Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27449; 30 Apr 92 1:48 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30628 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 30 Apr 1992 00:02:33 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15047 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 30 Apr 1992 00:02:24 -0500 Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1992 00:02:24 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199204300502.AA15047@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #351 TELECOM Digest Thu, 30 Apr 92 00:02:20 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 351 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Sending Faxes Overseas (Jack Decker) Sending/Receiving FAX's From a Workstation? (Dan Daddieco) Re: Sending Faxes Overseas (Peter da Silva) Re: Latest California Disaster (Rob Warnock) Re: 1-900 Numbers Available (Giles D. Malet) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 27 Apr 92 16:50:35 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: Sending Faxes Overseas > I've already brought this up, but what would you say to a box that > worked like this: > It's set up as a FAX machine: you turn it on and leave it on. It > presents the equivalent of an anonymous-UUCP login sequence, and drops > into G protocol ... this would be the Email equivalent of the UUCP > front-end negotiations. It's got some RAM or a printer (or even hooks > into an existing FAX machine, if they have some sort of interface). > You can address it from Usenet as "name@phone-number", or just enter a > phone number from another equivalent box. You send mail simply by > sitting down at it and typing "mail peter@7135680480" (with the usual > shorthand). > With a 2400 baud modem and a screen it could be made MUCH cheaper than > any FAX, since it doesn't need high resolution I/O devices. > An email machine ... with FAX as a fallback position. I'd love to see something like this, but I would hope it would not be LIMITED to 2400 bps. Also, I'd hope that any such product would support the ability to put a document on hold so that someone could call in and pick it up at their expense. Anyone contemplating doing something like this should try to get hold of a program used in Fidonet called BinkleyTerm (chances are that a Fidonet node in your area has it). As far as I'm concerned, this program is the current state of the art for intersystem transfer of messages and files. Of course, it uses Fidonet node addressing and file naming conventions, but the principles would be the same. The reason I recommend looking at this program is because 'C' source code is available from many BBS's. BinkleyTerm allows you to send mail bidirectionally (sending and receiving simultaneously), it allows for recovery of an interrupted session (it will save the part of a file already received, so that on a later call only the remaining portion needs to be transmitted, not the entire file), and it can send mail on fairly complex schedules if necessary. Of course you probably don't have anything that complex in mind, but I would hope that it would at least be possible to enter a message and then have the unit delay transmission until late night when the rates are low. But ... I also think that the first person who makes a LOW COST, easy to use mail package will get a big jump on the market. Right now electronic mail is just too complex for the average user, but at the same time, I can see where paper mail is getting less and less reliable, and as you've noted, FAX transmissions are definitely inefficient. Let me propose a hardware/software combination that might work real well: 1) Coded ring capable ... will answer the line only if a certain ring pattern is received, if desired. 2) Has sufficient memory to store (reasonable amounts of) both incoming and outgoing messages when the associated computer is off. Has provision to alert user (by audible signal or some other means) if memory limits are about to be exceeded, so user can turn computer on and download some data from the hardware unit. 3) Can easily be restricted to send mail only during low rate periods. Preferably this should be programmable, especially for those who call overseas, since the "low rate period" varies from country to country (and carrier to carrier in the U.S.!). Also would be nice if you could program in number-specific dialing prefixes/suffixes (to select carriers, or get through voicemail "front ends"). 4) Uses SIMPLE addressing -- phone number only where possible! 5) Will detect various call progress tones and NOT keep trying numbers that answer without giving any useful response (such as voice answers!). 6) If a transmission is interrupted, will save the part received (if you're the receiver) and on next connect, only require transmission of the remaining part. 7) Will COMPRESS data to the maximum possible before transmitting. This should be done offline, BEFORE the call is made, so that more efficient algorithms can be used. Compression should be at least as good as that achieved by the MS-DOS programs LHARC or ARJ. You may also want to think about an upgrade path in case better compression algorithms are developed later. 8) Should be able to send and receive data simultaneously using a bidirectional protocol (like the JANUS protocol used by BinkleyTerm). 9) If it calls a system and there is mail on hold for the caller, it will pick it up, BUT the caller should be able to PARTIALLY disable this on an individual number basis. What I mean is this. Let's say you (system A) call another system (system B) to deliver a three page letter. He has a two page letter on hold for you. Since his letter is shorter and since the bidirectional protocol is capable of sending and receiving simultaneously, your system would ALWAYS pick up that letter since to do so would not add to your costs. However, let's say that you're sending a one page letter and he's got a 100 page document on hold for you. You should be able to refuse to pick that up, or to maybe pick up just the first page and then wait for him to call you to get the rest. This all sounds complex but most of it would be hidden from the user. In practice, the user would type up the message, tell the system the destination phone number, and the message would automagically be sent at the proper time. That's the sort of system I'd like to see, anyway! Jack Decker jack@myamiga.mixcom.com FidoNet 1:154/8 ------------------------------ From: daddieco@groove.enet.dec.com (Dan Daddieco) Subject: Sending/Receiving FAX's From a Workstation? Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Date: 27 APR 92 15:19:18 I'm interested in finding out about any software (or hardware) that will allow me to send and receive (mostly SEND actually) FAX's from my workstation. I know there's "something" out there that handles this need since the Digital CSC has the ability to do this but I can't seem to get my hands on the precise software information. So any information about specific products or whatever would be greatly appreciated. Dan Daddieco - License Key / PAK Management Digital Equipment Corporation Software Business Group 110 Spitbrook Road - ZKO1-3/B29 Nashua, NH 03062 03-881-0743 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Sending Faxes Overseas Date: Tue, 28 Apr 92 7:19:06 CDT From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) > I'd love to see something like this, but I would hope it would not be > LIMITED to 2400 bps. Stick a modem on the serial port. > Also, I'd hope that any such product would support the > ability to put a document on hold so that someone could call in > and pick it up at their expense. Sure, that's inherent in the UUCP scheme. [discussion of Binkleyterm] Maybe. Most Fidonet mail software doesn't seem to handle meta-information very well. > 1) Coded ring capable... will answer the line only if a certain ring > pattern is received, if desired. Good idea. > 2) Has sufficient memory to store (reasonable amounts of) both incoming > and outgoing messages when the associated computer is off. What associated computer? It would be able to operate standalone, and in fact if you *have* a computer you'd probably just get the software. > 3) Can easily be restricted to send mail only during low rate periods. Another good idea. > 4) Uses SIMPLE addressing - phone number only where possible! Well, you want to add a tag indicating the recipient so when you DO hook it to a national Email network it remaind familiar. > 5) Will detect various call progress tones and NOT keep trying numbers > that answer without giving any useful response (such as voice answers!). Good one. > 6) If a transmission is interrupted, will save the part received (if you're > the receiver) and on next connect, only require transmission of the > remaining part. Probably not a big deal, since most messages are going to be small enough that call set-up time dominates. Plus, the existing protocols don't support this, and we need to make it compatible with commercial services (if it uses UUCP, it will hook directly to AT&T mail, UUPSI, etc ...). > 7) Will COMPRESS data to the maximum possible before transmitting. Would be nice, but existing protocols don't do that. Should be an option. > 8) Should be able to send and receive data simultaneously using a > bidirectional protocol (like the JANUS protocol used by BinkleyTerm). Would be nice, but the existing protocols don't support that. I'm not sure how important this is... if you have that much mail traffic to a single person, you probably want to be using a commercial mail relay anyway. > 9) If it calls a system and there is mail on hold for the caller, it will > pick it up, BUT the caller should be able to PARTIALLY disable this on an > individual number basis. This is inherent in UUCP call grades, though not all UUCP versions support call grades. The latest freeware version, Taylor, does. > This all sounds complex but most of it would be hidden from the user. In > practice, the user would type up the message, tell the system the > destination phone number, and the message would automagically be sent at the > proper time. Yep, just like what I already have with UUCP. I said: >> The problem is that neither AT&T Mail nor MCI Mail are as convenient >> as just FAXing. We need a commercial email system for MS-DOS that's as >> easy and convenient as UUCP Mail is on UNIX. In article varney@ihlpf.att.com (Alan L Varney) writes: > Peter, you must have missed the huge AT&T Mail Access Plus ad > campaign. :-) This is a DOS-based collection of software that that > supports: Does it allow you to call any other Access Plus user without having AT&T Mail accounts or equivalent in-house systems set up? Is it price competitive with a FAX machine when you factor in the cost of the computer? Is it compatible with existing Email systems without an AT&T Mail account to help (assuming the answer to the first question is YES)? Are the protocols published so I can build a standalone Email box, or implement it for a computer AT&T doesn't support? If the answer to any of these is "no", it's not the answer. Well, it's AN answer, but it doesn't answer the right question. Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS. +1 713 568 0480/1032 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Apr 92 00:18:28 -0700 From: rpw3@rigden.wpd.sgi.com (Rob Warnock) Subject: Re: Latest California Disaster Reply-To: rpw3@sgi.com (Rob Warnock) Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: > Well, this has been the Week That Was for California folks. An earthquake > earlier this week, then another on Sunday have caused much damage. I know > this sort of thing is a little more 'routine' there than it is in other > parts of the USA, but still it seems to always wreak havoc. Can we get some > up to date reports on the telecom situation in California as of Sunday > afternoon/evening? If John Higdon can get through to us, perhaps he will > provide news. John should have no problem at all, nor would anyone else except in the immediate area of the quakes, which were very far away from most of us. As is often the case, the media haven't been very careful about saying exactly where the quakes were! They were up in Humboldt county, close to the Oregon border, a couple hundred miles north of any major population centers (which hardly noticed a thing -- see below). The small town of Petrolia was closest (though not hardest hit) to the epicenter, which was about 5 miles below the surface and about 35 miles south of Eureka, CA. This area, known as the "Mendicino Triple Junction", is where three crustal plates rub, and where the northern end of the San Andreas Fault intersects the Mendicino Transform Fault (which runs west into the Pacific Ocean). Several hundred earthquakes a year occur there, "the most seismically active place in the lower 48 states" (per Monday's {San Jose Mercury News}). The initial main quake (6.9) was Saturday around 11:00 am. First major (6.0) aftershock was 00:42 Sunday, with another major (6.5) one at 04:18 Sunday. Oddly enough, neither of the first two was felt in the Bay Area, while the third woke people up all over the Bay Area -- and as far east as Reno and as far south as Carmel! This is probably because the latter one was quite long, some 10 - 15 seconds by various reports. (Yes, I happened to be up, and heard the house rattling gently but definitely for about that length of time. Does a long rolling shaker propagate further than a short, sharp bump?) As of Monday afternoon, there had been over 5000 recorded aftershocks, though none anywhere near as strong as the two major ones. Damage from the primary quake was bad enough, but the smaller 00:42 Sunday shock started a fire in downtown Scotia which completely wiped out the tiny business district: a market, a lumber/hardware store, a pharmacy, and a coffee store. Here is a list of the most seriously affected towns and their losses: - Ferndale (pop. 1,367): 30 homes, 40 businesses, $4 million damage - Petrolia (pop. 1,500): 10 homes, one business, $1.5 million damage - Rio Dell (pop. 2,687): 20 homes, 20 businesses, $7 million damage - Scotia (pop. 950): 4 businesses, $15 million damage Area hospitals treated 94 people, admitting 12. There were no reported deaths. In the immediate affected area, about a 30 mile radius from the epicenter, power outages were widespread. Water lines were cut, and some areas had to be served by trucked-in supplies, including water to fight the Scotia fire. Telehone service was reported as "unreliable", though KCBS reporters seemed to have little or no difficulty calling in their reports (they mostly use cellular phones). In fact, because of the number of "live reports" on Bay Area radio stations, I'm guessing that the "unreliability" of the phone service was probably due mostly to jamming of the lines by friends and relatives trying to call in, rather than to actual damage. Rob Warnock, MS-9U/510 rpw3@sgi.com Silicon Graphics, Inc. (415)335-1673 before 6pm PDT May 8, 1992 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd. (415)390-1673 after 6pm PDT May 8, 1992 Mountain View, CA 94039-7311 "Please make a note of it." ------------------------------ From: Giles D Malet Subject: Re: 1-900 Numbers Available Organization: You gotta be kidding ! Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1992 05:06:17 -0400 Reply-To: Giles D Malet > We own several 900 numbers and I have three of them to rent out [...] > ^^ > If you are interested in this opportunity of have any question about >it, please do not hestate to e-mail to the following address: > yzhang@descartes.waterloo.edu For those budding entrepreneurs out there -- unfortunately Mr. Yang forgot to inform us just who the `we' above refers to, so I went looking. `waterloo.edu' it the University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. `descartes' is a Sun system run by the Dept. of Mathematics (includes Computer Science), and has well over 1000 user accounts, mostly belonging to students. `finger yzhang@descartes.waterloo.edu' reveals : Login name: yzhang In real life: Yang Office: 251, Sunview Street Home phone: 8880551 7253204,251,Sunview Street Directory: /u3/yzhang Shell: /xhbin/tcsh Last off: Wed Apr 22 11:59:47 1992 Terminal: ttyu2 from laplace New Mail: Sun Apr 26 03:59:45 1992 Last read: Wed Apr 22 11:58:29 1992 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I ran that at Tue Apr 28 00:50:00 1992, so as you can see, this organization is really rushing to process those orders ! But wait, there's more : ls -l /usr/spool/mail/yzhang -rw------- 1 yzhang 156325 Apr 26 03:59 /usr/spool/mail/yzhang So, as you can see, the orders are pouring in! Hurry, hurry, before it is too late! (or could this notice have produced other mail as well?). Kermit: disconnected :-) gdmalet@descartes.waterloo.edu, or Giles D Malet gdm@shrdlu.UUCP Waterloo, Ont, Canada +1 519 725 5726 [Moderator's Note: Thank you for a very interesting conclusion to this issue of the Digest! :) PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #351 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00578; 30 Apr 92 3:09 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16000 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 30 Apr 1992 01:05:09 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11224 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 30 Apr 1992 01:04:59 -0500 Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1992 01:04:59 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199204300604.AA11224@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #352 TELECOM Digest Thu, 30 Apr 92 01:05:00 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 352 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson New AT&T 700 Service (AT&T News via several of you) 700 Numbers Start in June (Barry Mishkind) AT&T 700 Easy Reach Service (John C. Lewandowski) AT&T EasyReach 700 Service (Monty Solomon) Position Announcement (Lewis M. Dreblow) Enforcing Phone Bill Payment (Lawrence Chiu) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: dquist@ben3b01.attmail.com Date: Wed Apr 29 08:12:28 EST 1992 Subject: New AT&T 700 Service [Moderator's Note: Thanks to the several of you who sent me the item below from AT&T. The one from 'dquist' arrived first, but I received many copies throughout the day Tuesday and Wednesday. PAT] AT&T ANNOUNCES *** AT&T today announced a new service for people on the move. AT&T EasyReach 700 Service will offer consumers nationwide, for the first time, a portable long-distance number that is theirs for life and a package of features that will let them choose which calls follow them and who pays for the calls. For $7 a month, consumers will receive a 700 number that remains theirs as long as they remain EasyReach 700 subscribers -- no matter where on the U.S. mainland they may travel or move. The average American now moves 11 times in a lifetime. EasyReach 700 Service will also give subscribers the advantage of selective call forwarding that can be programmed from any touch-tone phone and the option to receive calls that are toll-free to the caller just like those to 800 numbers. The service differs from standard call forwarding offers in that subscribers will choose which calls follow them. Subscribers can even choose to have only some EasyReach 700 calls follow them by assigning four-digit Personal Identification Numbers (PINs) to certain callers and then instructing the service to forward only those calls. Those calls made with a PIN are paid for by the subscriber. Charges for those calls will be sorted by PIN on the monthly bill for easy tracking. The service is designed primarily for long-distance calling and subscribers are expected to retain a local telephone number. EasyReach 700 calls will be billed at fixed per-minute prices, regardless of distance. State-to-state rates will be 25 cents per minute from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 15 cents per minute at all other times. Prices for in-state calls will vary by state. ------------------------------ From: barry@coyote.datalog.com (Barry Mishkind) Subject: 700 Numbers Start in June Organization: Datalog Consulting, Tucson, AZ Date: Wed, 29 Apr 92 17:38:03 GMT Overheard on CNN this morning: "AT&T will provide a permanent nationwide 700 number for those that wish, starting in June. The number will forward to where ever you are ... Cost was said to be $7/mo, plus any LD charges." Barry Mishkind ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1992 20:17 MST From: "JOHN C. LEWANDOWSKI, 786-3512" Subject: AT&T 700 Easy Reach Service In the 29 April issue of the {Wall Street Journal} (page B1), it is announced that AT&T will introduce a number of ten digits with a area code of 700. For only $7.00 a month one can own a number that will follow you around the United States, and it allows you to decide which calls you want to receive. It can also act like a 800 number when callers add a four digit access code after the number. The charge to the subscriber is 25 cents a minute during peak hours and 15 cents a minute during off-peak hours. It seems to me that this service is a lot more customer-friendly than MCI's "Follow Me" service, but I still want to see the finer points before making a real judgment about this service. Does anyone have any additional information, or an AT&T number that I can call to find out more? Thanks, John C Lewandowski LEWANDOWSK_J@CUBLDR.COLORADO.EDU ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1992 23:23:43 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: AT&T EasyReach 700 Service From the 4/29/92 {Boston Globe}: AT&T yesterday introduced permanent, portable long distance telephone numbers for people who want to be reached easily as they travel. Called EasyReach 700, the new offer will allow customers to use a single telephone number no matter where they are within the Lower 48 states. The service differs from standard call forwarding in that subscribers may choose which calls will follow them. AT&T said it expects the service would appeal to busy individuals who do not want to miss calls as they go from office to hotel or from car phone to weekend getaway. ----- Excerpt from the 4/29/92 {Wall Street Journal}: For telephone customers who want to be reached anywhere, anytime, AT&T says it has your number and will assign it to your for life. AT&T yesterday said it will begin selling by mid-June a new phone service in which subscribers are assigned a new ten-digit phone number, including a 700 prefix that can follow you for life -- and for a fee, of course. Called EasyReach 700 Service, the plan allows a customer to call a central AT&T number and using a touch-tone phone, tell a computer to route calls to another number. Friends, family, or business associates wouldn't have to worry about learning each of your phone numbers; they'd need only to know your 700 number. The fee: $7 a month, AT&T said. The number an AT&T customer gives to outsiders will be constant as long as the customer remains with AT&T. Subscribers can choose which calls they want to receive. And they have the option of receiving calls that are toll-free to the caller. All the caller has to do is remember to punch in a four-digit PIN assigned by the service subscriber after dialing the 700 number. This way the call is automatically billed to the called party. The charge to the subscriber is $0.25/min peak (M-F 8-5) and $0.15/min off-peak. The new service is limited to the mainland U.S. for now. In addition, customers must make the call over an AT&T line or dial an extra five-digit access code to sent the call over the AT&T network. AT&T Bell Labs figured that there are about six million possible combinations of ten-digit numbers that can be offered using the 700 prefix. AT&T may marry the new service with some of its new credit-card and calling-card programs so that your number covers all your transactions in the future. -------- I spoke with an AT&T representative today and got some information: The service is not yet available. It is scheduled to come before the FCC on 6/2/92. They will send me a postcard when it is available. You can request a specific number and pay a one time charge of $25.00. There is a $10.00 setup fee which will probably be waived for the first few months. The call routing can be changed from any touch-tone phone. There will be a credit card option with an $0.80/call surcharge. There will also be third-party billing available with a 4-digit PIN. To change routing, the EasyReach subscriber dials 0-700, then their personal number, then a four-digit PIN, then 1-#, and the number to which calls are to be routed to. The subscriber can assign up to 20 four-digit PINs for reverse billing. The $7 monthly fee includes call-waiting. Excerpt from the 4/29/92 {New York Times}: Call-forwarding has been available in some form since the late 1960's, but is second in popularity to call-waiting, which signals when someone is trying to call when the line is in use. Nationally, about 30 percent of eligible telephone customers use call waiting, while about five percent use call-forwarding, according to Bellcore. In New York state, fewer than 500,000 customers subscribe to call-forwarding. That compares with two million for call-waiting out of 6.5 million eligible residential customers, according to Nynex. Part of the reason for call-forwarding's slow growth may be that the subscriber has to remember to establish and disconnect call-forwarding for each phone. The doing and undoing of the service could be annoying to customers. The current call-forwarding transaction is actually two calls, although the dialer may not realize it. Monty Solomon / PO Box 2486 / Framingham, MA 01701-0405 monty%roscom@think.com ------------------------------ From: "Lewis M. Dreblow" Subject: Position Announcement Date: 28 Apr 92 14:45:45 -0600 Organization: Muskingum College New Telecommunications and Networking position available at Muskingum College. Aside from US mail, queries may also be sent to Shelba Watson, Secretary to the Personnel Director, SH_WATSON@VAX.MUSKINGUM.EDU ---------- Telecommunications Specialist position available immediately at Muskingum College. Full time position responsible for day-to-day management of NEC PBX, circuit and technical management, staff training. In addition, responsible for campus network. May include component design if qualified. Send resume and three references to Director of Personnel, Muskingum College, New Concord, OH 43762. E.O.E. Resumes will be accepted until position filled. --------- MUSKINGUM COLLEGE Job Description POSITION TITLE: Telecommunications Specialist POSITION REPORTS TO: Director of Computer Services POSITIONS REPORTING TO THIS POSITION: PBX Operators, Student Assistants FUNDAMENTAL OBJECTIVE OF THIS POSITION: Management, maintenance and diagnostic repair and responsibility for day-by-day operations of telecommunications system. MAJOR RESPONSIBILITIES: - NEC 2400 telephone. - Manage, track, diagnose, maintain trouble log, and solve problems of system day-to-day and long range. - Set up and maintain telephone restrictions, features and parameters for each office, department, and student phones (including voice mail, referral, number change and PIN usage and others). - Responsible for generation and printing and responsibility for monthly bills. Responsible for delivery to PBX operator for disbursement. - Implement and maintain in-house voice mail (Centigram). - Establish workable liaison and data gathering network with all departments to maintain voice mail information/news system. - Generate, maintain, assign, track and have authority for initial PIN numbers. Assign or designate to dept. personal PIN's for non-office business. - Day-by-day operations including office moves, malfunctions, technical problems, circuit management. - Manage and maintain non-PIN access. - Program and establish parameters for Guardian system. - Design and implement any forms, brochures, billing statements, documentation and support materials as needed. - Provide training as necessary. - Responsible for up-loading information to the Prime system including billing and cash receipts. - Assist with telephone directory. - Management of wiring closet in each building and wiring plates. - Responsible for all wiring and connectivity integrity. - Instrument maintenance - Operation and management of the (1) call accounting system (ASTRA), and (2) the facilities management software/database (ASTRA). - Perform traffic and system monitoring and reporting using the MAT (Maintenance and Administrative Terminal) environment. - Maintain close contact with PBX service and support personnel (NEC). - Plan, configure, install, and maintain data network hardware and software as required. (Ethernet + TCP/IP) (Includes fiber optic, coax, and twisted pair technologies.) - Monitor, diagnose, and trouble shoot data network. - Responsible for day-to-day operation and configuration of network-based informational resources. - General (i.e., "board-level") diagnosis and maintenance of electronic scientific laboratory equipment. - Investigate, recommend, and install electronic interfaces between laboratory and computer equipment. This may include limited circuit design and building if an off-the-shelf component is not available. - Establish and maintain records pertaining to equipment repairs and problems. ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES - Identify and implement custom applications using the OAI (Open Applications Interface) software development environment. - Other items as required by supervisor SKILLS/REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS POSITION: - BA/BS - Technical expertise - Hardware diagnostic abilities - Data base management skills - Excellent problem-solving and diagnostic skills - Basic wiring and electronic experience/training - Ability to diagnose/track, manage and to repair electronic wiring system, data circuits, electronic and network management. - Program completion from unified electronics program or equivalent experience. THE JOB PRIORITIES ARE DEFINED AS FOLLOWS: - First priority is telephone-PBX operation and management. - Second priority is data network operation and management. - Third priority is electronic diagnosis. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Apr 92 03:21:00 GMT From: lchiu@animal.gcs.co.nz (Lawrence Chiu) Subject: Enforcing Phone Bill Payment The local telco has a new method of enforcing late payment which I discovered to my annoyance recently. I somehow neglected to pay my current phone bill and when I remembered, couldn't find it. So I decided to wait till the next month and pay at the same time. Well the next bill arrived and I put it aside to pay. I then went away for a few days holiday and forgot about it! Well a couple of days ago I found my phone had been disconnected (actually sounded like it was faulty till I called the fault service and was told it was disconnected for non-payment). They said they (or their computer) had called me nine times to tell me if I did not pay the phone would be disconnected. I was away on the day they called and there were messages on the machine. Finally in annoyance I got hold of a supervisor. It turns out the computer messager they have is not compatible with answering machines -- it calls your number and as soon as you or your machine answers it spits out its spiel. If you have an answering machine the delivery is usually over before your outgoing message is complete. Hence no record of the call. I was told they were aware of the problem and were making changes to the program to handle this (I wonder how - listen for the beep -- wait for 30 seconds after answering [this would be confusing if you actually answered the phone]). I guess the real answer is to pay on time and wait for competition in local phone service -- we already have competition in LD which has improved service a great deal. As an aside after I paid the phone was reconnected within an hour. I had a very restful evening that night! Laurence Chiu | Principal Consultant | GCS Ltd, Wellington, New Zealand | Tel: +64 4 801 0176 | Internet : lchiu@animal.gcs.co.nz Fax: +64 4 801 0095 | Compuserve : 71750,1527 [Moderator's Note: So if I understand your complaint correctly, after your phone bill went unpaid for almost three months and telco made nine attempts to reach you by phone, they cut your service. You feel imposed upon that they took such an action, and intend to give your business to a competitor if one ever comes along. As is quite common with debtors, you turned things around to become the injured party and demanded to speak with a supervisor. Instead of speaking with a supervisor, you should have been instructed to stand in line and wait your turn at the cashier's window. You note that since there is competition in LD it has improved, and your implication seems to be that if a competitor for local service comes on the scene things will improve locally also. How? Will the new company let you go six months and a dozen phone calls without paying your bills? You gloss over in one sentence the fact that upon payment your service was restored almost immediatly, ignoring the fact telco could have left you cut for a couple more days while they cleared your check at the bank; required a deposit to assure prompt payment in the future and otherwise diddled around with paperwork. Do I have all that correct? PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #352 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02415; 30 Apr 92 3:50 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16829 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 30 Apr 1992 01:31:26 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30389 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 30 Apr 1992 01:31:17 -0500 Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1992 01:31:17 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199204300631.AA30389@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #353 TELECOM Digest Thu, 30 Apr 92 01:31:17 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 353 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: IXC's Carrying Intra-LATA? (Alan L. Varney) Re: IXC's Carrying Intra-LATA? (Kath Mullholand) Re: IXC's Carrying Intra-LATA? (John Higdon) Re: IXC's Carrying Intra-LATA? (Patton M. Turner) Re: Jeff's Phone Company of Rahway, NJ (Andy Sherman) Re: Jeff's Phone Company of Rahway, NJ (Ron Newman) Re: Unauthorized Third-Party Billing on my Line (Mark Reardon) Re: Unauthorized Third-Party Billing on my Line (Norman Soley) Re: Unauthorized Third-Party Billing on my Line (Simona Nass) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 28 Apr 92 12:29:10 CDT From: varney@ihlpf.att.com (Alan L Varney) Subject: Re: IXC's Carrying Intra-LATA? Organization: AT&T Network Systems BIG DISCLAIMER: I work for a part of AT&T that isn't an IXC, and I don't speak for or represent the views of ANY PORTION of the company. In article toddi@hindmost.mav.com (Todd Inch) writes: > In article slr@cco.caltech.edu (Steve L. > Rhoades) writes: >> (But wait, I didn't think AT&T was allowed to carry INTRA-Lata >> traffic?!) > .... That was my understanding at one time, too. My boss got the > impression that this was something [US Sprint] had over AT&T, our > current LD provider. But, I tried calling my home, which is a > toll "long distance" intra-LATA call, preceded by both 10ATT and > 10333 and they both worked. Is this legal/legit, or did someone > misprogram the CO's switch, or what? Neither AT&T nor other IXCs are PROHIBITED from carrying intra- LATA traffic by the FCC or the Judge; remaining prohibitions from these areas deal mostly with rates, accounting and such. In VERY general terms, the IXC market is viewed as mostly-competitive and has relatively few anti-competitive restrictions (though AT&T still has more restrictions than others). On the other hand, the LEC markets are viewed as non-competitive, and thus the major LECs are prohibited from carrying most inter-LATA traffic. Existing intra-LATA traffic restrictions are typically imposed by the STATE Utility Boards (e.g., PUC). The original rationale was that the higher-than-necessary intra-LATA toll rates were used to help hold down prices of residential POTS service, just as higher "long distance" rates did before 1984. Some PUCs already allow intra-LATA toll call "competition" by requiring the LECs to permit 10XXX access for intra-LATA calls. But they only allow this after the LEC has modified its rates and/or changed accounting practices to segregate toll costs/revenues from services previously supported by such toll calls. In most areas, this would have the effect of raising monthly rates and reducing toll rates, perhaps with some other changes such as "free" calling areas. (Maybe these should be call "prepaid" calling areas?) > The other big question is, of course, is: Is it actually cheaper to go > through an IXC than through the local telco? This requires an understanding of the LEC rates, IXC rates, your calling patterns and any "plans" that offer discounts based on call volume. Only you can answer the question. Don't expect the answer to remain valid for any long period of time. Note that letting the customer make this decision avoids lots of messy problems, like deciding what constitutes a "toll" call. In an area with Message Unit billing, a call that's billed in Units might cost more or less than an IXC depending on the call duration, initial period, discount plans and time-of-day. Aside from the duration issue (can you predict call duration?), the decision of what's the cheapest access method is still so complex that PBX/Centrex customers pay for Automatic Route Selection (ARS) features to make the choice. Al Varney - the above information is from public sources, and does not reflect AT&T's views on this issue ... really! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1992 16:42:38 -0400 (EDT) From: K_MULLHOLAND@UNHH.UNH.EDU (Kath Mullholand) Subject: Re: IXC's Carrying Intra-LATA? toddi@hindmost.mav.com (Todd Inch) writes: > In article slr@cco.caltech.edu (Steve L. > Rhoades) writes: >> (But wait, I didn't think AT&T was allowed to carry INTRA-Lata >> traffic?!) > Is this legal/legit, or did someone misprogram the CO's switch, or > what? Intra-LATA traffic is controlled by your state's Public Utility overseer (PUC in NH, which is only one LATA, so I can't speak for multi-LATA states). If your PUC has never ruled on intra-LATA competition, IXC'x may try to provide the service "off-tariff" by running the traffic out of the state and back in, thereby calling it interstate traffic. Both the FCC and PUC are likely to frown on this, and I recall vaguely some kind of lawsuit in NYC on this very issue, involving Off Track Betting, which had lines to New Jersey in order to avoid intra-LATA (or intra-state) charges. His other question was, is it cheaper? Since in NH the major profit maker was pulled out from under the BOC, New England Tel has pretty high intra-state rates -- 26 cents per minute, with time of day discounts and volume discounts that may get you as low as 11 cents per minute. Most IXC's will offer band one at high volumes at 10 cents a minute or less. kath mullholand university of new hampshire durham, nh ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Apr 92 13:58 PDT From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: IXC's Carrying Intra-LATA? Not every state was as short-sighted as California in setting up a monopoly for the LEC to carry intraLATA calls. In many areas around the country, any carrier can handle intraLATA traffic if the customer so desires. Whether you will save money is something you will have to research for yourself. California's intraLATA rates are unquestionably the highest in the country because the PUC, in its infinite wisdom, gave Pacific Bell a license to gouge virtually any amount it so chooses for calls to neighboring towns. In other places, it is probably a six of one, half dozen of the other just as interLATA rates are amoung the major carriers. > I'm assuming they meant 10333. My boss got the impression that this > was something they had over AT&T, our current LD provider. But, I > tried calling my home, which is a toll "long distance" intra-LATA > call, preceded by both 10ATT and 10333 and they both worked. If one carrier is allowed to do this, then they all are. No one has a "special deal". > Is this legal/legit, or did someone misprogram the CO's switch, or > what? You can bet that you will find no misprogramming in a switch if it is to the LEC's detriment. > The other big question is, of course, is: Is it actually cheaper to go > through an IXC than through the local telco? I would suggest you check the rates and find out. Rate information is not exactly a closely guarded secret. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Apr 92 03:19:16 CDT From: Patton M. Turner Subject: Re: IXC's Carrying Intra-LATA? > I'm assuming they meant 10333. My boss got the impression that this > was something they had over AT&T, our current LD provider. But, I > tried calling my home, which is a toll "long distance" intra-LATA > call, preceded by both 10ATT and 10333 and they both worked. If you can't route intraLATA calls to an IXC then it is because the LEC blocked access. I guess its possable some of the smaller IXC might have a problem with it, but Sprint/AT&T/MCI will be happy to carry them. If FGD access to IXC's is blocked, sometimes you can still save with FGB access. If not, and you're big enough you get a T1 (or Primary Rate Interface ISDN trunk) to the IXC POP. > Is this legal/legit, or did someone misprogram the CO's switch, or > what? It may well be illegal for them to market the service, but you welcome to use it, the main problem being blocking of FGD intraLATA calls > The other big question is, of course, is: Is it actually cheaper to go > through an IXC than through the local telco? I can call any other LATA in the state of Alabama for the price of a ten mile intraLATA call. Calls to nearby states are even cheaper of course. Give it a try. IntraLATA traffic is the golden cow of the LEC, or was that the inside wiring maintainance plan, or DTMF service, or DID, or B carrier cellular, or ... Yes I'm down on SCB, #1 I graduate in June and their not hiring, and #2 they may offer ISDN in the Auburn area soon ... for ESSEX (Centrex) custimers only (minimum eight lines until the new tariff comes out, then it will be three lines). But they will deliver as little as one B channel to a premise. Real Useful. Has anyone done inband signaling on ISDN :-) In their defense they are 100% SPC CO's, have lots of fiber, SS7 connections to the IXC's are soon to come, BISDN is being field tested in NC, etc. Pat Turner KB4GRZ pturner@eng.auburn.edu ------------------------------ From: andys@ulysses.att.com (Andy Sherman) Subject: Re: Jeff's Phone Company of Rahway, NJ Date: Mon, 27 Apr 92 01:22:17 EDT On 25 Apr 92 22:16:14 GMT, krfiny!jeffj@uunet.uu.net said: > (2) This could be justified if there were enough calls within > the service area, no? AT&T, SPRINT, MCI all share information > about long distance calling patterns of customers. Is the > information about local calling available, or even collected > internally? Leaving aside the rest of your article, some of which was intriguing but much of which was, self-admittedly, dreaming, let me ask, where did you get such a bizarre idea as this one? I believe that customer calling patterns come under the heading of Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) which is not to be divulged to third parties by an interexchange carrier. Sitting at AT&T, I would have to say that MCI and Sprint are third parties to us, as we must be to them. Such sharing of information as you describe is against FCC regulations. It would also be skating on real thin anti-trust ice, too, since some might take it as evidence of cartel-like behavior. It would also be real stupid for any of the big interexchange carriers to give away marketing information like that to the competition. As for your proposal, the information for calling patterns withing Rahway could only come from the LEC, if they even collect it. Why would they make it easy for you to determine the feasibilty of cutting into their market? 