cost YOU? (John R. Levine) Re: Tone Frequencies Used For Coin Deposits (John Higdon) Re: What is This Stuff? (David A. Bonney) Re: T1 on Fiber? (Terry Kennedy) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 21 Dec 91 09:30:05 EST From: billc@pegasus.att.com (William J Carpenter) Subject: Re: MOST Interesting Telco Recording! Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories > "We're sorry, area code 314-644-7542 has been changed due to > an error made in the directory. > KTVI's main telephone number is 647-2222 ^^^^ [etc; very custom message] Strange that the number in the first sentence sounds like it's pronounced by one of these automated glue-the-digits-together systems. Since they obviously had to go to some trouble to do the lengthy followup sentences, why not just do the whole thing. Must be some telephone stuff or sumthin'. Bill William_J_Carpenter@ATT.COM or (908) 576-2932 attmail!bill or att!pegasus!billc ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Dec 91 09:59:37 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: Caller ID For Dallas/Ft. Worth Area? In a message in comp.dcom.telecom, is written: > The AGCS GTD-5 EAX digital switch is still very much alive and does > support CLASS from it's introduction at SVR 1.6.3.2 with testing in > the field dating back to early 1990, at Muskegon North, Michigan. The > current load is SVR 1.6.3.3 as implemented at many of GTE North's > 5-EAX switching sites. Still others in the regional company are on > the docket to receive this load in the near future. Just out of curiosity, you wouldn't happen to know what type of switches they have in Muskegon Heights (616-733 exchange) and what is probably called "Muskegon South" (or perhaps "Norton Shores", "Airport", "Mona Lake" or some similar designator ... it's the 616-798 exchange) would you? My mother presently has service on the 733 number and the "sound" of the switch reminds me of older Bell electronic models. Up until this fall she had service from the 616-798 exchange, and was plagued by mid-call cutoffs (which seemed to be epidemic ... her neighbors that lived in the same mobile home park as her also complained of frequent cutoffs). At her new location, the service seems much more reliable (even though I'd guess it's an older switch) but she does get frequent wrong number calls ... but I guess there's nothing the switch can do about folks who won't dial correctly! Jack Decker : jack@myamiga.mixcom.com : FidoNet 1:154/8 ------------------------------ Subject: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made! From: Alan Boritz Date: Fri, 20 Dec 91 02:28:52 EST Organization: Harry's Place - Mahwah NJ - +1 201 934 0861 GREEN@WILMA.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU (Scott D. Green) writes: > Remember back in September/October when {USA Today} was having > "network problems" on its 900-555-5555 line so that it was accessible > via 800-555-5555? Remember how we speculated what, if anything, would > happen with the charges? Wonder no more! > I just received my November bill with the calls detailed as "USA Today > 900-555-5555" at $.95 per minute. *And* I have 900 blocking on my > line! No need to worry in that event. Just have telco take the charge off your bill. As long as you have blocking in place (always a good idea to record the date and time it became effective) you are not responsible for the charges. Speaking of premium services and blocking, New York Telephone has a scam going with blocking service and 976- numbers. NYT customers with blocking active can call the operator to reach a 976- number, and the operator will place the call at *operator-assisted* rates. I discovered that trick when auditing my former employer's phone bill one month and found a few hundred dollars of such calls (some employees were calling the weather and time via the operator after we blocked all outbound trunks). I got a credit for that month's billing, but they were insistant about not giving a similar credit again. aboritz@harry.hourgls.fidonet.org (Alan Boritz) Harry's Place BBS - Mahwah NJ - +1-201-934-0861 [Moderator's Note: Of course you are responsible for the charges! You found a way to circumvent the 900 blocking on your line by taking advantage of an error in how telco was routing calls. You knew what you were calling and you chose to call anyway. I'm going to send copies of the messages on this topic in the past couple of issues to AT&T and {USA Today} with my personal recommendation -- for whatever that is worth -- suggesting they not write off a nickle of this unless the caller can demonstrate from one or two calls ONLY of a minute or less that their dialing was truly in error. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "David E. Sheafer, Class of 1989" Reply-To: nin15b0b@merrimack.edu Subject: Re: USA Today Bills for Free Calls Date: 22 Dec 91 15:29:52 GMT Organization: Merrimack College, No. Andover, MA Regardless whether it states there will be a charge for the call or not, there is no such thing as charging for 800 numbers. When {USA Today} was aware of the problem they should have immediately disconnected the service. This 800 service was availalble for at least a month after it was mentioned that USA was informed by Pat of the error. There is no reason why the 800 number couldn't be disconnected immediately after being made aware of the problem. If I have 900 blocking (I don't), and a 1-900 number shows up on my bill, I can't see how I should be responsible for dialing this number, as the phone company has told me that 900 numbers can't be dialed from my line. By the way the two calls I did make to this number were from a payphone. Since one can't dial 900 numbers from a pay phone, will the pay phone owners pay the charges if they get charged, and if so what is AT&T's or the newspaper's recourse against them? AT&T and the newspaper made a mistake; there were no errors on the public phones as you are supposed to be able to dial 800 numbers without coin. Therefore the company that made the mistake should be held responsible for any lost revenue, and is anyone certain that it was indeed a mistake? David E. Sheafer internet: nin15b0b@merrimack.edu or uucp: samsung!hubdub!nin15b0b GEnie: D.SHEAFER Cleveland Freenet: ap345 [Moderator's Note: The newspaper did not make any mistakes. A telco whose identity is not known -- but we believe it was AT&T -- made the mistake. Callers were not charged for the transport to the 800 number. They were charged for the information provided by the called party, just as the called party said would happen when answering the call. I suppose owners of COCOTS will get billed. They can chase after the folks who used their phones if they wish. Calls from payphones owned by the phone company will be charged to their respective telcos who in turn can track down the person making the call or write them off as they wish. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat Dec 21 10:43:04 1991 From: mongrel!amdunn@uunet.uu.net (Andrew M. Dunn) Organization: A. Dunn Systems Corporation, Kitchener, Canada From: amdunn@mongrel.UUCP (Andrew M. Dunn) Subject: Re: How Much Does Distinctive Ringing Cost YOU? Organization: A. Dunn Systems Corporation, Kitchener, Canada Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1991 15:42:58 GMT In article well!stv@well.sf.ca.us (Steve Vance) writes: > I called up to see about getting this "Distinctive Ringing" Custom > Calling Feature on my home phone... > The charge for me to get this in my service area is as follows: > installation per-month > New Phone number $34.75 $8.35 > "Commstar II" 15.00 8.20 > Distinctive Ringing option 4.00 5.00 > Total: 53.75 21.55 > My questions to the Net are: is this the typical charge for this > service? If you have it, how much do you pay? Not NEARLY that much! > [Moderator's Note: Here in Chicago there is no 'installation charge' > for the distinctive ringing numbers. We pay $4.95 per month for the > first number (gives a short double ring) and $3.95 for the second > number if one is desired (gives a short then long ring). In Bell Canada Ontario Region territory, the charges are similar. About $5 per month for each number (residential), and about $8 for business. This is in Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. Where we also have non-metered local service, about $10 per month for basic service, and expensive long distance! > Distinctive ringing lines can be programmed at the CO to either > observe any call-forwarding instructions which are on the main number > or to ignore call-forwarding of the main line and simply 'ring > through'. They also have their own distinctive call-waiting tones, > different from the tone given when the main line gets a call-waiting. PAT] Exactly the same here. Except that if you forget to specify the forwarding mode, you get FORWARD BOTH. They don't ask you. So if you don't know about the feature, you don't find out until its too late, then there's a service charge to correct it :-( Andy Dunn (amdunn@mongrel.uucp) ({uunet...}!xenitec!mongrel!amdunn) ------------------------------ Subject: Re: How Much Does Distinctive Ringing Cost YOU? Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 21 Dec 91 21:28:47 EST (Sat) From: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) Here in Massachusetts, distinctive ringing hasn't even made it into the phone book yet. It is available under the name RingMate. It costs $3 per month for one extra number or $5 per month for two. There is no prerequisite of Commstar (not even available here) or anything else -- it can be added to any residential phone line where CO equipment physically supports it. There was a one-time service order fee of $11.60. Ringmate numbers may be listed or not, at no charge either way. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Dec 91 21:06 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Tone Frequencies Used For Coin Deposits mmt@latour.berkeley.edu (Maxime Taksar) writes: > Actually, (a) is the right guess. Reversed DC voltage is used to test > for the presence of an actual coin. The box to which you refer, a > "red box", will be useful only once the phone actually admits it has a > real coin in it. For local calls, the phone won't admit this below > 20/25 cents, so the red box is useless. For long distance calls, I > believe it will admit having a coin at a nickel. There are two "coin present" states in a utility coin operated telephone that are tested via DC from the CO. One is the "initial deposit" that is required for local calls. This amount (for instance $0.20 in California) is required from initial operation (coming off-hook) to be deposited before the phone will test for coin present. This amount is determined mechanically by the totalizer built into the phone itself. For the rate to be changed, it is necessary for a technician to physically enter the telephone and make the change; it cannot be done remotely. After a long distance call is dialed (and the coin return mechanism has operated) the coin present signal will be sent with as little as a nickel in the hopper. If you try "red boxing" without that coin in there, you better start looking over your shoulder. Frankly, anyone who is stupid enough to try this kind of fraud ought to spend all of his energy looking straight ahead so that he does not trip over his own feet. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: 19 Dec 91 14:41:56 EST From: David A. Bonney Subject: Re: What is This Stuff? Organization: Independant Telecommunications Consultant of Westford In TELECOM Digest V1017, tep@tots.Logicon.COM (Tom Perrine) writes: I discovered several small chassis from this removal process beside the dumpster. When I asked the local telecom folks about it, they said that Pac Bell and "ATTIS" DID NOT WANT THIS STUFF BACK, NO WAY, NO HOW. PERIOD. END OF DISCUSSION. DON'T-CALL-US-WE'LL-CALL-YOU. > What is this stuff?? Is there anything here that would be useful as > part of a home PBX? Well Tom, what you have there is 'old', but probably still functional '1A Key' equipment. You remember the old (heavy) six button phones that used to be everywhere?? Well, that's the 'common equipment' that made it all work. If you have the power supplies, some 1A Key telephones and some 25-pair cable for tieing it all together, then you have the makings for a good old fashioned key system for your house. :-) And in the process of trying to get this stuff all wired up and installed, you will also learn WHY 'state-of-the-art' has passed it by. :/) You indicated that you 'used to have a DIMENSION' which was replaced. If I was your telecommunications manager, I would worry that this equipment, which was all transferred to AT&T (Information Systems) at divestiture, has actually stopped billing by AT&T. It was quite common to have the '1A' equipment being billed seperately from the 'Dimension' PBX equipment. I have seen many instances where the billing has gone on long after the equipment was removed. My bottom line recommendation: Get it in writing from AT&T that there are no more equipment bills! You didn't say whether 'the local telecom folks' were your in-house personnel, local operating comany, or AT&T. But trust me, if you didn't tell AT&T to remove it, they'll just keep billing. Of course, if the equipment wasn't being billed to your company, then ... Regards, dab Internet: bonney@office.wang.com ------------------------------ From: "Terry Kennedy, Operations Mgr" Subject: Re: T1 on Fiber? Date: 22 Dec 91 01:50:48 GMT Organization: St. Peter's College, US In article , deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) writes: > I doubt that a two-fiber cable costs less > than a piece of quad. (If you can even get two-fiber cable -- I don't > know if anyone makes smaller than 12-fiber for outside plant use, or > for that matter if anyone makes quad for outside plant use...) The fiber that comes into my house is an AT&T 3DFX-004-HXM, which is an outside plant four-fiber cable. The middle of the part number is the number of fibers in it, and it comes in sizes from two to at least 96. I used the four-fiber kind so I'd be ready for FDDI (right now I'm using two fibers for Ethernet and have two as spares). The cost for four fibers wasn't really that much greater than for two. Yes, there is an outside quad cable as well -- I have an old WEco roll of some 5,000 feet around somewhere, although I don't remember the part number. As for total cost of fiber vs. copper, by the time I got done costing out the installation, etc. it was a toss-up between copper and fiber. Of course, this assumes no installed plant and a point-to-point run, neither of which would be true if you were ordering a circuit from the telephone company. Terry Kennedy Operations Manager, Academic Computing terry@spcvxa.bitnet St. Peter's College, Jersey City, NJ USA terry@spcvxa.spc.edu (201) 915-9381 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1038 *******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16141; 22 Dec 91 18:38 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11742 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 22 Dec 1991 16:55:50 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02742 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 22 Dec 1991 16:55:38 -0600 Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1991 16:55:38 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199112222255.AA02742@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1039 TELECOM Digest Sun, 22 Dec 91 16:55:34 CST Volume 11 : Issue 1039 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Silent Night (Dave Levenson) Re: Telephone Company Employees (Dave Levenson) Re: MOST Interesting Telco Recording! (Vance Shipley) Re: Meter Reading via Phone Line (was Silent Night) (Ken J. Clark) Re: Swedish Telecommunications Network (Dan Sahlin) Re: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made! (John Higdon) CBC Marketplace Segment on Caller-ID (Dave Leibold) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: Silent Night Date: 22 Dec 91 14:02:24 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , syd@DSI.COM (Syd Weinstein) writes: > When the utility wants to poll the meter, they access a special number > at the CO that lets them access maintenance mode. This mode places > both a voltage and a tone on the line. This voltage + tone makes the > box come on line and answer the tone. Then it bursts the meter > reading back to the CO. The CO then forwards this to the utility. It > takes three seconds total. Note that going off hook changes the > impedence that drops the circuit out of test mode, and an incoming > call terminates the test mode automatically in the CO. Something similar is offered by the gas and water companies here in NJ. It costs the utility customer a one-time fee of $30 for installation of a remote-reading device. If you don't pay, they continue sending a meter-reader to your premises. If the reader arrives when nobody is home, you get an estimated bill. If this happens four consecutive times, you get a nasty letter. If it happens for a whole year, they threaten to cut off your service. When they come to cut off service, they must gain access to the premises. When they come inside, they read your meters and go away, with no interruption of service! This happened to me a number of years ago, and I've heard of its happening recently to friends and neighbors. I keep wondering if it wouldn't be better for the gas company to offer (or require) the remote-reading device without the $30 fee. On a technical note, does anybody know if/whether/how these things work in an area like this one? Here most subscriber lines are not metalic to the C.O. but use SLC-something that provides a digital multiplex over T-1 facilities? Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: Telephone Company Employees Date: 22 Dec 91 14:10:41 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: [ regarding automated-attendants at telco customer-service numbers] > However, on those occasions when I must deal with the residence > department (for my home) or the standard business office, a trick is > used which has proven quite effective. Just select "0" at every > prompt. Two or three "0"s later, you will either be speaking to a > live person or will be comfortably waiting in an ACD queue. What also works is to remain silent when prompted to enter touch tone digits. These systems generally don't know whether the caller is touch-tone-equipped or not. If the first prompt is met with silence, it should be designed to assume that tone-dial equipment is not available, and should attempt to connect you with a human. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ From: vances@xenitec.on.ca (Vance Shipley) Subject: Re: MOST Interesting Telco Recording! Organization: SwitchView Inc. Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1991 20:05:32 GMT In article shibumi@turbo.bio.net writes: > The voice recorders used in 'intercept' recordings are pretty > expensive. The grade of device used by telcos has an entry cost of > about $15K (before the fittings for running off the CO battery), and > you add about $5K per recording on each 'intercept' box. If you want > extra things like ANI, the cost goes way up. Obviously this is not how this should be done in light of currently available technology. One machine per announcement with it's own connection(s) to the switch is wastefull of both circuits and machines. One machine with many connections and a bank of recorded announcements that can be played over any port would make much more sense. I think I just described a VRU :). Vance Shipley vances@xenitec vances@ltg ..uunet!watmath!xenitec!vances ------------------------------ From: "Ken J. Clark" Subject: Re: Meter Reading via Phone Line (was Silent Night) Date: 21 Dec 91 18:09:11 PDT Organization: Simpact Associates, Reston VA In Volume 11, Issue 1031, Msg #3 , acg@HERMES.DLOGICS.COM writes: > All well and good, I suppose, but in real life usage, I suspect this > will open up a whole new field of inter-company bickering and > finger-pointing when something goes wrong. [Example deleted] > ("The phone company messed up your meter connection; call > them!") or the phone company ("Sorry, you didn't purchase our in-home > line maintenance service!"). In up-state New York (read Buffalo area) National Fuel Gas converted every house in my father's entire neighborhood. They made their connection right at the NIT, so at least in this case, there can be no question about inside wiring. > What if the phone service is disconnected? In my father's case, we had disconnected the phone service after he died, but until the house was sold we kept the gas connected to keep it heated. After six months of estimated bills, NFG finally sent me a letter stating, "We have been unable to read your meter. Please read it yourself and send us the reading on the enclosed card." BTW, the return card was *not* postage paid. :-) I suspect that NY Tel did more than just remove my father's subscriber connection. Obviously the wire pair was pulled somewhere. Actually, this was not as much a curiousity as was NFG. You would think that after six months of not being able to contact the meter reading device you would think that they would have sent out someone at least *once* to check on the device, if not at least to read the meter. 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: dan@sics.se (Dan Sahlin) Subject: Re: Swedish Telecommunications Network Organization: SICS, Swedish Inst. of Computer Science Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1991 19:06:08 GMT H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Phone numbers in Sweden are in one of these patterns: > 08-XXX XX XX > 08-XX XX XX > 0XX-XX XX XX > 0XX-XXX XX > 0XXX-XXX XX Next year this will change as one more digit will be allowed in the number, so the following patterns will also be allowed: 08-XX XX XX XX (yes that's right, 8-digit numbers!) 0XX-XXX XX XX 0XXX-XX XX XX Otherwise, the information provided by Peter Anvin about the Swedish telephone system appears to be correct. And now an anecdote, what may happen if you have a state-owned telephone company, like Televerket. Last October Televerket announced that they would change the way telephone calls would be charged in Sweden. Local calls would be much more expensive and long distance calls cheaper. International calls would also become cheaper. The Stockholm area would be the big loser after the reform that was announced to take place on Jan 1 1992. One reason for the changes was technical, local calls are simply not much cheaper than long distance calls. Another reason, however not at all emphasized by Televerket, was that they had been told to pay one billion dollars to the state, as they had been so profitable and partly to finance the lower income taxes introduced last year in Sweden. There were protests from many groups against the raised telecom charges, retired people in particular. The newly elected non-socialist government however said that they accepted the changes. The opposition, the social democrats, were against the raise. Nothing would have happened in the parliment, had not the new (started less than one year ago!) right-wing party "New Democracy" joined the social democrats on this issue. Last week it was decided in parliament that the changes in charges would not take place! Now Televerket complained and said that it was too late, work on changing all telephone stations had been going on for several months now, and it was technically impossible to prevent the change in charging take place on Jan 1 1992! So now people are working overtime all over the country in telephone stations, trying to stop the change, but they will not make it for the whole country in time, they say. (I find this very strange, if the change would take place Jan 1, why not simply not do it. How come this would be a hard thing to do? Does anyone know why this would be a problem?) Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Dan Sahlin, SICS, Sweden email: dan@sics.se phone: +46 8 752 1544 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Dec 91 14:03 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made! Sean Petty writes: > I just got off the phone with AT&T and let me tell you, THEY WON'T > BELIEVE YOU! > [Moderator's Note: What are you to do? Is that your question? What you > are to do is take your medicine like a man without wimpering. You and > others who called that number took advantage of a programming error of > which {USA Today} was not at fault. You did however use the newspaper's > information service. So what we have here is a mistake by AT&T and an unknown number of people taking advantage of that mistake. Someone at AT&T obviously became aware of it since the billing of 800 calls would have had to have been an intentional aberation. Pat is right about unjust enrichment and anyone calling the 800 number to hear the program should rightly pay if the INTENTION is to hear the program and is not a mistake. But I still have a problem with AT&T's handling of the matter. Over the years, American business has departed from a forthright manner of conducting affairs. The "save your ass" mentality has become the order of the day. Instead of simply telling customers, "Yes there was a programming error, but your repeated calls indicate that you intended to use the service so we have billed you for it", AT&T has elected to call its customers liars or incompetents and remove the charges on a "demand" basis. In my consulting business, I have made errors. This will come as a shock to many of you who thought that I was perfect (at least in my own mind), but from time to time mistakes are made. My policy is that a client will learn about my mistake from me first. There is great power in this. First, credibility is enhanced for when you speak with authority, those listening know that if there was doubt it would be expressed. Second, it derails those who would like to see you in trouble and who gleefully report your mistakes to the client. The reaction becomes, "yes, I know all about that". Admitting mistakes has never lost an account for me. It is a shame that major corporations such as AT&T cannot adopt similar policies. Yes, AT&T admits failure when there is an outage that cannot be ignored, but rarely does it admit responsibility. American business became the envy of the world when it conducted commerce in an honest and forthright manner. The results of deviating from that policy are becoming most obvious. The Japanese (or insert nationality of your choice) are not doing it to us; we are doing it to ourselves. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1991 00:31:00 -0500 From: Dave.Leibold@f524.n250.z1.fidonet.org (Dave Leibold) Subject: CBC Marketplace Segment on Caller-ID Tonight's episode (17 December 1991) of Marketplace on CBC Television featured a story on Called ID/Call Display and some of the privacy concerns being raised. The segment seemed slanted against Call Display, a feature which is currently active in certain areas in Bell Canada territory (Ontario and Quebec). The following posting is a synopsis of that segment. A few hypothetical situations were introduced to indicate pitfalls of Call Display: someone could phone the tax office without giving a name, yet could get a visit from a tax auditor (based on the phone number given through Call Display). Someone phoning city hall regarding a renovation inquiry could have a surprise visit from a building inspector to see if renovations were made at variance with city bylaws. Someone calling various shops to solve a problem with a stereo could find that stereo stolen a month later. Marketplace continued by showing a citizen with Call Display set up, displaying callers phone numbers. The gentleman using the Call Display service considered it a great boon, a deterrent to crank calls. Marketplace proceeded to have a private investigator, one Harry Lake, find as much information as possible from that resident's phone number: his full name, date of birth, his wife's name, date of birth as well, details on the mortgage and the company handling the mortgage, the employer, wife's occupation, some credit cards, credit rating, and car licence plate. Not bad for three hours of a private investigator's time (one of the investigator's aids was a Bower's cross-reference directory, incidentally). Another story was given about a Quebec City doctor who would call teenaged patients (visiting the clinic without their parents knowledege), only find out that parents checked the Caller ID displays to trace calls back to the clinics. One woman was harassed by a sociopathic freak after she responded to a newspaper classified ad. She was harassed with details of flowers in her front yard and other bizarre fantasies from said sociopath. On Bell Canada's side, the Assistant Vice-President of Comsumer Marketing (Tony LaVia (sp?)) considered Call Display analogous to checking who is on the other side of the entrance door. Benefits to society consisted of the reduction obscene calls - "the psychological equivalent of assault and battery". The British Columbia Public Interest Advocacy Centre is presently fighting BC Tel's bid for Caller-ID. Four consumer groups were going to the Federal Court of Appeal to fight Bell's Call Display service. Meanwhile, Manitoba's Public Utilities Board (the telephone regulator in that province) will await the results of public hearings before deciding on Caller ID's fate there. Dr Rohan Samarajiva, an assiatnt professor of communications at Ohio State University, was also interviewed regarding Call Display legality and privacy concerns. He mentions that we are increasingly living in "electronic space as opposed to physical space" and that the rules of living in electronic space are being determined now. If the rules aren't set now, "the rules will be made for us ... that's how these things go". Bell Canada will profit from its Call Display services; the expected take will be CAD$89 million/year by the end of 1995, not counting equipment rentals or the per call ID blocking charge of CAD$0.75 (the caller can block number display by calling the number via the operator; womens shelters can have their calls blocked for free by special approval of the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC)). Marketplace also showed how just blocking 10 calls per month could increase local service fees by about 50%. The segment ended with mention of Bell's statement that obscene/ harassing calls have dropped 75% with the presence of Caller ID though police departments contacted by Marketplace indicated some variance of success in curbing crank calls. Final mention was made about privacy advocates recommending the use of Call Trace (a feature that registers the calling party's number with the phone company) instead of Call Display. FD 2.00 * Origin: The Super Continental/Toronto/HST&V.32bis (416) 398.6720 (89:480/126) Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:250/98 INTERNET: Dave.Leibold@f524.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1039 *******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29878; 23 Dec 91 4:29 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12020 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 23 Dec 1991 02:37:33 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05062 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 23 Dec 1991 02:37:07 -0600 Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1991 02:37:07 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199112230837.AA05062@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1040 TELECOM Digest Mon, 23 Dec 91 02:37:01 CST Volume 11 : Issue 1040 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson A Telco with Class (John Higdon) Abandoned COCOTs? (John Higdon) ISDN and Christmas (William T. Sykes) Telephone Museums (Nigel Allen) Bellcore V & H Coordinates to Geographic Coordinates (Larry Cole) How do I Program Radio Shack Call Forwarding Box? (Greg Darnell) AOS Use for Hospital Patients (Jeff Schweiger) Telecom's Greatest Hits (was Pseudo-Area Code 311) (Floyd Vest) CNN Announces Federal Anti-Junk-Fax Law (USA) (H. Peter Anvin) Gadgets to Help Take Advantage of Custom Ringing (Bob Barker) New Residence Message Rate Plan for Florida (Dave Leibold) Call Trace on Usage Basis in Florida (Dave Leibold) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 22 Dec 91 20:07 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: A Telco with Class As I was going through my business mail, I stumbled across an unusual Christmas card. It was in a hand-addressed envelope directed to my company. It is a simple card depicting a snowman talking on the telephone with the inscription: Through the years, Across the miles, From our house to yours, The seasons best! The Contel Family Of the firms supplying communications to my company, Contel is still one of the classiest! It also provides excellent service. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Dec 91 18:28 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Abandoned COCOTs? After emptying my mail box at the post office, I thumbed through the mail and spotted a nastygram from a state agency that I questioned. An 800 number was listed for inquiry, so I walked up to the COCOT and attempted the call. After dialing, I got the following recording: "Your service has been interrupted. You may call 611, 911, and 811 numbers, but you must contact the business office to arrange to have your service restored." The other phone had exactly the same recording. In other words, not only does the USPS insult us with COCOTs in the first place, but apparently selects a vendor that does not pay its phone bills. But that was yesterday. Today, I was faced with a COCOT in a different part of town which had the same situation. It appears that COCOT ownership is a marginal enough enterprize that it cannot weather the ripples in the economy. This is great news. We have been wondering how these telephonic abominations might be eliminated and now it appears that the marketplace may do it for us. Isn't free enterprize wonderful? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: wts1@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (wts1) Subject: ISDN and Christmas Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1991 18:51:28 GMT Copied from internal att.today and AT&T Corporate Media Relations. Happy Holidays! AT&T TODAY Friday, December 20, 1991 -- 10:30 a.m. EST AT&T ANNOUNCES *** Barbara Bush and Santa Claus will make this Christmas a time to be remembered for hundreds of hospitalized hildren. On Friday, Dec. 20, Mrs. Bush will make three historic ISDN personal video calls to children's hospitals in St. Louis, Baltimore and Atlanta. In each call, Mrs. Bush will read a brief Christmas story and talk with several children via an ISDN telephone and a computer screen with a mounted camera. Since the calls are interactive, the children will be able to talk with Mrs. Bush and show off holiday drawings. Mrs. Bush is expected to make a bed-side video call to one or two critically-ill children as well. After each call from the White House, the children will phone Santa Claus at his workshop to deliver their Christmas wishlist. Santa will see and hear the kids, and the kids will see and hear him through a simple press of a button marked "Santa" on the ISDN personal video phone. In St. Louis, a live appearance by Santa will follow Mrs. Bush's call and will cap a two-day VideoSanta program in which the children will be able to see and talk to Santa over a special video connection to Southwestern Bell headquarters (the "North Pole"). The video call from Mrs. Bush will be a digital call made over an ordinary copper telephone via the public switched network -- the same wiring present in most homes across America. The call will utilize new and robust data speeds for improved picture quality. The ISDN personal video calls are being arranged for the hospitals through a cooperative effort among the following telecommunications companies: Bell Atlantic, Southwestern Bell, BellSouth and AT&T. The demonstration video telephones were provided by AT&T Bell Laboratories and NCR, using video codecs by Compression Labs Inc. The three hospitals are St. Louis Children's; Scottish Rite in Atlanta; and Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. -------- William T. Sykes AT&T Federal Systems Advanced Technologies Burlington, NC UUCP: att!burl!wts att!cbnewsb!wts1 ------------------------------ From: nigel.allen@canrem.uucp (Nigel Allen) Date: 19 Dec 91 (03:01) Subject: Telephone Museums Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto If you are going to be in a different city around Christmas, you may want to find out from the local telephone company, tourism bureau or chapter of the Telephone Pioneers of America whether there is a telephone museum in the community that you are visiting. For example, Bell Canada has historical displays in some of its buildings in Toronto (Bell Trinity Square, 483 Bay Street) and Montreal (1050 Beaver Hall Hill and 700 de La Gauchetiere West). Military units responsible for signals and telecommunications may also have displays, such as the Canadian Forces Signals and Communications Museum in Kingston. If you discover a telephone museum in the city you're visiting, you might want to bring a family member along with you. It seems that the only time people visit tourist attractions in their own city is when people from out of town are visiting. General science museums, such as the Ontario Science Centre in Toronto, can also be fun. If you've done a lot of desktop publishing, it's fun to look at an old Linotype machine and realize how typesetting was done before computers. You don't have to be a kid to enjoy a science museum! There's plenty of snow outside, and Canada doesn't have any COCOTs yet. It's going to be a good Christmas. Canada Remote Systems. Toronto, Ontario NorthAmeriNet Host [Moderator's Note: And while we are on the topic, I want to wish a very happy holiday season to all telecom readers, and extend my best wishes for a happy and prosperous new year! PAT] ------------------------------ From: cole@etonic.gsg.dco.dec.com (Larry Cole) Subject: Bellcore V & H Coordinates to Geographic Coordinates Reply-To: cole@dco.dec.com Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Landover MD Date: Fri, 20 Dec 91 14:41:55 GMT I am working on a program to draw geographic network maps and hope to locate sites geographically by area code/exchange. Bellcore offers a V & H Coordinates Tape containing the needed information, but the Vertical and Horizontal coordinates are given as 5 digit numbers, for example, Wilton, Maine is given as V = 03961, H = 01464. Does anyone know how to convert these to Lat/Long ? (Wilton, Maine is 44 35 31 N, 70 13 39 W in lat/long). Is anyone aware of a similiar dataset which gives lat/long coordinates for Postal Zip Codes ? Thanks. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Dec 91 14:48 MST From: gnd@idaho.amdahl.com (Greg Darnell) Subject: How do I Program Radio Shack Call Forwarding Box? I just purchased a Radio Shack "Call Forwarding System" CFS-200, cat. no. 43-155, at a closeout price of $30. This system allows you to essentially set up your own call forwarding system if you have two lines. I'd like to set it up and try it, but there was no manual, and while they have ordered it, given the competency of the local store it could be up to six months before I see it. If anyone has info on how to program it via the keypad and via touch tone phone, I would appreciate your help. All I need is a summary of the commands and their key codes and formats (e.g. #pw*234# sets the password to 234). Thanks in advance. Greg Darnell Amdahl Corporation 143 N. 2 E., Rexburg, Idaho 83440 UUCP:{ames,decwrl,sun,uunet}!amdahl!tetons!gnd (208) 356-8915 INTERNET: gnd@idaho.amdahl.com [Moderator's Note: If you do not get your copy of the instructions soon, send me your mailing address and I will make a copy of mine to send to you. PAT] ------------------------------ From: schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeff Schweiger) Subject: AOS Use for Hospital Patients Date: 21 Dec 91 02:47:26 GMT Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA My father is currently in the Cardiac Care Unit (CCU) of a hospital on Long Island (NY). He has been given the opportunity to use a phone for outgoing calls (this isn't always possible in a CCU). While he has been able to make local calls without difficulty, long distance has been a problem. He has been completely stopped from using his MCI Card, with both 950-1022 and 800-950-1022 numbers blocked (resulting in a recording from "Telesphere" along the lines of 'your call cannot be completed as dialed'). Interestingly enough, he was also prevented from making a call using Telesphere, and found out the only way we could make a long distance call was collect. I received such a call today from him, and the operator identified himself as the "ITI Operator". How about that, two AOS's on one phone system! I have a feeling that the hospital using AOS's to make their patient phones a profit center is probably legal, but I thought I'd ask telecom folks if they knew. (Remember, this is not a COCOT -- no coins involved). Also, does anyone have any idea what I might expect to be charged when I finally see this bill? (15 minutes daytime, ITI operator assisted, New York to California). Thanks, Jeff Schweiger Standard Disclaimer CompuServe: 74236,1645 Internet (Milnet): schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil ------------------------------ From: Floyd Vest Subject: Telecom's Greatest Hits (was Re: Pseudo-Area Code 311) Date: 20 Dec 91 21:50:07 CDT On 16 Dec 91 18:17:07 GMT cmoore@BRL.MIL (VLD/VMB) wrote: > And in the early 1960s there was "BEechwood 4-5789". This was the Marvellettes' 1962 telephone song that was covered with a "number change" in Wilson Pickett's 1966 hit "634-5789 (Soulsville, U.S.A)". The '81 number was Tommy Tutone's 867-5309/Jenny. In the 40's Glenn Miller dialed "PEnnsylvania 6-5000" for a hit. Blondie (and many others) recorded "Call Me" ... Jim Croce & the Manhattan's had lyrical conversations with the "Operator" ... Sheena Easton conducted a "Long Distance Love Affair" ... the Electric Light Orchestra stayed on the "Telephone Line" ... the Five Americans wired "Western Union". Any other nominations for telecommunications greatest hits? :-) Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you and yours Floyd Vest +1 205 826 6699 FIDO: 1:3613/3 Auburn, Alabama USA ------------------------------ From: hpa@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (H. Peter Anvin N9ITP) Subject: CNN Announces Federal Anti-Junk-Fax Law (USA) Reply-To: hpa@nwu.edu Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1991 07:39:55 GMT Tonight, December 20, 1991, there was a brief notice on CNN, stating that a new federal law apparently will ban junk faxes and possibly even telemarketing calls to subscribers who have requested no such calls. There is going to be a list maintained by the FCC which will list the off-limit phone numbers. Police, hospital and fire department numbers will automatically be off-limits. The notice said the law had been passed by Congress and was going to be signed by President Bush on "Friday" (which could either be Dec 20 or 27). I did not catch any notice of when the new law is to take effect, nor the penalty. INTERNET: hpa@nwu.edu TALK: 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: /BAD=FATAL_ERROR/ERR=LINE_OVERFLOW ------------------------------ From: barker@wd0gol.WD0GOL.MN.ORG (Bob Barker) Subject: Gadgets to Help Take Advantage of Custom Ringing Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1991 02:14:33 -0600 Organization: Robert Barker & Associates, Eden Prairie, MN. I've just had custom ringing added to my home line and would like to have some of the various telephone answering devices around the house take advantage of it by being able to distinguish between the two different rings. I know I've seen some discussion about this in the past but don't remember seeing any definitive answers to the questions: 1. Is there a commercial device that will listen to the first (full) ring, determine if its the normal ring or custom ring, and then connect the line to either device A or device B depending on the ring? 2. How about circuit ideas for the build-it-yourself type? Any information would be appreciated! Thanks, Bob Barker ...!uunet!jhereg!tcnet!wd0gol!barker Robert Barker & Associates barker@wd0gol.MN.ORG (612) 949-0140 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1991 22:45:00 -0500 From: Dave.Leibold@f524.n250.z1.fidonet.org (Dave Leibold) Subject: New Residence Message Rate Plan for Florida Southern Bell in Florida included the following in its bills recently (yes, I still have unfinished business with these guys, even a month and a half since moving out) ... the following words are Southern Bell's [with any commentary of mine in brackets]. NEW OPTIONAL RESIDENCE CALLING PLAN Would you like to reduce your basic local service charge? If your answer is yes, we have a new plan that may be just right for you ... Residence Message Rate Effective October 1, 1991*, the Florida Public Service Commission approved an optional Residence Message Rate plan. If you subscribe to this plan, you will receive a 40% discount on your basic local residence service charge. You may make 30 calls to your local area each month at no charge. After that, the charge for each call to your local area is $.10 per call. If you order the Residence Message Rate plan before January 28, 1992, you will save the $9.00 connection charge. For more information or to subscribe to this plan, please call your service representative at 780-2355 [in Florida - djcl]. * Residence Message rate will not be effective until January 15, 1992 in the Orange Park and Green Cove Springs exchanges and in the Hollywood exchange for telephone numbers beginning with 431, 432, 433, 435, 436 and 437. Residence Message Rate is only available in exchanges where facilities permit. [presumably meaning electronic exchanges that can handle local measured billing - djcl]. ---------- FD 2.00 Origin: The Super Continental/Toronto/HST&V.32bis (416) 398.6720 (89:480/126) Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:250/98 INTERNET: Dave.Leibold@f524.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1991 22:52:00 -0500 From: Dave.Leibold@f524.n250.z1.fidonet.org (Dave Leibold) Subject: Call Trace on Usage Basis in Florida (from a Southern Bell bill ...) The Florida Public Service Commission has approved Call Tracing, where facilities permit, on a per usage basis effective November 25, 1991. Dialing *57 will automatically send the last incoming number to Southern Bell's Annoyance Call Center. There is a $4.50 charge for each successful trace. Blocking is available to subscribers who do not wish to have Call Tracing on a usage basis available from their number. A service order charge does apply for blocking usage-based Call Tracing. For more information, please call your service representative at the number shown on your telephone bill. ********* [another announcement] The Florida PSC has approved Southern Bell's offering of Automatic Number Identification (ANI) Service to business customers in Florida. ANI provides the billing number of the calling line. Whenever you dial a 440- or 930- number, your telephone number is provided to the business you have called. This service is not Caller ID Service and therefore the Caller ID blocking codes will not apply in these instances. FD 2.00 Origin: The Super Continental/Toronto/HST&V.32bis (416) 398.6720 (89:480/126) Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:250/98 INTERNET: Dave.Leibold@f524.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1040 *******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02270; 24 Dec 91 2:24 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17838 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 24 Dec 1991 00:36:21 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17376 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 24 Dec 1991 00:36:08 -0600 Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1991 00:36:08 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199112240636.AA17376@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1041 TELECOM Digest Tue, 24 Dec 91 00:36:00 CST Volume 11 : Issue 1041 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson AT&T Billing Us For "Free" 800 Call - What May Have Happened (Rob Boudrie) Re: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made! (Jeff Sicherman) Re: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made! (John Higdon) Re: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made! (Henry E. Schaffer) Re: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made! (Tad Cook) Re: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made! (Joe Konstan) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rob Boudrie Date: Sat, 21 Dec 91 00:14:48 EST Subject: AT&T Billing Us For "Free" 800 Call - What May Have Happened I have thought of one scenario which would explain the sudden occurrence of 800-555-5555 calls appearing on bills a 900-555-5555 calls. A previous poster mentioned talking to {USA Today} about their "800 number", and hearing about how pissed they were (this was well after I had used the 800 number, of course). Now, imagine the conversation between {USA Today} and AT&T 900 service. {USA Today} would likely demand reparations for the damages caused by the 800 access, including refunding of any communications charges to {USA Today}, as well as for the newspaper's normal fee for the information service (some, or possibly all, of the services, such as Weathertrac, are bought by the paper rom outside vendors). Is it hard to imagine some AT&T bureaucrat, worried about explaining a large cash settlement to {USA Today} replying with "I've got a great idea ... we can bill those 800 calls you recieved out as 900 calls and you'll get paid". [Kind of makes you wish you made 1E+06 of these 800-555-5555 calls from a cocot, doesn't it?] Does anyone have any further information on this? [Moderator's Note: Read on in this issue. Lots of people have ideas. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Dec 91 15:02:24 -0800 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: Re: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made! Organization: Cal State Long Beach Telecom Moderator and now apparently protector of AT&T and USA Today writes: > [Moderator's Note: Of course you are responsible for the charges! You > found a way to circumvent the 900 blocking on your line by taking > advantage of an error in how telco was routing calls. You knew what > you were calling and you chose to call anyway. I'm going to send > copies of the messages on this topic in the past couple of issues to > AT&T and {USA Today} with my personal recommendation -- for whatever > that is worth -- suggesting they not write off a nickle of this unless > the caller can demonstrate from one or two calls ONLY of a minute or > less that their dialing was truly in error. PAT] Though I'm as opinionated as hell, I resisted temptation on this thread because I didn't have any personal interest in it and really didn't have anything new to contribute that someone else hadn't said. I also consider the periodic soap-boxing by PAT part of the territory and an acceptable trade for all the work he puts into the job as moderator. However, I think he has again gone just a little too far when he proposes action with these private organizations in a way that appears to marginally overlap his activities as Moderator of this Digest. I say *again* because I raised an objection in the past to a seeming proposal that the email-boxes of certain corporate executives ought to be flooded with complaints about an issue. I don't want to resurrect either that issue or the email argument. I just would like to suggest, PAT, that you may be abusing and overstepping an admittedly ill-defined boundary of propriety and wisdom when you leave your task as editor and even editorialist of the Digest and start becoming an activist and participant in things that are not specifically related and restricted to your private business matters or to the publication and distribution of the Digest. I guess it's that I feel you may be abusing your ready, uncensored (unlike ours, in which you do the editing and censoring) access to a 'bully pulpit' and your access to all the correspondence that gets sent to you but may or may not get published. I'm sure you can mount all kinds of legal(istic) arguments that you're not doing anything wrong or illegal or even unethical, but I just don't think it's a good idea to compromise your roles in this way. If people think you're going to act as an unappointed private policeman for others, I think that may inhibit some of the flow of information that comes into your 'hands'. Continue to rant and rave all you want, as much as I may disagree, but please don't get involved like this. Don't try and be 'journalist' and "politician'. Jeff Sicherman [Moderator's Note: I am not a 'protector' of either AT&T or the newspaper. But right is right and fair is fair. People called that number knowing good and well they were going to get something for nothing as a result of a programming error. There were no mistakes in dialing, no misunderstandings. And now I get bombed with numerous messages from people wanting to put up these little smoke screens and pretend THEY are the injured party, and the newspaper is running some sort of fraud. As for me personally saying anything to anyone, I need not bother calling anywhere. Management people of both AT&T and {USA Today} have been known to read these columns. I hope I have inspired them to not back down on this issue. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Dec 91 19:42 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made! On Dec 22 at 16:27, TELECOM Moderator writes: > They were charged for the information provided by the called party, > just as the called party said would happen when answering the call. I > suppose owners of COCOTS will get billed. They can chase after the > folks who used their phones if they wish. Calls from payphones owned > by the phone company will be charged to their respective telcos who in > turn can track down the person making the call or write them off as > they wish. PAT] Now hold the phone! If someone allows (through his COCOT, hotel PBX, or even a telco-owned payphone) public access to free numbers such as 800, where is HIS responsibility? He allows these calls since by definition they are free to him and he is just providing a convenience. Now, through a mistake of another (one who expects to be enriched, at that), his courtesy turns into a nightmare of charges on which he has no hope of reimbursement. Even if there was a possibility of tracking down all those users, would the COCOT owner then be entitled to re-bill AT&T for the costs of that collection? After all, it WAS AT&T's mistake, was it not? AT&T needs to take responsibility for ALL of the inconvenience and cost on something that is its fault. Period. If AT&T thinks it can collect from END USERS, fine. But to palm that off on innocent third-parties would be unthinkable. If I was a COCOT owner and received a fat bill for IAS charges from AT&T through no fault of my programming or equipment, I would return it to AT&T with a very stern note of advice concerning where it might be put. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) Subject: Re: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made! Organization: Computing Center, North Carolina State University Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1991 15:14:35 GMT Esteemed Moderator! The problem is to square the well known and agreed upon toll-free nature of an 800 call with {USA Today} charges. Since it was an 800 call -- I suggest that the phone company is not allowed to bill anything for this call. However, since the call was answered with a message describing the charges, I suggest that USA Today is allowed to bill for any services rendered -- but they have to do it themselves, not via the phone company. The analogy I consider appropriate is a person calling a Customer Service 800 number, and being told that some advice or service being requested is only available for a consultation or service fee of $N. If the person says "OK, I'll pay." and receives the requested service then there is an obligation to pay -- even though it was a toll-free call. Note that the phone company is not involved. No, I don't *really* believe that this will please everyone -- just the reasonable people. :-) henry schaffer n c state univ [Moderator's Note: I've no objections to the newspaper billing direct for their services instead of via the telco, except that it makes better sense to bill through telco as a matter of expediency in this case, since telco has the records of who called, and had the service been working as intended by its proprietor, calls would have been billed by telco. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made! From: hpubvwa!tad@ssc.wa.com (Tad Cook) Date: 22 Dec 91 19:54:04 GMT "Scott D. Green" says: > Remember back in September/October when {USA Today} was having > "network problems" on its 900-555-5555 line so that it was accessible > via 800-555-5555? Remember how we speculated what, if anything, would > happen with the charges? Wonder no more! > I just received my November bill with the calls detailed as "USA Today > 900-555-5555" at $.95 per minute. *And* I have 900 blocking on my > line! This thread is really making me nervous. I have 900-976 blocking on both my home phone lines, but it sounds like I am about to be billed. I am not worried about myself. Being somewhat telecom savvy, I can get the charges removed. What makes me nervous is that I can't recall exactly where ELSE I dialed 800-555-5555 from, other then my office. I have already informed our telephone guy at work to be on the lookout for these charges, and told him that he can check up on our station detail record to verify that I dialed 800, not 900. But where else did I dial it? I know I did it from some pay phones (including a COCOT ... that ought to be interesting for the COCOT owner!), but I am afraid that some of my friends might wonder who the sleazeball is who dialed a 900 number from their phone. Or maybe I didn't dial it from any friend's phones. I just can't remember! This will be intersting. I don't know how many minutes I ran up listening to the movie reviews on my speakerphone, playing with the weather info, seeing which new NPAs wouldn't work with the weather. One strange thing I recall was that when they finally got the 510 NPA to work on the weather report, it reported the weather for Marin County, instead of the East Bay! I smell trouble. Tad Cook | Phone: 206-527-4089 | MCI Mail: 3288544 Seattle, WA | Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA | 3288544@mcimail.com | USENET: tad@ssc.wa.com or...sumax!ole!ssc!tad [Moderator's Note: And indeed you should smell trouble. I doubt you will now succeed in getting the charges removed. The complainers early on (like last week or the week before) got them removed before people at AT&T were becoming knowledgeable of what was going on. More of them are learning about it every day. If the amount is small enough and you refuse to pay, chances are likely they will write them off and simply put you in their deadbeat file. If the charges are large enough, I strongly suspect they will stick to their guns and demand payment. All your complaints to the FCC, FTC, your senator and others will be to no avail, at least not if you tell the story honestly, and can the crapola about how you 'thought it was a free sample', etc. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Dec 91 14:33:19 PST From: konstan@elmer-fudd.cs.berkeley.edu (Joe Konstan) Subject: Re: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made! [Our moderator made comments about how anyone who used this service (for more than a trivial trial to find out about the charges) should be expected to pay for it. He bases the argument on an obligation to mitigate damages, among other things.] Sorry, Pat, but I think you are way off, for three reasons: 1. This, to me, is identical to walking into a gourmet food shop where there is a basket of goodies labeled "free samples -- try one" but each sample has a price tag. The "reasonable man" would assume that the price marked on the sample is the "regular" price but that the merchant is giving away the sample for free to get the customer to try it. If, on my way out of the store I was asked to pay for the samples I'd be quite justified in refusing. This seems even more true when we consider that the early TELECOM Digest postings about this included several speculations that this was, indeed, what {USA Today} was trying to do -- namely drum up business and then remove the 800-service. 2. The second reason is that AT&T (and or USA Today acting through them) committed fraud by billing customers for a 900-number call that was never made. Cases of fraud do not put the same obligations on the participating parties as non-fraudulent contracts. If, in this case, {USA Today} had sent a nice letter to each user requesting payment (and explaining the problem) I'd have more sympathy -- but in this case they did not. 3. The "unjust enrichment" argument clearly would indicate that USA Today should not gain any money from this. Arguably, if this is their mistake, then AT&T should get something for carrying the calls, but conversely if this was AT&T's error then they should not make money and USA Today should not be billed for the 800 calls. If callers received anything concrete they should return it, but this service doesn't provide anything concrete. Finally, since TELECOM Digest people called {USA Today} to ask them about this, they are indeed negligent and failing to mitigate damages since the line was active long after they were notified (according to digest accounts). Similarly, I believe one could argue that since AT&T employees are among the regular Digest readers, they too were negligent and failed to mitigate damages. In summary, if you don't want to pay for the calls, and honestly would not have called the service as a 900-number, I think you are justified in refusing here and probably would be justified in enlisting the FCC or FTC's help in the fraud. Joe Konstan Note: I am not a lawyer (but I have read the ABA's "You and the Law" book! :-). [Moderator's Note: How odd you sit there and claim the victim (USA Today) was the perpetrator and you, one of several who pulled off this petty fraud are actually the victim. You poor boy you! Yes indeed, go to the FCC and tell them "I tried a petty scam on a 900 service provider when I found an error in telco's programming. They caught me at it and (instead of suing me for theft of service and really making a stink about it) billed me for the calls. Punish them!" Try and be for real, okay? More of these messages in the next issue on Tuesday morning. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1041 *******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04846; 24 Dec 91 3:26 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21509 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 24 Dec 1991 01:48:28 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03614 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 24 Dec 1991 01:48:15 -0600 Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1991 01:48:15 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199112240748.AA03614@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1042 TELECOM Digest Tue, 24 Dec 91 01:47:57 CST Volume 11 : Issue 1042 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made! (Kevin Gallagher) Re: USA Today Number - A Update on Billing Procedures (Skip Collins) Re: USA Today Number - A Update on Billing Procedures (Steve Forrette) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 23 Dec 91 15:50:32 -0600 From: kgallagh@digi.lonestar.org (Kevin Gallagher) Subject: Re: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made! Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX In article aboritz@harry.hourgls. fidonet.org (Alan Boritz) writes: > Speaking of premium services and blocking, New York Telephone has a > scam going with blocking service and 976- numbers. NYT customers with > blocking active can call the operator to reach a 976- number, and the > operator will place the call at *operator-assisted* rates. I > discovered that trick when auditing my former employer's phone bill > one month and found a few hundred dollars of such calls (some > employees were calling the weather and time via the operator after we > blocked all outbound trunks). I got a credit for that month's > billing, but they were insistant about not giving a similar credit > again. > [Moderator's Note: Of course you are responsible for the charges! You > found a way to circumvent the 900 blocking on your line by taking > advantage of an error in how telco was routing calls. You knew what > you were calling and you chose to call anyway. You have forgotten WHY blocking of 900 and 976 calls has been provided as a service by telcos in the past year or two. Soon after 900 and 976 numbers were introduced, parents quickly discovered that these numbers were virtually all rip-offs and, to use a legal term, it was clear that they are indeed "attractive nuisances" which can inflict harm on children and on the parents' pocketbooks! (Here's an example to help your understand what an "attractive nuisance" is. Suppose your neighbor down the street builds a swimming pool in his back yard, and does not put a fence around it, because there is no specific law requiring him to put one up. He then informs his neighbors that no one is permitted to use his pool without his permission. You then inform your eight- and ten-year old children that they are not permitted to swim in the neighbor's pool without your and the neighbor's permission. Two weeks later, your children notice that you and your neighbor are both not home. They decide to go swimming in his pool. One child is injured seriously. Is the neighbor legally libel to pay damages to you for the injury your child received while swimming in the pool without permission? Yes, his is. Because swimming is an attractive activity to most children, and because there are known dangers associated with swimming, especially for unsupervised children, the swimming pool becames an "attractive nuisance" in the neighborhood when the owner chose NOT to erect a physical barrier to its access.) Businesses soon realized the same financial harm could easily hit their pocketbooks, as well. Local telcos began to be swamped with complaints from parents and companies. Local and national politians soon began to hear the complaints as well. Under fear that this new lucrative service might soon be banned, telcos began to offer blocking service, as a defensive measure, in the hopes that it would stop the push to ban the service. It has worked. Blocking is NOT provided as a service to the customer to protect the customer from himself (or herself)! It is provided as a service to the customer to prevent unauthorized use of 900 and 976 numbers on the customers phone BY OTHER PEOPLE who happened to be authorized to use the phone to make calls OTHER THAN 900 and 976 calls. Your response above makes this problem out to be a simple black and white issue, when in fact there is a large grey area. When I signed up for 900 and 976 blocking service from my telco, I was told that 900 and 976 calls would not be allowed from my phone, period. If my children can bypass the blocking by calling the operator and asking the operator to make the call, then the telco has failed to provide the promised blocking service. (They put up a fence around the pool but left the gate open. By leaving the gate open, the pool once again becomes an attractive nuisance.) > I'm going to send copies of the messages on this topic in the past couple of > issues to AT&T and {USA Today} with my personal recommendation -- for > whatever that is worth -- suggesting they not write off a nickle of this > unless the caller can demonstrate from one or two calls ONLY of a minute or > less that their dialing was truly in error. Suppose my 15 year old made over four hundred 800 {USA Today} calls from my phone in a month. His friend told him about the 800 number. He thought the calls were free. Who's liable for the charges? Kevin Gallagher kgallagh@digi.lonestar.org OR ...!uunet!digi!kgallagh DSC Communications Corporation Addr: MS 152, 1000 Coit Rd, Plano, TX 75075 [Moderator's Note: If he thought the calls were free, then maybe you ought to get him in to the doctor for a hearing test. Everyone else heard the announcement that the call was 95 cents per minute. But more to the point of your question, if your child made these calls and you refused to pay for them then the contract and subsequent obligation would probably be voided in court. The reason would be that contracts entered into by minors are generally not enforceable with a few notable exceptions: If the contract pertained to your minor child's immediate welfare -- ie. housing away from home, a winter coat if he did not have one, food if he was unable for whatever reason to obtain food from you, necessary clothing, etc -- then you would most likely be held responsible for the contract he entered and the obligations arising from it. This is because parents are responsible for the welfare of their minor children. Calling the newspaper's 900 info line is hardly necessary to his welfare. Now to address the 'attractive nuisance' aspect: So they go through the open gate. Now they get caught by the property owner and their parents, both of whom demand they leave the water at once. Instead of leaving the water, the naughty children defy their parents and continue to swim. Despite the property owner telling them to leave and even posting a sign saying 'the lock on this door is broken, but I insist you remain outside', the naughty children continue what they are doing. *Then* one of them drowns. Now who is responsible? PAT] ------------------------------ From: collins@aplcomm.JHUAPL.EDU (Skip Collins) Subject: Re: USA Today Number - A Update on Billing Procedures Date: 23 Dec 91 18:23:01 GMT Organization: JHU/APL, Laurel, MD > [Moderator's Note: You forgot to mention that neither are *you or I* > -- or anyone -- permitted to benefit from these mistakes. Anyone who > encounters a 'mistake' or 'error' or for that matter an accident on > the street or whatever MUST make every effort to mitigate the losses > involved. No one is entitled to deliberatly abuse or take advantage of > the misfortune of someone else.... > To put it another way, someone crossing the street is struck by a hit > and run driver. As she lays in the street unconcious, you walk over and > grab her purse laying in the street and abscond with the money. You > ask 'what law did I break by picking up something of value I found > laying in the street?' ... the context is all-important, and in this > context you would be the scum, not the person laying in the street. > Yet somehow you say {USA Today} is sleaze because *they* were victims > and now wish to recover what was taken from them? I believe your analogy is misguided. Consider for example a cable TV subsciber who finds that she can receive pay-per-view movies and premium channels. She never agreed to pay for such services, but her contract with the TV company specifically states their cost. Suppose further, that the TV company regularly states the cost of the premium services in their broadcasts. She knows she is getting something for nothing. If the company finds out she is receiving the services, and is able to determine exactly the cost of those services she used, should she be required to pay the bill? What about the case of those telephone users who take advantage of the limitations of certain telco switches to use DTMF dialing without paying for the service? This sounds like a great money-maker for {USA Today}. If AT&T is allowed to charge for these 800 calls, why should {USA Today} correct the mistake? Sure, leave the 800 number that costs money up and running. A whole new market of people who are afraid to dial 1-900 will open up. I am waiting to hear a more convincing argument than the one Pat gave for why AT&T or USA Today have a legitimate claim. Skip Collins [Moderator's Note: How can you sit there and say a rip off by several people against {USA Today} 'sounds like a great money maker for the paper'? In your example of the person who finds premium cable channels available, she is obligated to pay for what she views. She has no right to take advantage of the cable company. I have no love lost for cable companies, but I don't rip off their programming. Here is another example: You go into a store and a new teenage clerk waits on you. You deliberatly get her confused while she is ringing up your sale and she gives you twenty dollars too much change. You pocket the extra money and laugh to yourself on the way out thinking how witty you are. Are you entitled to keep the money? No ... it is unjust enrichment whenever you profit in a case like this. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Dec 91 05:28:26 pst From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: USA Today Number - A Update on Billing Procedures Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA Pat, I must admit that I think you are totally off base on this {USA Today} issue. I have two points to make: a legal one and an "in the best interest of Mother" one. First, they *did* solicit me to place this call for free. Not USA Today, but "they" being the telco (AT&T, RBOC, etc.) It says in my White Pages: "800 Service: Calls to 800 numbers are free. Dial 1+800+the telephone number." And through the AT&T 800 Directory (the paper one) and years of advertising, the telcos collectively have tried to make it as clear as possible to the customer that 800 numbers are free. They have done such a good job at this that this fact is something that virtually every American knows, despite the general lack of knowledge of telco billing practices. Certainly, a "ordinary person, in full possession of their faculties, using reasonable judgement and prudence" (or whatever the phrase really is) would assume that calling 1 + 800 + anything is free. The fact that the recording stated that the call would be charged is an important issue, but I believe it to be overridden by the "800 is free" common knowledge. After all, how often have we all encountered recordings (both telco and customer) that are completely incorrect? It happens all the time. You always have to excercise judgement when listening to an intercept, and especially a message generated by some business's CPE. On the other hand, how common is dialing an 800 number and getting billed 95 cents a minute? What conclusion would a resonable person reach as to where the error was? How does someone know that USA Today didn't decide to offer this service on a trial basis on an 800 number (possibly to gather ANI informaion) without charge, and just forgot to update the recording? This sort of thing is far too common. Again, how common is getting billed for a call to an 800 number? And as far as actually enforcing collection, AT&T and/or {USA Today} would have to establish that the customer knew, or reasonably should have know, that there would be a charge associated with the call. In spite of the announcement, I firmly believe that any reasonable court would determine that the fact that an 800 number was dialed would be the overriding issue. It is true that a lot folks who read about it here knew of the specifics of the mistake, but could telco establish this fact in court? Could I get my own 800 number and just put a recording on it stating that all calls will be billed at 95 cents a minute? I know that I could not get telco to do the billing, but if I had something reasonably interesting on the line I would get at least a few people to run up big bills, big enough to make it profitable to enforce my own collection. Despite the fact that there was a clearly stated message, do you really think that I would be able to secure a judgement against callers? The only reason that AT&T and {USA Today} is able to get away with it is that AT&T is the telco. They can put the charges directly on your phone bill. They can also doctor the records (which they have done since the calls appear as "900" calls on the bill) to make it appear that the customer actually dialed 900. Now, my "best interests of Mother" argument: Isn't the absolute common knowledge that 800 calls are free much more important to AT&T than any amount of loss they suffered for this one incident? If they continue to take the tack that everybody who dialed the 800 number is not telling the truth, and must have dialed the 900 number because AT&T doesn't make mistakes, they are really asking for it. Since this probably affected at least several thousand people, it is likely that somebody is going to make enough of a stink about it that at least some mention of this gets into the general media. The general media seems to enjoy to hype the negative reports of AT&T during the recent outages -- this would be an interesting follow-up. How much damage will be done when people read in their papers that thousands of customers were billed 95 cents a minute for calling an 800 number? And that after complaining about it, were basically told by AT&T that they were not being truthful and that this just couldn't possibly be. Considering the general lack of knowledge about "the phone company" by the general public, this could serve to permanently lose the trust of the "little old lady" type. How much money will AT&T lose by people being reluctant to call 800 numbers? Now, I admit, this single incident is unlikely to make a major difference, but I'm sure you see my point on how much money Mother makes from people calling 800 numbers, and that the whole reason of 800 in the first place is the absolute confidence that callers have that the recipient will pay all charges. As for me, I think there are about 10 or 12 minutes of charges, during two calls. But the interesting twist is that I placed these calls from work. Although we don't have 900 blocking, the SMDR log from the PBX will establish with absolute certainty exactly what number was dialed. And I'm sure that I'm not the only one in this position. This raises yet another issue: What sort of logging goes on in the local CO regarding this type of call? I know that mileage will vary, but what is the general practice, particularly among RBOCs? I would guess that 900 numbers are logged, and perhaps 800 numbers as well. Even if only 900 numbers are logged, the absense of entries to 900-555-1212 should establish what number was really called. And this would be available as recourse to all of the residence/small business users who made these calls and don't have their own SMDR (plus, it is not subject to the customer adding phalse information after the fact [I just HAD to get the "ph" in here somewhere. It's so appropriate for this story :-)]). Even though it is unlikely that these records would be consulted for individual disputes, "spot checks" could be used to convince any disbelievers in the AT&T billing department that the customers' complaints on this issue are genuine. I really look forward to see how this one unfolds! Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com, I do not speak for my employer. [Moderator's Note: To claim that telco 'solicited' your calls by their comments that calls to 800 numbers are reverse toll is stretching things quite a bit, don't you think? PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1042 *******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07565; 24 Dec 91 4:34 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22073 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 24 Dec 1991 03:01:17 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04200 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 24 Dec 1991 03:01:03 -0600 Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1991 03:01:03 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199112240901.AA04200@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1043 TELECOM Digest Tue, 24 Dec 91 03:01:00 CST Volume 11 : Issue 1043 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made! (Ron Schnell) Stop The Smoke Screens and Injured Party Routine Please (TELECOM Moderator) Re: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made! (Rob Boudrie) Calls to 800-555-5555 From Bell Canada Land (Vance Shipley) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 22 Dec 91 22:57:09 -0500 From: Ron Schnell Subject: Re: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made! PAT writes: > In the case at hand, people did not innocently dial the number once by > accident thinking they were getting someone else (except perhaps the > first person to post an article here, provided he was telling the > truth on how he came to 'accidentally' discover the number). You people > called the number (and I include myself since I called it also) > knowing full good and well -- or thinking -- that you were getting > something for nothing. You expected to hear the news and weather, or > perhaps your horoscope, and you got what you called for. In other > words, you called it expecting to rip off {USA Today} and/or telco. > You got caught with your pants down ... the system was smarter than > you thought. You made a legitimate call to a 900 information service > regardless of the routing you took to get there. The calls were made *knowing* that I would never pay for them. I am guaranteed by my local phone company that I will not have to pay for 800 calls. I did not read your article saying that {USA Today} requests that I not call. > To put it another way, someone crossing the street is struck by a hit > and run driver. As she lays in the street unconcious, you walk over and > grab her purse laying in the street and abscond with the money. You > ask 'what law did I break by picking up something of value I found > laying in the street?' ... the context is all-important, and in this > context you would be the scum, not the person laying in the street. > Yet somehow you say {USA Today} is sleaze because *they* were victims > and now wish to recover what was taken from them? PAT, you know quite well that is not the reason {USA Today} or AT&T are sleazes. They are sleazes because they are reporting erroneous information to the local phone companies which result in their making money. This is fraud. Fraud by AT&T. Now, if you want a *really* comparable situation: Let's say that XYZ mail order company takes an order for a product from John Doe. This order is followed by another call from Jim Smith, who just requests a catalog. XYZ screws up, and mails the product to Jim Smith. Guess what? Jim Smith gets to keep the product for free, and XYZ has to eat the loss by sending another one to John Doe. This is the law. You would call this taking advantage of someone's mistake, and it is! But it is justified under the law, as it is in the case of AT&T/USA Today. What has to happen is for AT&T to pay {USA Today} for the lost money. > There is no sleaze involved since {USA Today} has never once said to > call 'for free' via 800. The newspaper got victimized by AT&T (or some > telco somewhere, as yet unknown) with the routing error. The paper got > victimized further by the people who deliberatly called the wrong > number. When I called the paper, the gentleman who took my call said > specifically 'please do not call the 800 number'. I put a message here > in the Digest relaying his request. So now all you smart folks -- and > again, I include myself -- can take your whippings and learn from your > error, as I have done. The paper has a perfect right to demand > payment from all parties concerned. That includes AT&T and *you*. PAT] AT&T has no right to lie to the local CO and say that 900 numbers were dialed when they were not. AT&T should take their whipping, as their error will cost them money. I intend to go to the press with this, as I think AT&T made a huge mistake and should be punished. I am also going to contact the FBI, and some federal attorneys. I would appreciate it if people would save their phone bills and contact me if you would like to help. Ron (ronnie@eddie.mit.edu) (rschnell@encore.com) (305) 797 - 2329 work ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Stop the Smoke Screens and Injured Party Routine Please Date: Tue 24 Dec 1991 01:40:00 CST Ron Schnell raised many points in the first message in this issue and I felt compelled to answer in some detail to correct his errors. > PAT writes: >> In the case at hand, people did not innocently dial the number once by >> accident thinking they were getting someone else (except perhaps the >> first person to post an article here, provided he was telling the >> truth on how he came to 'accidentally' discover the number). You people >> called the number (and I include myself since I called it also) >> knowing full good and well -- or thinking -- that you were getting >> something for nothing. You expected to hear the news and weather, or >> perhaps your horoscope, and you got what you called for. In other >> words, you called it expecting to rip off {USA Today} and/or telco. >> You got caught with your pants down ... the system was smarter than >> you thought. You made a legitimate call to a 900 information service >> regardless of the routing you took to get there. > The calls were made *knowing* that I would never pay for them. I am > guaranteed by my local phone company that I will not have to pay for > 800 calls. I did not read your article saying that {USA Today} > requests that I not call. You are not going to pay for the *transport* of the call. You ARE going to pay for the services rendered by the newspaper as a result of your repeated and frequent use of the service. (I am assuming you made several calls -- if you didn't then others reading this did.) Maybe you did not read my article saying {USA Today} was asking people to refrain from using the number, but I am surprised that an educated person like yourself, associated with MIT and all having heard a statement on the system totally contradictory to your expectations about 800 service would have continued the connection without first investigating the matter further. You are not John Q. Public or a little old lady who knows from diddly-squat about how phones work. How could you have been decieved? Well, frankly, I don't think you were. I think *you* were the one being deceptive. >> To put it another way, someone crossing the street is struck by a hit >> and run driver. As she lays in the street unconcious, you walk over and >> grab her purse laying in the street and abscond with the money. You >> ask 'what law did I break by picking up something of value I found >> laying in the street?' ... the context is all-important, and in this >> context you would be the scum, not the person laying in the street. >> Yet somehow you say {USA Today} is sleaze because *they* were victims >> and now wish to recover what was taken from them? > PAT, you know quite well that is not the reason {USA Today} or AT&T > are sleazes. They are sleazes because they are reporting erroneous > information to the local phone companies which result in their making > money. This is fraud. Fraud by AT&T. I totally repudiate your suggestion that these two organizations are sleazes. They are not making any money they are not already entitled to by having caught you and several others screwing around. > Now, if you want a *really* comparable situation: > Let's say that XYZ mail order company takes an order for a product > from John Doe. This order is followed by another call from Jim Smith, > who just requests a catalog. XYZ screws up, and mails the product to > Jim Smith. Guess what? Jim Smith gets to keep the product for free, > and XYZ has to eat the loss by sending another one to John Doe. This > is the law. You would call this taking advantage of someone's > mistake, and it is! But it is justified under the law, as it is in > the case of AT&T/USA Today. Utter nonsense! You have a complete misunderstanding of the law regarding unsolicited merchandise. The law says the merchandise order has to have no basis whatsoever ... it does not say the merchant can't make a mistake and attempt to correct the error. Do you really want to know *why* the 'unsolicited merchandise can be treated as a gift' law came into being? A company was in the habit of reading the obituaries from hundreds of local newspapers daily. They would then take a large, very ornate 'Family Bible' and engrave it with the name of the deceased person on the cover. This was one of those big old-fashioned Bibles with a section in the center for the family tree, etc. They would then send it out with an invoice to the deceased person. The invoice would be for typically a hundred dollars (1950's money!) for a Bible maybe worth five dollars ... maybe. The family of the deceased would get the Bible with Grandma's name on it and the invoice made out to Grandma. The family would *assume* 'grandma must have ordered it before she died, bless her soul, and to honor grandma and meet her financial obligations they would pay for it rather than stiff the company and dishonor grandma's memory. Now that is sleaze. And that is one example of the mail order which was prevalent in the USA thirty to fifty years ago. Then there were the Indian children who sent out name and address labels, along with a teary-eyed reminder note a month later if you had not paid. In other words, the orders came out of the ether, totally fabricated. No one ordered anything. And the Congress of the United States rightfully moved to protect the American consumer from these scams. Oh yes, and the mentally retarded children (sure!) who sent out real cheesey pen and pencil sets with inflated price tags on them with the money going to charity (sure!). The law did not say and does not intend that a bonafide merchant with a legitimate order for merchandise is to be stiffed when a shipping clerk makes an error. > What has to happen is for AT&T to pay {USA Today} for the lost money. Certainly. But they can attempt to recover the money from people like yourself who knew what they were doing and deliberatly continued the pattern of abuse. >> There is no sleaze involved since {USA Today} has never once said to >> call 'for free' via 800. The newspaper got victimized by AT&T (or some >> telco somewhere, as yet unknown) with the routing error. The paper got >> victimized further by the people who deliberatly called the wrong >> number. When I called the paper, the gentleman who took my call said >> specifically 'please do not call the 800 number'. I put a message here >> in the Digest relaying his request. So now all you smart folks -- and >> again, I include myself -- can take your whippings and learn from your >> error, as I have done. The paper has a perfect right to demand >> payment from all parties concerned. That includes AT&T and *you*. PAT] > AT&T has no right to lie to the local CO and say that 900 numbers were > dialed when they were not. AT&T should take their whipping, as their > error will cost them money. How do you know they lied? How do you know a memo was not sent out to the local telcos explaining how the charges would appear and the explanation to be given to subscribers? What makes you think one or two misinformed or ignorant AT&T reps speak for the company? And what do you think they should do, write a special billing program for this one occassion? You made the essence of a 900 call -- what is the big deal? You knew what you were doing. > I intend to go to the press with this, as I think AT&T made a huge > mistake and should be punished. You do that ... I am one member of the press, and I am telling you now what I think of your opinion. Maybe the {New York Times} will fall for it; that wouldn't surprise me. I know Kay Graham over at {News Weak} will eat it up; be sure and tell her also. And don't forget 'Seven on Your Side', the idiotic action line program on television. > I am also going to contact the FBI, and some federal attorneys. I > would appreciate it if people would save their phone bills and contact > me if you would like to help. > Ron (ronnie@eddie.mit.edu) (rschnell@encore.com) (305) 797 - 2329 work Be sure to tell the FBI the *whole story*, won't you? As you know, they have a great fondness for people who play games with the phone and try to avoid toll charges, etc. I'm sure they'll be impressed, especially with how people were ripping off the newspaper using a programming error they discovered or were told about. Oh, and be sure to mention in your own case that you knew what the scoop was and (as you pointed out here) had no intention of paying from the beginning. They should really love that. Just explain it like it is: people used it knowingly; got tracked down and were asked politely to pay for what they used, and that you feel that AT&T should be punished for having the audacity to send out invoices to people they caught jerking them around. May I suggest your rethink your position? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Rob Boudrie Date: Tue, 24 Dec 91 00:51:55 EST Subject: Re: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made! If {USA Today} had really wanted to mitigate the damages, they would have changed the recording to indicate that "if you have reached this recording by calling an 800 number, please hang up. There is a programming error and we intend to have these calls back billed as 900 calls at $.95/minute" The callers to this service, even those who repeatedly telephoned, were not in a position to evaluate the "reason" for the 800 connection -- they may have assumed it was an error; an alternative and equally plausible explaination would be that it was some sort of promotion. The "unjust enrichment" here appears to lie in a service provider representing, through method of delivery, that the service is free; having the user generate a usage based on this low cost (ie, free); then charging for it. Nice work if you can get it. > accident thinking they were getting someone else (except perhaps the > first person to post an article here, provided he was telling the > truth on how he came to 'accidentally' discover the number). You people I was that first person who posted. The total truth: I heard various stories about the number, but none of them made sense. I called the number to see what was up, and if this 555 numebr was really something other than an alias for "800 directory assistance". Prior to placing the call, I would have gladly placed a wager that it would NOT connect to any 900 number, because everyone knows "that can't happen" (much as AT&T operators now "know"). I did not call the number a second time after hearing the recording, nor did I hang on for a long time the first time I was connected (my call was < two minutes). There is also a question of honesty here ... TPC (the phone company) did NOT itemize bills as "charge for 800-555-5555 for service of value provided", but instead included incorrect and untruthful information on the bill. If you have a legitimate dispute with another party in a business or contractual matter, altering business records to "enhance' your position borders on criminal conduct. Rob Boudrie [Moderator's Note: Indeed there is a question of honesty here, and I think you know who I am referring to. And yes, the activity borders on criminal conduct where the repeated and long callers were concerned. Maybe what I should do is suggest to AT&T/USA Today that the callers be given an opportunity to pay voluntarily, and if they refuse, then to treat the matter like theft of service and proceed legally on that basis. PAT] ------------------------------ From: vances@xenitec.on.ca (Vance Shipley) Subject: 800-555-5555 From Bell Canada Land Organization: SwitchView Inc. Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1991 22:02:26 GMT Does this number still work for anyone: 800-555-5555? Here I get silence for 20 seconds, a soft click, silence for about a minute and then a ring or two followed by a recording that starts in french and then follows in english stating that "all circuits are busy now please try again later. 514 1N" I've tried it a couple times over the last two days and always get the same response. I don't remember for sure what happened the first time I tried this, back when it was first reported here, but I believe it was blocked. Vance Shipley vances@xenitec vances@ltg ..uunet!watmath!xenitec!vances [Moderator's Note: NO! It does not work from anywhere any longer. You are getting that 'all circuits busy' recording because technically all the circuits are busy -- busied out, that is. The equipment considers it to be a valid number, but on seeking out a circuit finds them all unavailable because AT&T has cut off the service via 800. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1043 *******************************   Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03967; 25 Dec 91 1:23 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13208 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 24 Dec 1991 23:42:38 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29737 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 24 Dec 1991 23:42:24 -0600 Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1991 23:42:24 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199112250542.AA29737@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1044 TELECOM Digest Tue, 24 Dec 91 23:42:21 CST Volume 11 : Issue 1044 Index To This Issue: Merry Christmas To All of You! Telecaroling (Matt Simpson) Technological Nightmare Keeps Lincoln [NE] Phone Busy (Michael Nolan) AT&T STILL Hasn't DV'ed my Mother-in-Law's Card (Russ Nelson) BWI Airport Payphones (Michael Rosen) Panasonic EB500 Programming Help Needed [Larry Rachman] Phones in the "Buddy" Show (Carl Moore) Nevada Bell's "Teen Line" (Ed Greenberg) Call Me Card Works With AT&T Voice Mark System (David B. Whiteman) Area Code 206 Changes (Dan Braimage) AT&T Rates and Low Income Customers (Tad Cook) Pac*Bell's Greetings (John Higdon) Another Way to Make a Profit at Cellular (Steve Forrette) ANI number in 312-465-XXXX Chicago (Chris Johnston) Call 1-900-SOMEONE (H. Peter Anvin) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 23 Dec 91 09:27:25 EST From: Matt Simpson Subject: Telecaroling I was at my parents' house the Sunday night before Christmas. It was a damp drizzly night. The phone rang. Mom answered it, and started singing Jingle Bells. The rest of us sat there wondering if she had gone off of the deep end. At the end of the song, she said "Thank you, Merry Christmas" and hung up. She then explained to us that the caller had said he was calling from a local church, and wanted her to sing Jingle Bells with them. In the not too distant past, churches and other groups used to wander the streets singing carols outside people's homes. I guess the cold and drizzle made it more enticing to seek a high-tech approach, but somehow it just didn't seem the same. ------------------------------ From: nolan@tssi.com (Michael Nolan) Subject: Technological Nightmare Keeps Lincoln [NE] Phone Busy Reply-To: nolan@tssi.com Organization: Tailored Software Services, Inc. Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1991 18:03:50 GMT The following story is out of the Dec. 22nd {Lincoln Journal-Star}. When I first read it, I thought it might be a simple case of call forwarding gone mad. But then I got to wondering why AT&T was apologizing for the mistake. The following story has been shortened somewhat. Potential cable television customers in Sterling, VA, were trying to call their local cable firm Thursday night to take part in an installation promotion. But when they dialed the local number, their calls ended up at the home of Dennis and Mary Manning, in Lincoln, Neb. For the Mannings, who run their own Manning Financial Services, the dozens of calls at first made them dumbfounded, then whimsical, and finally downright irritated as the calls mushroomed into a technological nightmare. At least it would have been a nightmare if they could have gotten some sleep Thursday night. Instead they fielded phone calls as late as 12:30 a.m. and as early in the morning as 6:30 a.m. "Who knows how it happened?" asked Dennis Manning. "We felt so helpless. There was nothing we could do. It was technology gone out of control. There was no way to stop it." They tried calling the company -- Cablevision of Loundoun County, VA, and got, of course, their own home. The Lincoln Telephone Co. also couldn't help. The problem occurred when, at the close of the business day Thursday, the firm, as it always does, programmed its computer to route the calls to an answering service. Instead, the telephone lines got crossed and the calls were routed to the Mannings' home, said Cheray Dixon, a customer service representataive with Loundoun. "He thought we did it," she said. "AT&T's been calling us all day (Friday) to apologize. I believe it's fixed." "We got calls from California, Massachusetts and Texas -- other businesses trying to get through to the cable system," Mr. Manning said. "We got calls from MCI, GTE and long-distance operators but nobody could fix it." "I called the cable company (Friday morning) and I sand, 'Please, don't do it again.' This was one little screw up, but it drove one person crazy." "Somebody's going to get a whopper of a phone bill -- and it better not be me." Michael Nolan, nolan@tssi.com Tailored Software Services, Inc. Lincoln, Nebraska (402) 423-1490 [Moderator's Note: In 1974 I had a single-line business phone here, 312-WEbster-9-4600. When the Chicago-Beverly CO cut over to ESS one cheery morning, I started getting calls by the dozens -- literally the phone would ring again as soon as I hung it up -- from people wanting the Sears Roebuck Central Region Credit Office, 312-WABash-2-4600. Sears had a big, five position cord board and received a couple hundred phone calls per hour. I got all the calls which originated in the Beverly CO because someone there got their translations mixed up with 922 and 939. It took several hours of hell for me getting IBT to straighten out the mess ... and Sears never even missed the calls! PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Dec 91 20:36:50 EST From: Russ Nelson Subject: AT&T STILL Hasn't DV'ed my Mother-in-Law's Card Back on her October bill, my Mother-In-Law, Tillie, discovered $250 worth of charges on her telephone bill, some of them from LD companies she'd never heard of. She immediately called AT&T, got the run-around, but eventually got them to cancel her card, and issue her a new one. She got the new card AT&T, started to use it, and didn't think any more about it. Well, the November bill came, and it had $3000 in fraudulent charges on it! She called AT&T, and they insisted that the old card had been DV'ed. Of course she didn't have to pay the fraudulent charges, but she had go identify all 90 pages worth as real or fake. Well, to make a long story short, she got November's bill today, and guess what? Another $3,000 in fraudulant charges! This is getting old, she says. I told her, since she usually makes $800 worth of AT&T calls per month, she should tell AT&T that she will refuse to pay the bill until they provide a bill consisting only of charges to the new card, and she should take her business to her MCI account. I'll tell you what happens in January ... ------------------------------ From: Michael.Rosen@samba.acs.unc.edu (Michael Rosen) Subject: BWI Airport Payphones Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1991 23:00:07 GMT I was at the Baltimore Washington International Airport (BWI) today picking up my folks and noticed something interesting. The last time I'd been there the payphones were Washington Metro area phones and a call to Baltimore would be ld. Now, there are separate phones. I saw two phones for AT&T Long Distance, two for C&P Local, and alternating phones for Washington Metro area and Baltimore Metro area. I'm not quite sure if that C&P one was local, I'm trying to remember them now. It wouldn't make much sense since there were already Baltimore and Washington Metro area phones. Mike ------------------------------ Date: 23 Dec 91 10:42:15 EST From: Larry Rachman <74066.2004@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Panasonic EB500 Programming Help Needed Does anyone have programming information for the Panasonic EB-500 cellular transportable? If you are willing, a reply here would be nice as it would wind up in the archives. Larry Rachman, WA2BUX Reply to: 1644801@mcimail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Dec 91 11:16:05 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Phones in the "Buddy" Show The "Buddy" (a Buddy Holly story) show is currently playing at the Mechanic Theater in downtown Baltimore thru January 5. Some phones are used in it. In the first scene, the deejay has two phones on his desk and is answering them in alternation. During the show, two long-distance calls are shown being made by calling the operator and saying something like "I want (town name and about five digits)". In one of them, a bad connection is depicted so that the receiving party misunderstood a key word. In the other, Buddy Holly's phone call from Clear Lake (Iowa) back to his wife in New York is shown being made on a pay phone (can't recall if it had those coin-drop slots at the top) with a metal cord. The phones are all rotary (the most recent incidents depicted happened in 1959). And in the Clear Lake show scene (depicting the last show before the well-known plane crash), the Big Bopper takes a gold-colored phone receiver (with no cord) from his pocket and starts off his big hit ("Chantilly Lace") with "Hello, baby". ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Dec 91 09:40 PST From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Subject: Nevada Bell's "Teen Line" There was a recent discussion about a fellow who wanted toll restriction to keep his kids from abusing the phone. While visiting Reno this weekend, I noted that a service listed in the "Catalog of Residence Services" was "Teen Line". Teen Line provides a second phone line equipped with Touch Tone, Three Way Calling, and toll restriction. "Long Distance" calls are not completed. The amusing thing is that Nevada Bell is one giant LATA, covering everything BUT Las Vegas. Everybody knows that intra-lata calls are typically more expensive than inter-lata calls. Thus, a call from Reno to Winnamuca is probably more expensive than a call from Reno to San Francisco, or even New York. Of course, 90% of Nevada doesn't have anybody to call :-) Notice that even though Nevada Bell is part of Pacific Telesis, Pacific Bell does not offer this service here in the Bay Area, at least not in the San Jose book. ------------------------------ From: dbw@crash.cts.com (David B. Whiteman) Subject: Call Me Card Works With AT&T Voice Mark System Date: Mon Dec 23 12:51:28 1991 Greetings: Well believe it or not I discovered this accidentally: While accessing the ATT Voice Mark System 1 800 562 MARK I unintentionally used my ATT Call Me Card instead of my normal ATT card. I just received these two cards recently with the embedded "fake" phone number, and I placed the wrong card in my wallet. The ATT Call Me card worked despite my using it to send a message to a different phone number. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Dec 91 10:41:43 -0800 From: Dan Braimage Subject: Area Code 206 Changes Many TELECOM Digest readers must be aware of the new dialing plan here in Area Code 206. Long distance calls within 206 are supposed to be dialed 1-206-xxx-xxxx. Local calls aren't affected. Beginning January 12, dialing the old way, 1-xxx-xxxx, will get you an intercept recording. I got a little pamphlet about this that US West apparently sent out to everybody (whether everybody understood it is another matter). It says on the front, "Soon, long distance calls within the 206 area code will become 1 + 206 calls. It explains that the plan will free up exchanges that look like area codes. There's some weird junk in it. Check this out: "When to use the 206 area code ... even local calls, which do not require a 1, will need the 0 + 206 if they are placed through an operator or with a Calling Card." That is to say, if they are dialed with a 0. "For directory assistance calls in Western Washington, you will need to include the 206 area code before dialing 555-1212." Don't they mean 1-555-1212?! "For calls to informative numbers beginning with the prefixes 976- or 960-, dial 1 + 206 before the prefix (customers in the following communities will need to dial 1+503 before 976- and 960- prefixes: Battle Ground, Camas-Washougal, Castle Rock, Cathlamet, Longview-Kelso, Ridgefield, Vader, Vancouver, Woodland, Yacolt)." Huh?? 503 is, of course, most of Oregon, and those communites are in that direction. Any body know why they hafta do that? "If you have questions about the new plan, please call your local business Office." Advice that folks should keep in mind. I predict chaos. Western Washington residents can find information about this weirdnesss on page A12 of their phone book. deprogram, pob 45622 Seattle WA 98145 ------------------------------ Subject: AT&T Rates and Low Income Customers From: tad@ssc.wa.com (Tad Cook) Date: 24 Dec 91 05:53:06 GMT The {Wall Street Journal} on December 13, 1991 had a short article titled AT&T LONG-DISTANCE CALLS FOR SOME WILL BE RAISED. It said that AT&T is raising prices for direct dialed interstate calls "citing rising costs of providing service to low-income telephone users." I am confused. I thought that local telephone companies were the only entities in the telephone business involved in providing subsidized service to low income customers. I can understand how this could have been a cost to AT&T prior to divestiture, but why now? Tad Cook | Phone: 206-527-4089 | MCI Mail: 3288544 Seattle, WA | Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA | 3288544@mcimail.com | USENET: tad@ssc.wa.com or...sumax!ole!ssc!tad ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Dec 91 17:25 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Pac*Bell's Greetings I told you that I got a card from Contel to my company ... well, in today's mail here at the hacienda I got a card from Pacific Bell signed by my "residence rep". Come to think about it, I guess I would qualify for "major accounts" residence service, if there is such a thing! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Dec 91 18:20:30 pst From: Steve Forrette Subject: Another Way to Make a Profit at Cellular I've got a new bone to pick with my cellular carrier: they bill for calls from the moment that SEND is pressed. Uncompleted calls are free, but once the call answers, you get billed for the call setup time. This isn't so bad in itself, as I am using up airtime just the same. The thing that really bothers me is that I get billed for the long distance part the same way. Since there's only one line item per call, the long distance charge is calculated using the same call duration as the airtime. Couple this with the fact that they most certainly get six second billing from AT&T, and they bill me in one minute increments, and they get an extra minute for every long distance call. And when you add the fact that they have T1 lines direct to AT&T and a volume discount plan, they have a substantial markup even though they charge me "standard" rates. And we thought airtime was expensive! ------------------------------ From: chris@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (Chris Johnston) Subject: ANI Number in 312-465-XXXX Chicago Date: 10 Dec 91 21:20:21 GMT Organization: Department of Computer Science I live in Rogers Park in Chicago. Does any one know a number I can call that will read back the number I am dialing from? A 312 or 800 or 900 number would be acceptable. Thanks, cj [Moderator's Note: Actually, you live only a few blocks away from me. We are both in the Rogers Park CO, although I am not on the HOLlycourt exchange. I've lived here for years and there is no number of which I am aware you / we can use. PAT] ------------------------------ From: hpa@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (H. Peter Anvin N9ITP) Subject: Call 1-900-SOMEONE Reply-To: hpa@nwu.edu Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1991 03:04:12 GMT This business of Caller*ID and blocking, etc, raises an interesting question: would it be not only possible but legal to create a 900 or 976 number that would relay a phone call anonymously? I recall there was some discussion regarding this in this group earlier, and someone said that if the 900 operator did not save call records he could get busted by the CIA, FBI or the NSA (don't remember which one). In my opinion such a regulation would be pretty scary, considering that many European countries don't even save call records because of the risk of government surveillance. If this is possible, I see a potential market. I also see a potential nightmare. hpa INTERNET: hpa@nwu.edu TALK: 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: /BAD=FATAL_ERROR/ERR=LINE_OVERFLOW [Moderator's Note: Actually, there is already a lawyer doing it out on the west coast. He charges a couple dollars per call (you use a 900 number to access his outbound lines), and he claims it is totally anonymous since he keeps no records. I know nothing about how much he is making from it, or how frequently he has been sued by recipients of harrassing and/or fraud calls, if at all. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1044 *******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21115; 25 Dec 91 14:50 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00859 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 25 Dec 1991 13:09:22 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17296 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 25 Dec 1991 13:09:07 -0600 Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1991 13:09:07 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199112251909.AA17296@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1045 TELECOM Digest Wed, 25 Dec 91 13:08:58 CST Volume 11 : Issue 1045 Index To This Issue: Merry Christmas to All of You! Cell Roaming Questions (Ken Levitt) MCI Card and 10222+ (Bob Denny) Problem With Telco Systems Channel Bank (John Boteler) Adjacent Area Codes (Dave Niebuhr) Caller-ID Chip Spec Sheet Humor (Lauren Weinstein) Lack of Phone Numbers in Yellow Page Ads (Steve Forrette) Gadgets to Help Take Advantage of Custom Ringing (David Ptasnik) PCP Throughput (Jack Winslade) Re: Life On Hold: Unhappy Inbound Campers (Doctor Math) Information Wanted on Houston Phone Features (John Schultz) Re: Fibre Optic Network Planned For Moscow Metro (Richard Budd) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 20 Dec 91 15:44:05 EST From: levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org (Ken Levitt) Subject: Cell Roaming Questions I don't own a cell phone, but a friend in Boston with Cell-One service is loaning me his phone for a trip to Waterbury, CT in February. My friend has never used roaming before, so I called Cell-One in Boston and asked how it worked. I was given the following information: 1. There are no daily roaming fees. 2. Cost of use will be $0.44/min peak and $0.29/min off-peak. 3. I don't have to do anything to activate the roaming in CT. 4. For someone to call me, they must do the following: a. Call 203-856-7626 b. Wait for secondary dial tone. c. Dial the cell phone number with area code, but without the "1" at the front. I can't tell if the person on the phone knew what they were talking about especially when they didn't know where Waterbury was. Can anyone either confirm or refute this information? Any additional tips for a new cell user would be appreciated. Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 UUCP: zorro9!levitt INTERNET: levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org or levitt%zorro9.uucp@talcott.harvard.edu ------------------------------ From: denny@dakota.alisa.com (Bob Denny) Subject: MCI Card and 10222+ Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1991 21:08:37 GMT Organization: Alisa Systems, Inc. Why won't my MCI "Vision" card work with 10222+0+ dialing. It works fine with 1-800-950-1111 style access to MCI. I have verified that 10222+0+ dialing is getting me into MCI because I hear the "MCI" right after the "bong". Robert B. Denny voice: (818) 792-9474 Alisa Systems, Inc. fax: (818) 792-4068 Pasadena, CA (denny@alisa.com, ..uunet!alisa.com!denny) ------------------------------ From: John Boteler Subject: Problems With Telco Systems Channel Bank Date: Mon, 23 Dec 91 8:10:05 EST I am having a problem with a Telco Systems channel bank and voice interface cards that you might be able to help me with. Equipment: Telco Systems D24 with 2443-20 L2 channel cards, 6691-00 Ring Generator, 6690-00 L2 power supply; Dialogic D41A voice cards. The Dialogic cards are about 20 feet of copper away from the T1 bank. The circuits in trouble are optioned for ground start service. An incoming call starts the ring generator just fine, but it immediately trips and stops sending ringing current. In fact, it happens so fast that the CO never sees it and continues sending ringback to the caller. I suspect that the D41A cards are not providing a high enough loop resistance and the ring trip detector in the Telco Systems card is getting fooled. It works fine on a 2500 station. Any similar experiences or clues? I suppose I could just use the proven PAT method and just put some big 10W resistors in each loop. :) bote@access.digex.com (John Boteler) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1991 12:48:28 -0500 (EST) From: NIEBUHR@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) Subject: Adjacent Area Codes I've notice that there are at least to pairs of area codes that are adjacent to each other which could be one of the many causes for wrong numbers. The ones that I've seen are 307 - Wyoming and 308 - Western Nebraska and 301 - part of Maryland and 302 - Delaware. Why? (basically I'm just curious) Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Dec 91 19:02:27 PST From: lauren@vortex.COM (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: Caller-ID Chip Spec Sheet Humor Greetings. Every so often, the otherwise rather colorless specification sheets that explain the gory details of integrated circuits and other components will contain a buried gem. Years ago, for example, I remember the National data book that included data on a range of "buffer amplifiers". There were several listed: "fast", "very fast", and "damn fast"! This wasn't a joke either. This "damn" part actually existed, and had the full complement of specification writeups. Not only were the words "damn fast" featured in the part name, but the chart that described its speed listed both the microsecond rating and said "damn fast!" in parenthesis! Who ever said that electrical engineers don't have a sense of humor? Hmmm, of course, a technical writer might have provided the name ... But I digress. As many of you know, I'm very concerned with the privacy aspects and possible misuse of caller-ID systems. Along with the strictly privacy and legislative aspects of such systems, I try to keep track of related technical developments as well. Recently a piece of mail plopped onto my desk containing a sample of, and the spec sheets for, a one-chip caller-ID demodulation chip made by Motorola (OK, OK, if you insist, it's part number MC145447). This chip demodulates the caller-ID signal and provides it as a serial stream for use by a PC or similar device. By the way, in all fairness to Motorola, *they* do not call it a "caller-ID" chip. They call it a "Calling Line Identification" Receiver -- if nothing else a more accurate description of the function. As usual with such spec sheets, it's chocked-full of detailed data including sample circuits, voltage and interfacing requirements, and the like. It also shows the format of the data passed to the subscriber by the telco between the rings. While we all know about the simple provision of phone number and date/time that is the most typical use of these systems (this is called the "single message" format), there is also another format defined (and decoded by the chip) called "multiple message" format. This latter format allows for the sending of an additional 109 bits of data in addition to the phone number and date/time. OK, now we finally get to the humor. In all the examples of calling party numbers being shown in the data format descriptions, the spec sheet uses 512-555-1212 (why 512? Well, the particular Motorola division involved *is* in Austin, so ...) Nothing especially funny about it so far. But when you look at the sample data message shown for the extra 109 bits frame in "multiple message" format, did they use "MOTOROLA"? Did they say "JOHN SMITH"? Naw! They clearly are looking towards advanced call screening applications for the mass market, because it says "MOTHER IN LAW"! --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Dec 91 18:20:07 pst From: Steve Forrette Subject: Lack of Phone Numbers in Yellow Page Ads I saw an interesting Yellow Pages ad in the Pacific Bell Sacramento book. It was a full-page ad for an auto wrecking yard, and it had no phone number. It was not a mistake -- the ad clearly stated that no information is given over the phone. This was frustrating to me since the ad did not state their hours, and there was no way to find out without possibly wasting a trip out there. But this brings up an interesting question: Isn't the whole point of the Yellow Pages to increase usage of the telephone? I thought that the ad revenue was secondary to the traffic it generated. Until I saw this ad, I would have guessed that there was a rule that you had to include your phone number. Apparently, Pacific Bell doesn't have a problem with this though. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ From: David Ptasnik Subject: Gadgets to Help Take Advantage of Custom Ringing Date: Mon, 23 Dec 91 9:44:25 PDT barker@wd0gol.WD0GOL.MN.ORG (Bob Barker) wrote: > 1. Is there a commercial device that will listen to the first (full) > ring, determine if its the normal ring or custom ring, and then > connect the line to either device A or device B depending on the ring? Be careful of a product called Ring Rite by CMP, Inc. While it appears from it's ads that it will send a call to either line A or line B, it will not. It is just a filter. It will prevent a custom ring from going to line B, but line A will get all rings. There is no way around this that I have found. Dave davep@u.washington.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Dec 91 21:33:46 cst From: Jack.Winslade@ivgate.omahug.org (Jack Winslade) Subject: PCP Throughput Reply-To: jsw@drbbs.omahug.org Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha In a recent message, (tanner@ki4pv.compu.com) writes: >> where else can you get long distance data transmission for $1 per >> hour (or 83 cents per hour under the $50 per month plan?). > It's not the only game in town any more. OK, take that $1/hour for a > 1200-baud connection. You can hope to pump something close to that > through the lines if you're lucky. I beg to differ here. I have been using PCP for several years now, and one of our local networks uses it to import mass quantities of mail. I keep on top of how much it is costing via PCP as opposed to how much it would cost using v.32 with ROA, Sprint+, etc. For our purpose, PCP is still a wee bit cheaper. Using Zmodem, or a well-behaved windowed variant of Xmodem, such as Sealink, throughput approaches 235cps or so for 60-70k files. There is a problem with overflow in the PCP system, so one retry will be generated every 70-80k or so, thus reducing the throughput on large transfers to about 220cps. I agree that PCP is almost worthless for the UUCP-g protocol. I tried that a couple of years ago and found the throughput abysmal. Even with a window size of 7, it would never seem to stabilize. Typically it would juke back and forth with bursts of data or ACK packets and throughput would be 100-120 cps or so. Ditto with non-windowed XMODEM. Almost useless. However, there is one area in which PCP really helps, and that is for interactive sessions at 2400bps. (Yes, I know the response is slow and jerky. I can put up with that.) I hate like heck to call a long-distance system, read the non-abortable sign-on bulletin (not to mention the crap like graphic Spuds McKenzie drawings that were popular a couple of years back), wade through menus, directories, etc. all while the meter is running at 9-15 cents per minute. Most of the interactive sessions are made up of idle time. PCP does offer the lowest clock time of any (legal) service I have seen. The time is coming Real Soon Now where PCP will be more expensive than direct long distance. I am watching the figures closely, but the LD companies will have to cut their rates further (or the modem companies will have to violate the Shannon limit) to make PCP more expensive for us. Good Day JSW ------------------------------ From: drmath@viking.rn.com (Doctor Math) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 91 02:30:19 EST Organization: Department of Redundancy Department Subject: Re: Life on Hold: Unhappy Inbound Campers Dave.Leibold@egsgate.fidonet.org (Dave Leibold) writes: > Let's look at the "inbound" side of things, specifically companies > that keep people on hold for vast amounts of time to the tune of > elevator music and frequent requests to "stay on the line, someone > will be with you shortly". > Expanding the use of touch-tone automated services could help; > customers could get many transactions done without waiting. Indeed, > this is done by an increasing number of companies. I have yet to see this done right. Let's say you call your credit card company's 800 number, then punch in your card number and zipcode, and it tells that you have $xxx available credit. You say to yourself, "That can't be right!" and press the button to get a live operator. After holding, live operator comes on and asks you for your card number and address ... even though the auto-attendant already got that information from you. It was smart enough to grab the next available operator, but it didn't bother to tell that operator anything about you! Related note: Since "they" generally get ANI delivered in real-time, perhaps they should allow you to flag your account to only allow certain transactions (if any at all) with the auto-attendant IF the ANI information matches their database ... granted, it could be very inconvenient, but it would be hard to beat for "privacy enhancement". ------------------------------ From: C491153@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU (John Schultz) Subject: Information Wanted on Houston Phone Features Date: 18 Dec 91 01:32:03 GMT I like to experiment with any interesting features that the local telco may have implemented. I would appreciate it if someone could send me a list of Houston-area phone features and the necessary access digits. Or maybe the telco actually has these listed in the phone book as opposed to GTE here... ;> John Schultz (caffeine abuser) c491153@umcvmb.bitnet c491153@umcvmb.missouri.