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: Ron Newman Organization: Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Inc. Subject: Re: Jeff's Phone Company of Rahway, NJ Date: Mon, 27 Apr 92 17:19:05 EDT In article , krfiny!jeffj@uunet.uu.net writes: > (2) Re: the FBI wiretap and spook central: With all the screaming and > kicking in TELECOM, and after reading the excerpt from the FBI, I am > getting more sympathetic to the FBI's position. If I were to > implement this non-centralized telephone switching system, am I to > expect the FBI to reverse engineer and non-intrusively perform their > business? And do that in a timely, cost effective manner? No way! > The FBI is appealing to the telecommunications companies to > collaborate and cooperate with their law enforcement needs. I agree > that it is much more cost effective, controllable, accountable and > well engineered if these needs are known at the system design phase > and designed into the systems rather than retrofitted. Why on earth would you want to help the FBI at all? If I was starting a phone company, my position would be simple. I'm responsible to my customers, not to the FBI. I won't help the FBI or anyone else unless they have a court order. Even then I'm not going to make their life easy. Why should I? Personally I'd like to see the day when phone communications are securely enough encrypted that wiretapping isn't even a possibility for anyone. Ron Newman rnewman@bbn.com ------------------------------ From: emory!tridom!mwr@gatech.edu (Mark Reardon) Subject: Re: Unauthorized Third-Party Billing on my Line Reply-To: emory!tridom!mwr@gatech.edu (Mark Reardon) Organization: AT&T Tridom; Marietta, Georgia Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1992 15:01:44 GMT In article , sharonc@meaddata.com (Sharon Crichton) writes: > My question to telecom readers: How was it possible for someone to get > authorization to bill my line when I was not even home during some of > the call times listed? When my daughter was born in January, I couldn't get the hospital pay phone to connect me to my LD carrier if choice (I had their card) and I didn't have the money on me to phone my parents. She suggested that I bill to my home. When I explained that my wife and I where at the hospital so no one could verify she laughed. "I'm not worried about it if your not." She had no information on me except the number I wanted to bill to and the number I wanted to call. > ABTW, I think that I can win the prize for having the lowest average > monthly long distance charges of any regular telecom reader - anyone > have anything lower than $3? :-) One year total of $2.36. No wonder my employer doesn't care if I use Sprint. :-) Mark Reardon | AT&T Tridom mwr@eng.tridom.com | 840 Franklin Court | Marietta, GA 30067 ------------------------------ From: soley@trooa.enet.dec.com (Norman Soley) Subject: Re: Unauthorized Third-Party Billing on my Line Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1992 19:05:14 GMT Bell Canada recently did a publicity campaign about how, in order to avoid fraud, they were going to require verification on all third party billing. I seem to remember them doing the same thing about five years ago too. It looks like they do this every few years, the crackdown lasts about a year and then they get lax again. Back in high school days we used to occasionally third party bill calls to a local branch of one of the big banks outside banking hours, if the operator questioned the call at all we claimed to be a bank employee in town on business and "they told me to bill my calls to this number", we were never turned down. In all likelyhood the person who made the calls is someone you know casually who just picked your number for a while. If it was organized phreakers they would have hit you for a lot more. > ABTW, I think that I can win the prize for having the lowest average > monthly long distance charges of any regular telecom reader - anyone > have anything lower than $3? :-) The AT&T operator even asked me if > that was my normal amount of long distance usage. Of course, she then > went into her spiel about thanking me for using AT&T and mentioning > all these great calling plans if my monthly usage should rise above $8 :-) My usual monthly LD charges are between $0.70 and $1.40 (CDN) per month, that's two calls per month to my parents to tell them if we'll be coming for Sunday dinner or not. I also probably would place high in the least features added to a line contest at a grand total of one, touch-tone. When Bell switched our excahnge to a DMS last fall they gave us eight weeks of free call-waiting, in two months it went off exactly once so I figure, why bother. Norman Soley, Specialist, Professional Software Services, ITC District Digital Equipment of Canada soley@trooa.enet.dec.com Opinions expressed are mine alone and do not reflect those of Digital Equipment Corporation or my cat Marge. ------------------------------ From: simona@panix.com (Simona Nass) Subject: Re: Unauthorized Third-Party Billing on my Line Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1992 21:21:18 GMT Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC Some time, maybe two years ago, I got a third-party call billed to my number by New York Telephone. I was living alone at the time, and not even my building's superintendent had the keys to my apartment. I was sure I did not make the call. I called to have the charge removed and asked how it could have been billed to me. They said the billing and connecting were done separately, so maybe the operator merely mistyped the billing number. I was a little surprised. They offered to disallow third-party billing in the future, but I didn't take it. I asked if they had a service that would disallow having numbers _incorrectly_ (w/o authorization) billed to my number but, alas, they did not offer that service and, from what I could tell, had no plans to to so. S. Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, though I do have an opinion on everything. (simona@panix.com or {apple,cmcl2}!panix!simona) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #353 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04882; 30 Apr 92 4:55 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19409 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 30 Apr 1992 02:41:21 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05786 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 30 Apr 1992 02:41:08 -0500 Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1992 02:41:08 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199204300741.AA05786@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #354 TELECOM Digest Thu, 30 Apr 92 02:41:06 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 354 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Small FCC Approved FM Transmitter (Barry Mishkind) Re: Small FCC Approved FM Transmitter (Bill Pfeiffer) Re: Small FCC Approved FM Transmitter (Doug Rorem) Re: ATM Discussion Group (Steve McDowell) Re: ATM Discussion Group (Bob Hinden) Re: Moderator's Surprise (Brad S. Hicks) Re: Moderator's Surprise (Mark D. Wuest) Re: Moderator's Surprise (Seth Breidbart) Re: Worth it to Use Hotel Room Phone? (tmarshall01@cc.curtin.edu.au) Re: White House Telecomms (Scott Dorsey) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: barry@coyote.datalog.com (Barry Mishkind) Subject: Re: Small FCC Approved FM Transmitter Organization: Datalog Consulting, Tucson, AZ Date: Tue, 28 Apr 92 18:36:14 GMT hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) writes: > Anyway, I got a call this morning from someone who wants to > transmit the stereo sound from various large screen TVs in a gym to > walk-person radios worn by the people in the gym. I guess they want > to be able to look at one of the several screens and get the > corresponding sound. Seems like there should be little FM stereo > transmitters available commercially for similar purposes (like sending > your stereo around the house). Anyone know of one? Ramsey Electronics makes on that has been very favorable received (no pun intended) by many in the Fido Broadcast echo. They are in several places, but I think their main catalogue place is in NY. Barry ------------------------------ From: wdp@gagme.chi.il.us (Bill Pfeiffer) Subject: Re: Small FCC approved stereo FM transmitter Date: Tue, 28 Apr 92 16:40:16 CDT In a recent TELECOM Digest, hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) writes: > I got a call this morning from someone who wants to > transmit the stereo sound from various large screen TVs in a gym to > walk-person radios worn by the people in the gym. I guess they want > to be able to look at one of the several screens and get the > corresponding sound. Seems like there should be little FM stereo > transmitters available commercially for similar purposes (like sending > your stereo around the house). Anyone know of one? Yes Harold, there is just such an animal. It is made by Ramsey Electronics, sells (in kit form) for $29 and is available through the manufacturer, or through a place called the 'Radio Collection' (maybe elsewhere too). There has been much talk about it in rec.radio.shortwave and it sounds great. Supposedly it will transmit about ten blocks to a personal (walk-entity :->) type stereo using only a nine volt battery and a 20" whip antenna. This claim was by a reader/user, not by the manufacturer. In addition, the unit is said to be quite stable, and of good overall fidelity. Yes, it IS stereo. I will include the address of Ramsey Electronics here, and the e-mail address of a woman who is involved with Radio Collection. Good luck. Ramsey Electronics, Inc. Amateur Radio and Hobby Kits Dept. 793 Canning Parkway Victor, New York 14564 (716) 924-4560 Fax: 924-4555 Christine K Paulstain (with the Radio Collection) e-mail ckp@cup.portal.com Ask her for a catalog of their other great radio oriented stuff. Note: I have no connection with either of these entities. William Pfeiffer wdp@airwaves.chi.il.us [Moderator's Note: Thanks also to Tad Cook for providing similar information about Ramsey. PAT] ------------------------------ From: rorem@bert.eecs.uic.edu (Doug Rorem) Subject: Re: Small FCC Approved FM Transmitter Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1992 17:04:38 GMT hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) writes: > Anyway, I got a call this morning from someone who wants to > transmit the stereo sound from various large screen TVs in a gym to > walk-person radios worn by the people in the gym. I guess they want There are monaural systems available that operate on channels in the FM band from 72-76 MHz. These are called personal listening or sound enhancement systems and are sold by two companies that I know of, Telex Communications in Mpls, MN (612) 887-5550 and Phonic Ear in Petaluma, CA (707)-769-1110. These systems are primarily used by hearing impaired individuals and are required in many public places with PA systems by the 'Americans with Disabilities Act' as of January 1992. Doug Rorem * phone (312)-996-5439 University of Illinois at Chicago * fax (312)-413-0024 ADVANCE project * email rorem@bert.eecs.uic.edu EECS Dept M/C 154 | Room 1120 SEO * -or- U55398@uicvm.uic.edu Box 4348 | 851 S. Morgan * Chicago, IL 60680 | Chicago, IL 60607 * ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Apr 92 09:15:53 CDT From: smcdowell@exlog.com (Steve McDowell) Subject: Re: ATM Discussion Group In message bajaj@thumper.bellcore.com (Shikhar Bajaj) writes: >> I heard there is an ATM discussion group and am very interested in >> joining such discussion group. Appreciated if anyone has information >> on how to join the discussion. > Send mail to ATM@sun.com Well, this is a group for discussing IP over ATM, *not* for discussing general ATM related issues. In fact, when general issues are brought up they are usually flamed. Steve McDowell Opinions are Exlog, Inc. mine, not my mcdowell@exlog.com employers. ------------------------------ From: hinden@Sun.COM (Bob Hinden) Subject: Re: ATM Discussion Group Date: 28 Apr 92 16:01:38 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. >> I heard there is an ATM discussion group and am very interested in >> joining such discussion group. Appreciated if anyone has information >> on how to join the discussion. > Send mail to ATM@sun.com This is not the correct addresses to send to. The correct address to send subscription requests to is: atm-request@sun.com Sending these messages to atm@sun.com, results in the subscription request going to over 250 people. A nuance at best. The atm list is the mailing list of the "IP over ATM" working group of the IETF. It is not a general ATM discussion list. A copy of the charter for the group is below: --------------- Internet Protocol Over Asynchronous Transfer Mode Working Group (ATM) Charter Dated: December 31, 1991 Chair: Robert Hinden / Sun Microsystems hinden@eng.sun.com Mailing Lists: General Discussion: atm@sun.com To Subscribe: atm-request@sun.com Description of Working Group The IP over ATM working group will focus on the issues involved in running internetworking protocols over Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) networks. The final goal for the working group is to produce standards for the TCP/IP protocol suite and recommendations which could be used by other internetworking protocol standards (e.g. ISO CLNP and IEEE 802.2 Bridging). The working group will initially develop experimental protocols for encapsulation, multicasting, addressing, address resolution, call set up, and network management to allow the operation of internetwork protocols over an ATM network. The working group may later submit these protocols for standardization. The working group will not develop physical layer standards for ATM. These are well covered in other standard groups and do not need to be addressed in this group. The working group will develop models of ATM internetworking architectures. This will be used to guide the develop of specific IP over ATM protocols. The working group will also develop and maintain a list of technical unknowns that relate to internetworking over ATM. These will be used to direct future work of the working group or be submitted to other standard or research groups as appropriate. The working group will coordinate its work with other relevant standards bodies (e.g. ANSI T1S1.5) to insure that it does not duplicate their work and that its work meshes well with other activities in this area. The working group will select among ATM protocol options (e.g. selection of an adaptation layer protocol) and make recommendations to the ATM standards bodies regarding the requirements for internetworking over ATM where the current ATM standards do not meet the needs of internetworking. [Moderator's Note: Thanks also to Fred Goldstein for his article pointing out that '-request' is the proper form of address to use when requesting addition to mailing lists. PAT] ------------------------------ From: mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@mhs.attmail.com Date: Wed Apr 29 09:26:10 -0400 1992 Subject: Re: Moderator's Surprise In TCD 11.349, bill@hacktic.nl (Bill Squire) said: > I find it hard to believe they haven't made phreaking/hacking legal in > the USA! ... nobody gets stuck with the bill, so no fraud has been > committed. ... A lot of things illegal in America are legal here. > Is it any secret, if you don't make it a problem, the problem is gone? To which ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu (Pat Townson) responded, of course: > What do you mean 'since nobody gets stuck with the bill, no fraud > has been committed'? Pat, this subject has been beaten to death over and over again. On the other hand, "you started it." :-) Let's suppose that there are maybe 1000 phreaks in this country who have the technical know-how to bypass the telcos' billing systems and make free calls. Let's further imagine that all 1000 of them piled onto the system at once. Since most of 'em are students or people who work for a living, to get 'em all on at once you'll have to move it to off-peak time. Do you really think that at off-peak times that any part of the telephone network is under enough load that it can't handle another 1000 calls? That's why they have off-peak pricing! So even in the worst case scenario, the phreaks aren't adding anything to the telcos' costs; they have to provide that equipment to cover peak demand periods. You of course bring up the matter of tariff ... though surely you realize the futility of bringing up US telcos' tariff language with someone whose net address ends in ".nl". That's the POINT he's making; that his country's phone-related legislation recognizes that the cost to track down and harass the phreaks is more than it's worth, since all they're doing is uses resources that nobody else needed right then anyway. Littering is illegal. Shall we hire as many cops as it takes to catch every litterer, and fine them enough to pay the costs? It would have a salutary effect on littering, but it's much cheaper in both legal costs and social costs to just pay people to clean the streets and use social pressure and pride to reduce littering. Why wouldn't this work with phreaking? Don't forget those social costs. Remember, the guys who started Apple Computers are widely reported to have built their expertise (and possibly raised some of their startup capital) by blatant phreaking, the sale of blue boxes. Would America, or the world for that matter, be better off if these guys had been caught, tried, and blacklisted from ever working with computers? J. Brad Hicks Internet: mhs!mc!Brad_Hicks@attmail.com X.400: c=US admd=ATTmail prmd=MasterCard sn=Hicks gn=Brad I am not an official MasterCard spokesperson, and the message above does not contain official MasterCard statements or policies. [Moderator's Note: How do the Master Card franchisees like getting hacked, Brad? I'll bet they don't mind at all if strange people roam around in their computer all night, do they? And isn't it true, Brad, that one Master Card operation got hit by a credit card fraud ring a couple years ago which had its origin with a lady here in Chicago who taught young hacklings how to steal both phone service and merchandise on credit card numbers hacked from the system? I'm surprised to hear an employee of a credit card billing center defend that sort of behavior. I don't expect much else from our correspondent with 'nl' in his address, but your comments are surprising. Anyway, *what difference* does it make how busy or slow telco happens to be at the time ... don't their property rights count for anything? PAT] ------------------------------ From: mdw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (mark.d.wuest) Subject: Re: Moderator's Surprise Organization: AT&T Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1992 13:09:44 GMT In article bill@hacktic.nl (Bill Squire) writes: > I find it hard to believe they haven't made phreaking/hacking legal in > the USA! Put the responsibility on the carriers or corporations that > use computers and the problem will go away alot faster than putting > the "problem" in jail! Of course fraud is illegal in most lands, but > the idea here is nobody gets stuck with the bill, so no fraud has been ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > committed. Come on Pat, pay us a visit and loosen up! A lot of things > illegal in America are legal here. Is it any secret, if you don't > make it a problem, the problem is gone? Except for stolen bicycles, > we don't have much crime here. Makes you wonder! Pat's comments cover most other things, but this is just flat "out of left field"! Added usage of bandwidth causes the telephone company to have to add bandwidth, and guess who pays? All of the other customers who actually PAY our bills end up paying for the hacker, so they are actually stealing from *ME*! Pat's shoplifter example is right on the money. In the same way, other customers end up paying for the shoplifter because the storeowner/teleco raises prices to cover their higher costs. This is similar to the problem many U.S. citizens have with socialized medicine and other social programs -- they don't mind helping pay for someone who cannot afford services, they just resent having to pay for those who just don't *want* to pay for them. (Gads, I hope this doesn't end up being a discussion of *this*!) Mark Wuest mark.wuest@att.com mdw@corona.att.com (NeXT Mail Welcome!) ------------------------------ From: sethb@fid.Morgan.COM (Seth Breidbart) Subject: Re: Moderator's Surprise Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1992 20:16:49 -0400 In article bill@hacktic.nl (Bill Squire) writes: >> [Moderator's Note: I find it hard to believe in Holland it is legal to >> bypass the billing equipment ... if you know how, of course! PAT] > I find it hard to believe they haven't made phreaking/hacking legal in > the USA! Put the responsibility on the carriers or corporations that > use computers and the problem will go away alot faster than putting > the "problem" in jail! Of course fraud is illegal in most lands, but > the idea here is nobody gets stuck with the bill, so no fraud has been > committed. Is it legal to sneak into movie theaters without paying in Holland? After all, nobody gets stuck with the bill, so no crime has been committed. (Funny, when I was there a couple of years ago, there were signs strictly warning people against riding the trolleys without a valid ticket, which would result in large fines if you were caught. Why doesn't the same (lack of) ethic apply?) Seth sethb@fid.morgan.com [Moderator's Note: The same ethic does not apply in the minds of hackerphreaks because the physical size of telco prevents them from seeing it as a collection of human beings working for a living (or stockholders) who are victimized everytime they (the hackerphreaks) rip off service. To them, telco is a nameless, faceless big corporation, therefore fair game for their criminal activities. PAT] ------------------------------ From: tmarshall01@cc.curtin.edu.au Subject: Re: Worth it to Use Hotel Room Phone? + Wardialers Organization: Curtin University of Technology Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1992 08:42:18 GMT > I stayed at Edgewood, Maryland recently. The hotel charged 30 cents > for each local call from a room phone, and the nearby pay phones (C&P) > charged 25 cents for a local call. I dont see why all you lucky people in America complain about paying 25c or 30c for a phone call. I mean, in most other countries (incluing here in Australia) everyone pays 25c for calls from your HOME! Thats right, no free local calls, which also solves the problem of Wardialers (except on 008 and 0014 numbers). Can anyone see hope for us Austral- ians!? TIE [Moderator's Note: Sure. All Australians can immigrate to Holland, and learn to bypass the billing equipment! PAT] ------------------------------ From: kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov (Scott Dorsey) Subject: Re: White House Telecomms Organization: NASA Langley Research Center And Storm Door Company Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1992 15:16:59 GMT > [Moderator's Note: The Pope is listed in the phone book. PAT] Let me guess ... his number is Vat 59, right? scott [Moderator's Note: Oooh, ick! That was awful. Let's quit for today before the jokes get even worse. See y'all tomorrow! :) PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #354 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26589; 3 May 92 0:04 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05119 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 2 May 1992 22:15:10 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21150 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 2 May 1992 22:15:03 -0500 Date: Sat, 2 May 1992 22:15:03 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199205030315.AA21150@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #355 TELECOM Digest Sat, 2 May 92 22:14:55 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 355 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Local Reports From LA/SF Wanted (Thomas Lapp) It's a Riot (Robert L. McMillin) LA Phone Status (Mike Coleman) Telecom While LA Burns (Andy Jacobson) Riots in LA (Mark Rudholm) University Telecom Monopoly? (Stan Hall) GTE Mobilnet in Cleveland, OH - Intra-LATA Call Questions (Jeff Wisniewski) Telephony's Buyers' Guide (Nigel Allen) Toby Nixon a Candidate For Public Office (Ted Koppel) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 1 May 92 12:10:09 EDT From: Thomas Lapp Subject: Local Reports From LA/SF Wanted Would it be appropriate for someone in the LA (and SF, since it also has been affected, I hear) area to give us some reports of the situation in LA, both a general perspective, and how it has affected telecom? I'm thinking of something along the lines of what Pat did for us about two weeks ago for the Chicago area. Although I do read media publications, since we have such a large readership, we potentially have "news reporters" all over the globe who can provide first-hand knowledge of items of world-wide interest! 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 [Moderator's Note: Look no further! I've included several articles about the scene from the City of Angels, a/k/a/ El Lay in this issue of the Digest. We in Chicago have been spared, thus far. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 92 01:02:00 -0700 From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) Subject: It's a Riot Having won the war (Willie Williams, late of the City of Brotherly Love, is now LAPD Chief-Designate) and lost the battle (a virtually all-white jury uniformly acquitted Rodney King's uniformed attackers), the hotheads are trashing Los Angeles' South Central neighborhood, looting and burning everything in their mindless paths. At last count, no fewer than 31 five-alarm fires were burning in South Central. One firefighter had been shot in the face, but was in stable condition. A roving gang of thugs stopped a truck driver and beat him bloody; he finally escaped and managed, somehow, to get to a hospital, where he is now in critical condition. Firefighters go from one disaster to the next, accompanied by police escort. In some areas, police have yet to respond to 911 calls -- in part because there simply aren't enough cops to go around, and also because they fear the residents. Downtown at Parker Center, LAPD headquarters, a demonstration that started peacefully rapidly descended into violence. Rioters burned and overturned a police car(s?), attempted to overturn a LA Unified School District school bus, and threw rocks and bottles at police in riot gear. On my way to work this evening (a scary thought!), I saw one plume of smoke that looked like it was in Watts, and another much closer to home, possibly in Hawthorne or Inglewood. The governor, Pete Wilson, has called in the National Guard and declared a state of emergency in Los Angeles. (He also went on to say that he would provide all resources needed to put out the riots; in the face of the recent budget cuts that left education in California bleeding badly, one has to wonder about his priorities ... Cal State Long Beach, a campus with about 20,000 to 30,000 students, was this semester able to offer six sections of English 100, a class that is a prerequisite for 29 majors.) The obvious comparisons to the Watts riots in 1965 leave one wondering just how much goodwill the rioters will burn simultaneously. After the 1965 riots, supermarkets disappeared from Watts. Mom-and-pop grocers, their prices inflated by high insurance and distribution costs, have replaced them utterly. Pacific Bell, the only telco in the area of the disaster, has urged all residents in South Central to stay off the phone lines, since the local exchanges are all but completely busy. 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 [Moderator's Note: After the 1968 riots in Chicago, *nothing* went where the riot had been. Today, 24 years later, there are many totally vacant blocks on the west side. Just big empty lots. PAT] ------------------------------ From: coleman@rocky.CS.UCLA.EDU (Mike Coleman) Subject: LA Phone Status Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department Date: Fri, 1 May 92 02:17:58 GMT Just a quick anecdotal message, if you were wondering. Dialtones are a little slow here right now, and not surprisingly, long-distance in and out of the city seems a little erratic. Specifically, I got several "your long-distance company cannot complete your call" messages while trying to call to Missouri, and my parents there got a couple different ones ("cannot complete", "phone is disconnected") trying to reach me here. I was finally able to get through using 10222 (ATT is our default). Mike Coleman (coleman@cs.ucla.edu), Ringmaster, Boelter Hall Roach Circus ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 92 21:36:44 -0700 From: afj@chem.ucla.edu (Andy Jacobson) Subject: Telecom While LA Burns As I'm sure there will be others out there who will discuss this anon, I will not comment on the firestorm going on outside. Suffice it to say, as I write this, LA is under a complete curfew, police and fire have been stretched to the point of non-response, and the business day has been cancelled tomorrow (Friday). Telecom is being severely effected. From here at UCLA I can call off campus, but I can not call into Santa Monica. Someone else here has been able to complete a call to Santa Monica, but only got through once. Calls to the Mar Vista area are also being blocked. Locally the recording says due to "volume" of calls. From San Francisco, (where they are having their own share of problems) calls are being blocked to the same areas with a recording saying something to the effect of "Due to problems with the local phone company ..." (This is not verbatim). As I was sitting here logged on, someone must have fingered me on this machine, as I got an e-mail note from a complete starnger in Sonoma who was desperately trying to get ahold of their spouse in the Culver City area. They asked me to call, and I was able to get through, and relayed the message. I had no trouble being called at UCLA, or calling from UCLA to San Francisco. There have been no problems calling from UCLA east to Beverly Hills, LA, or east of there even. Strange that only some GTE areas on the west side here seem to be effected, when none of the fire bombings are out here (yet). That's the word from this vantage point. I'm sure there's more telecom problems in the effected areas, but I haven't experienced them. A. Jacobson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 92 23:39:28 PDT From: aimla!ruby!rudholm@uunet.UU.NET (Mark Rudholm) Subject: Riots in L.A. Greetings to all from the city of The Angels! It is shortly after 10 PM on 4/30/92, I'm editing this message from my home in the Hancock Park district of Los Angeles. So far, 24 people are dead, 450 people are injured and there have been 1,300 structural fires. Initially, the fires were contained to South Central L.A. but this morning, the fires saw no geographical boundries. Now, all areas of the Los Angeles area are affected. There has been VERY widespread looting. You can take a stroll down Wilshire Boulevard and pass looters wherever you turn. People are very bold about looting, they are not deterred by the presence of onlookers, news crews, or in some cases, even police. Try to comprehend this, this is not something that has remained confined to a specific area. There has been property damage, fires, and looting in even the wealthiest areas, including Hancock Park, Beverly Hills, West L.A., Brentwood, and Westwood. There have been snipers on rooftops, most notably, one on a building at Melrose and La Brea shooting at anything on the streets below. There is VERY unsettling news footage of looters and vandals behaving as if participating in some demented carnival, laughing, yelling, and waving at news crews. The sky is black, it smells of smoke EVERYWHERE. Almost all businesses are closed, many closed early. There is a curfew in force for all areas within the corporate limits of the city of L.A., almost all nearby cities, and portions of the unincorporated L.A. county area. As far as telecom issues go, (my theory on the cause of this whole thing is that people are protesting the end of the 213/310 area code permissive dialing on Saturday :)) this is what I can tell you ... dialtones are slow in coming, occasionally you get them immediately, occasionally you have to wait over two minutes, usually you have to wait about 5-10 seconds. I'm on an ESS5 and more often than not, when I finish dialing a sequence, I get dropped back to dialtone (or the queue for dialtone as the case may be). Sometimes, I get reorder, sometimes I get an all circuits busy recording from my CO or some other along the way to the terminating end, and sometimes I get through. All this is pretty congruent with high volumes of network traffic as far as I can tell. Pacific Bell, GTE California, and AT&T have all issued the usual request that customers use the phone only when we need to. Problems of this nature also occur immediately after earthquakes. Even the cellular network is being over-taxed. If an open channel is unavailable, my cellphone retransmits the call request repeatedly until the call goes through (I thought this was a pretty useless feature until today!) Even with my Access Overload class of 15, it sometimes takes a couple of minutes and a dozen attempts to get a call placed. Also, the cellular network seems to have been having problems locating me when I get incoming calls. Some of the fires have apparently damaged cable TV facilites. According to my cable company, this is why I have no service at the moment. And now I hear news of similar events taking place in San Francisco and Las Vegas. MDR rudholm@aimla.com Philips Interactive Media of America [Moderator's Note: Thanks for explaining the reason for the riots. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: University Telecom Monopoly? From: Stan Hall Reply-To: Stan Hall Date: Thu, 30 Apr 92 14:42:15 CDT Organization: The Obelisk I just thought I would ask the wonderful readers of comp.dcom.telecom for opinions and suggestions about my telephone situation. I am a student at the University of Oklahoma and am living in university owned apartments. The rent for these apartments includes the cost for the phone service. The phone service is provided by the university telecom service. The entire university is set up on a large PBX so all I have to do is dial an extension for campus phones otherwise "9" to get an outside line etc. The telecom service drives me crazy. I have no choice to use their phone service so they are less than helpful for any questions or requests I make. It seems I am destined to have low quality data connections. I spent a week trying to track down someone who could verify if I could get an additional line. After having half the people say yes and the other say no I finally get a definite answer. No I couldn't have an additional university telecom line and no I couldn't get a Southwestern Bell line. I could keep griping about this for a while, but I will stop. Is there anything I can do? Is anyone required to provide me with service at all? Please help me!!!! Stan Hall The Obelisk [ uokmax!obelisk!kilgore kilgore@obelisk.okc.ok.us ] ------------------------------ From: wisniews@strawberry.cis.ohio-state.edu (jeffrey wisniewski) Subject: GTE Mobilnet in Cleveland, OH - IntraLATA Call Questions Organization: Ohio State University, Dept of Computer and Information Science Date: Fri, 1 May 1992 14:44:40 GMT In Cleveland Ohio, GTE Mobilnet is one of the cellular carriers. When I used to be a customer with GTE (2+ yrs ago) one of the features I liked was the extended local calling area. I could place calls from Cleveland to Medina (a suburb of Cleveland but in a different LATA) for the price of a local call (ie. no long distance charges). When I switched over to Cellular One I lost this ability and started to be billed for LD on out of LATA calls. Since I have switched, I have talked to a few people who are with GTE (customers) and they said that the calling area is even larger now; some saying it reaches almost into Pennsylvania! I have a few questions: 1) Is there any truth to this rumor of larger local calling areas? 2) If this is still the case (free intralata calls) how can GTE afford to do this? Are they eating the cost? Or do they have their own little network? For example, say I am in Cleveland calling to Medina. Does GTE realize that this is a intralata call and thus route it over their own network to a GTE office in Medina and then place it as a local call? 3) If the above network example is true, can these companies use the same strategy and bill you anything they want? I assume this is covered is some tariffff. Well? Anyone have any ideas/input? ------------------------------ From: Nigel Allen Date: Fri, 01 May 1992 20:00:00 -0400 Subject: Telephony's Buyers' Guide Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto {Telephony} magazine publishes an annual buyers' guide. If your company sells equipment or services to telephone companies, you may want to request a free listing in the buyers' guide. Contact the following office and ask for a Buyers' Guide questionnaire: Pat Blanton Directory Issue Editor Telephony Intertec Publishing Corp. P.O. Box 12901 Overland Park, KS 66282-2901 U.S.A. telephone (913) 341-1300 fax (913) 541-6697 This address is only for the directory issue and circulation departments. The editorial offices are still in Chicago. {Telephone Engineer & Management} magazine also publishes a directory. If you would like to be listed in it, write to: Buyer's Guide Editor Telephone Engineer & Management Directory 1 East First Street Duluth, MN 55802 U.S.A. telephone (218) 723-9298 fax (218) 723-9437 As well, some industry associations (the North American Telecommunications Association, for example) may also publish a directory. I don't have current details on a NATA directory, though. If you would like to be listed in the {Telecommunications Directory} published by Gale Research Inc., write to: Editor Telecommunications Directory Gale Research Inc. 835 Penobscot Building Detroit, Michigan 48226-4094 U.S.A. telephone (313) 961-2242 fax (313) 961-6815 You should probably contact the {Telecommunications Directory} in writing, rather than by phone, as the directory is only published every second year, and it will be a while before they start to send out questionnaires for the next edition. Nigel Allen nigel.allen@canrem.com Canada Remote Systems - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044 ------------------------------ From: tkoppel@cassandra.cair.du.edu (T.D.H.) Subject: Toby Nixon a Candidate For Public Office Organization: University of Denver, Denver, Colorado Date: Wed, 29 Apr 92 13:03:24 GMT [About someone we all know from reading telecom ...] From the {Atlanta Journal/Constitution}, 4/29/92. Gwinnett Extra, page J2: Candidate Isn't Exactly a Hopeful (headline) He's probably the only candidate for political office ever to concede he'll lose -- not minutes before the results are in, but months before the race. "I don't have any expectation of winning", said Toby Nixon, who announced Tuesday that he will be the Libertarian Party's candidate for State Commissioner of Labor. Mr. Nixon, 33, said that he had considered switching to the Republican Party and running for a local office. Only as a Republican can a dandidate win local races, he said. But the Lawrenceville resident said he was not ready to commit himself to the kind of campaigning that a local race would require. So he sais he opted instead to run as the Libertarian Party's candidate for Labor Commissioner. Although he probably won't get elected, Mr. Nixon said, "at least this way people will have a way to hear some new ideas on how these problems [of unemployment] can be solved." ------------- Good luck, Toby. Ted Koppel -- ted@carl.org or tkoppel@cassandra.cair.du.edu [Moderator's Note: We all second that motion. Good luck, Toby. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #355 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28520; 3 May 92 0:54 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04680 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 2 May 1992 23:02:18 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20813 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 2 May 1992 23:02:10 -0500 Date: Sat, 2 May 1992 23:02:10 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199205030402.AA20813@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #356 TELECOM Digest Sat, 2 May 92 23:02:00 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 356 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Final CFP - Int'l. Conf. on DSP Applications & Technology (Amnon Aliphas) A Different Kind of Music On Hold (Robert L. McMillin) Looking For 900 mhz Telephone (Norman Gillaspi) Wrongly Connected Fax Switch? (Jon Sreekanth) Perks For MCI (Int'l) Customers (Bryan Montgomery) Compuserve Mail Charges (Ken Jongsma) Tone Plan Simulation Box (Sanjay Manandhar) Dialtone Spec Needed (P. J. Holsberg) What Telcos REALLY Want (John Higdon) 213/310 Permissive Dialing Ends (Robert L. McMillin) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DSPWorld@world.std.com (Amnon Aliphas) Subject: Final CFP - Int'l. Conf. on DSP Applications & Technology Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Date: Fri, 01 May 1992 21:48:17 GMT REMINDER !! CALL FOR PAPERS DEADLINE APPROACHING ONE MONTH LEFT TO SUBMIT ABSTRACTS Chairman | | | CALL FOR PAPERS Dr. Amnon Aliphas | DSP Associates | BOSTON '92 18 Peregrine Road | Newton, MA 02159 | ________________________ | | | INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SIGNAL PROCESSING Technical Committee | _________________ | APPLICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY | Mr. Joel Feldman | AudioFile, Inc. | featuring 4 Militia Dr. # 20 | Lexington, MA 02173 | DSP WORLD Expo. | Mr. John W. Irza | November 2 - 5, 1992 Hyatt Regency Hotel Draper Laboratory | Cambridge, MA. U.S.A. ms 7C | 555 Technology Sq. | Cambridge, MA 02139 | | Application Areas: Communications Dr. Bruce Musicus | Speech Processing B.B.N. | Image Processing ms 6-4B | DSP Technology 10 Moulton Street | DSP Machines Cambridge, MA 02138 | Medical Electronics | Neural Networks Prof. A.M. Peterson | Industrial Control Stanford University | Automotive Electrical Eng. | Underwater 227 Durand Bldg. | VLSI Architectures Stanford, CA 94305 | Geophysics | Underwater Dr. Richard C. Rose | Radar MIT Lincoln Lab. | DSP Software 244 Wood Street. | Instrumentation and Testing Lexington, MA 02173 | Consumer Products | Mr.J.V Ginderdeuren | Philips I.A. | Pleinstraat 135 | AND OTHER APPLICATIONS B-3030 Leuven | Belgium | ________________________________ | | DSP World | Keynote Speaker | Technology: | William I. Strauss | Analog Devices, AT&T, Fujitsu, LSI Logic, Motorola, Forward Concepts | NEC, OKI, Plessey, SGS-THOMSON, Texas Instruments, 1228 N. Stadem Dr. | United Technologies, Zoran Tempe, AZ 85281 | and Other Signal Processing Technology MAIL, FAX, OR send e_mail (e-mail preferred) a 400 word Abstract for Review to: DSP Associates 18 Peregrine Road Newton, MA 02159 U.S.A. Telephone: (617) 964-3817 Fax: (617) 969-6689 electronic mail: DSPWorld@world.std.com (The deadline for receiving abstracts is May 30th, 1992) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - DSP WORLD EXPO - LIMITED EXHIBITION SPACE AVAILABLE The International Conference on Signal Processing Applications and Technology featuring DSPWorld Expo. organized by DSP Associates is coming to the United States for the first time, after two successful years in Europe. The Trade Show/Exhibit in Signal Processing Technology and Signal Processing Based Products, and Applications will be held at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Cambridge, MA November 3, 1992. Last year's conference and Expo. Berlin '91 attracted over 400 highly qualified design engineers and researchers from over 35 countries worldwide. The International Conference on Signal Processing Applications and Technology focuses strictly on industrial applications and product development based on Signal Processing Technology, therefore attracting a large number of application engineers with "hands-on" experience. This year's conference and Expo. are expected to attract an even larger number of attendees with a large International presence, due to DSPAssociates' recognition in the International market. A preliminary list of companies to be present at DSPWorld Expo. is given. Among them are: Analog Devices Ariel Corporation AT&T Microelectronics CADIS GmbH Catalina Research Sunnyside Incorporated CSPI Comdisco Systems Inc. Data Translation DSP Research DSP Software Dynetics GEC-Plessey Semiconductor hema Electronik GmbH Hyperception Image & Signal Processing Ixthos Momentum Data Systems Sharp Microelectronics Sonitech International IEEE Spectrum Magazine Spectrum Signal Processing Loughborough Sound Images Star Semiconductor Texas Instruments Zoran. Exhibit space is still available and we would like to help you decide in favor of exhibiting at DSPWorld Expo. To increase your company's presence and your product exposure we urge you, colleagues, and clients to submit application papers to the International Conference on Signal Processing Applications and Technology. If you would like to reserve exhibiting space or submit a abstract for review, please contact: Pamela Coneeny, Conference Coordinator. ICSPAT / DSPWorld Expo. DSP Associates Tel: (617) 964-381718 Peregrine Road Fax: (617) 969-6689 Newton Centre, MA 02159, USA e_mail address DSPWorld@world.std.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 01 May 92 01:29:04 -0700 From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) Subject: A Different Kind of Music On Hold File this one under 'Annoying Experiences Whilst On Hold': I recently called Image Entertainment, one of the main distributors of Laserdiscs in the U.S., to get information on a specific laserdisc that I had wanted. The conversation went about thus: Anonymous Phone Droid: Hello, Image Entertainment. (Much noise in the background.) Me: Yes, I'm looking for a laserdisc called, "Beany and Cecil". APD: What? I can't hear you -- the manager (!) has got a new stereo, and he's turned it up real loud. Me: Ah, well let me spell it for you. B-e-a-n-y ... APD: 'P-e-e' ... ... and so on, for about ten minutes, until finally she got to 'Benny and SeSILL' (that's how she said it!). Absolutely unreal; I find it unbelievable that her manager would make it impossible for their phone answerers to hear their customers. In these less than terrific economic times, I find it hard to believe that anyone could be so callous. 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 ------------------------------ From: norman@netcom.com (Norman Gillaspi) Subject: Looking For 900 mhz Telephone Date: Fri, 01 May 92 11:13:30 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) I am looking for a manufacturer of wireless telephones in the 900 Mhz band instead of 46-49 Mhz. Do these exist? Regards, Norman Gillaspie ISS Engineering 992 San Antonio Rd. Palo Alto Calif 94303 norman@netcom.com 415-424-0380 ------------------------------ From: jon_sree@world.std.com (Jon Sreekanth) Subject: Wrongly Connected Fax Switch? Date: Fri, 01 May 1992 14:41:36 GMT This is something I've wondered about for a while. Many fax switches have three or four RJ11's on them, one for the incoming telco line, and the rest to connect to phone/fax machine/modem, etc. What happens if a user connects the telco line to one of the outputs? For background, a fax switch is a call splitter; it creates battery bias for the devices hanging from it; monitors the telco line for an incoming ring, picks up the call, tries to figure out where to direct the call, rings that connected device and completes the call. It also works like a mini-pbx for outgoing calls from connected devices. What happens to the fax switch, or to the telco, or both, if the fax switch tried to drive a reverse polarity DC back into the telco line? Or, for some reason, if the fax switch tried to ring the telco line?! Since one RJ11 looks pretty much like the other, all it takes is one mistaken connection on the part of the user. Is telco electrically protected against such cases? Please reply here or email, and I'll summarize. Jon Sreekanth Assabet Valley Microsystems, Inc. | Fax and PC products 5 Walden St #3, Cambridge, MA 02140 | (617) 876-8019 jon_sree@world.std.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 01 May 92 14:46:07 BST From: monty@vnet.ibm.com Subject: Perks For MCI (Int'l) Customers Good day, Carrying on the theme of overseas calling cards from the US, MCI sent me some literature yesterday -- I feared it was another bill!! Point 1 : It introduces Friends and Family, saying how wonderful it is, savings etc, and as a special offer you can add *anyone* to your calling circle regardless of their PIC. This is for up to 90 days of them being added. If MCI haven't been able to convince them of MCIs virtues and change them by then -- cheerio. I wonder how much pressure they'll receive from MCI? The letter says that MCI will write or call on my behalf -- thanks chaps. Point 2: MCI World Reach, similar to something that I recently heard AT&T offering. You can now call any country served by MCI, from any country with MCI Call USA. Charges are MCI call USA rates plus 1.25/minute-regardless of the country called. Roughly speaking it is 1/minute on call USA. Does this mean I can call Austalia for 2.25/ minute? I guess this would be cheaper than using BT/Mercury/NYNEX etc? Any one care to elaborate on this payment scheme? Point 3: Using Call USA you can now reach *any* 800 number, not just MCI's. These are at standard MCI Call USA rates, and says collect calls not accepted! Point 4: Call USA expansion, now includes Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands, as well as the other 50 states. Quite a pleasant surprise - especially as I thought it was going to be an expensive letter. An impressed MCI customer, Bryan Montgomery Monty@vnet.IBM.com/BMontgomery@ev.port.ac.uk/montgomery_br%port.ee@uknet.ac.uk ------------------------------ From: jongsma@esseye.si.com (Ken Jongsma) Subject: Compuserve Mail Charges Date: Fri, 01 May 92 10:46:33 EDT Being a rather heavy user of Compuserve, I think I ought to clear something up. In one of his commentaries the other day, Pat said that Compuserve charges for Internet mail. That is only partially true. Compuserve's old billing plan (now called the "alternative plan") charges each user $2 per month as an administrative charge, followed by a per minute rate that depends on the speed of your connection. There is no per message charge or surcharge for sending or receiving Internet mail under this plan. Compuserve's new billing plan (called the "standard plan") charges each user $7.95 per month. A number of services are then provided with no additional connect charges. (The most popular services, the "forums" are not included in this flat rate.) Someone subscribing to the standard plan is given an email allowance of $9 per month to cover use of the CIS mail system. However, Internet mail is not covered by the allowance and is billed on a per message basis for send and receive. One is given the option of deleting Internet mail prior to reading it if one does not wish to pay for it. Ken Jongsma ken@wybbs.mi.org Smiths Industries jongsma@benzie.si.com Grand Rapids, Michigan 73115.1041@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: sanjay@media.mit.edu (Sanjay Manandhar) Subject: Tone Plan Simulation Box Organization: MIT Media Laboratory Date: Fri, 01 May 1992 17:01:06 GMT Does anybody know of boxes that generate telephone tone-plans from a particular country (I'm interested in some European companies). I would like to develop telephony-related applications in the US and not have to travel to Europe everytime I need to test it. The applications use dial-ins, dial-outs, fax capabilities, etc. Thanks, Sanjay Manandhar MIT Media Laboratory sanjay@media-lab.media.mit.edu Siemens-Nixdorf Info Systems sanjaym@sni-usa.com Cambridge, Massachusetts. USA (617) 349-5047 ------------------------------ From: pjh@mccc.edu (P. J. Holsberg) Subject: Dialtone Spec Needed Organization: The College on the Other Side of U. S. 1 Date: Fri, 01 May 1992 17:16:51 GMT Could someone please post the specs for the interrupted dialtone that voice mail systems use to inform the user that a voice mail message is waiting? Thanks, Prof. Peter J. Holsberg Mercer County Community College Voice: 609-586-4800 Engineering Technology, Computers and Math FAX: 609-586-6944 1200 Old Trenton Road, Trenton, NJ 08690 Internet: pjh@mccc.edu Trenton Computer Festival: April 17-18, 1993 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 02 May 92 13:34 PDT From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: What Telcos REALLY Want A recent story on the front page of the {San Francisco Chronicle} is a great indicator of the future of telephony as seen from the eyes of an LEC. "Pac*Bell to Unveil 'Dial-a-Movie' Plan" describes a system that would allow movies to be distributed to theaters and others digitally via fiber optic lines. It would take three minutes to transmit the highly-compressed data that represents a two-hour movie. "The technology would allow theaters to instantly yank flops and order hits. Assuming licensing deals could be worked out, they also could offer a wide range of other types of entertainment like pay-per-view sporting events, operas and rock shows." There you have it, folks. Message to the EFF: Pac*Bell has not the slightest interest in offering ISDN to the masses. ISDN would only fulfill the public's basic communications requirements. It would not fill Pac*Bell's cash registers the way something as exciting as Dial-a-Movie would. So what is Pac*Bell doing to move ISDN along? Probably nothing. But I can tell you what the company is doing to push this great Dial-a-Movie idea. Pac*Bell plans to show this on May 6 at TEXPO, being held at the Anaheim Convention Center. "Bugsy" was to be the featured movie, but it contained too many dark scenes which did not show up well on the HDTV system to be used for the demo. So, "yesterday, Pacific Bell employees [on your regulated telephone nickel] were busy watching other movies and still had not decided on a bright enough substitute, a spokesman for the company said." While Pac*Bell has ABSOLUTELY NO PLANS at this time to offer basic rate ISDN to ANYONE, business or residence, it is moving full steam ahead on highly experimental technology that has the potential for the really big bucks. And it is using your captive regulated funds to do so. And here is even more irony: ISDN is technically doable today with equipment that is in place. Most film people predict that the video technology involved with Dial-a-Movie will never be able to replace an actual film presentation. Director Edith Kramer says, "You won't have the particular aesthetics of film anymore. That would be a loss for film makers and for those of us who love film." Pacific Bell's point man counters with the statement that he is concerned only with getting the images through the telephone system from Point A to Point B. "He leaves the rest to somebody else." I do not know about others, but I am completely enraged that Pacific Bell is using MY regulated dollars to go after very 'iffy' but potentially lucrative ventures, while neglecting to provide basic telephone service to the public at large. I cannot get ISDN, CLASS, and a host of other things because Pacific Bell chooses not to provide them. And I cannot go elsewhere to get them. It is time to remove the LEC monopoly. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 01 May 92 01:15:51 -0700 From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) Subject: 213/310 Permissive Dialing Ends Just a reminder: 213/310 permissive dialing ends Friday, May 1, 1992. Don't forget to reset any speed dialers, faxes, modems, etc. 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 [Moderator's Note: In the last issue of the Digest, someone noted the riots in El Lay were protesting the end of permissive dialing. That's odd, 'cause we did not have riots like that here in Chicago when 708 was split away from 312. :) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #356 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02983; 3 May 92 2:14 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09808 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 3 May 1992 00:22:09 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16722 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 3 May 1992 00:21:54 -0500 Date: Sun, 3 May 1992 00:21:54 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199205030521.AA16722@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #357 TELECOM Digest Sun, 3 May 92 00:21:52 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 357 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson LA Riots Cause 213/310 Split to be Postponed (David Gast) Albany Added to NACN; Cellular Parts Supplier (Douglas Scott Reuben) Phone Line Woes (Dan Lanciani) Electromechanical --> Digital (Jack Winslade) Caller-ID Survey in New Zealand (The Dominion via Pat Cain) Possible Chicago Scam (Michael Bender) DID to RS-232 and POTS Box? (Don Jackson) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 2 May 92 21:16:51 -0700 From: gast@CS.UCLA.EDU (David Gast) Subject: LA Riots Cause 213/310 Split to be Postponed "Due to the circumstances," as I think the official PR statement said, the split has been postponed indefinitely. On Thursday evening I had a great deal of trouble dialing out of the LA area. I tried a couple carriers. I have had no trouble dialing locally, however. As to the circumstances, I can't say that the riots are as much of a no deal as the earthquake of ten days ago that I did not even feel, but if it were not for the news, I would have no idea that there had been any problems. I have been impacted much more by the curfew than anything else. One night I could smell something vile, but I have smelled worse. The only other impact has been noise -- I am located near a National Guard facility and their noisy, smelly trucks have been going by a regular basis for about 24 hours. (They must have designed those trucks to be as smelly and noisy as possible). I just heard a helicopter go by, but that is not unusual. During the past 72 hours, I have heard about three sirens. I personally have not seen one fire, one looted store, any violence, or anything that could be described as newsworthy. (I am not disputing that others have, of course). David ------------------------------ Date: 2-MAY-1992 07:17:21.02 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Albany Added to NACN; Cellular Parts Supplier I mentioned that some features were working in Albany for NACN customers from McCaw systems; well, it has now been fully added to the NACN. The usual NACN problems apply: If you wish to have voicemail, you must hit *35, which will prevent call-delivery to Albany (or any NACN city), and thus calls will go to voicemail. If you use *350 (or never hit *35), calls will be delivered to Albany, but if you do not answer they will NOT get transfered back to your home NACN system. I talked to McCaw in Seattle, and the engineering VP in New York, who was supposed to explain to me why the NACN (or just NY and CT) couldn't allow call delivery AND voice-mail, and thus not necessitate the annoying *35 feature. The guy in New York couldn't answer: He just said that the MFJ prohibits "voicemail" networking between "B" owned systems and other "A" side carriers. I told him I didn't think that this was true, and that the MFJ only required that an IXC handle the traffic. Moreover, I pointed out to him that Metro Mobile is able to deliver calls in NY, and if the call is not answered, to have the call default to voicemail (or a "No-Answer-Transfer" number) without much of a problem. He sounded as if this was impossible, but said he would look into it. Although a nice guy, he didn't sound all too knowledgeable about his system, at least in terms of the specific areas which I mentioned. Does anyone know if there is some inherrent problem with Ericssons (which NY has) which prevents them from trying to deliver a call to a remote system and then if no one answers to "take the call back" and process it by sending it to voicemail or to some NAT number? The Cell One/NY guy seemed to think it simply could not be done. I would doubt this: If an older Motorola switch can do this (albeit with new software) why can't the somewhat newer Ericsson do something seemingly as simple as routing a call to voicemail if the remote system does not signal that the called part has answered the cell phone? Anyone from Ericsson or anywhere else know if this is correct or not? Metro Mobile is also joining the NACN -- no date has been announced, but calls received while in CT will now show "NACN-203" if you have a Cell One/NY account. Still no Call-delivery to Pittsfield or Franklin County, Mass -- they are looking into this now. And as an aside: If you are tired of paying ridiculously high prices for cell accessories, I saw an ad in the back of {Cellular Business} for a supply house in CA which has no minimum order and sells at large discounts. I sent away for their catalog, and found some really good deals. For example, Novatel wants to sell me an extra battery for my handheld at $54.00, the catalog sells it for $28.00. A carrying case for the Panasonic tranportable that I have has been offered to me by a cell phone store for $70; it was in the catalog for $16. The place is called Cellular Products Distributors, in LA. You can call (800) 654-3050 (or 800-443-9889 in CA) to get their free catalog. I've never ordered from them, but with some of the prices I saw in their catalog, I certainly intend to give 'em a try! Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet [Moderator's Note: Here in Chicago, Ameritech (B) transfers calls automatically to voicemail -- if you have that feature for about $4 (?) per month -- anytime they've found you but you do not answer after four rings or immediatly anytime they cannot find you or your line is busy (and you do not have call waiting on the line. Your *71 (transfer on busy/no answer), *72 (immediate call forwarding) or *18 (follow me roaming) instructions override voicemail. I do not use Ameritech Mobile voicemail, perferring to simply use *71 to my home number which in turn hits voicemail after a few rings. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 01 May 92 18:00:38 EDT From: ddl@das.harvard.edu (Dan Lanciani) Subject: Phone Line Woes I've had two problems with my phone service recently and I can't seem to convince the repair people to help me. If anyone recognizes the symptoms and/or knows some magic words to use, please help ... 