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Dec 91 17:14:54 EST From: "Richard Budd" Subject: Re: Fibre Optic Network Planned For Moscow Metro Floyd Vest writes in TELECOM Digest V11 #1025: > Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.fidonet.org (Nigel Allen) wrote: >> The Andrew Corp. of Orland Park, Ill., announced last month that it >> has signed a joint venture with the Moscow Metro to develop a fiber >> optic network covering the metropolitan Moscow area. >> YModerator's Note: Gee, maybe in the process of installing a fiber >> optic network all over, they might find a way to get some food for the >> many people who are starving over there at present due to the turmoil >> the government(s) are in right now ... it might seem a more >> appropriate use of the money and efforts being expended. PAT" > Much of the blame for the hunger in > Soviet cities is a collapse of the infrastructure -- transporation, > _communication_, and distribution of resources. Admittedly most of > these problems are political in origin. In the transition to a market > economy, however, it is important to redevelop the means of production > and distribution. Key to that rebuilding is a modern communications > network. Charles McGuniess writes in TELECOM Digest V11 #1024 > Pat, you're missing the true problem here! People in Moscow wouldn't > be starving if they could call Pizza Hut and have pizza delivered! > It's only the sad shape of the local plant that keeps the people from > the wide variety of delivered foods that all big city residents enjoy! There are two issues here. Investment in the soon-to-be-defunct Soviet Union to encourage a transition to a free market economy and aid to help the region out of the mess into which the Communist regime placed the people. Andrew Corp.'s investment with the Moscow Metro to develop a fibre optic network helps with both. First, it will improve Moscow's communication infrastructure, which the city requires to foster a free market economy. Andrew Corp. will have a better chance with a direct relationship with Moscow Metro to keep money out of the hands of the nomenklatura by bringing in modern equipment and technological know-how instead of just money. Much of the problem was exacerbated by past aid being spirited away by the Communist bureaucracy before ever reaching the people for which it was destined. It is ominous that American politicans in these recessionary times agitate that aid earmarked for the Soviet Union should be diverted to our own country. The issueis how do we guarantee technological and financial aid finds it way to the people and institutions that will best achieve the two objectives outlined in the previous paragraph. Leaving Russia high and dry smacks too much of American attitudes in the early 1930s (i.e. Smoot-Hawley). The result brought the Nazis to power in Germany and tens of millions of civilian and military casualties before we got rid of the threat. With nuclear weapons in Russia and some of the other republics, we certainly cannot afford to make the same mistake again. To provide something TELECOM related, C-SPAN has been broadcasting at times the Soviet evening news (with attempts at simultaneous English translations.) World News Tonight it is not what with technical prob- lems, wrong commentary to the film clip, no film clip, and lack of graphics. But there are no commercials for laxatives, maxi-pads, and Preparation-H.:-} Good travelogues too. Richard Budd Internet: rcbudd@rhqvm19.vnet.ibm.com VM Systems Programmer - IBM Bitnet: klub@maristb.bitnet ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1045 *******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21961; 25 Dec 91 15:41 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19778 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 25 Dec 1991 14:00:30 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28698 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 25 Dec 1991 14:00:17 -0600 Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1991 14:00:17 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199112252000.AA28698@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1046 TELECOM Digest Wed, 25 Dec 91 14:00:11 CST Volume 11 : Issue 1046 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Disneyland Speakerphones (Alan Boritz) Re: Disneyland Speakerphones (Joe Talbot) Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits (was Pseudo-Area Code 311) (David G. Lewis) Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits (was Pseudo-Area Code 311) (Carl Moore) Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits (was Pseudo-Area Code 311) (Jamie Hanrahan) Re: Silent Night (John McHarry) Re: Silent Night (Ihor J. Kinal) Re: Bellcore V & H Coordinates to Geographic Coordinates (Dave Niebuhr) Re: Bellcore V & H Coordinates to Geographic Coordinates (Carl Moore) Re: T1 on Fiber? (Darwei Kung) Re: Meter Reading via Phone Line (was Silent Night) (Harold Hallikainen) Re: Help Needed Wiring Telco Headsets (Alan Boritz) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Disneyland Speakerphones From: Alan Boritz Date: Sat, 21 Dec 91 07:30:59 EST Organization: Harry's Place BBS - Mahwah NJ - +1 201 934 0861 DREUBEN@EAGLE.WESLEYAN.EDU (Douglas Scott Reuben) writes: >> [Moderator's Note: Didn't someone point out here in the Digest quite a >> while ago that the telephone exhibit at Disneyland in Florida had >> phones in the 555-9xxx series? The numbers were non-dialable and there >> apparently for billing purposes only. PAT] > I believe I may have posted on this previously, but I can't recall if > all (or any) of the payphones were 714-555-9xxx. They may have been > -1444 and other non "9xxx" numbers. They are not standard "payphones", > but rather Speakerphone Booths. There is a rather large speaker > mounted in the ceiling with a LARGE "Bell System" logo on it in blue. > (Pac*Bell may have changed this, however.) Wow, I thought those things disappeared after the last New York World's Fair. Just because they're speakerphones doesn't convey special numbering sequences. It would be interesting to see if legislative, or tariff provision makes it mandatory to RECEIVE as well as make calls from public phones. Most of us are too busy to research the issue, unfortunately. New York Telephone experimented a few years ago with disabling incoming calls to pay phones at Columbus Circle, in New York City, at the request of the NYC Parks Commission. The experiment was terminated when someone at Parks made it public knowledge (they meant well, though). > (BTW, dialing "958" on the 212-516-xxxx payphones in Penn Sta. NY > yields a re-order. Understandable, since Penn Station is in the 212 area. ;-) Alan aboritz@harry.hourgls.fidonet.org (Alan Boritz) Harry's Place BBS - Mahwah NJ - +1-201-934-0861 ------------------------------ From: joe@mojave.ati.com (Joe Talbot) Subject: Re: Disneyland Speakerphones Date: 23 Dec 91 09:08:59 GMT Organization: ATI, High desert research center, Victorville, Ca In article , kat@gtc.com (Kathryn Fielding) writes: > In DREUBEN@EAGLE.WESLEYAN.EDU > (Douglas Scott Reuben) writes: >> [Moderator's Note: Didn't someone point out here in the Digest quite a >> while ago that the telephone exhibit at Disneyland in Florida had >> phones in the 555-9xxx series? The numbers were non-dialable and there >> apparently for billing purposes only. PAT] > Sorry Pat, wrong Orange County - DisneyLAND is in Orange County, > Calif. and is in the 714 area code, serviced by Pacific Telesis aka > PacBell. DisneyWORLD is in Orange County, Florida. > The telephone exhibit with the speakerphone enclosures is in Anaheim > at Disneyland just outside the exit to the CircleVision Film. No one > has yet said that there are any similar exhibits in Florida, so if > you're looking for them in the Magic Kingdom at Disneyworld, it may be > a long walk! The "Chatterbox" phones at dismalland provided me with hours of entertainment while I was growing up in Orange County. We would frequently call them and pretend to be "operators" and assist them in completing their calls, often with three way calling, but even before three way was available. We'd constructed a hybrid 2 wire/2 wire repeater (for superior transmission!). We'd occasionally have them deposit coins, which the phone would hold until we'd hang up. Then the coins would be refunded to the next users of the booth. We billed this as a "prize" and thanked them for visiting the Bell System exhibit. The phones used to have the correct numbers on them (714) 635-9767, 9957, 9927, 9813, and another I can't recall). Then the numbers were disguised by putting wrong numbers on. Then the phones were changed to ESS (from crossbar #5) and the numbers were changed. Some retained the same last four digits, then they got smart and made them outgoing calls only class of service. These were regular pay phones with the handset hanger removed and an instruction card glued in place over the hole. They used a type 3 speakerphone (yecch) with a larger than normal (and wrong impedance) loudspeaker attatched, thereby making the speaker level much too low. They DID ring however. I don't know if they're still there in service. Disneyland also had plenty of other Phun stuff that I'll tell you about in another article. joe@mojave.ati.com Slow mail: P.O. Box 1750, Helendale California 92342 Phone: (619) 243-5500 Fax (619) 952-1030 ------------------------------ From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) Subject: Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits (was Pseudo-Area Code 311) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1991 15:04:41 GMT In article FVEST@ducvax.auburn.edu (Floyd Vest) writes: [list of various telecom-related songs deleted] > Any other nominations for telecommunications greatest hits? :-) Manhattan Transfer did one, I believe called "Operator". I'd post the lyrics, but since it's a gospel tune, I'd probably get flamed for foisting someone's religious beliefs upon others ... [inside joke for the AT&T readers who also read att.workplace ...] David G Lewis AT&T Bell Laboratories david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!houxa!deej ISDN Evolution Planning ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Dec 91 11:33:29 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits (was Pseudo-Area Code 311) I think PEnnsylvania 6-5000 is still in use in New York. (It would be 212-736-5000 now.) In the message I sent about the Buddy Holly show, there is a reference to the song "Chantilly Lace" by the Big Bopper. The song "Memphis" had "Long distance information, give me Memphis, Tennessee ...". The Beatles have at least two references to telephones: "No Reply" -- "I tried to telephone, they said you were not home, that's a lie." "You Won't See Me" -- "When I call you up, your line's engaged." (where "engaged" is the British term for "busy") [Moderator's Note: Also, don't forget the movie about Dracula a couple years ago with the take-off on Pennsylvania 6-8000 where the phone number was Transylvania 6-8000. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jeh@cmkrnl.com Subject: Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits (was Pseudo-Area Code 311) Date: 23 Dec 91 17:57:00 PST Organization: Kernel Mode Consulting, San Diego CA In article , FVEST@ducvax.auburn.edu (Floyd Vest) writes: > In the 40's Glenn Miller dialed "PEnnsylvania 6-5000" for a hit. This was the number of the NYC hotel where the Glenn Miller orchestra was playing a New Year's Eve gig at which they first performed the song. > Any other nominations for telecommunications greatest hits? :-) An obscure early rock and roll artist named Chuck Berry recorded a little song called "Memphis". The title has nothing to do with telecom, but the lyrics certainly do. ("Long distance information / Get me Memphis Tennessee...") There is a well-known gospel song (with plenty of pop crossover) called "Operator". Manhattan Transfer did a dynamite version of this. It's on their Greatest Hits album. Country music fans will no doubt mention Glen Campbell's "Wichita Lineman". Jamie Hanrahan, Kernel Mode Consulting, San Diego CA Internet: jeh@cmkrnl.com, hanrahan@eisner.decus.org, or jeh@crash.cts.com Uucp: ...{crash,eisner,uunet}!cmkrnl!jeh ------------------------------ From: m21198%mwunix@linus.mitre.org (John McHarry) Subject: Re: Silent Night Organization: The MITRE Corporation Date: 23 Dec 91 14:01:12 GMT dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson) writes: > On a technical note, does anybody know if/whether/how these things > work in an area like this one? Here most subscriber lines are not > metalic to the C.O. but use SLC-something that provides a digital > multiplex over T-1 facilities? Most SLC-96 installations include a metallic pair for testing. I would guess they use this. All this sounds like they are using a test trunk to read the meter anyway. John (McHarry@MITRE.org) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Dec 91 14:42:58 EST From: ijk@violin.att.com (Ihor J Kinal) Subject: Re: Silent Night Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories > [Moderator's Note: There are no privacy violations merely because the > reading is done electronically rather than manually. This may be far-fetched, but someone monitoring my water meter will have a darn good idea when I go on vacation, at least until I hook up my dishwasher/ washing machine/etc. to operate on timers. Of course, that's getting pretty sophisticated, and since I don't live in a high-class neighborhood, yet [but just wait until I win that Publishing House Sweepstakes!!!!], I'm not real worried ... [standards disclaimers] Ihor Kinal att!cbnewsh!ijk ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1991 818:54 -0500 (EST) From: NIEBUHR@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) Subject: Re: Bellcore V & H Coordinates to Geographic Coordinates In cole@etonic.gsg.dco.dec.com (Larry Cole) wrote: > Is anyone aware of a similiar dataset which gives lat/long coordinates > for Postal Zip Codes ? > Thanks. There is one at the University of Michigan. For unix users the address is: martini.eecs.umich.edu 3000 For VMS users it is: martini.eecs.umich.edu/port=3000 There is also a weather database: madlab.sprl.umich.edu 3000 (unix) madlab.sprl.umich.edu/port=3000 (VMS) There is a gotcha with the postal zip codes. They aren't correct. When I tried the database for the first time, I found that a town in Nebraska that is geographically NORTHWEST of Omaha to be SOUTHWEST instead. This database will give you the altitude, population and any other goodies such as county seats, state capitols, etc. Since a community name can appear in several states (e.g. Lexington), follow it immediately with a ",state" (ie. Lexington,KY) Good luck with it. Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Dec 91 14:28:59 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Bellcore V & H Coordinates to Geographic Coordinates Sorry, I am not aware of a dataset giving lat./long. coordinates for postal zip codes. In the United States, however, you can obtain maps which show roughly where the first three digits of a zipcode are to be found; these maps are by state. ------------------------------ From: kung@max.u.washington.edu Subject: Re: T1 on Fiber? Date: 22 Dec 91 16:59:12 PST In article , deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) writes: > While it is true that a single pair of fibers can carry much more > traffic than four copper wires, and that if this capacity is fully > used the cost per unit bandwidth is far lower, installing a single DS1 > over copper will in most cases be significantly less expensive than > installing the same DS1 over fiber. Especially for LECs, where the > copper plant is in place and can be used for individual DS1s, saving > the installed or new fiber plant for higher capacity service. A popular practice today involves a combination of fiber and copper spans. The fiber span would provide a high capacity pipe from the central office to each indivisual fiber hub. From the hub, T1 circuits can be provided by copper span. Typically, a fiber loop can support distance as far away as 20 to 30 miles. Considering the number of repeaters for each T1 span, and the likehood of failures for each, true saving comes from maintenance and provision cost, not just installation. Darwei Kung ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Dec 91 20:44:37 -0800 From: hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Re: Meter Reading via Phone Line (was Silent Night) Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo The use of the customer telephone line for reading other utility meters is interesting. I've long thought that someone (maybe me) should make a box that plugs into the standard socket for a kilowatt hour meter. This box would continue to measure kilowatt hours, but would also include a radio data trasceiver with a built in antenna (all in that little glass jar). It would, of course, be powered by the electricity readliy available. The electric utility would poll this thing one a month or so, over some UHF frequency. The entire exchange could be done in 250 mS or so, allowing one frequency to read quite a few meters once per month. This meter would also include a couple pulse inputs for the electric and gas meters. The electric company could then sell billing services (or at least meter reading services) to the gas and water companies (or, maybe someone could do gas powered radios). I don't think the radio equipment would be any more expensive than the special telco equipment, and there would be no telco charge for reading each meter. Further, the unit is self contained. No wires need to be run around the house between the meters and the telco line. This does remind me of a project a friend of mine did for a TV ratings company. They modified a CATV converter box to include a processor that kept track of what channel you were watching then. Now and then, it would pop up on the screen with a "who's watching" message. The viewer would respond with the TV remote control (unless only the dog was watching). Late at night, this system would then dump the data over the customers dial up line to the central computer. To avoid running wires all over the customer's house, they gave the customer a cordless phone. The converter box also had a "cordless phone" in it. When it was time to call, it went off hook just like any other cordless phone and placed its call. I thought that was a very clever way to lower installation costs on such a machine. 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 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Help Needed Wiring Telco Headsets From: Alan Boritz Date: Sat, 21 Dec 91 07:38:08 EST Organization: Harry's Place BBS - Mahwah NJ - +1 201 934 0861 drmath@viking.rn.com (Doctor Math) writes: > I have two of the old-style Genuine Bell headsets (made by > Plantronics) which sort of hang over one ear and terminate in a little > box with two 1/4" phono plugs. A few years ago, I actually had one of > them interfaced to a phone. It worked great, but I can't for the life > of me remember exactly how it was done. Symbols inside the box seem to > indicate that sleeve/sleeve goes to the earpiece, and that tip/tip is > amplified output from the microphone, but recent attempts to hook them > up fail miserably. Can anyone out there in Telecom Land give me (a) > instructions (b) pointers to where instructions may be found on how to > hook these headsets up to a standard 500 or 2500 set? You need either a phone with a built-in headphone amplifier (like an operator's console, or a 514/2514/etc.), or an add-on headphone amplifier like the one's that Plantronics and other vendors make. Some amps are better than others, and they don't all work well. I have a 514 set that sort of works ok with my Starset, but it worked much better on a regular centrex console (probably with more generous battery). They just don't make them the way they used to. ;-) Alan aboritz@harry.hourgls.fidonet.org (Alan Boritz) Harry's Place BBS - Mahwah NJ - +1-201-934-0861 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1046 *******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24725; 25 Dec 91 18:15 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03123 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 25 Dec 1991 16:38:23 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07169 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 25 Dec 1991 16:38:09 -0600 Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1991 16:38:09 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199112252238.AA07169@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1047 TELECOM Digest Wed, 25 Dec 91 16:38:09 CST Volume 11 : Issue 1047 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: How Much Does Distinctive Ringing Cost YOU? (Jack Decker) Re: AOS Use for Hospital Patients (Dave Niebuhr) Re: Call Trace on Usage Basis in Florida (John McHarry) Re: Pseudo-Area Code 311 (olson1@husc.harvard.edu) Re: Is My Phone OK in the UK? (Ken Thompson) Re: Wrong Numbers (Richard Budd) Re: Wrong Numbers (Carl Moore) Re: Wrong Numbers (Warren Burstein) Re: PC Based Key-Systems/PBX's (Alan Boritz) Re: How do I Program Radio Shack Call Forwarding Box? (Marc T. Kaufman) Re: Swedish Telecommunications Network (Harold Hallikainen) Re: Are Phone Books Archived For Future Generations? (Harold Hallikainen) Re: Swedish Telecommunications Network (Howard Page) New AT&T Charge For Overseas Information (Emmanuel Goldstein) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 22 Dec 91 18:19:47 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: How Much Does Distinctive Ringing Cost YOU? In a message dated 19 Dec 91 08:13:47 GMT, well!stv@well.sf.ca.us (Steve Vance) wrote: > I called up to see about getting this "Distinctive Ringing" Custom > Calling Feature on my home phone. > If you don't mind typing in the description of this service from the > front of your white pages, the Pacific Bell Customer Service person I > talked to is interested in what this service looks like and costs in > other parts of the country, and I promised I would post this and mail > the responses to her. From page 7 of the Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan white pages (Michigan Bell) under "Optional Services:" Multi-Ring Service (Home) First Number $5.00 Second Number $4.00 (Business) First Number $5.25 Second Number $4.25 Lets you have up to three phone numbers on one line, each with a different ring. The header of this page notes that "All charges are per month. Options not available in all areas, installation charges may apply." Jack Decker : jack@myamiga.mixcom.com : FidoNet 1:154/8 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1991 8:09:02 -0500 (EST) From: NIEBUHR@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (Dave Niebuhr) Subject: Re: AOS Use for Hospital Patients In schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeff Schweiger) writes: > I have a feeling that the hospital using AOS's to make their patient > phones a profit center is probably legal, but I thought I'd ask > telecom folks if they knew. (Remember, this is not a COCOT -- no coins > involved). I had a similar experience at another hospital on Long Island. The room phones were AOS yet the pay phones were NYTel with AT&T being the long distance carrier. It is legal and a d****d ripoff since the patients are paying exhorbitant daily rates to begin with. On the other hand, when my daughter was in the hospital after giving birth to my first grandson recently, the room phones were connected to NYTel, not an AOS. No hassles at all. She was connected to NYTel for out of local area calls quickly. To me that means the more profitable a hospital is, the more they want to stick it to the patients (I think I know which one the poster is referring to). Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 [Moderator's Note: Years and years ago, hospitals, hotels, university dormitories and furnished apartment buildings all offered telephone service at a break-even charge -- and sometimes at a loss! -- under the theory that the guests (or residents/patients, etc) were entitled to at least that much courtesy. Phone service was more expensive for the establishments then because live operators had to staff the switchboards around the clock, and payroll is invariably the biggest expense of any business. Yet they did it, and as one manager of an apartment-hotel here in Chicago said to me, "we lose money on the phones, but we feel we *have* to provide it for the tenants." No more Mister Good Guy, eh? PAT] ------------------------------ From: m21198%mwunix@linus.mitre.org (John McHarry) Subject: Re: Call Trace on Usage Basis in Florida Organization: The MITRE Corporation Date: 23 Dec 91 13:02:38 GMT Dave.Leibold@f524.n250.z1.fidonet.org (Dave Leibold) writes: > The Florida PSC has approved Southern Bell's offering of Automatic > Number Identification (ANI) Service to business customers in Florida. > ANI provides the billing number of the calling line. Whenever you dial > a 440- or 930- number, your telephone number is provided to the > business you have called. This service is not Caller ID Service and > therefore the Caller ID blocking codes will not apply in these > instances. That is interesting. It seems to make caller ID blocking an unreliable service, unless you are a guru and know ALL the exception numbers. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Dec 91 10:32:07 -0500 From: olson1@husc.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Pseudo-Area Code 311 In the immortal words of drmath@viking.rn.com (Doctor Math) in comp.dcom.telecom: > plains!person@uunet.uu.net (Brett G Person ) writes: >> In the early 80's there was a pop song about a girl named Jennie. The >> chorus of which gave her 'phone number'. Except that this happened to >> be a valid phone number in some parts of the country. These poor >> people got hundreds of calls for the fictitious girl. > This problem has also been reported in conjunction with a song by > AC/DC, wherein the lead singer screeches out some random digits at one > point in the song. They are apparently not intended to be a real phone > number, but this does not stop people from trying :) In The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy, the odds against the two main characters being rescued by a passing ship after being tossed out an airlock are given- "which, by an extraordinary coincidence, just happened to be the telephone number of an Islington flat where Arthur once went to a very good party and met a very nice girl whom he entirely failed to get off with." In the book of the scripts to the original radio show, Douglas Adams notes that the number is a real number of a real flat in Islington, where he was living at the time, "but the person living there now has nothing to do with Hitchhiker's so please stop calling him." ------------------------------ From: Ken Thompson Subject: Re: Is My Phone OK in the UK? Date: 23 Dec 91 15:03:35 GMT Organization: NCR Corporation Wichita, KS ian@hpopd.pwd.hp.com (Ian Watson) writes: > Will it catch fire, refuse to work, trash the BT exchange, get me > a criminal record? Or am I likely to find it works fine? > I don't want to electrocute myself or get thrown in jail. A friend has the same questions about taking a laptop with modem to the UK. She wants to call back here to check some online services. I know the jacks are not compatible but with some wire and clips is their basic wiring the same ring/tip loop. What is the UK's wire color coding? Here generally the loop is red/green. Thanks for any direct replies. Ken Thompson N0ITL NCR Corp. Peripheral Products Division Disk Array Development 3718 N. Rock Road Wichita KS 67226 (316)636-8783 Ken.Thompson@wichitaks.ncr.com ------------------------------ From: "Richard Budd" Date: 17 December 1991, 09:04:09 EST Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers A friend of mine in Plattsburgh, NY handles periods of wrong number messages by putting her message in French on the answering machine befor recording it again in English. Everybody who knows her well is aware she is bilingual and anticipates the English message. I don't know how effective it was in reducing wrong numbers. Last I heard from her, she was a nurse in Desert Storm. For those who want to try this, I can't offer French but can give you an acceptable message in German. You can use this REALLY to tell strangers they have reached a wrong number. "Gruss Gott. Sie rufen (NXX) AAA-BBBB* an. Am Ton lassen Sie mir bitte Ihren Namen, ihr Telefonnummer, und eine kuerze Mitteilung. Dazu rufe ich Ihnen wieder. Danke!" (Germans reading TELECOM can check for errors :-}) *German numbers. 0=null, 1=eins, 2=zwei(use zwo), 3=drei, 4=vier, 5=fuenf, 6=sechs, 7=sieben, 8=acht, 9=neun. Another greeting in Hungarian may soon be on it's way. Richard Budd Internet: rcbudd@rhqvm19.vnet.ibm.com VM Systems Programmer Bitnet: klub@maristb.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Dec 91 11:03:09 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers A certain four-digit extension, sinced moved from my office, would occasionally get a wrong number call which turned out only to be the middle two digits being reversed. The intended destination of such calls? The gynecology clinic! ------------------------------ From: warren@worlds.COM (Warren Burstein) Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers Date: 23 Dec 91 10:34:51 GMT Reply-To: warren@itex.jct.ac.il Organization: WorldWide Software In aboritz@harry.hourgls.fidonet.org (Alan Boritz) writes: > [Moderator's Note: Not only do ex-husbands pull that scam on their > impoverished former wives, but so do debtors when the bill collector > comes a-calling! PAT] I once knew a guy who worked at a collection agency. They had to locate the debtor before taking (legal) actions such as garnishing salary. Sometimes they had a telephone number of a relative, and had to convince the relative to put them in touch with the debtor. A standard line was that he had ordered something perishable and the address was unclear. It once happened that the relative demanded to know what the merchandise was, and the caller, thinking quickly, came up with "Panamanian racing squirrels". warren@itex.jct.ac.il ------------------------------ Subject: Re: PC Based Key-Systems/PBX's From: Alan Boritz Date: Fri, 20 Dec 91 02:14:24 EST Organization: Harry's Place - Mahwah NJ - +1 201 934 0861 sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes: > Are there any PC-based key systems or PBX's commercially available? > (Small scale). By that I mean systems that are composed of PC cards to > which one hooks up CO and station lines instead of a custom designed > box with proprietary cards. Yes, there is/was. I recall discussing the merits of one such system with one of my former co-workers about three years ago. I don't have any of the product literature handy (I'll see if he remembers, if I can locate him), but it was a very small switch, with something like the capacity of a grown-up Merlin. ;-) One of the distinct disadvantages of a PC-based switch, however, is fragility, as compared to relatively low-maintenance switch equipment. We (who worked at a NYC government telecom office) also rejected it as a potential product for our applications, since it was MUCH easier to buy a multi-million dollar interconnect than it was to get the Mayor's Office to approve purchase of a pc (no joke!). Alan aboritz@harry.hourgls.fidonet.org (Alan Boritz) Harry's Place BBS - Mahwah NJ - +1-201-934-0861 ------------------------------ From: kaufman@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Marc T. Kaufman) Subject: Re: How do I Program Radio Shack Call Forwarding Box? Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA Date: 23 Dec 91 16:36:22 GMT gnd@idaho.amdahl.com (Greg Darnell) writes: > I just purchased a Radio Shack "Call Forwarding System" CFS-200, cat. > no. 43-155, at a closeout price of $30. But does it fit in a cheese box? Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Neon.stanford.edu) [Moderator's Note: You forgot the smiley :) if you intended to have one there! PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Dec 91 09:43:37 -0800 From: hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Re: Swedish Telecommunications Network Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Previously, it was mentioned that one might dial a leading digit (I think a 0) from within Sweden, but not if calling from outside. This variation in numbering has always made it interesting for me to try to place international calls. People give me phone numbers that work great within their countries, but I don't know how much of the number represents what. Did they include a country code, a city code? Since the number of digits in the number also varies country to country, I often end up calling an international operator to try to figure out what I actually need to dial. Is there some standard clear way of printing phone numbers so that anyone in the world can make sense of them? For example, I have area code and a seven digit phone number for phone, and another for fax. To allow for international callers who may not have the US country code memorized, should we add that to our stationery? This sorta gets back to a previous discussion about the leading 1, allowing for variable length phone numbers, etc. How about if we are in the same country, we can drop the country code when dialing; if we are in the same area code, we can drop the area code. But, we'd be allowed to dial all the digits we want (including country and area codes from within those countries and areas). These "most significant digits" would be assumed to be the same as the originating phone, unless otherwise specified (or even allowing them to be specified the same). So, when we give someone our phone number, we give the whole number (integer?) and he/she can drop leading digits, if desired. We, of course, determine the end of dialing by a # key or a timeout (as discussed earlier). 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: Mon, 23 Dec 91 09:52:46 -0800 From: hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Re: Are Phone Books Archived For Future Generations? Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo I'm glad that a library is saving old phone books. I recently got into a discussion with a librarian where I teach. I'd always thought libraries should never throw anything away. Even old editions of books that now have newer editions have historical significance. "Unpopular" books that are "never checked out" also have historical significance. Due to space limitations, librarians become editors, trying to decide what is worth keeping. I see their jobs as saving everything and catalogging it so we can find it. In some of my research, I've looked at the 1911 Congressional Record. It was great to have that available. I was probably the only one at that library that read it that year. 