1. Starting at about 11:30 every night (became 12:30 when we moved the clocks ahead) the audio as heard by the party on the other end is muted for a split second every 5-15 minutes. I hear nothing special. No clicks, tones, etc. The only way I figured out what was going on was when people kept asking me to repeat myself. It doesn't matter whether I placed or received the call. It does appear to matter that the call is outside the local office (or maybe outside some subset of the equipment in the local office), because I can call my mother's line (in the same house) and not "see" the problem. Of course, this effect plays havoc with my modem and I made the mistake of mentioning this to the repair person. This seemed to end my chances of getting him to look more, even though the problem was initially (and constantly) noticed on voice calls. 2. More recently, I have two noises on the line. (The first problem has not gone away, unfortunately.) Sometimes they start as soon as I break dial tone by dialing the first digit. Most common is a sound just like someone's cheap-electronic-phone (tm) ringing in the background. Not the ring indicator sound you hear when placing a call, but the sound you hear from a phone ringing near your head! The other noise is pulse dialing. Sometimes rather loud, sometimes quite soft. I never hear other peoples' conversations. Just ringing and dialing. Neither of these bothers my modem, but they drive me crazy. Again the repair service did whatever it is they do to "check the line" but found nothing. When I suggested that perhaps it was something in their office, she started on how it must be my answering machine or computer or even my phone (nice, old, heavy WE version that doesn't know anything about electronic ringers). When I asked to pursue the matter further, the repair person said she didn't want to send somebody out because I didn't have a maintenance contract and would have to pay if (when?) they found a problem in my home. Finally, I had the clever (?) idea of suggesting that I would record the pulse dialing and figure out the numbers involved. She said emphatically that I shouldn't do that and that she would check the central office. This made me happy for a little while, but I don't really expect it to get anywhere. Help? Dan Lanciani ddl@harvard.* ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 01 May 92 23:09:04 CST From: Jack.Winslade@ivgate.omahug.org (Jack Winslade) Subject: Electromechanical --> Digital Reply-To: jsw@drbbs.omahug.org Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha In a recent message, KEN DYKES writes: > Well, what is probably one (if not THEE :-) last crossbar era switches > (definitly not digital) left in Bell Canada Ontario territory is going > digital. This is the switch I have been on for most of my life. ... > ... and, if you have a rotary dial set, you will not hear a click in > the receiver as the dial returns to rest. This 'clunk' was typical on direct-control (translated: dumb as a rock) step offices and would occur after all digits except the next-to-last. (The reason for this will be left as an exercise for the diehard techie trivia types. ;-) I don't ever remember it on crossbar, especially the genuine Ma Bell #1 and #5 crossbar switches that we all loved. > Be sure to begin dialing as soon as you hear the dial tone. If you > delay, the equipment may time out and you will need to hang up and > dial again. Wow! This >>>WAS<<< old. No timeout on dialtone. This has to be an old stepper. Take the receiver off hook and tie up a linefinder all night. ( .. or at least until the cylinder of dialtone gas runs empty. ) > When dialing to other exchanges you may find a noticeable silent pause > from the time you finish dialing until the telephone rings. One feature of these old direct-control step switches was that (when they worked) they appeared to the sub to be almost as fast as intra-office calling on a modern ESS. Dial the last digit and !BANG! ring or busy, even when calling inter-office to another direct-control step system. This was, however, not the case with the modern 'directorized' step offices, (such as the old 366 office on the south side of Council Bluffs, the last stepper around here) where they had some kind of a common-control register-sender glued in the system between the line finder and first selector. The old 366 switch was notoriously slow. > If You Have Ident-A-Call: > If you have the Ident-A-Call feature > [multiple numbers, distinctive ringing, one hard line] > you will notice a change in the duration of the distinctive ringing > code. This is the first time I have heard of this on an electromechanical office, but I can see how it might work. > Another local switch gave away free call-waiting to *all* lines over a > year ago. I'm glad US West is not so generous. ;-) Good day. JSW ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1992 17:11:10 +1200 From: Pat Cain Subject: Caller-ID Survey in New Zealand Telecom New Zealand (owned by Bell Atlantic/Ameritech) has commissioned an Auckland firm, CM Research Associates, to gauge public response to the possible introduction of Caller-ID in NZ. Telecom spokesman Clive Litt said yesterday it was a highly sensitive area and carried some interesting issues of privacy. "In effect there are two issues. There is the right of the person to know who is calling them as opposed to the right of a preson to keep their identity secret if they so desire. They are two very interesting imperatives and we are trying to get a feeling from the community as to how to the community believes we should handle such an issue," Mr. Litt said. People who are being surveyed are being told of some of the disadvantages (such as inadvertent release of confidential numbers to women's refuges or undercover police). And that such a system could also reduce the willingness of people to contact an agency about an embarrassing or sensitive problem (eg. AIDS hotline) or providing police with information about a crime. The perceived advantages of the service include: * an improved emergency 111 (911) response; [This seems a little strange as the callers phone numbers is already automatically displayed/recorded when such a call is made.] * a decrease in the number of obscene or threatening calls; [Perhaps Call-Trace should be mentioned as an alternative.] * better detection of hoax calls and a faster response to life threatening situations, including suicide and domestic violence. [This seems redundant as Telecom announced a few weeks ago that the police would shortly have a direct link into the Telecom call log database and would be able to lookup calls just made to calls made over the last year or so. Previous press reports have stated that they were already catching obscene and hoax callers.] Paraphrased from {The Dominion}, 30 April 1992. The article does not say whether people are being told about alternatives to Caller-ID such as Caller-ID blocking, Call-Trace, and Call-Screening. Pat Cain / cain_p@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 01 May 92 11:12:06 PDT From: Michael.Bender@Eng.Sun.COM Subject: Possible Chicago Scam I just received this in my morning's e-mail and thought that the telecom readership would be interested in commenting on it: DATE: 4-29-92 SECURITY INFORMATION The following telephone number has been "found" on Sun Microsystems, Inc. telephone voice mail systems: 312-296-9000. This number is generated out of the Chicago area and the message associated with the number indicates that the caller was selected as a winner to receive free airline tickets to Las Vegas or Orlando FL. The message was generated at approximately 8:00 pm Pacific Standard Time. This number is believed to be a possible "telephone scam" type of fraud that will generate an automatic charge when accessed by the caller. The charges can be $50.00, to $200.00 per call as soon as the caller connects with the above number. If you find this number on your voice mail please do not call the number listed above, or similiar numbers. Not only will you not receive free tickets, but the corporation will be charged with the call. ----------- Is this similar to the New York numbers that bill you the $200 if you call them from within the metro New York City area, but only the cost of a long distance call from anywhere else? If that's the case, why would this scam shop bother spending their (ill-gotten :-) money calling California when they couldn't collect anything for the call? Here's what I think happened: 1. Their automatic calling equipment was mis-programmed to dial the 415 area code instead of (??) for their target market, which I think would mean that since a machine called a human that would be illegal in California (can anyone veryify this and cite any laws?) 2. The number works similar to the Mystic Marketing number where they get your ANI (but how? are they stupid enough to try to use Caller-ID?) and then somehow match the number that you called from with your address and send you a bill. Pat -- I thought that the last little flood that you had there would have drowned all of the telemarketers and phone scam artists since their main offices would have been underwater after the retaining wall broke :-). [Moderator's Note: His Honor the Mayor has explained this all very well pointing out that both telemarketers and rats are good swimmers and both species will survive, despite their nests being in the sub- basements of many buildings (which is why they are sometimes called boiler room operations.) As to the case at hand, 312-296-9000 is a harmless bunch of dweebs called 'MCS Associates' at 2708 North Halsted Street, Chicago. A nuisance yes, but harmless. 312-296 is just a regular exchange here, working out of the Chicago-Lakeview CO. They call all over the USA. Since we don't have Randy Borow to kick around any more (smile), I can't tell you anything about their calling patterns. You do not get automatically charged for anything when you call; you have to speak with an actual person, buy his pitch, etc. The rule about machines calling humans in California only applies to calls intra-state, since California cannot regulate interstate matters. I suggest you advise 'security' they are full of Gas. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: DID to RS-232 and POTS Box? Date: Fri, 01 May 92 23:22:49 PDT From: Don Jackson I am looking for a box that connects to one or more DID (Direct-Inward-Dial) trunks on one side, has an RS-232 port that can read the incoming DID number, and passes each DID trunk to a single, POTS type line. I'm virtually certain that such a beast exists; anybody know where I could order one? Best regards, Don Jackson don.jackson@eng.sun.com Phone: (415) 336-1713 Sun Microsystems Laboratories Inc. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #357 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06912; 3 May 92 3:12 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18467 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 3 May 1992 01:13:06 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20895 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 3 May 1992 01:12:57 -0500 Date: Sun, 3 May 1992 01:12:57 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199205030612.AA20895@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #358 TELECOM Digest Sun, 3 May 92 01:13:00 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 358 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson L.A. Disturbances and Telecom (Lauren Weinstein) Birth of the Dominican Republic Research Network (Daniel Pimienta) AT&T Trans-Oceanic Ship Sets Cable Installation Record (Nigel Allen) MCI Fiber Cut in Los Angeles and San Diego (Tom Perrine) Toll Free Calls From Israel to USA (Ophir Prusak) AT&T Public Phone 2000 at DFW (Craig R. Watkins) How to Get Netnews From Home? (kbramhil@esoc.bitnet) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 2 May 92 22:22:11 PDT From: lauren@vortex.COM (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: L.A. Disturbances and Telecom Greetings. I can't let statements that imply that all of L.A. is "under attack" pass unchallenged. As usual, media reports (quite naturally) concentrate on the problems, not on areas where life goes on as usual. The further you go from South-Central L.A. (an economically deprived part of town in the downtown area) the more the problems were spotty or non-existent. Yes, there were a couple of incidents in Beverly Hills. Yes, there was a hot spot in Panorama City deep in The Valley. Hollywood definitely had some problems. And there were scattered other incidents in other areas. But to portray the entire city as some sort of war zone is inaccurate. There were vast areas where life went on as usual, with no real sense that anything was going on, other than smoke blowing around widely (even though fires weren't widely spread geographically), non-stop live news coverage on all local channels (which often seemed to be showing folks in the trouble areas where to go for the best looting), and some telecom problems. According to my telco sources, almost all of the problems were caused by overloading. Slow dialtone for sure on Thursday (15-30 seconds much of the time). Trouble with getting interoffice trunks the same day ("all circuits are busy"). Calls could be gotten through with some effort. If people would just WAIT for dialtone, rather than keep hanging up and trying again when they don't get it immediately, they'd have a lot less trouble! By Friday morning, most telecom seemed pretty much back to normal in most West Los Angeles exchanges at least. It is worth noting that by Friday everything was relatively quiet and pretty much over except the shouting, which is bound to go on for quite some time. Many people in the large, unaffected areas of the city (remember, the city of L.A. is a vast place) are finding the continuing nightly city-wide curfew to be pretty silly. Many feel that it has been imposed city-wide only to avoid accusations of discrimination (e.g., why was the curfew only imposed on "poor" areas of the city?). The main effect of the curfew in many areas is that stores are closing around sundown, but there's significant traffic and people wandering about outside the core area of trouble during the evening. The irony is that now that it's essentially over, there are National Guard units being sent in and Marines are "standing by". A little fast action could have avoided a lot of grief for some people. The whole thing could probably have been avoided by some fast action at the scene of the first incident on Wednesday. The presence of military units in the central city now seems to have little point except to act as some great photo opportunities -- which people are taking advantage of by snapping away. I am not saying that there weren't serious problems in some areas. But L.A. is still here, and by and large, except in the specific areas (mostly central city) where there was concentrated trouble, it all mostly looks the same as before, with people already proceeding with their lives. One other thing. As you know, the 213/310 area code split took place six months ago. Saturday (today) was supposed to be the first day that permissive dialing ended and you HAD to dial the correct code to get through. Due to the confusion of the past few days, that cutoff has been postponed for some currently unannounced period of time. --Lauren-- [Moderator's Note: Others have said the same thing, that most of this would never have happened had authorities there made a strong stand from the beginning, with heavy armory if necessary the first night. We here were very lucky to avoid the trouble; perhaps that is because at the beginning, Mayor Daley and the Chief of Police went through the likely neighborhoods here, met with people and denounced the jury. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1992 18:39:10 EST Reply-To: Daniel Pimienta From: Daniel Pimienta Subject: Birth of the Dominican Republic Research Network It's our pleasure to announce the birth of the Dominican Republic Research Network: REDID [Red Dominicana de Intercambio para el Desarrollo] whose Association has been formalized yesterday by 25 founding members representing, directly or indirectly, 23 universities, 62 NGO's, four government agencies and three international agencies. The development of this network presents a set of originalities worth mentioning: 1] As in the case of the Peruvian network [RCP], REDID had followed the stepping process proposed by the "REDALC methodology" of UNION LATINA: -REDID gathers researchers from every type of research institution. -REDID is the result of an open, transparent and democratic process with high level of participation and decision of the end-users. -REDID is supported by several international organizations [Union Latina, Unesco, UNDP]. Special agreements have been made between UNESCO's CRESALC Office in Caracas and Union Latina's REDALC Office in Santo Domingo, to join competencies and efforts. -REDID use a UUCP protocol with gateway to the Internet. User access will be made via PC terminals connected to the national X25 network. 2] REDID users interface the central node with the MULBRI PC program [built on the top of UUPC], in its first large scale experiment. MULBRI is an ongoing development conducted by UNION LATINA to offer a multi-lingual, state of the art, PC based, interface, transparent to the types of networks [already exists a BITNET version for VM/SIMPC users, and there are plans to enhance coverage]. 3] REDID users will received an outstanding training, in July, co-organized by UNESCO and UNION LATINA. This comprehensive workshop, designed for telematics users from the research community, will gather a bunch of specialists with different skills and perspectives. 4] The node is linked to the Puerto Rico's Research Network [CRACIN] which will give it the Internet appearance. A message to USERNAME@REDID.ORG/EDU.DO will reach the UPR2 node in the Internet, then the REDID sub-system in the Codemail node will get it using UUCP protocol. CRACIN accepted to channel the Dominican traffic, free of charge, under a special agreement. 5] Last but not least, for the first time, a National Research Network receives a full range support from a National Telecommunication Company. CODETEL [a GTE subsidiary managing a predominant part of the telecom market in the Dominican Republic], is offering a logical partition inside its commercial e.mail system: the UUCP based CODEMAIL. Research Institutions members of REDID will, at no cost: -gain telephone access to the X25 network [CODEPACK] from anywhere in the country; -gain access via the X25 network to the CODEMAIL system where a limited [but large enough to cover the needs] number of mailboxes will be reserved to them; -have their traffic linked to the Puerto Rico Research Network [a well provisioned volume limit is set]. CODETEL's support stems from its commitment to the national development, but is also the right business answer to the chicken and egg dilemma which prevents the telematic market growth. The agreement will last 18 months. After that period it is expected to see REDID getting its own UUCP node accessible, via Codepack, and to maintain the other parts of the current agreement. Other companies from the industrial world will offer complimentary support to REDID. In particular, another company from the telecom environment AACR [All American Cable and Radio] is preparing the free access to some National Scientific and Technic Data Bases, and another agreement is under study with french Questel for a limited free access to some DB. The number of REDID users is expected to start at 25 and progressively grows toward few hundreds [the estimated figure for the Dominican Republic researcher population]. Part of the methodology and the results should be usable in other developing countries. Similar agreements with the telecom companies should be obtainable in various other places. The findings will be documented within a three months time frame. For more information on REDID and/or national matters: Lucero Arboleda, OREDID!RAIZ!COORDINA@REDID.ORG.DO For more information on REDALC and/or international matters: Daniel Pimienta, UNILAT!RAIZ!PIMIENTA@REDID.ORG.DO PS: A disappointing note to conclude. The initial objective, stated during the REDALC workshop in July, 1991 [when the idea of REDID was crystallized], was to associate the Haitian researchers to the proposed solution and method. Unfortunately, present conditions in Haiti have made this impossible. Daniel Pimienta Tel: (1 809) 689 4973 Asesor Cientifico Union Latina Tel: (1 809) 535 6614 APTD0 2972 fax: (1 809) 535 6646 Santo Domingo telex: 346 0741 Republica Dominicana correo e. ------------------------------ From: Nigel Allen Date: Sat, 02 May 1992 20:00:00 -0400 Subject: AT&T Ship Sets Trans-Oceanic Cable Installation Record Organization: Echo Beach (From {Canadian Sailings}, April 13, 1992, probably taken from an AT&T press release): AT&T ship sets trans-oceanic cable installation record SOUTHAMPTON, England - AT&T's new cable ship, the Global Link, completed its maiden voyage here April 3 after battling snow squalls, rough seas and the threat of waterspouts in the wintery North Atlantic. It marked what was called the longest, fastest single installation of trans-oceanic communications cable. The Global Link installed 5,621 kilometres (3,500 miles) of the next transatlantic fibre-optic cable system, TAT-10, in 21 days. This tops the record set by AT&T's cable ship the Long Lines in 1988 when it installed 5,224 kilometres (3,250 miles) of cable for the transpacific system, TPC-3. The fleet of five cable ships that is operated by AT&T lays claim to the world record for installing undersea telecommunications cable -- more than double its nearest competitors. "We've installed about 177,000 kilometres (109,900 miles) of undersea cable, 51,000 kilometres (32,000 miles) of which is fibre-optic cable. Altogether that's enough to wrap around the equator about four times," said Jim Barrett, vice president of engineering and operations for AT&T Submarine Systems Inc. AT&T also owns four sea plows and a seabed tractor, and has ownership interest in three unmanned remotely operated submersible vehicles used for cable burial and repair operations around the world. Both the Global Link and the Long Lines have the unique AT&T Bell Laboratories-designed linear cable engine that permits the fastest cable-laying speeds in the industry. The Global Link, for example, averaged 6.2 knots on its voyage. Most cable ships install undersea cable at speeds around five knots. The TAT-10 fibre-optic route will directly link the United States with Germany and the Netherlands for the first time. Service on the U.S.