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: Mon, 23 Dec 91 17:18:50 EST From: hgp@lzsc.att.com (Howard Page) Subject: Re: Swedish Telecommunications Network Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories While we're on the subject, when visiting Stockholm, be sure to see the telephone museum. It's neat (and I'm sure it would be better if I spoke Swedish!) Howard G. Page ------------------------------ From: well!emmanuel@well.sf.ca.us (Emmanuel Goldstein) Subject: New AT&T Charge For Overseas Information Date: 24 Dec 91 08:47:40 GMT As of Saturday 12/21 AT&T has begun charging $1.50 for every connection to overseas directory assistance. The charge applies whether or not you get a number but won't apply if you don't get connected. This is unfortunate -- up until now the service had been free. If other companies still allow free overseas information, I'll switch to them for my international calls. Anyone have info on this? emmanuel@well.sf.ca.us ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1047 *******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25595; 25 Dec 91 19:06 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17820 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 25 Dec 1991 17:24:16 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09179 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 25 Dec 1991 17:24:02 -0600 Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1991 17:24:02 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199112252324.AA09179@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1048 TELECOM Digest Wed, 25 Dec 91 17:23:33 CST Volume 11 : Issue 1048 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: AT&T Echo to the UK (Andy Sherman) Re: AT&T Echo to the UK (Mark Terrible) Re: AT&T Exits Telegraph Business (Harold Hallikainen) Re: AT&T Rates and Low Income Customers (John Higdon) Re: AT&T Rates and Low Income Customers (David Niebuhr) Re: How Much Does Distinctive Ringing Cost YOU? (Harold Hallikainen) Re: Rail Phone (Larry Appleman) Re: Illinois Bell Figures Out How to Charge Per Call (Peter da Silva) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: andys@ulysses.att.com Date: Mon, 23 Dec 91 11:21:35 EST Subject: Re: AT&T Echo to the UK Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Murray Hill, NJ In article DREUBEN@EAGLE.WESLEYAN.EDU (Douglas Scott Reuben) writes: > [ complaints about short time-constant echoes on AT&T circuits > to the UK ] > AT&T *always* had a slight delay -- if you hit a Touch Tone key right > when the other side was making some sound (FAX carrier or "not in > area" carphone message), you could hear the touch tone returned to > you. It wasn't as long as what one would expect from a satellite > circuit, so maybe they are using fiber one way and satellite the other > way? (Hey, AT&T *still* uses satellites to Hawaii!) NOBODY, but NOBODY, would use different media for the incoming and outgoing sides of a call. Your call does not go over its own fiber, (or microwave repeater, or satellite transponder, or cable). It gets a 64Kbps time slot of a digital trunk, or a voiceband-wide chunk of spectrum in an analog trunk (of which there are virtually none left in AT&T land) or a voiceband hunk of spectrum in an FDM satellite channel). The switching and administration software required to manage routing calls with inbound and outbound on different trunks is too horrible to even contemplate. And, yes, *every* carrier still has satellite circuits for international calling and places like Alaska and Hawaii. (Floyd from Alascom can correct me if I'm wrong about Alaska. I believe that Alascom is the only IXC there.) There are some places where a satellite is the only way to get there. There are other places where satellite circuits provide needed excess capacity. To the UK there are undersea fiber, undersea cable, and satellite circuits. I believe that all three media are used by all the major carriers, but guess who takes the lead in laying new undersea cables? (Points off if you answered Sprint). However, the older but servicible facilities are not ripped out when a new fiber comes on line. You wouldn't want to pay the long distance charges that would result if they were. I don't know why you are getting the echos on your calls. There are a *lot* of tricky bits in connecting an international call, including matching up different digitization standards between the US and CCITT. Your problem could even be a bad trunk between your LEC and AT&T. Did you try all these calls from the same calling number (or at least the same end office)? > Any reason why AT&T is apparently so cheap that they can't have full > fiber BOTH ways? I always use AT&T for all my calls, but if by dialing > 10333+ for Sprint I get better connections than AT&T, and AT&T after > all these years is STILL using satellites, I think maybe I'll give > some of my business to Sprint instead. As I said before, nobody splits the inbound and outbound directions of circuits onto different trunking media. Either you're on a cable, on a fiber, a microwave channel or on a satellite on any particular trunking leg. If you think that Sprint has no satellites to the UK, try using them at a time when their demand is high. *Everybody* overflows into the air. If the echo problem persists, I suggest you call AT&T repair service. But a word of advice -- don't try to diagnose the problem, just give them the symptoms. Your credibility will be much higher if you don't give impossible technical explanations for what you are observing. 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! ------------------------------ Subject: Re: AT&T Echo to the UK Date: Sat, 21 Dec 91 00:39:07 -0500 From: mole-end!mat@uunet.uu.net > I just got off the phone with someone in London, calling via AT&T. > I heard her just fine, but she said there was "noise" after I spoke, > and it sounded as if there was some slight delay. > So I tried calling a FAX number in Oxfordshire, ... > AT&T *always* had a slight delay ... It wasn't as long as what one would > expect from a satellite circuit, so maybe they are using fiber one way > and satellite the other way? (Hey, AT&T *still* uses satellites to Hawaii!) This has been AT&T's practice for a long time: satellite in one leg and terrestrial the other. It is *just* noticible, unless you are doing block data transfers with acknowledgement; then it can be devastating. > Any reason why AT&T is apparently so cheap that they can't have full > fiber BOTH ways? ... For one thing, the fiber circuits are being swamped. You'd think that with two fiber cables in place there would be plenty of capacity, right? Nope. Transatlantic traffic is booming beyond booming. They are working on a third one, with a fourth being planned. I've forgotten the numbers, but the third cable will something like triple the available channels -- and they don't expect it to be enough for more than a few years. Because the fiber cables have repeaters in them, they can't change to better modulation schemes on the existing cables to add channels. On the far horizon: erbium doped fibers that are self-repeating (when pumped with a second laser) and with them, maybe synchronous optical. If 10% of the optical band can be recovered, that's about 40 terabits/second per channel (allowing two bits per cycle). A more reasonable number is 1/10%, for 400 gigabits/second. Now THAT's a lot of chit-chat! Synchronous optical has been demonstrated in the lab with a very good capacity-distance product. I'm sure that there are a bunch of problems, but the notion is fantastic: phase-modulating the light itself and recovering the modulation. I don't know whether self-repeating fiber would preserve the modulation or not. (This man's opinions are his own.) From mole-end Mark Terribile uunet!mole-end, Somewhere in Matawan, NJ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Dec 91 10:26:46 -0800 From: hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Re: AT&T Exits Telegraph Business Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo > My friend, whose name is Lake (Ed) Trump, is a real OT brass pounder. > And one of his past times is networking over the phone with other OT > BP's. I don't know how many are doing this, but they are hooking up > old 300 baud modems so they can key the darn things with straight > keys, and receive it with sounders! (I bet our sounder is the last > actively used, even if not officially used, sounder on a real No. 9 > board in a Toll Center anywhere in the country.) Pretty neat history! Brass pounding over the phone sounds pretty expensive to me. Ham radio would be a less expensive way of staying in contact with other BPs. Perhaps Internet could use another form of UUENCODE and UUDECODE that would accept hand keyed American Morse and convert it to a for suitable for transmission through email and talk. 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: Wed, 25 Dec 91 00:27 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: AT&T Rates and Low Income Customers tad@ssc.wa.com (Tad Cook) writes: > I am confused. I thought that local telephone companies were the only > entities in the telephone business involved in providing subsidized > service to low income customers. I can understand how this could have > been a cost to AT&T prior to divestiture, but why now? I can only guess, but apparently since someone decided that telephone service was some sort of "right" to be enjoyed by everyone whether they could afford it or not, long-distance must also be included in the list of life's basic necessities. Note, however, that only a small amount of telephone service is considered necessary; those who want more are just being piggy and should be subsidizing those who cannot afford any. This is all for the good of society, mind you. Just like those who use less than 500 KWH of electricity deserve to have it paid for by those of us who happen to use more (or at least heavily subsidized thereby). At least this is the California way -- a state that has businesses lining up to leave due to confiscatory taxes and nightmarish regulations and bureaucracy. Not to mention a legislature that firmly believes the state's first responsibility is to transfer the wealth from producers to deadbeats directly through taxation and welfare ... oops, I got carried away! What I meant to say was that since our country seems to be headed down the socialist path, we will probably be seeing more and more services "socialized", that is, people who can afford the service and pay the bill will pay more to make up for those who cannot. The general pattern is that more and more things will be deemed "essential" (voicemail next?) and will come under the "ability to pay" tiered structure. It is interesting to observe that access to telephone service has come to be considered close to food, shelter, and clothing in its importance. Especially in light of the fact that it still carries a "Federal Excise Tax"! Oh, but I suppose they do not call it a 'luxury' tax anymore. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Dec 91 08:02:50 -0500 From: niebuhr@bnlux1.bnl.gov (david niebuhr) Subject: Re: AT&T Rates and Low Income Customers In Tad Cook (tad@ssc.wa.com) writes: > I am confused. I thought that local telephone companies were the only > entities in the telephone business involved in providing subsidized > service to low income customers. I can understand how this could have > been a cost to AT&T prior to divestiture, but why now? Speculation on. When a low income registers for low cost service with their local telco, is is possible that the telco forwards the information to the LD carrier and the LD carrier applies the low cost rates? Speculation off. Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Dec 91 10:06:52 -0800 From: hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Re: How Much Does Distinctive Ringing Cost YOU? Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Since "Ringmate" or whatever you want to call it seems to be very much like an old fashioned party line, could we just order a couple numbers on a party line? Telco probably doesn't get too many requests like that. I guess Ringmate uses different ring patterns of the same ringer frequency. Going back to the old party line technique of using different ringer frequencies might be interesting. You could have a little switch on your fax machine to select the ringer frequency it responds to. Harold ------------------------------ From: larry@world.std.com (Larry Appleman) Subject: Re: Rail Phone Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1991 09:20:33 GMT Michael Rosen writes, > I was riding the train home today and, on my way off the train, I noticed > something new. They have 'Rail Phones' in booths on the train. At least, I > only saw one, in the car I was in just before the snack car. Does anybody > know how these work? I assume they only take credit cards, calling cards, > etc.?... Railfones have for several years been on Amtrak's Metroliners (which run mainly between New York City and Washington, D.C.) and San Diegans (in Southern California). Last year, with the addition of New England Express trains, Railfone service became available between New York City and Boston. More recently, Railfones were added to most Northeast Corridor trains, and to San Joaquins (between Oakland and Bakersfield, California). GTE Railfone Incorporated -- a subsidiary of GTE Airfone Incorporated -- must be one of the world's smallest telephone companies. With two or three Railfones per train, the total number can't be more than a couple of hundred. Here's how you use Railfones: They accept AT&T Calling Cards, American Express, Carte Blanche, Diners Club, Discover Card, MasterCard, and Visa. Charges appear on your credit card statement. Domestic rates are $1.50 per minute (or fraction) plus a $1.50 access charge. International rates are $1.50 per minute (or fraction) plus a $1.50 access charge. 800 numbers are charged at domestic rates. (I have no idea what would've happened if people called 1-800-555-5555 from a Railfone.) Directory assistance calls are free. I ride Amtrak several times a month, and I rarely see anyone using Railfones. (More often, I've seen people using their own personal portable cellular 'phones on trains.) A couple of times, I've used Railfones, mostly for "guess where I'm calling from" calls. The large, comfortable booths provide a very luxurious telephoning experience, but the price seems way too high. Larry Appleman, P.O. Box 214, Cambridge B, Mass. 02140, larry@world.std.com ------------------------------ From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (peter da silva) Subject: Re: Illinois Bell Figures Out How to Charge Per Call Organization: Ferranti International Controls Corporation Date: Mon, 23 Dec 91 18:43:28 GMT In article , motcid!irwin@uunet.uu.net (Ken A. Irwin) writes: > Personally I never thought residential CID was/is a very useful > feature, and I have no problem with people paying out the nose for a > service whose only unique feature amounts to revenge or apathy. The > CLASS features do everything thats the least bit useful without > knowing the number and without the silly box. That's just plain not true. Call Return will work to deter prank calls for a short period, until people become aware that you don't really have their phone number. Caller ID will have a more lasting effect, since avoiding it requires more effort (and if you have ID-blocking and Blocked-ID-blocking it's even more useful). (Speaking of these features: I've advocated them since I first heard about Caller-ID ... not just in response to the security concerns). > Just out of curiosity why do you need to know the number of the early > morning caller, if you can auto callback, or block last originating, > or call IBT for a trace last originating? Auto Callback is (as I indicated above) not very useful long term. Block Last Originating opens you up to a denial-of-service attack (the prankster is at a location where you normally receive 'real' calls as well, for example). And trace forces you to escalate a probem to the level of the criminal justice system long before that's necessary. (And dealing with the CJS can be incredibly frustrating, even when you have all your ducks lined up.) > CLASS allows all of these features on a bill 'em as you use 'em > basis. Now I for one answer my calls from the phone closest to the > room I'm in, so in addition to the monthly charge I've got to buy > several display boxes, or run to the room with the box. Why? Having Caller-ID doesn't force you to not get any other CLASS features. Having Caller ID available doesn't even force you to get Caller ID. Just because you can't think of a reason to use it doesn't mean that others are similarly restricted. > I just wish people would look at the big picture as to what CID is, > and not look at it as a nifty gadget, you give away a hell of a lot > for what you get. I just wish people would look at the big picture as to what CID is, and not just look at it as a threat. You get a lot in exchange for a (historically recent) anonymity that's frequently abused. (I know, I know, this should be in the Telecom Security digest. I've about given up on it, though, since everyone there seems to be either of the "ban it" or "it should be free with no restrictions" schools.) Peter da Silva Ferranti International Controls Corporation Sugar Land, TX 77487-5012; +1 713 274 5180 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1048 *******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27559; 25 Dec 91 21:29 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08780 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 25 Dec 1991 19:47:55 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28356 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 25 Dec 1991 19:47:40 -0600 Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1991 19:47:40 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199112260147.AA28356@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1049 TELECOM Digest Wed, 25 Dec 91 19:47:37 CST Volume 11 : Issue 1049 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Administrivia: Two Special Issues to Follow (TELECOM Moderator) Re: AOS Use for Hospital Patients (David Singer) Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits (was Pseudo-Area Code 311) (Jeff Sicherman) Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits (was Pseudo-Area Code 311) (Robert Virzi) Re: Cellular Roaming Questions (Monty Solomon) Re: Cellular Roaming Questions (Scott Reuben) Re: Silent Night (Joshua E. Muskovitz) Re: Rail Phone (Carl Moore) Re: Disneyland Speakerphones (Craig R. Watkins) Re: Wrong Numbers (John Higdon) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1991 18:40:36 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Administrivia: Two Special Issues to Follow I have a large collection of replies on hand here to two recent threads which were very controversial. The Bell Canada Caller-ID Alternate Number thread drew many (as yet unpublished) replies, and the thread from earlier this week responding to the AT&T/USA Today billing for calls to the information service offered by the newspaper is the other. To close both of these threads out -- both have been well explored here -- I'll send out a special issue devoted strictly to replies on both threads with no further commentary from myself. I'm handling these as special issues so that readers not interested in pursuing the topics further can ditch them unread without missing other messages or issue numbers. Watch for them Wednesday night. PAT ------------------------------ Subject: Re: AOS Use for Hospital Patients Reply-To: singer@almaden.ibm.com (David Singer) Organization: IBM Almaden Research Center Date: Wed, 25 Dec 91 16:40:24 -0800 From: "David Singer" When our son was born in February, 1990, I was delighted to find that the hospital provided free local calls from all the rooms (the previous time I'd been involved with a hospital, there was a $3/day charge for a phone in your room). They didn't say what carrier they used for LD service, so I decided to play it safe and sent them over MCI via 950-1022; the billing went through without incident. (And when I needed a new battery for my camera, I put *that* call out on the local 2-meter repeater ... but that's a different story!) By the way, this same hospital has COCOTs in the public areas, so they still need some enlightening about proper telephone etiquette. David Singer -- Internet: singer@almaden.ibm.com BITNET: SINGER at ALMADEN Voice: (408) 927-2509 Fax: (408) 927-4073 (If I needed a disclaimer, I'd put one here.) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Dec 91 13:02:28 -0800 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits (was Pseudo-Area Code 311) Organization: Cal State Long Beach In article jeh@cmkrnl.com writes: > In article , FVEST@ducvax.auburn.edu > (Floyd Vest) writes: >> Any other nominations for telecommunications greatest hits? :-) > An obscure early rock and roll artist named Chuck Berry recorded a > little song called "Memphis". The title has nothing to do with > telecom, but the lyrics certainly do. ("Long distance information / > Get me Memphis Tennessee...") Not to turn this into comp.dcom.rockmusic, but I think that "Memphis" was recorded by Johnny Rivers, not Chuck Berry, unless there was some covering going on that I'm not aware of. Just to get some telecom back into this ... Wouldn't it be nice to have some music/tune instead of dial tone or that irritating busy signal. Choose your own from a vast library of Phone Company supplied tunes ... Of course, they'd have to add royalties to your phone bill every time you picked up the handset. How about adding genre (rock, classical, pop, R&B, etc.) menus to music-on-hold systems. Submit your own suggestions to "jazz"-up the voice phone network ... [Moderator's Note: I don't know how often you call Colombia, but on my last call there almost a year ago I got a disconnected number intercept with a musical background. The message was in Spanish, then repeated in English, with some sort of catchy tune playing in the background. I liked it so much I called a second time (to the wrong number) to listen again! :) PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Dec 91 08:46:35 EST From: Robert Virzi Reply-To: rvirzi@gte.com Subject: Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits (was Pseudo-Area Code 311) In article is written: > On 16 Dec 91 18:17:07 GMT cmoore@BRL.MIL (VLD/VMB) wrote: >> And in the early 1960s there was "BEechwood 4-5789". > This was the Marvellettes' 1962 telephone song that was covered with a > "number change" in Wilson Pickett's 1966 hit "634-5789 (Soulsville, > U.S.A)". The '81 number was Tommy Tutone's 867-5309/Jenny. In the > 40's Glenn Miller dialed "PEnnsylvania 6-5000" for a hit. > Any other nominations for telecommunications greatest hits? :-) Don't forget Chuck Berry, trying to reach his daugter in 'Memphis, Tennesee" after breaking up with his wife in song. On a slightly more contempory note there was Nick Lowe's song called "Switch box Susie", in which he tries to pick up the operator for a date. The best lyrics went something like ... Switchbox Susie won't you give me a line, I need a number give me 999. Switchbox Susie, can we be friends. After six, and on weekends. When I'm with you, girl, I get an extension. And I don't mean Alexander Graham Bell's invention. They (the lyrics) get a little raunchier than this. I could probably post the whole song, if anyone is interested. I have a bunch of these songs on a 'Telephones in Music' cassette I made a few years ago. Funny how working for a telephone company distorts your sense of humor. ;-}. Happy holidays all! rvirzi@gte.com rv01@gte.com ...harvard!bunny!rv01 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Dec 91 15:45:37 EST From: monty@roscom.UUCP (Monty Solomon) Subject: Re: Cell Roaming Questions levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org (Ken Levitt) wrote: > I don't own a cell phone, but a friend in Boston with Cell-One service > is loaning me his phone for a trip to Waterbury, CT in February. > My friend has never used roaming before, so I called Cell-One in > Boston and asked how it worked. I was given the following > information: > 1. There are no daily roaming fees. > 2. Cost of use will be $0.44/min peak and $0.29/min off-peak. > 3. I don't have to do anything to activate the roaming in CT. > 4. For someone to call me, they must do the following: > a. Call 203-856-7626 > b. Wait for secondary dial tone. > c. Dial the cell phone number with area code, but without the "1" > at the front. Cellular One Boston is part of the New England Network which provides service in Southern NH, Southern ME, MA, RI, and CT. There are no roaming charges when the phone is used in those areas. The phone will indicate roam whenever it is out of Cellular One's service area in MA. The rates quoted are correct and apply to both incoming and outgoing calls. You will have to pay NET and/or AT&T land charges in addition to the airtime for outgoing calls. Peak rates apply 7 AM - 7 PM weekdays if your service is directly with Cellular One. Some of the resellers in this area charge peak rates from 7 AM - 9PM. When you are in CT, you can dial *711 to find out the correct number for callers to dial to reach you. The number already provided to you may be correct. When used outside of the New England Network, Cellular One charges a monthly roaming fee plus a daily roaming fee. Make sure the phone is configured for "A" service as opposed to "Home" service so that it can be used outside of Cellular One's service area in MA. A new free service on Cellular One provides tons of information. Call *INFO from the cellular phone. Monty Solomon roscom!monty@bu.edu ------------------------------ Date: 25-DEC-1991 17:52:57.91 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Re: Cellular Roaming Question On 20 Dec 91 20:44:05 levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org (Ken Levitt) asked: > 1. There are no daily roaming fees. Seems likely -- there are no daily roam charges for CT "A" system customers who go over to the Boston system. Two people from Boston with Cell One acts. come to CT regularly - they are never charged. Cell One/Boston was doing something weird with a $2 per day charge from THEM (not the roaming system), for the "privilege" of roaming -- I don't think CT applies or even if Cell One/Boston continues to pull this nonsense anymore. Better check (and get a name) to make sure. > 3. I don't have to do anything to activate the roaming in CT. Right -- the minute you get to the CT system (SID 00119) you can use your phone, no problem. > 4. For someone to call me, they must do the following: > a. Call 203-856-7626 > b. Wait for secondary dial tone. > c. Dial the cell phone number with area code, but without the "1" > at the front. Correct -- however, there are other ways to call you: The 203-856 port is local to the Norwalk area, which is an expensive call (in-state, you know) from the Waterury area. The following ports will also work, and may be less costly: 203-930-7626 (Hartford Area) 401-523-7626 (Providence) 413-531-7626 (Springfield MA/Western MA) All the above ports will page you in all of Metro Mobile's systems: That is all of Connecticut (EXCEPT Lithchfield County - a god-awful separate system there -- big mistake), all of Western Mass (up to about Charlton on the Masspike), all of Rhode Island, and Southeastern Mass (like New Bedford, Fall River, and a bit south of Brockton). The Rhode Island port will also ring all the above areas and Boston, since the Rhode Island system is DMXed to Boston. (All of Metro Mobile should be, according to Metro, quite soon. They have said this for a year -- I think McCaw will beat them to it with automatic roaming in Boston, which starts when IS-41 is implemented with them in the middle of January (?) ...) The only time you MAY have to worry about roam charges is if you get down to the CT shoreline. The NY system comes in quite strongly at times in (among other places) Norwalk, Old Greenwich, New London, and Old Saybrook. Since you are already "roaming" in CT, you won't know that you are in the NY system, since the roam light will be on in either case. But, if you use the NY system, you WILL pay a $3 fee. To avoid this, Metro Mobile has a *711 "Roamer-Info" number which is free for anyone (home and roamer customers) to use. If you are not sure what system you are in, a (usually) good way to tell is by dialing *711. If you get the Metro Mobile recording, you are set; if you get "Thank you for using Cellular One(NY)", then you are using NY. > I can't tell if the person on the phone knew what they were talking > about especially when they didn't know where Waterbury was. Waterbury? Oh, is that where I-84 and CT-8 meet? ;) A few more things CT roamers should consider: Nearby system's customers' call-forwarding and three-way calling features WILL (or SHOULD) work in CT and RI. You will be able to forward your calls while in the CT/RI systems. If you have voicemail or want your calls to No-Answer-Transfer to another number, you may want to *72 (unconditional forward) your calls. Reason: If your phone is "on" in CT, someone calling you from Boston (NOT using the roam ports) will get reorder signal, or an error message. See, the switch in Boston "talks" to the switch in CT, and it tries to send your call off to the CT system. However, there are no provisions in CT to accept your call ('cause Metro is dumb), and the call gets "stuck". If you forward your calls with *72, you avoid the problem. BTW, callers calling your number via the roam ports will also have their calls forwarded as if they were dialing you direcltly. (To wit, this applies to "A" customers from Boston, South Jersey/Trenton/Flemington/ New Brunswick, Atlantic City, Philadelphia, and Wilmington,DE.) Since you are going to be near Litchfield County, watch out for "Cellular One of Litchfield". They just got permsission from the CT DPUC to begin operations, and have (at present) only one tower. They resell over SNET, the "B" carrier, so they have no association with Metro Mobile, the other "A" carrier in CT, serving the rest of the state. If you want to place calls in Litchfield, you need to wait online for the Appex Roaming Operator, who will charge your credit card $2 per minute (+ toll) to use their great one-tower system. Who at the FCC had the bright idea to give these rip-off artists a license in CT? It is a pain for "A" customers in CT, and an added competitive advantage for SNET who services the entire state, Litchfield and all. Anyhow, happy roaming! Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Dec 91 11:08:51 EST From: "Joshua E. Muskovitz" Subject: Re: Silent Night What would happen if the line were perpetually busied? Would the electric company call 611 for you? Or would they just come out to read those few meters that were unreachable? (And what is the equivalent to SIT tones for phone-based meters ... We're sorry, the meter you have dialed has been changed. The new meter is... ;-) josh [Moderator's Note: They will continue to read meters the old way as needed. The new electronic reading system is designed to cut back on the number of premises visits required, but not completely eliminate them. That's why disconnecting the wires at the meter is also a futile gesture. Eventually, they'll come around to see you as before. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Dec 91 9:32:48 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Rail Phone I don't yet know about rail phones (do vaguely recall HEARING about them), but I did make a call from an airplane with a credit card, when I was flying nonstop from Philadelphia to Los Angeles earlier this year (same trip where I used a speakerphone at Disneyland in Anaheim). ------------------------------ From: "Craig R. Watkins" Subject: Re: Disneyland Speakerphones Date: 25 Dec 91 19:32:17 EST Organization: HRB Systems, Inc. In article , DREUBEN@EAGLE.WESLEYAN. EDU (Douglas Scott Reuben) writes: > If I get a chance to get to Anahiem soon, (and find a friend who still > buys those "frequent visitor" admission books!) I'll try out the ANI > numbers that I have and see what the computer returns. I made an 800 call from one earlier this month. All I can do now is wait for the floppy from AT&T to find out the number. Stay tuned. -crw- [Moderator's Note: That's the same method I had to use to find out what number was being sent out as ANI from my cellular phones. I dialed into my own 800 number then waited for the billing. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Dec 91 16:58 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers "Richard Budd" writes: > A friend of mine in Plattsburgh, NY handles periods of wrong number > messages by putting her message in French on the answering machine > befor recording it again in English. Nice idea, but my experience has indicated that no matter what you put on your outgoing annoucement, people WILL leave messages for non-existent (at your number) recipients. Several years ago when I still had my mechanical answering machine, the number of messages for "Jack", "Mike", "Susan", etc. escalated to more than three a day. In desperation I recorded the following outgoing announcement: "You have reached the residence of John Higdon. Since I live alone, no family or room mates, this machines answers my calls when I am not home or I am busy. Messages left for people other than myself will be ignored. Thank you. [BEEP] [incoming message:] "Hi, Maggie. Sorry but Jason has some paperwork he needs to finish up on our rental properties and I should probably help him with it so we will have to take a raincheck on the beach trip tomorrow. Give me a call when you come in and maybe we can do something later in the evening. Bye." You cannot win. Except by taking bogus reservations :-) John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1049 *******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28460; 25 Dec 91 22:28 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30907 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 25 Dec 1991 20:47:16 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19989 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 25 Dec 1991 20:47:01 -0600 Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1991 20:47:01 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199112260247.AA19989@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu Subject: Caller-ID in the Workplace: Screening Reporter and Employee Calls The recent thread on this topic brought a huge number of replies, many of which have been posted in the Digest in issues last week. The thread began by discussing Caller-ID in Canada ... a topic (Caller-ID -- not Canada!) which has ALWAYS stirred up a controvery in the Digest whenever anyone expresses an opinion pro or con. A newspaper reporter wrote to say he felt uncomfortable with the idea that a company which had Caller-ID on its phones could screen out his calls to specific employees, rerouting him to the public relations officer for the company instead. There followed a discussion of his right to interview employees of his choice, and the right of the company to demand their employees to remain silent on company affairs. As the messages got away from the telecom theme, I quit publishing them. This file presents several more articles received, in an effort to close out the thread. Responses to what you read here should be directed to each of the writers -- NOT to telecom. Thanks. PAT From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich) writes: > This is a cute story. Now of course you might also want to fix your > phone system so that employees can't call OSHA or the EEOC from work, > and that might not be so cute. Not to mention that telling the > salesperson that her calls were inappropriate might have helped her to > do her job better and might have contributed to a generally less > devious work environment. Technical solutions to social problems is > generally bad idea. Yes, I thought it was a cute story. That is why I shared it. And it is too bad that it inspired a sweeping generalization about technical solutions to social problems -- particularly those that are brought on by technology in the first place. In this particular instance, it caused the cessation of calls, did not offend the employee, and had no other side effects whatsoever. Management appreciated the fact that it did not have to deal with indignation in response to an "appropriateness" lecture, Shoreline did not have to deal with the calls anymore, and the employee did not have to suffer embarassment over her inappropriate actions. IMHO, this was a rather complete and effective solution. I find it a little annoying to have to deal with non-technical people pontificating to teckkies about the proprieties of technical solutions. Sometimes the people who actually have hands on the means of operation can solve problems and manage the situation without help or interference from the theorists. I am not advocating technology run-wild, but when technical solutions do work it would be nice to avoid the general put-downs issued by the non-technical but socially-aware among us. Here is another ploy I use at that same client you can take pot shots at: whenever '611' dialed from any telephone in the building, the call goes not to Pac*Bell repair service but to my home. Why? Because no one at that location other than myself is qualified to report ANY problem to telco. No one knows what trunk routes might be involved, what the ID numbers are on the trunks, or what trunks are used for incoming or outgoing. In the last month, someone has twice tried to report "telco trouble" by dialing repair service. My procedure saved the owner of the system two "bogus repair call" charges since both incidents involved the switch and not telco lines. Now let us hear about "what if an employee needs to report his home phone" or other nonsense. Hint: in ten years this has not come up. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! From: spencer@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (S. Spencer Sun) In article , tmatimar@nff.ncl. Omron.co.jp (Ted M A Timar) writes: >> [Toady's Note: I don't need to take civics again ... you need to > [duty to public vs. duty to company] > This does not mean that you should be spreading company trade secrets, > but it does mean that you should be reporting 'evidence of the dangers > of asbestos' even when this is contrary to the good of your employer. > Otherwise, you will be morally (and probably legally) responsible for > the damage (or deaths) caused by it. > [Moderator's Note: I do not believe responsibility to the public and > responsibility to one's employer are mutually exclusive. If you have > problems with what your employer is doing, then *resign your employment* > and seek something else. You have no right to take your employer's > money while knifing him in the back. PAT] While I can see both points here, PAT's note leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth (or is that just my lunch...). How about if "responsibility to the employer" (resigning) means also doing one's responsibility to the public by just shirking it? I.e. I'm no longer employed by them, therefore I'm no longer in a position to explore disturbing facts about my company which I found out about before I resigned, therefore I don't have to do anything for the public at all. Is that really responsibility to the public? If your employer is engaged in less-than-upright activities of some nature, is it morally right to just walk away from it? Apathy can be a dangerous thing. S. Spencer Sun '94 - Princeton Univ. - spencer@phoenix.princeton.edu: From: "J. Brad Hicks" <0004073044@mcimail.com> (Those of you who are not under United States of America jurisdiction feel free to skip this clarification of American law ... unless you're the kind of person who slows down to look at an auto wreck. It's not pretty, and fortunately for you, it's not applicable to you.) There has been a lot of discussion here over programming phone systems to make it harder for anonymous whistle-blowers to call reporters (or OSHA) to report dangerous or illegal activity by their company. Pat, Toby, and others have taken the side that a company has every legal right to fire someone who says bad things about them either in public or in private. As I bumped my nose into years ago when I first started doing volunteer civil rights work for members of minority religions, this is actually an understatement. America, and America alone among the western democracies, has a principle that was enshrined in law by the Supreme Court over a century ago, called the doctrine of employment at will. In short sentences, the courts have ruled that in the absence of a signed contract by both parties, any employer may demand any duty of an employee that isn't illegal or hazardous to their life, and may fire that employee for any cause or for no cause at any time. Consider an example from the 1970s: an employer asked one of his employees how he voted in the 1972 election. When the employee answered that he had voted for McGovern, he was fired (the employer was pro-Nixon). The employee sued, arguing that an order to vote in a particular way was tantamount to election tampering, and was a violation of the employee's rights in a democracy. The Supreme Court upheld employment at will, and ruled that the employer was perfectly free to fire for this reason. And, of course, anyone who smokes or has friends who do know that the courts have long upheld the right of companies to fire employees who smoke, even if said smoking does not occur on the job. And mandatory drug testing, which by the very technology does not measure job impairment but does report on off-duty leisure activity, has been upheld by the courts for every employer except for government agencies. This situation is modified only slightly by the various titles of the Civil Rights Act, which created a short list of narrowly-defined reasons that can not be used in such decisions, notably religion, race, ethnic or national origin, age, or (recently) handicap. But even there, under current law, the burden of proof is on the former employee to prove that that and that alone was the reason they were fired; almost no such cases are won. (I should know; members of my religion, Neopaganism, are often fired after their religion is discovered by coworkers or managers. I've personally seen many such cases, and can only remember one where the Neopagan won.) Oh, and the enabling legislation for the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) both forbid employers from firing employees who make complaints. But when I worked for a large defense contractor and an employee in my department made an OSHA complaint over the phone (not from his desk, he was justly paranoid), and OSHA forced them into compliance, management spent the next week trying to bully us into naming the employee who'd made the complaint. They had, in fact, put software in to flag all calls to OSHA, and knew which phone had been used. Had they found the employee who'd made the complaint, I have no doubt whatsoever that however hard he worked, his next evaluation would have shown that he was an inadequate worker, and he would have been fired. In firings over OSHA and EEOC complaints, as with civil rights, the burden of proof is on the fired employee. Relevant to the previous discussion here, several attempts have been made to pass a whistle-blower's protection act, both in the upper and the lower house of the U.S. Congress, over many years, with no success. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other pro-business groups argue that any infringment on employment at will is interference in their ownership rights over their businesses, and people who haven't got a paycheck have a much harder time lobbying Congress for their position. It is my personal opinion that employment at will is one of the most evil doctrines in American law. On this, the day after the 200th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, I find it unpleasant to contemplate how few Americans believe that the rights of freedom of speech, and of the press, and of assembly, and of religion, and from unreasonable search and seizure, and to due process, are so fundamental, so inalienable, that we ought not allow ANYONE to use threat or coersion to take them away. Unfortunately, the doctrine of employment at will is so deeply enshrined in so many Supreme Court decisions that I fear it would take a Constitutional amendment to overturn it. And while major corporations and their wealthy owners contribute most of the money that buys television time that re-elects candidates, it will never happen. For more information on what few rights you as employees have under American law, contact another Socially Responsible group that I'll bet Pat despises, your local ACLU chapter, and ask for a copy of their free pamphlet on liberty in the workplace. From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (peter da silva) Sigh. The attacks from the PC crowd and the counterattacks from Pat are getting really tiring. Could we have a moratorium? Nobody is going to get convinced one way or another. > [Toady's Note: I don't need to take civics again ... you need to > take a remedial course in learning what loyalty to the organization > which pays your salary is all about ... I'm *really* leery of proactive legislation myself, but on the other hand if your services to the company are worth your salary, then if they want your loyalty as well they have to earn it. Behaving in ways you consider socially irresponsible, or not returning that loyalty by providing safe working conditions and personal security, aren't tactics likely to do so. Where Unions and Union Bashers alike fall down is in failing to see that a relationship needs work on both sides. If Caller-ID turns into a social problem ... deal with it. I'm NOT convinced that there are enough businesses sleazy enough to abuse it, and enough ways to abuse it that can't be cheaply countered, to ban it. But automatically taking a hard-line defensive stance against *any* criticism is counter- productive. Peter da Silva From: pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich) In tmatimar@nff.ncl.Omron.co.jp (Ted M A Timar) writes: > Throughout Canada, the Engineering Codes of Ethics (one per province) > states that a Professional Engineer's responsibility is to the public > first, and to his employer second. > While this code of ethics does not apply to anyone except for > Professional Engineers in Canada, the logic does. > If you believe that responsibility to your employer is more important > than responsibility to the public, you won't find me as a customer of > your company. (I guess that I won't be attending NWU :-) > [Moderator's Note: I do not believe responsibility to the public and > responsibility to one's employer are mutually exclusive. If you have > problems with what your employer is doing, then *resign your employment* > and seek something else. You have no right to take your employer's > money while knifing him in the back. PAT] I believe that Ted has things right here and PAT is missing the point. Insofar as companies have responsibilities to their stockholders and, as legal persons, to the laws of the jurisdictions in which they operate, it is by definition _never_ in their interest to engage in legally questionable behavior. If someone working for your employer believes otherwise, _they_ are the one knifing the employer in the back, even if they are above you in the company hierarchy. Your responsibility to your supervisor (and I do believe that loyalty to immediate supervisors is an important virtue) may be outweighed by responsibility to the public and to the best interest of your employer. That is a tough call to make. Furthermore, PAT's comment about "no right to take your employer's money ..." seems ultimately destined to produce the worst possible organization. Those who have principled objections to a course of action leave while those who are willing to abandon principle remain. Instead, I suggest that you have a duty to remain with your employer while trying to steer them onto a better course. Even in the miliary, that most hierarchical of organizations, no one suggests that a soldier must seek an honorable discharge before being empowered (indeed required) to disobey an improper order. paul From: Jack Decker In a message dated 9 Dec 91 15:59:22 GMT, in response to a message posted by fulk@cs.rochester.edu (Mark Fulk), Pat (The Moderator) writes: > [Toady's Note: I don't need to take civics again ... you need to > take a remedial course in learning what loyalty to the organization > which pays your salary is all about ... or is there some Amendment I > have overlooked which guarentees you the employment of your choice > when you please and where you please? PAT] Pat, the problem with this notion is that it's all one-sided. Many organizations expect loyalty from their employees, and seem quite surprised when someone acts in a "disloyal" manner, yet these same organizations treat their employees like so many intelligent robots. There has to be ethics on BOTH sides, Pat. If a company is doing something to harm their employees and/or the general public, then what right do they have to expect their employees to act any more "ethically?" I do well understand that there are employees that try to manipulate the system to their advantage, when the company has really done nothing wrong. But there are other companies where the corporate officers feel that it is perfectly okay to lie to government regulators and the general public. At that point I think they lose any right they may have to expect "loyalty" from their employees, unless you are prepared to assume that all the employees are as unethical as the corporate officers, and that there should be "honor among thieves." Maybe they should put a question on employment applications that asks, "Will you lie, or violate personal ethical principles if the company asks you to?" If an organization is basically honest, they would decline to hire applicants that answer "no" to that question, while a dishonest organization (such as a tobacco company, or a company that illegally disposes of toxic wastes) would only want to hire applicants that answer in the affirmative. But until they do, I think it's wrong to expect employees to disregard their personal ethical standards for the sake of "company loyalty", particularly when the company often doesn't really give a hoot about the health and welfare of the individual employees. This even goes beyond the First Amendment ... this goes right to the core of whether a man will sell his soul to a company. I don't think anyone should be forced to do that! If lying were illegal, all the lawyers would be in prison! In a message dated 13 Dec 91 17:27:59 GMT, hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net (Toby Nixon) wrote: >> The freedom of employees to speak about their employers is critical to >> the continued functioning of our democracy. Judging from your >> statement above, I think you need to take Civics again. > I strongly disagree. The First Amendment says that _the government_ > (specifically, Congress) cannot pass a _law_ restricting freedom of > speech. This has absolutely nothing to do with corporate policies > that say "If you comment about this company in public with our express > permission and preclearance of the remarks to be made, then your > continued employment here will be in jeopardy." Something similar to > that is _in_ the employment agreement of many companies. It is a > firmly stated policy at Hayes. I find myself in the strange position of agreeing completely with your interpretation of the First Amendment, yet still feeling that there is something fundamentally wrong with allowing a company to dictate what an employee can say on his or her own time. For example, suppose a company had said to their employees in 1988, "anyone caught expressing public support for George Bush for President will be summarily dismissed from their employment. However, you are free to express support for other presidential candidates." Should a company be allowed to do that? (If you didn't support Bush, substitute the name of your preferred candidate and see how it plays). Okay, you might say that such restrictions should be limited to comments ABOUT THE COMPANY. The problem is that you then can start splitting hairs ... for example, if someone is an avid environmentalist and it just so happens that the company is being attacked by environmentalists for a particular practice and the employee is asked if he feels that such a practice is harmful, is he allowed to say how he honestly feels? (I'm just using environmentalists as an example here ... personally, I don't have much use for them as a rule because I think many are extremists, but that's beside the point). Note the question is whether he can comment about a practice, not about the company per se. I have to admit I have a real hard time with the concept of "loyalty" to a corporation, given that most corporations in North America seem to have very little "loyalty" toward their employees. In Japan, companies expect employees to be strict "team players" and to subvert their own feelings to those of the company, but the company shows much more loyalty toward their employees in return. However, I don't think we'd want that system in America, because here most peeople feel that there are things far more important than the company they work for, like friends, family, religion, ethical considerations and so on. I'm afraid we are in danger of losing that, and I would really hate to see American workers become like Japanese workers, whose lives ARE the company they work for. In Japan, companies both give and receive "loyalty", but at what price? In the United States, I think the majority of people hold the corect attitude, which is that when you are paid by a company, you are being paid for the work you do. It's a simple exchange of money for labor. They're not buying your mind or your soul, and if they think they are, I for one am not selling. This doubtless means I'll never work for Hayes. That's life. But it also means that I'll never buy nor recommend a Hayes product. Of course, I had already decided that Hayes wasn't a company I'd care to do business with when they started bringing lawsuits against other manufacturers for using the "escape sequence" (which in my mind should have been thrown out of court as a frivilous lawsuit, but then there's no explaining our legal system). Your comment regarding their "firmly stated policy" does nothing to improve my opinion of them, but the opinion was already formed prior to your message. > PAT is absolutely right. Nobody has a right to a job. If the > employer wants to include in your employment contract that you must > preclear any remarks about the company before releasing them, they > have every right to do so. You can choose to not join the company, > or you can choose to leave if something later occurs that you feel > compelled to comment on. Of course, you can also try to blow the > whistle anonymously, if you think you can get away with it and are > willing to take the risk of being fired upon discovery. If a company is doing something that endangers the health and/or safety of their employees and/or the general public, then I pray to God that SOMEONE is courageous enough to "blow the whistle." And I'm sorry, but I just don't feel that a company should be allowed to just fire an employee that does that, if the company truly was in the wrong. Personally, if an employee has actually "blown the whistle" on a practice that endangers employees and/or the public in some way, then I feel they should be rewarded with some sort of cash settlement, after which the company would be allowed to terminate them (but NOT to give a bad recommendation to potential future employers). Note carefully, however, that I would ONLY advocate this for the report of something that is a clear and present danger to the health and/or safety of employees or the public ... NOT to things like underreporting income for tax purposes or other things which, while still illegal, would not cost anyone life or limb. > The Constitution does NOT restrict the actions of individuals or > companies. It grants to the government certain specific powers, > places certain limitations on those powers, and reserves to the people > everything else. The idea that every limitation placed on government > by the Constitution also applies to private companies and individuals > has resulted in an obscene amount of government interference in > private affairs, and it should be stopped. Again, for the most part I agree with you, and I'm not really arguing this from a constitutional standpoint. Rather, I'm arguing it from an ethical viewpoint. In essence, I'm saying that there is a higher law than the Constitution ... that we were put here by our Creator to do right by our fellow man, and not to try and "get away" with certain practices that are ethically immoral even if the law allows us to do so. I'm not totally unsympathetic to the notion that an employee should not go around stabbing the employer in the back while taking his money. But please also try to look at it from the employee's point of view: In America we have created a situation and social structure that can make it difficult for certain classes of people to leave employment and find new employment. Take for example the person who's 50 years old, and has worked in the same place for 30 years. That person may not be able to easily leave that employment for another position, yet they are not old enough to receive government assistance. If they don't have a skill or a home business of some type to fall back on, you are asking them to give up an awful lot. It's a thorny question and I don't think the answers are as black and white as some corporate policies would make them out to be. Jack Decker jack@myamiga.mixcom.com FidoNet 1:154/8 -------- My thanks to all who participated. Let's move on to something else! PAT   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29488; 25 Dec 91 23:32 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10019 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 25 Dec 1991 21:52:08 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21725 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 25 Dec 1991 21:51:54 -0600 Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1991 21:51:54 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199112260351.AA21725@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu Subject: The USA Today 800/900 Controversy Continues In October, a writer in TELECOM Digest noted that calls to 800-555-5555 wound up being routed to 900-555-5555. A long tradition in the telecom industry says that calls to 800 numbers are 'free' -- that is, they are automatically sent reverse-toll or collect to the receiver of the call. On the other hand, we all know that calls to 900 numbers incur various premium charges for the caller. Charges range from less than a dollar per minute to several dollars for a call of a minute or two. The charges are established by the 'information provider' operating the 900 number. Then a funny thing happened: Calls to 800-555-5555 which would by tradition be free to the caller received a recorded announcement saying the call would cost 95 cents per minute. There are various theories about what was going on. Some said it was a deliberate ploy by {USA Today} to trick people into calling its premium-charge service. I held to the theory that it was merely a programming error. In the Digest, a message quoted Mr. Blake at the newspaper saying they were aware of the problem, and were working on correcting it. He said people should not call the 800 version of the number, and should dial 900-555-5555 if they wished to use the service. Nothing more appeared in the Digest until some of you reported getting billed for the calls, with the bill saying you had in fact called the 900-555-5555 number (instead of the 800 version, which is what you actually dialed). A heated and controversial thread got underway which questioned if: a) were the charges collectible if disputed b) was the 800 routing actually a ploy by the newspaper c) was fraud committed, and if so, *who* actually committed it; the newspaper and AT&T or the people who used the 800 version of the number. I suggested the latter, saying the callers knew or should have known what they were doing. Others took the position that 800 calls were free, period. Now the thread concludes, with several more messages received in the past couple days. Replies to these messages should be directed only to the writer -- NOT to TELECOM Digest. Folowing these messages we have to call it quits and move on to other topics. PAT From: Steve Forrette > [Moderator's Note: To claim that telco 'solicited' your calls by their > comments that calls to 800 numbers are reverse toll is stretching > things quite a bit, don't you think? PAT] Not at all. To quote some AT&T 800 promotional material: "...800 your way across the USA - and save on long distance charges because your calls are FREE! Now, make it pay. Comparison-shop across the country, without ever leaving your home. Call for catalogs. Or request information, coast to coast." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Of course AT&T actively solicits people to call 800 numbers! How do you think they make money? They have been doing this for years: Not just telling us how it's free, but actively promoting us to make calls (to increase call volume and their revenue). They have actively promoted that we should never hesitate to call an 800 number, ANY 800 number, because it's always free. Why do you think they set up a special NPA for this purpose? Or why there are special codes such as 900 and 976 to tell people to expect extra charges? So people can know what's going on without a lot of work. And no amount of work would have forecast this fiasco. Checking the phone book, the operator, and the tariffs themselves would all have told you that there would be absolutely no charge for calls to this number. Pat, please address the issue of AT&T falsifying the billing -- what moral or legal justification do they have for this? Also, how can they bill for calls in direct violation of the tariff? Also, I was going to mention this in private mail, but I think it appropriate to say here: You're doing the best job that any of us could expect or deserve from our Moderator. I am eternally grateful for the work you do and the learning opportunity it has given me. Merry Christmas! Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com, I do not speak for my employer. From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Steve Forrette writes: > How does someone > know that USA Today didn't decide to offer this service on a trial > basis on an 800 number (possibly to gather ANI informaion) without > charge, and just forgot to update the recording? Something as important as a "free trial" or a "free line" would not be something whose "hello" announcement would be simply overlooked or forgotten about. The "charges and kill" announcement is a requirement by the carriers and in some cases by statute or regulation. It is NOT required on a standard local or 800 service number. I think I can safely say that no service that is intentionally offering a free line or free trial would put that (generally offensive to the IP industry) announcement on a line where it was not mandatory. I tend to take a middle position on this. Anyone who knew for a certainty that 800 calls should not be billed also was most likely aware that there was a snafu in progress. Hence, he would also be aware that he was getting something for nothing. If someone wants to attempt collection from these people, fine. On the other hand, those who were in the middle of carrying these calls, COCOT owners, PBX owners, telcos, etc., were relying on industry standards, custom and usage, and even Bellcore definitions to believe that the permission of these calls as a courtesy would leave them harmless and without liability. For instance, my clients have 900/976 firmly blocked in their PBX switches. In fact, I generate exception reports on attempts (how is that for being a facist? :-). If any charges for 900 numbers would ever, EVER appear on the bill, a demand for their summary removal would be instantly made to Pac*Bell. No discussion in the matter would even be entertained, since I know the programming preventing them is bullet-proof. Would I make any effort to track the individuals down so that {USA Today} or AT&T could collect from them? No. It is not my problem or responsibility -- unless, of course, either would care to pay my consulting rates and I had the client's permission. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! From: ecl@mtgzy.att.com (Evelyn C Leeper) In article konstan@elmer-fudd.cs. berkeley.edu (Joe Konstan) writes: > 1. This, to me, is identical to walking into a gourmet food shop > where there is a basket of goodies labeled "free samples -- try one" > but each sample has a price tag. The "reasonable man" would assume > that the price marked on the sample is the "regular" price but that > the merchant is giving away the sample for free to get the customer to > try it. If, on my way out of the store I was asked to pay for the > samples I'd be quite justified in refusing. On the other hand, what if some earlier customer had surreptitiously moved some extra items *into* that basket that the store had never intended to have on sale? > Finally, since TELECOM Digest people called {USA Today} to ask them > about this, they are indeed negligent and failing to mitigate damages > since the line was active long after they were notified (according to > digest accounts). Similarly, I believe one could argue that since > AT&T employees are among the regular Digest readers, they too were > negligent and failed to mitigate damages. Excuse me? My reading the Digest does not constitute your notifying AT&T of a problem. Yes, sometimes the right person may see the message, but sometimes s/he won't. If I want to discontinue my phone service, posting a message here to that effect does not constitute telling New Jersey Bell, even though I'm sure there are New Jersey Bell employees reading this. Evelyn C. Leeper | +1 908 957 2070 | att!mtgzy!ecl or ecl@mtgzy.att.com From: Robert Virzi Pat - I really think you are missing the boat on this issue. Here are the facts, as I see them: 1. There was an error on the part of some business allowing 800-access to a 900-number. Not sure which business it was. 2. The 800-number was posted on TELECOM Digest. 3. Many people used the 800-number to access the {USA Today} info line. 4. Some smaller number of people used the line quite a bit. 5. The mistake was discovered by the companies involved. 6. Call to AT&T confirms that their is "no way" that an 800-number will ever be billed. Message posted to Digest. 7. PAT posts a message asking people to stop using it, at {USA Today}'s request (???), which some people saw but others did not. 8. 800-number access was terminated. (Date????) 9. Some time later, phone records are falsified. Numbers DIALED as 800-555-5555 appear on bills as 900-555-5555. Pat, I know you don't agree with the last statement (8), but by my reckoning, if someone dials an 800-number, and my bill reflects a 900-number, the records have been falsified. In fact, should I be billed, I have the records to prove I was dialing 800-555-5555, at least at my company. I do not object to {USA Today} or AT&T attempting to recoup the costs of the calls. I do object to the manner in which they are attempting to do it. By analogy, lets say I purchase something in a store using a credit card. On the way out I take an item from a bin, labelled "Take One - FREE". I do so, and the manager of the store sees me. He runs over, sees that someone has mistakenly (or even maliciously) placed the sign on the bin of items that he does not want to be free. Rather than contacting me, explaining the situation, and asking for compensation, he simply adds a charge to my card (remember, he had my number, after all). Naturally, I would contest the charge with my charge company, and I believe they would remove the charge, and possibly cut of service for the offending merchant. (Well, I don't have an AT&T charge card. I guess that those of you with ATT Visa cards may have a different story to tell. ;-} ) Criminal charges might even be brought, if the illegally placed charge were large, or if there was a pattern of such actions. Personally, I would love to see some press on this issue. How does one go about finding someone in the press who would be interested in the story? If someone has already contacted the press, please let me know, as I would like to help in any "way that I can. rvirzi@gte.com rv01@gte.com ...harvard!bunny!rv01 From: Rob Boudrie > [Moderator's Note: Indeed there is a question of honesty here, and I > think you know who I am referring to. And yes, the activity borders on > criminal conduct where the repeated and long callers were concerned. > Maybe what I should do is suggest to AT&T/USA Today that the callers > be given an opportunity to pay voluntarily, and if they refuse, then > to treat the matter like theft of service and proceed legally on that > basis. PAT] Regardless of your position on this matter, I think most of us would agree that the FIRST thing which should be done is to generate updated, accurate phone bills. Once AT&T informs all "800-555-5555" dialers that they are being billed for a 900 call, dialed to an 800 number, all parties concerned can start dealing with the real issues, rather than wasting everyone's time with repeated calls to AT&T customer service in which the customer tries in vain to convince the operator that the 900 call on his/her bill was in fact dialed as an 800 number. Rob Boudrie rboudrie@encore.com From: Charles McGuinness In reading all the messages on the subject, I notice an assumption that somebody at AT&T had actively altered the records to change an 800 call into a 900 call. Is is conceivable that, save for some lowly switch somewhere, the network really thought it was processing a 900 call, and this (mis?)billing is being done without human intervention? Even if somebody had altered the records, there's no reason to believe that it was done other than innocently (as in "hmmm ... something's wrong here -- all those 900 USA Today calls are getting billed as 800 calls! Must be something wrong with the billing software! Better put a patch in to correct that problem."). Note that this is not a discussion of ethics. Or quality software. Just a question of what we really know, and what we're making up as we go along. From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com > [Moderator's Note: To claim that telco 'solicited' your calls by their > comments that calls to 800 numbers are reverse toll is stretching > things quite a bit, don't you think? PAT] Not at all. It has been, up to now, a universal constant of telephone service in the US. Further, by billing those calls as 900 service, when in fact 800 service was used, the telco is committing fraud. The poster who stated that {USA Today} was entitled to collect, but only by direct billing and legal action, was correct. Falsifying records to bolster the case is inappropriate. Those with SMDR may be able to prevail in this one. From: monty@roscom.UUCP (Monty Solomon) Steve Forrette wrote: > Through years of advertising, the telcos collectively have > tried to make it as clear as possible to the customer that 800 numbers > are free. They have done such a good job at this that this fact is > something that virtually every American knows, despite the general > lack of knowledge of telco billing practices. Certainly, a "ordinary > person, in full possession of their faculties, using reasonable > judgement and prudence" (or whatever the phrase really is) would > assume that calling 1 + 800 + anything is free. 800 numbers incur billing charges when they are called from a plane, cellular phone, or some hotel rooms. Monty roscom!monty@bu.edu From: snark!beyonet!beyo@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (Steve Urich) undr!seanp@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Sean Petty) writes: > I just got off the phone with AT&T and let me tell you, THEY WON'T > BELIEVE YOU! The rep that I talked to said that there was no way that > dialing an 800 number could connect you to the 900 service. He then The first time I read about this I had a feeling that even if you called using the 800 number you would have NO CHANCE of proving that you actually did call a 800 number. The only way out is if you had 900 blocking in effect on your line. Still there are good analogies on the 900 number in the previous part of the thread which point out errors in the system. > "800 Directory Assistance has no listing of a number for USA Today!".. Of course the 800 number was a mistake by AT&T. That's why it wasn't in the Directory. NO PROOF again! > What am I to do? Pay the price for trying to get something for free from AT&T. If you just tried it once then what's the problem. However if you ABUSED it then they got you where they want you!! :-) > [Moderator's Note: What are you to do? Is that your question? What you > are to do is take your medicine like a man without wimpering. You and > others who called that number took advantage of a programming error of > which {USA Today} was not at fault. You did however use the newspaper's > information service. You knew what you were doing -- or if you didn't > the first time you called, you should have after that. See the next > message from John and my response for further discussion on this. PAT] Everyone calling this service should have known what they where getting into once they got the per minute warning message. What I can't understand is why so many telecom readers fell for the lure of the 800 number? The 800 number is invisible when you call. You're actually calling the POTS for the 900 number right? If these consumers get busted with a 100 - 400 dollar phone bill just because of this programing error then I think they were negligent with telecom abuse. Steve Urich WB3FTP beyo@beyonet.UUCP From: Stephen Tihor WHile I firmly disagree with the Moderator's position on this specific issue it struck me as a possibility that the AT&T billing was not fraudulent since it depends on when in the number translation process the item was entered and the details of the software that handles them. It is possible that given a routing error in an AT&T switch that the 800 number might be routed to the same line and with the same billing tags as the 900 number that is being translated into. Why this resulted in a billing one month late is suspicous but the item showing as 900 rather than 800 is not by itself evidence of a scheme to defaud. From: Ron Schnell I think Pat is missing my main point, and probably with good reason, as I did go off a bit. My main point deals with the fraud that exists. You are correct in pointing out that the fraud could indeed be on the part of the local phone company as opposed to AT&T if the memo you mentioned exists. I already paid for the charges, so that is not my point. I am not complaining about the money. I am complaining about AT&T acting like they are the monopoly they used to be, acting above the law, doing whatever they want to cover up their mistakes. The FBI was not the right organization to contact, and I have already contacted the FTC as well as the US attorneys office, and AT&T corporate security. I may have been wrong about the unsolicited merchandise laws, but there is definitely fraud here. Ron From: "Paul D. Nanson" I find it interesting that the Moderator is now so adamant concerning the calls to the {USA Today} service via 800 number. In light of his attitude, it's hard to imagine him having published the information here in the first place. One wonders if he has even considered the Digest's potential liability in this matter. Paul Nanson FAX: (817) 962-3462 NET: pdn@msnvm1.vnet.ibm.com From: "Sander J. Rabinowitz" <0003829147@mcimail.com> I admit to being one of those who made three or four calls to the 800-555-5555 line (the {USA Today} 900 service), and if I should receive the bill for the calls in question, I will pay it. Having said that, however, I have this concern: If {USA Today} is allowed to bill for calls made through the 800 number, doesn't this set a *precedent* which allows other companies -- perhaps intentionally -- sets up toll services on 800 lines in order to circumvent 900/976/540/etc. blocking? Note that this issue is entirely seperate from the ethical issues involving the {USA Today} number which has been debated on TELECOM thus far. Sander J. Rabinowitz (sjr@mcimail.com), Brentwood, Tennessee. From: sethb@fid.Morgan.COM (Seth Breidbart) In article telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: (Ron Schnell wrote the stuff with >>): > You are not going to pay for the *transport* of the call. You ARE > going to pay for the services rendered by the newspaper as a result of > your repeated and frequent use of the service. (Personally, I made one call to the number; it lasted under two minutes.) Pat, If I get a bill from either AT&T or NY Telephone stating that I must pay $0.95/minute for calling a 900 number, I will ask them to correct the bill before I pay it. I did not dial a 900 number. By analogy, if I order a computer from a mail-order vendor, and get the computer, and then get a bill for a bicycle, I wouldn't pay that, either. I would return the bill, explain that I never ordered or received a bicycle, and ask for a correct bill. If AT&T sends me a bill for dialing an 800 number, I'll pay it. I'll also sell the bill to SPRINT's advertising agency :-). > I totally repudiate your suggestion that these two organizations are > sleazes. They are not making any money they are not already entitled > to by having caught you and several others screwing around. Yes they are. They would never have had the opportunity to bill any of us if they had not made the oh-so-convenient "programming error" that connected a dialed 800 number to a 900 line. >> AT&T has no right to lie to the local CO and say that 900 numbers were >> dialed when they were not. AT&T should take their whipping, as their >> error will cost them money. > How do you know they lied? How do you know a memo was not sent out to > the local telcos explaining how the charges would appear and the > explanation to be given to subscribers? What makes you think one or > two misinformed or ignorant AT&T reps speak for the company? And what > do you think they should do, write a special billing program for this > one occassion? You made the essence of a 900 call -- what is the big > deal? You knew what you were doing. I don't know that AT&T lied to the local phone company. I do know that whoever wrote the bill (I haven't received one yet) lied to the customer. Those people who called to complain were not given any reasonable explanation, they were just told that what actually happened was impossible, implying that they (the customers and your readers) were lying. > Just explain it like it is: people used > it knowingly; got tracked down and were asked politely to pay for what > they used, and that you feel that AT&T should be punished for having > the audacity to send out invoices to people they caught jerking them ^^^ false >around. May I suggest your rethink your position? PAT] It's the falsity of those invoices that's the problem. I don't care how much it would cost them to rewrite their billing software; I don't pay incorrect bills. If they can't or won't bill me for what I did, that's fine with me. I refuse to pay for what I didn't do. Seth sethb@fid.morgan.com From: joes@techbook.com (Joe Stein) If you do decline the billing, also remember to decline the 3% tax on each call. I have been reading this thread for a while, now. (twenty minutes ... :-) I don't see what the problems the esteemed Moderator has with this were: a) AT&T made the mistake (someone said that somewhere) b) It was not people's own fault that the recording SAID the call would cost -- 800 NUMBER CALLS MAY NOT BE BILLED (per Oregon PUC -- your mileage may vary). I would refuse to pay the charges (and the tax), and enclose a note with my bill stating such. If GTE came back to me and said "That can't possibly of happened", then I guess small claims will make some money. Joseph W. Stein +1 503 643 0545 joes@techbook.com -or- joe@m2xenix.psg.com From: gs26@prism.gatech.edu (Glenn R. Stone) In telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: [a lot of emotional, loaded rhetoric over certain charges by certain long distance providers for certain newspapers for information obtained by dialing certain telephone numbers, in response to certain billees of these charges, deleted.] Whether the dialing, or the charges, or the methods therein, or the analgoies used to describe these practices, were or are correct has, IMHO, become totally irrelevant. (I have my own opinions; if you want them, email me.) The issue has degenerated into a flame war, the one thing that is NOT supposed to happen in a moderated list. It is the Moderator's de facto responsibility to have kept this from happening. It is his place to keep an even head, and keep the debate on the list under some semblance of control. It has not been so on this topic. I hereby request of ALL parties concerned that on-the-list debate on this subject cease henceforth, so that it no longer takes up a third of the traffic on the list, and that our esteemed moderator step back into his place of detachment and run things status quo ante. The issue at hand is not one which is going to be resolved here, anyway; it will most likely be resolved between several parties whose delegates are paid in large sums of money, and several parties whose delegates are paid with government checks, and whatever they decide will be, regardless of the volume and temperature of our rants. Welcome to the capitalista bureacracy. Here's to a new year and a TELECOM Digest filled with lots of good, juicy, informative topics. Glenn R. Stone (glenns@eas.gatech.edu) speaking for himself. ------------- I couldn't agree more, Glenn! With this special mailing, let's conclude the thread -- unless there is some specific NEWS to report on how billing is to be handled, etc. And likewise, my best wishes for a happy new year to one and all! PAT   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04900; 26 Dec 91 3:17 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30363 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 26 Dec 1991 01:28:32 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23779 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 26 Dec 1991 01:28:15 -0600 Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1991 01:28:15 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199112260728.AA23779@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1050 TELECOM Digest Thu, 26 Dec 91 01:27:59 CST Volume 11 : Issue 1050 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Administrivia - Year End Wind Up (TELECOM Moderator) Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits (jarea@ukcc.uky.edu) Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits (Larry Rachman) Re: Sprint Calling Cards and the 'Bong' Tone (Brian Gordon) Re: AT&T Rates and Low Income Customers (Jeffrey A. Silber) Re: AT&T Rates and Low Income Customers (Jeff Sicherman) Re: Railphone (Scott Reuben) Re: Lack of Phone Numbers in Yellow Page Ads (Brett G. Person ) Panasonic EB500/2500 Programming Help Available (R. Patrick MacKinnon) Party Lines (Garrett Wollman) Cellular Phone Questions (Dan Lanciani) Re: Wrong Numbers (H. Peter Anvin) Sound Boards (Teresa Parsons) Re: AT&T Exits Telegraph Business (Cliff Stoll) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Administrivia - Year End Wind Up Date: Thu, 26 Dec 91 00:44:59 CST For a few days, from now through the end of the year, I'll be occupied with some other things which will keep me even busier than putting out this Digest usually keeps me! :) Plus, a couple days to rest and get ready for the new year is in my plans. There will be a few issues of the Digest mainly to catch up with what is already in the stream, but may I respectfully ask that all new articles be held for the first week of January. Naturally I will print important news, and a limited number of replies to articles currently in circulation, but if you would please hold off with new stuff otherwise until about January 2 I'd be very grateful. Thanks, and happy new year to everyone. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Dec 91 20:24:06 EST From: JAREA@UKCC.uky.edu Subject: Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits Back in about 1939 there was a popular song, "I Must See Annie Tonight" that went approximately (heck, that's a long time to remember): Hello, Central, gimme a line. I'm calling Bryant seven oh nine. Hello, who's this? You're Mr. Bell, You've got some wedding rings to sell; The number's wrong, but the idea's swell, Oh, I must see Annie tonight! There were several verses, each with fun wrong numbers -- but, we're talking about when everything was operator handled. (P.S. Whose number was MUrray Hill 8-9933, you senile citizens out there.) ------------------------------ Date: 25 Dec 91 22:58:34 EST From: Larry Rachman <74066.2004@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits For honorable mention: In an obscure Beatles song called 'You Know My Name, Look Up The Number', (the flip side of the 'Let It Be' single) there is a brief mention of a nightclub performer named Dennis O'Bell. ^^^^ Larry Rachman, WA2BUX ------------------------------ From: Brian.Gordon@Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Gordon) Subject: Re: Sprint Calling Cards and the 'Bong' Tone Date: 24 Dec 91 22:33:19 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. In article johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes: > AT&T hasn't yet sent me a new card so I don't know where the new > numbers work. I just talked to AT&T about that very issue today. Months ago, I got their "new calling card number coming, need to update anything?" mailing and called them to make a couple of minor corrections. I also asked to be transferred to the department that issues new numbers so I could get cards for my second line (for which AT&T is not the dial-1 LD carrier). The cards for the second line came, but I haven't gotten the cards they mailed me about for the first line. When I called and asked for status, the representative said that the process of automatically sending new cards to old subscribers had not gone well, that my order was still in progress, and that he couldn't really guess whether we were talking days, weeks or months until they were sent ... Brian G. Gordon briang@Sun.COM briang@netcom.COM ------------------------------ From: silber@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Jeffrey Silber) Subject: Re: AT&T Rates and Low Income Customers Organization: Cornell Theory Center Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1991 01:00:15 GMT My recollection of the article was that the rate increase was due to providing service to remote areas, not low income customers. Jeffrey A. Silber/silber@tc.cornell.edu AD-Admin Svcs/Cornell Center for Theory & Simulation in Science & Engineering ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Dec 91 18:36:32 -0800 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: Re: AT&T Rates and Low Income Customers Organization: Cal State Long Beach In article John Higdon climbs on a soapbox that he also mounted last year: > tad@ssc.wa.com (Tad Cook) writes: >> I am confused. I thought that local telephone companies were the only >> entities in the telephone business involved in providing subsidized >> service to low income customers. I can understand how this could have >> been a cost to AT&T prior to divestiture, but why now? > I can only guess, but apparently since someone decided that telephone > service was some sort of "right" to be enjoyed by everyone whether > they could afford it or not, long-distance must also be included in > the list of life's basic necessities. I think we heard this diabtribe from you within the past year. In any case, I don't think there is any claim it is a "right". Just that there is a social benefit, including the safety and health of the beneficiary and the neighborhood that they live in, for as many people as possible to have access to the service. This benefit is deemed worthwhile enough to employ a subsidy (and a 'tax' if you must) to support it in the limited fashion it is implemented. [ rest of Libertarian/Right-wing/Jarvistic claims deleted ] If you're really concerned about being 'ripped off' for something through the phone system, I suggest you go back to your anti-Pac*Tel activities, they've taken a lot more out of your pocket through abusive means than this limited practice ever has. Jeff Sicherman ------------------------------ Date: 25-DEC-1991 23:22:09.49 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Re: Railphone Besides Amtrak's Northeast and San Diego-LA corridors, Railphone service is also available on Amtrak's Springfield, Mass service, on rolling stock so equipped. It should be available on Harrisburg (PA) Corridor Serivice, but I am not sure if those cars have Railphones and if Amtrak/Railphone has an agreement for service in those areas. I believe the newest Amtrak timetables show a "phone" icon (for Railphone) on certain Harrisburg trains. Railphone-like service is also available on the New Haven - Old Saybrook commuter line ("The Shore Line"), but I believe it is operated by a company called "Cellnet". I have also seen news stories of VIA Rail Canada operating Railphone-like services in their newer cars on the Toronto-Montreal high-speed runs. Finally, some of the ferries in Vancouver, BC have cell-phone/payphone stations, which accept BC Tel Calling Cards (says so on the signs, probably takes BOC, AT&T, and Bell Canada cards as well, but I never tried it.) They look a lot like GTE Charge-A-Calls, and a bit smaller than the "standard" Railphones on Amtrak. The promotional literature I got from them says "operated by B.C. Cellular", the "B" carrier, I presume. Anyone have an ESN/MIN (or "overhead") reader for cell phones? Stand by the trains, get the phone number, and call it via the nearby roam port! Will it ring onboard? Opens possibilities: "Hi, is this the dining car? Yes? Well, I'd like one of those microwaved mini-pizzas to go ... I'll be waiting at the next station ... Thanks!" :) Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ From: plains!person@uunet.uu.net (Brett G Person ) Subject: Re: Lack of Phone Numbers in Yellow Page Ads Date: 26 Dec 91 04:41:04 GMT Organization: North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND I think that the point of the Yellow Pages is to function as a quick reference card for access to local businesses. I'm looking at possibly moving out-of-state in the near future, and the first thing I did was to grab a copy of the Yellow Pages for the city I may be moving to. It's surprising what can learn from the phone book even when you aren't looking for anything speciffic. I think that since the adds are in a phone book, that it is incredibly stupid of the company not to put a number in the listing. Brett G. Person North Dakota State University uunet!plains!person | person@plains.bitnet | person@plains.nodak.edu ------------------------------ From: rpmackin@student.business.uwo.ca (R. Patrick MacKinnon) Subject: Panasonic EB500/2500 Programming Help Available Date: 25 Dec 91 06:20:06 GMT Organization: University of Western Ontario I have all the info required to program this cell-tel. If you want it, let me know by email. If you want it just for the hell of having it, don't bother. Thanks. Oh yes, Happy Holidays to all !!! rpmackin@student.business.uwo.ca (R. Patrick MacKinnon) The Western Business School BBS -- London, Ontario ------------------------------ From: wollman@uvm-gen.uvm.edu (Garrett Wollman) Subject: Party Lines Organization: University of Vermont, EMBA Computer Facility Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1991 02:51:48 GMT In article hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) writes: > Since "Ringmate" or whatever you want to call it seems to be > very much like an old fashioned party line, could we just order a > couple numbers on a party line? Depends on where you live. In some areas, Party-line service is not available. (I just checked our phone book, however, and found that this is *not* true -- I had thought it was -- in our area.) Here, you can get a two- or four-party lines for unlimited local service, or you can get a one-party line for measured service. (It's our friend the VTA(*) again, I guess). I don't believe that you can select which other parties are on your line, however, although oour book doesn't say anthing about it. GAWollman (*)VTA = Vermont Telecommunications Agreement, an agreement between New England Telephone and the Vermont PSB permitting NET to offer certain products without regulation, provided that they upgrade local exchanges and wires to modern equipment. The opinions given above are provided under a non-exclusive license agreement to the University of Vermont, EMBA Computer Facility, which will probably ignore them. Garrett Wollman - wollman@UVM.EDU - uvm-gen!wollman ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1991 21:57:39 -0600 From: ddl@burrhus.harvard.edu (Dan Lanciani) Subject: Cellular Phone Questions These are probably FAQs, but I'm new to this ... I received a Motorola cellular phone for Christmas. My uncle bought it from Cellular One, signing me up for service at the same time. 1. The user's guide mentions several functions that require a six-digit security code. These include setting the keyboard lock code and temporarily disabling dialing of numbers (while still allowing numbers to be accessed from memory). The documentation for the latter feature talks about "service levels," implying that there are others. Nowhere with the phone could I find this "security code" but on a setup sheet from Cellular One they do list the current (correct) lock code. Is the security code something that some/all service providers keep to themselves so you can't change the lock code and such? 2. The user's guide talks about setting such parameters as DTMF pulse times in case (for example) your answering machine doesn't respond to remote commands. They refer to "NAM programming, described in your NAM Programming Guide" but there was no such guide with the phone. Again, is this something reserved for dealers or should it be in the package? (Curiously, there was a one-page addendum to the non- existent NAM manual in the box.) Thanks, Dan Lanciani ddl@harvard.* ------------------------------ From: hpa@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (H. Peter Anvin N9ITP) Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers Reply-To: hpa@nwu.edu Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1991 06:24:43 GMT In article of comp.dcom.telecom, "Richard Budd" writes: > A friend of mine in Plattsburgh, NY handles periods of wrong number > messages by putting her message in French on the answering machine > befor recording it again in English. Everybody who knows her well is > aware she is bilingual and anticipates the English message. I don't > know how effective it was in reducing wrong numbers. Last I heard > from her, she was a nurse in Desert Storm. Here comes a hopefully useful phrase in Swedish. Note the following: ], } = a ring = "o" in "or". [, { = a diaresis = "ai" in "air". \, | = o diaresis = "ea" in "early". Hej! Du har n}tt ; NNs [och NNs] automatiska telefonsvarare. Jag/Vi {r inte hemma/h{r just nu, men om ni vill ha tag i mig/oss l{mna ert {rende, namn och nummer s} ska jag/vi kontakta er s} snart jag/vi kan. Tack. (0 = noll, 1 = ett, 2 = tv}, 3 = tre, 4 = fyra, 5 = fem, 6 = sex, 7 = sju, 8 = }tta, 9 = nio). [Hello. You have reached ; NN's [and NN's] answering machine. I/We are not {at home}/here right now, but if you want to reach me/us leave your erand, name and number and I/we will contact you as soon as I/we can. Thank you.] hpa INTERNET: hpa@nwu.edu TALK: 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: /BAD=FATAL_ERROR/ERR=LINE_OVERFLOW ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Dec 91 21:15:32 cst From: Teresa.Parsons@ivgate.omahug.org (Teresa Parsons) Subject: Sound Boards Reply-To: teresa.parsons@command.omahug.org Organization: Command Center BBS, Omaha I am new to computing and I would like to know what type of sound board I should get for my Acros 386sx, 40meg hd, VGA monitor. After looking in books I can't decide. Please advise me on the best for my money. The .COMmand Center (Opus 1:5010/23) [Moderator's Note: Please respond direct to Ms. Parsons in email. PAT] ------------------------------ From: stoll@ocf.berkeley.edu (Cliff Stoll) Subject: Re: AT&T Exits Telegraph Business Date: 26 Dec 1991 07:18:02 GMT Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility Oh, I started at Western Union ... walked into their downtown Buffalo office and asked 'em if they needed a telegrapher. "Sure," the guy in the yellow uniform said. "Can you pedal a bicycle?" What a summer job! Pedalling around the city, delivering eviction notices and repossession telegrams. Never once touched a telegraph key -- they were all 5 bit baudot teletypes by then. Not a penny in tips, either. That's what I got for learning 20 words a minute of Morse Code. (Of course, I also picked up a ham ticket, but that's another story.) Cliff Stoll K7TA ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1050 *******************************