-Germany segment is slated for late August, with service on the Netherlands leg of the route due for service in October. AT&T announced service on the TAT-9 fibre-optic route, which links the United States and Canada with the United Kingdom, France and Spain on March 2. From start to finish, the TAT-10 undersea fibre-optic route will be completed in less than half the time a project of this size normally requires. In addition, the Global Link's operations were planned so carefully that the TAT-10 project has required fewer people than usual. A typical trans-oceanic cable operation requires about 100 people, but the Global Link had only 10 AT&T engineers on board, along with 22 ship officers and 57 crew. With the Global Link's deep sea cable operations accomplished, AT&T will now deploy another cable ship it operates to complete the remaining segment of the North Sea undersea cable operations. The AT&T-operated cable ship, the Dock Express 20, will begin working with other vessels to connect with the cable segment left off the northern coast of Scotland by the Global Link. This final leg will require the installation of specially-armored cable over 11 natural gas and oil pipelines in the North Sea. Undersea fibre-optic cable activities are also under way in the Pacific. AT&T's second the cable ship, the Global Sentinel, will begin installing the next fibre-optic transpacific cable, TPC-4, in June. TPC-4, which will link the United States and Canada with Japan, is slated for service this fall. In addition, the Long Lines will begin installing a new fibre-optic route between Hawaii and New Zealand later this year. (end of article) Nigel Allen nigel.allen@canrem.com Canada Remote Systems - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044 ------------------------------ From: tep@tots.Logicon.COM (Tom Perrine) Subject: MCI Fiber Cut in Los Angeles and San Diego Date: 1 May 92 20:14:53 GMT Organization: Logicon, Inc., San Diego, California Our long distance service has been off all day today, and we just found out why ... We have been informed by MCI that their fiber trunk(s) have been cut, presumably by vandals, in at least Los Angeles and San Diego areas. Tom E. Perrine (tep) | tep@Logicon.COM |Voice: +1 619 597 7221 Logicon, Inc. | sun!suntan!tots!tep | or : +1 619 455 1330 4010 Sorrento Valley Blvd| | FAX: +1 619 552 0729 San Diego CA 92121-1498 ------------------------------ From: s1369046@techst02.technion.ac.il (Ophir Prusak) Subject: Toll Free Calling From Israel to USA Reply-To: s1369046@techst02.technion.ac.il (Ophir Prusak) Organization: Technion, Israel Inst. of Technology Date: Fri, 1 May 1992 08:22:27 GMT I recently found out that it is possible to call toll free to the States from Israel by using 177 numbers. (That is the Israeli equivilant to 1-800 ). These numbers are NOT listed anywhere here in Israel. The format for making calls is 177-aaa-xxxx . If I use 906-909 for the aaa I get places in the States. For example 177-906-4304 got me to Gateway. Anyone know where I can get information about such numbers? (The Israeli Phone Company says it knows nothing about this.) Ophir internet : s1369046@techst02.technion.ac.il [Moderator's Note: If these numbers are not published or documented anywhere, and the telco refuses to discuss them, then *how* do you know they are toll-free, and not some routing error, etc? Is it because you have not yet received a bill? PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Craig R. Watkins" Subject: AT&T Public Phone 2000 at DFW Date: 1 May 92 12:39:39 EST Organization: HRB Systems, Inc. I'm at DFW airport at an AT&T Public Phone 2000. It's the one that costs about $2-$3 / ten minutes to use the terminal. I, however, am on my laptop plugged into the Data Port in the front of the phone. AT&T claims no charge to use the Data Port and I believe them since I just made an 800 call. Nice to have an available RJ11! This phone is opposite Continental gate 11. Craig R. Watkins crw@icf.hrb.com HRB Systems, Inc. +1 814 238-4311 ------------------------------ Date: Thursday, 30 Apr 1992 14:01:11 CET From: KBRAMHIL@ESOC.bitnet Subject: How to Get Netnews From Home? I'm leaving this place in a week's time and would like to continue to get netnews. I have a PC and realise I need a modem and a phone point but what do I need to do then? I couldn't afford to dial USA from the UK to read netnews. I would think it is possible to get the service via some local place to where I'll be in England. If you know how to get the service and how much it'd cost please E-mail me before 8th May. Thanks. [Moderator's Note: You'll have to subscribe to some public access Unix site in your locality. Perhaps someone can help you locate one. Good luck in your search -- we hope you can stick around. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #358 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28980; 3 May 92 23:17 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25569 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 3 May 1992 21:06:19 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17907 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 3 May 1992 21:06:10 -0500 Date: Sun, 3 May 1992 21:06:10 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199205040206.AA17907@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #359 TELECOM Digest Sun, 3 May 92 21:06:02 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 359 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson AT&T vs. F&F, ROA, and 900MHz Phones (Steve Kass) Re: (519) 884/885/886 Going DMS (David Leibold) Bell Canada Neighbourhood Calling Plan (David Leibold) Two-line Phones and Answering Machines (Mitch Wagner) Important Phone Numbers (was Re: White House Telecomms) (Andrew Green) Wiring Question in Old Telephone (Andrew Green) The Beeper Scam That Isn't (Adam Gaffin, FIDO via Jack Decker) Canadian (Toronto) Long Distance Alternatives (Peter Sleggs) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 3 May 1992 12:55 EST From: SKASS@drew.drew.edu Subject: AT&T vs. F&F, ROA, and 900MHz Phones Here's some news on phone service and phones you might have missed: You've seen AT&T's anti-Friends and Family (TM) commercials, berating MCI for wanting your loved ones' phone numbers? Apparently business associates aren't so sacred. AT&T wants _their_ numbers, so you can get a 20% discount calling them if they are AT&T customers. The advertising folks at 222-0400 should connect up with the advertising folks at 222-0300 and try to present a consistent advertising campaign. I'm not a businessman, but I wouldn't really want to AT&T calling my associates to tell them if _they_ use AT&T, _I'll_ save money. On another front, Reach Out America is increasing its evening discounts to 40% for the month of May. They don't mention that in most cases this will make it cheaper to make calls during the evening period (5-10pm Sunday-Friday) than during the night period (and _much_ cheaper than calling those coming-soon 1-700 EasyReach(TM) numbers). Finally, the 900MHz cordless phones have hit the market. A full page ad in today's {New York Times} touts the _Tropez_ 20-channel 900 MHz phone with a half-mile range. Only $299, and it's "fully digital," whatever that means. I hope some Telecom readers take a test drive for us. Steve Kass, Mathematics and Computer Science Drew University, Madison, NJ 07940 201-408-3614 skass@drew.drew.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1992 23:55:34 -0400 From: Dave Leibold Subject: Re: (519) 884/885/886 Going DMS ken@Thinkage.On.CA (Ken Dykes) writes: > Well, what is probably one (if not THEE :-) last crossbar era switches > (definitly not digital) left in Bell Canada Ontario territory is going > digital. This is the switch I have been on for most of my life. It Actually, there are plenty of Xbars still left in Bell Canada territory ... Bell's Switching Equipment Modernization (SEM) program is supposed to have 97% of local access lines under DMS switching by 1996. Some Xbars in Toronto and other cities are scheduled to cut over to DMS this year, according to the current Construction Program Review documentation. > services area 519 prefixes 884,885,886 This switch has always provided > good clean strong connections and true to my nature I am nervous about > the change (I don't NEED silly Class features) if I still get good > clean strong connections, fine, and I presume the DMS switch going in > does have a good reputation when in capable hands. From my Waterloo days, the "good clean strong connections" weren't worth much if you couldn't get something other than reorder tones when calling long distance ... > When dialing to other exchanges you may find a noticeable silent > pause from the time you finish dialing until the telephone rings. > This is caused by the transition from one type of switching equipment > to another. When checked a few years back, the 884/5/6 numbers still used dial pulsing on the trunks to the 74x exchange downtown Kitchener, even well after 74x was cut over to DMS (calls to New Hamburg 519-662 are completed within a few seconds; calls to 74x used to take about 5-7 seconds). This should hopefully be changed by now, or at least in May. SS7 should also be coming one of these years ... > If You Have Ident-A-Call: > If you have the Ident-A-Call feature > [multiple numbers, distinctive ringing, one hard line] > you will notice a change in the duration of the distinctive ringing code. They had Identacall on an Xbar?!?!? > Rural-line Service > If you call someone with rual-line service you will no longer hear a > coded ring (for example, one long and one short ring). Instead you > will hear a single ring, repeated until the phone is answered. The > person on the rural line will hear the coded ring as usual. That is, someone with rural-line service on a DMS ... calling a party line on another technology would likely yield a different result. > [or *to* you. :-); Another local switch gave away free call-waiting to > *all* lines over a year ago. Anyone using a modem got nailed by the > waiting tones since they were unaware of how "nice" Ma Bell was being > to them. Even when people figured out they needed the disable-waiting Perhaps you or some of the Waterloo folks should alert DCS, MFCF, etc to this development ... also get some press over to Imprint, Gazette, mathNEWS, etc to warn of impending modem disruptions. Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:250/98 INTERNET: Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 May 1992 00:12:26 -0400 From: Dave Leibold Subject: Bell Canada Neighbourhood Calling Plan Bell Canada has a massive plan before the CRTC to expand local calling service in 534 communities in Ontario and Quebec. The catch is that about half the communities would be subject to higher local rates (which translates to higher net local revenues). The idea is that neighbouring exchanges (mostly in smaller communities) that are presently long distance from each other could have local calling privileges added. Bell hopes this plan can receive regulatory approval by October with a four-year implementation plan thereafter. dleibold1@attmail.com dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.fidonet.org (** new fidonet.org address! **) Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:250/98 INTERNET: Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ From: wagner@utoday.com (Mitch Wagner) Subject: Two-Line Phones and Answering Machines Organization: Open Systems Today (formerly UNIX Today!), CMP Publications Date: Sun, 03 May 92 15:25:14 GMT I was hoping to tap into the collective wisdom of the group here for a moment. I'll be setting up a remote office for myself in Cambridge, Mass., soon, and will be looking to set up two phone lines, with the first one to "hunt" to the second when the first is in use. A colleague who has had such an arrangement for three years said he has tried a number of combinations, and the best one is this: buy two phones and two answering machines. The reason is that, when the second line rings and I'm on the first line, I will be able to simply hit the MUTE button on the first line and monitor the second call coming from the answering machine. If it turns out to be someone important or difficult to reach on the second line, I can get rid of the first call and take the second. (Not the nicest thing in the world, I know, but hey, that's life.) I said this sounded great, but why two answering machines? He said that the double-line answering machines that he had shopped for lacked features that allow you to rewind and review messages from a remote phone, and were generally shoddily made and broke down. As a matter of fact, he told me, only the AT&T answering machine was able to stand up under heavy use of this type. Okay, said I, but why two phones? Why not a two-line phone? At this point, he hemmed and hawed and then admitted that he'd thought it through a while back and was sure there was a reason, but had completely forgotten it. So I turn to the collective wisdom of comp.dcom.telecom. What sort of two-line phone system do I need to set up here? Mitch Wagner wagner@utoday.com CIS:70212,51 GEnie:MITCH.WAGNER ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 May 1992 12:16:59 CDT From: acg@hermes.dlogics.com Reply-To: acg@hermes.dlogics.com Subject: Important Phone Numbers (was Re: White House Telecomms) Here's the text of one of those "Important Phone Numbers" business cards as I received it a while ago. The customer's own name and number appear at the end of the list. Punctuation of numbers is shown as it appeared on the card. (Note that it's a little bit out of date!) IMPORTANT PHONE NUMBERS of the world GEORGE BUSH 1/202-456-1414 President, USA, Washington MIKHAIL S. GORBACHEV 007/095-295-9051 General Secretary, Communist Party, USSR, Moscow ELIZABETH II 00441/930-4832 Queen of England, London JOHN PAUL II 00396/6982 Pope, Vatican FRANCOIS MITTERAND 00331/26151000 President, France, Paris (...followed by your name and number here...) Andrew C. Green Datalogics, Inc. Internet: acg@dlogics.com 441 W. Huron UUCP: ..!uunet!dlogics!acg Chicago, IL 60610 FAX: (312) 266-4473 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 May 1992 12:36:09 CDT From: acg@hermes.dlogics.com Reply-To: acg@hermes.dlogics.com Subject: Wiring Question in Old Telephone My father has recently bought two genuine Western Electric telephones at a garage sale, and I'm hoping that someone in Telecom-land can answer a question on the internal wiring. Both phones are the steel-base standard-issue home variety that columnist Dave Barry has said could be used as murder weapons ("Try that with today's phones!"), both finished in Regurgitation Beige color. One is a Princess touchtone circa 1972, the other a touchtone wall phone from 1980. On testing, I found that the wall phone wouldn't generate any DTMF tones with the keypad. I took it apart, hoping to find something obvious such as a broken wire, but nothing seemed wrong. I DID, however, find two wires disconnected and capped with insulating sleeves; one was gray, the other was gray with red striping. On the theory that the keypad might have been disconnected for incoming calls only, I called the previous owner, who had thoughtfully left his phone number on the telephone. He hasn't called back yet. ;-) Brainstorm! I opened the Princess phone for comparison, and found the same two disconnected wires. Now what? Can anyone tell me what those two wires are for? I'd also appreciate any pointers for troubleshooting the keypad on the wall phone if it's not going to be brain surgery. Response via Email will be fine; I'll forward a summary to anyone else who is interested. Thanks, Andrew C. Green Datalogics, Inc. Internet: acg@dlogics.com 441 W. Huron UUCP: ..!uunet!dlogics!acg Chicago, IL 60610 FAX: (312) 266-4473 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 May 92 16:41:31 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: The Beeper Scam That Isn't This message comes from the Fidonet FCC echomail conference: Original From: Adam Gaffin Subject: THE BEEPER SCAM THAT ISN'T Middlesex News, Framingham, Mass., 4/27/92 Beeper call-back scam rings like urban legend. By Adam Gaffin NEWS STAFF WRITER It sounds like the latest high-tech scam. But it could be just another urban legend. At least one local high-tech company is now warning its staff and customers about calling certain numbers that flash on their beepers or pagers. The memo says that somebody has taken to calling known beeper and pager numbers asking their users to call back. But the return number is a pay-per-call number that charges users' phone accounts $3.50 as soon as they connect, even if they hang up immediately, according to the memo. "The phone company allows the charge to be immediate, that is, no message that gives you a chance to hang up before charges start, if the charge is less than $3.51," the memo says. But a spokesman for New England Telephone says the phone company knows of no such scams and that company regulations require any service charging more than $3 to let a caller hang up without being charged. "We are not aware of any fraud that is taking place in the New England area," spokesman Robert Mudge said. Besides, of the four exchanges listed in the memo -- 540, 550, 940, 950 -- only 940 and 550 are in use in Massachusetts, Mudge said. The story, like others that have appeared in recent months, apparently evolved from some cases in New York City over the past couple of years in which the ploy really was tried, according to Steven Marcus, a spokesman for New York Telephone. Marcus said he has gotten calls from people across the country in recent days concerned about the alleged scam. The warnings have also popped up periodically over the past few months on the international Usenet computer network. One of the exchanges frequently listed, 540, is used for "premium pay" services only in New York City, Marcus said. Unlike 900 numbers, which are offered by long-distance companies that serve the entire country, 540 and other local exchanges are provided by regional phone companies, which are barred by court order from offering national services. Marcus said that even if a Massachusetts caller did somehow get connected to a New York 540 number, he would not be billed for more than the cost of a regular long-distance call to the city. This is because regional phone companies, such as New York and New England Telephone, do not share information about rates for billing users of these premium-pay services. "I am totally puzzled" by the stories from non-New Yorkers, Marcus said. Marcus said that in the few cases New York Telephone has dealt with, the company succeeded in getting the company involved to stop. The practice violates state-approved company regulations that require providers of such services to detail their costs in ads, he said, adding that the company considers leaving a pay number on a beeper to be advertising. TBBS v2.1/NM * Origin: Fred the Middlesex News Computer, Framingham, Mass. (1:322/190) -------------- Jack Decker jack@myamiga.mixcom.com FidoNet 1:154/8 ------------------------------ Subject: Canadian (Toronto) Long Distance Alternatives From: peters@beltrix.guild.org (Peter Sleggs) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1992 11:32:50 -0400 Organization: Bellatrix Systems Corp., Mississauga, ONT Canada As requested by a couple of people here, and of possibly limited use to those outside of the Toronto dialing area. I've CC'd these people directly so if you feel this is too limited, drop it in the bitbucket. However one of the requests was from someone with relatives here so ... If anyone who signs up mentions that I refered them I get a credit on my account, no one need do so but I'd have no objections either :) I've run out of time so this is going off as is, I'll followup if there are any developments. Uniglobe Telecom 3390 Midland Av. Unit 11 & 12 Scraborough Ontario M1V 4V7 Customer Service 416 412 1332 They offer a service that can reduce the long distance charges, they claim up to 33% discounts, on calls to Canada, USA and International. The Sample savings table shows an average for their priority plus package of 28% to Canada and USA. Sample rates: Destination Bell rate Priority Plus rate Miami $0.55/min $0.40/min United Kingdom $1.83/min $1.57/min Montreal $0.39/min $0.28/min The system requires that you dial their access number enter your PIN then dial the long distance number you want. Regular users can have their phone number programmed into the system so it will avoid the requirement for the PIN _from that number_. (Note 1) They offer several packages and aparrently can customise a package for large customers I dealt with a customer service rep Dolf Chow at 496-1447, a little bit pushy but he was fairly easy to stall while I thought things over. They set up two accounts for me -- one personal and one business. It took about two weeks and I got the information in the mail the Thursday before Easter. I tried the personal account on Saturday. The initial voice prompts are a bit scratchy and could sound better; entering the PIN gives the second prompt and you are off to the races. Voice quality on calls was no different than calling via Bell Canada as far as I could tell. PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: 1. They only allowed six rings before dropping the call. 2. PIN for the company did not work. 3. They did not recognise the buisness line automatically. I called in on the customer service line and very quickly was passed on to the techies as it was 'a technical problem'. The tech told me a) the six rings limit was deliberate and when I complained and explained that it was causing problems he said it would be changed to a higher limit (10) I suggested higher as some answering machines need more to turn on. It appears that it has been changed(04/26 was my last try). The PIN problem he said he'd have to check into and get back to me, he called back about 15 minutes later to tell me the letter had the wrong PIN, and gave me the correct one. (NOTE 1) The problem with the ANI was that it had not yet been programmed but should be in place by May 1st. When I signed up there was a $24.95 fee, that was offset by 6 $5 vouchers that they were including, so at least if you can keep it going for 5 months it wont cost to sign up (offer may have ended by now). I have yet to try with a V.32bis connetion but I've used it for fax with no problems. peters@beltrix.guild.org or torag!beltrix!peters ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #359 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29736; 3 May 92 23:37 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06680 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 3 May 1992 21:46:52 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19543 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 3 May 1992 21:46:44 -0500 Date: Sun, 3 May 1992 21:46:44 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199205040246.AA19543@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #360 TELECOM Digest Sun, 3 May 92 21:46:45 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 360 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Moderator's Surprise (TELECOM Moderator) Re: Moderator's Surprise (Steve Forrette) Re: Moderator's Surprise (Bill Coleman) Re: Moderator's Surprise (John R. Levine) Re: Moderator's Surprise (Rop Gonggrijp) Re: Moderator's Surprise (Les Bartel) Re: Moderator's Surprise (Andy Sherman) Re: Moderator's Surprise (Peter da Silva) Re: Moderator's Surprise (Jack Decker) Re: Moderator's Surprise (Sam C. Nicholson) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: TELECOM Moderator (telecom@eecs.nwu.edu) Subject: Re: Moderator's Surprise Date: Sun, 03 May, 1992 20:00:00 CST This issue of the Digest is devoted entirely to various replies to the (original) message here which dicussed toll fraud by a correspondent in the Netherlands. In the next issue of the Digest, I'll run a long article by a victim of phreaks here in the USA ... in area 206 to be precise, where the 'friend' of our UK correspondent was arranging the connections to 800 numbers. The responses were numerous. Several of the most representative are included here. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 92 01:38:11 pdt From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Moderator's Surprise Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA In article J. Brad Hicks writes: > Let's suppose that there are maybe 1000 phreaks in this country who > have the technical know-how to bypass the telcos' billing systems and > make free calls. Let's further imagine that all 1000 of them piled > onto the system at once. Since most of 'em are students or people who > work for a living, to get 'em all on at once you'll have to move it to > off-peak time. Do you really think that at off-peak times that any > part of the telephone network is under enough load that it can't > handle another 1000 calls? That's why they have off-peak pricing! So > even in the worst case scenario, the phreaks aren't adding anything to > the telcos' costs; they have to provide that equipment to cover peak > demand periods. If it were only so simple. In the simple of case of IXC hacking, the IXC has to pay real money to the LEC on each end of the call, even if it is off-peak. The IXC may incur no marginal cost to carry its part of an off-peak call, but it looses real money by having to pay the LEC. Also, what about the case of international calls? Certainly may of these phreaks will want to cash in on their skills (especially if it is not illegal!) They can sell their "call setup" service to people wanting to call expensive foreign lands. Again, the IXC looses big bucks to the foreign PTT. Oh, by the way, when are you next going on vacation? I've always wanted to visit your town, and I figured that I could just stay at your place, with or without your permission. Since you'll be gone, and I'll clean up after myself, there's no cost to you, so I'm sure you won't be offended. Do you have pets? Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com, I do not speak for my employer. ------------------------------ From: clmn@midway.uchicago.edu (Bill Coleman) Subject: Re: Moderator's Surprise Reply-To: clmn@midway.uchicago.edu Organization: University of Chicago Department of Economics Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1992 16:51:19 GMT In article mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@ mhs.attmail.com writes: (and PAT replies): > [Moderator's Note: How do the Master Card franchisees like getting > hacked, Brad? I'll bet they don't mind at all if strange people roam > around in their computer all night, do they? And isn't it true, Brad, > that one Master Card operation got hit by a credit card fraud ring a > couple years ago which had its origin with a lady here in Chicago who > taught young hacklings how to steal both phone service and merchandise > on credit card numbers hacked from the system? I'm surprised to hear > an employee of a credit card billing center defend that sort of > behavior. I don't expect much else from our correspondent with 'nl' in > his address, but your comments are surprising. Anyway, *what difference* > does it make how busy or slow telco happens to be at the time ... > don't their property rights count for anything? PAT] Pat is missing the point. Brad pointed out that, at least if they number below some level, hackers do not impose marginal costs upon the phone network. He's right. Pat's analogy to MasterCard is completely inapt, since hacking MasterCard requires the issuing bank to shell out cash. Another poster made a much better analogy; namely, that of people who sneak into a movie theater. No marginal cost is imposed. Now, Pat is 100% correct that property rights ought to be respected, and vendors are entitled to payment whether or not a marginal cost is imposed. Furthermore, the absence of marginal cost is true only up to a point. If it's too easy to hack, so many peoplewill do it that the networks will both lose revenues and experience pressure on capacity. Without conceding that hacking should be legal, I do think Brad made the valid point that, absent a marginal cost being imposed on the telco, enforcement of the law ought to be a low priority. Bill Coleman ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Moderator's Surprise Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 30 Apr 92 17:45:13 EDT (Thu) From: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) TELECOM Moderator noted: > To [phone phreaks], telco is a nameless, faceless big corporation, > therefore fair game for their criminal activities. PAT] In the Netherlands, telco isn't a nameless faceless big corporation. It's a nameless faceless part of the Post Office, a nameless faceless part of the government. No wonder people don't feel guilty about cheating them, it's just like jumping through special interest tax loopholes. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl PS: Hi, Seth. ------------------------------ From: rop@hacktic.nl (Rop Gonggrijp) Subject: Re: Moderator's Surprise Date: 1 May 92 5:8:48 GMT Organization: Hack-Tic Magazine > [Moderator's Note: How do the Master Card franchisees like getting > hacked, Brad? I'll bet they don't mind at all if strange people roam > around in their computer all night, do they? And isn't it true, Brad, > that one Master Card operation got hit by a credit card fraud ring a > couple years ago which had its origin with a lady here in Chicago who > taught young hacklings how to steal both phone service and merchandise > on credit card numbers hacked from the system? I'm surprised to hear > an employee of a credit card billing center defend that sort of > behavior. I don't expect much else from our correspondent with 'nl' in > his address, but your comments are surprising. Anyway, *what difference* > does it make how busy or slow telco happens to be at the time ... > don't their property rights count for anything? PAT] PAT, I've read the message that you responded to, and I cannot find any 'defending' of 'that sort of behavior'. Your comments on the 'correspondent with .nl in his address' suggest that you put your own values over those of someone else. The person that you responded to is not defending Bill, he's just saying that he sees no 'great evil' in what Bill is doing. By the way: While you worry about the moral state of affairs here in Holland PAT, L.A. is on fire. (explicitly NO smiles here!) Rop Gonggrijp (rop@hacktic.nl), editor of | fax: +31 20 6900968 Hack-Tic Magazine (only on paper, only in Dutch) | VMB: +31 20 6001480 *100# [Moderator's Note: You are correct on at least two counts: Yes, I put my own values over those of others *where the conduct of my own affairs is concerned*; I am not easily cowed into keeping my values to myself and not sharing them with others. And yes, the City of Angels was being plundered and looted at the time you wrote me. While it is true that some of the violence was due to the Rodney King affair, many or most of the looters were mere opportunists; people who saw a great opportunity to violate the property rights of others with impunity, and be interviewed by the jackasses on television in the process. Some, when asked about King did not even recognize the name! PAT] ------------------------------ From: b11!lester@naomi.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Les Bartel) Subject: Re: Moderator's Surprise Reply-To: b11!lester@naomi.b23b.ingr.com Organization: Dazix, An Intergraph Company Date: Fri, 1 May 1992 15:18:20 GMT In article , mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@ mhs.attmail.com writes: > Let's suppose that there are maybe 1000 phreaks in this country who > have the technical know-how to bypass the telcos' billing systems and > make free calls. Let's further imagine that all 1000 of them piled > onto the system at once. Since most of 'em are students or people who > work for a living, to get 'em all on at once you'll have to move it to > off-peak time. Do you really think that at off-peak times that any > part of the telephone network is under enough load that it can't > handle another 1000 calls? That's why they have off-peak pricing! So > even in the worst case scenario, the phreaks aren't adding anything to > the telcos' costs; they have to provide that equipment to cover peak > demand periods. One point that I haven't seen brought up here is that if the phreakers are not stopped, word would get around and those 1000 phreaks will multiply. This will eventually cause the phone company to have to add more equipment to handle the calls or catch and prosecute the offenders. So, if they go on a prosecution binge every now and then, people won't abuse the system as much. Even if the amount of damage done by one individual is almost nothing, multiply that by hundreds of thousands, and you begin to have real losses. Les ------------------------------ From: andys@ulysses.att.com (Andy Sherman) Subject: Re: Moderator's Surprise Date: Fri, 01 May 92 13:39:04 EDT On 29 Apr 92 13:26:10 GMT, mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@mhs.attmail. com said: > Let's suppose that there are maybe 1000 phreaks in this country who > have the technical know-how to bypass the telcos' billing systems and > make free calls. Let's further imagine that all 1000 of them piled > onto the system at once. Since most of 'em are students or people who > work for a living, to get 'em all on at once you'll have to move it to > off-peak time. Do you really think that at off-peak times that any > part of the telephone network is under enough load that it can't > handle another 1000 calls? That's why they have off-peak pricing! So > even in the worst case scenario, the phreaks aren't adding anything to > the telcos' costs; they have to provide that equipment to cover peak > demand periods. Pat's reply to you covered the fact that telco's have property rights just like credit card companies. But even without that, your assumptions just don't hold water in a post-divestiture world. Let's face it, nobody is going to phreak local calls, they are going to phreak interexchange or international calls. These calls involve multiple carriers. The fact that a phreak manages to get the billing for the minutes to go off into the ozone does not prevent the local exchange carrier from collecting access charges from the interexchange carrier. That's real money, Brad, leaving the accounts of the IXC and entering the accounts of the LEC. If the call is international, add to the LEC access charge the settlements charge to the PTT on the foreign end of the call. That is usually a substantial charge, much bigger than the LEC access charge, which isn't peanuts. That is real money leaving the IXC account and entering the PTT account. If that's a victimless crime, then what are the shareholders of AT&T, MCI, and Sprint, chopped liver? ------------------------------ From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Moderator's Surprise Organization: Taronga Park BBS Date: Sat, 2 May 1992 04:08:02 GMT In article mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@ mhs.attmail.com writes: > Let's suppose that there are maybe 1000 phreaks in this country who > have the technical know-how to bypass the telcos' billing systems and > make free calls. Off-phreak pricing, eh? (sorry, I couldn't resist) How to justify this message: With 1000 phreaks, you probably won't have any problem. With 1000 people littering, you probably don't have a problem. With 1000 people sneaking into movie theatres, you probably don't have a problem. With no social sanction, and an immediate profit, it's not going to remain 1000 phreaks, litterers, or sneaks for very long. Pretty soon you DO have a problem. I suspect that it's not going to remain legal for very long. > Littering is illegal. Shall we hire as many cops as it takes to catch > every litterer, and fine them enough to pay the costs? Nah, but you can catch enough to make sure there's a reasonable expectation of a social sanction if you habitually litter. Low cost, low return, but it does cut down on the number of people you need to keep the streets clean. > Don't forget those social costs. Remember, the guys who started Apple > Computers are widely reported to have built their expertise (and > possibly raised some of their startup capital) by blatant phreaking, > the sale of blue boxes. Yeh, and look at Apple Computer today. George Orwell would be proud of their intellectual property stance. Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS. +1 713 568 0480/1032 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 May 92 16:04:17 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: Moderator's Surprise In article Pat (the Moderator) noted: > [Moderator's Note: The same ethic does not apply in the minds of > hackerphreaks because the physical size of telco prevents them from > seeing it as a collection of human beings working for a living (or > stockholders) who are victimized everytime they (the hackerphreaks) rip > off service. To them, telco is a nameless, faceless big corporation, > therefore fair game for their criminal activities. PAT] Pat, on the one hand, you are correct in calling it theft. But on the other hand, one might ask the question "Why do some people feel that it's okay to steal from the telcos when they would not steal from a home or a store?" I'm not coming to these people's defense, but I would submit that it's possible that there's an element of "as ye sow, so shall ye reap" here. In my opinion, the telephone companies have not played fair with their customers. There have been numerous examples of this posted in the Digest (first example that comes to mind: charging extra for Touch Tone service. There are probably even better examples). The problem is not helped by the fact that the local telcos are a monopoly, and therefore customers have nowhere else to turn when they are dissatisfied. And at least some telcos tend to have a real attitude problem ... they know you don't have other choices, and their not above gloating about in, in their own way. None of this excuses the ripoffs, but if you are asking the question "Why are the telephone companies the target of this sort of victimization more than other types of companies", I would say that in some cases it is the chickens coming home to roost. Of course, there will always be some who will try to rip off the phone company, but my guess would be that once full local competition arrives, it will be FAR less socially acceptable to phreak (even among the groups now inclined to do so, e.g. technically-knowledgeable college students). To any phreaks reading this: The PROPER outlet for your frustration with the local telcos is to lobby your PUC and/or state legislators (or the equivalent thereof in your location) to change the regulations to allow local competition and/or to put a stop to whatever telco practices you feel are wrong, and NOT to try to use illegal means to get compensation for whatever you may think the telco "owes" you. Jack Decker jack@myamiga.mixcom.com FidoNet 1:154/8 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Moderator's Surprise Date: Sun, 03 May 92 20:53:37 -0400 From: scion@pblx.knox.tn.us In article PAT notes: > To them, telco is a nameless, faceless big corporation, therefore > fair game for their criminal activities. PAT While I agree that the property right of all must be upheld to make them worthwhile for us little folks, and I am more sympathetic to the LD providers now that they have to slug it out daily in order to make a living, and I do NOT advocate any illegal activities in opposing the power of the LEC ... I do empathise with anyone who wants to rip the daylights out of their big, faceless, over-fed LEC. Around here, they buy our PUC wholesale and add only services that are easy to market, cheap to provide, and don't cause a stink if they overcharge. To be fair; Some of the nicest and most helpful folks that I have met work for our LEC. And I don't mean to disparage their help in many matters. But the sum of the whole of them and their managers is a frightful mess which is impossible with which to work unless one is a fatter, meaner corporation. To conclude, we are fair game for their activities, some of which are criminal. Sam C. Nicholson, scion@pblx.knox.tn.us [Moderator's Note: In the next issue of the Digest Sunday evening, a victim of phreaks speaks out. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #360 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02737; 4 May 92 0:44 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00516 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 3 May 1992 22:32:28 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03273 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 3 May 1992 22:32:19 -0500 Date: Sun, 3 May 1992 22:32:19 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199205040332.AA03273@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #361 TELECOM Digest Sun, 3 May 92 22:32:20 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 361 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Toll Fraud is NOT a Victimless Crime (A Note Sent to Moderator) Re: Hang-up Pirates (John Higdon) Re: Hang-up Pirates (Wolf Paul) Re: Enforcing Phone Bill Payment (Jack Adams) Re: Enforcing Phone Bill Payment (Laurence Chiu) Re: Toll Free Calling From Israel to USA (Warren Burstein) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 3 May 1992 17:21:27 -0700 (PDT) From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Toll Fraud is NOT a Victimless Crime [Moderator's Note: A message received recently. PAT] Pat - This is for publication, just file off my fingerprints. Sorry it took so long to get around to this, its been hectic here. [Moderator's Note: Okay, this *one time only*. Usually I do not like to run articles without names, and I flatly refuse to run anonymous articles which show up here with the header diddled with, etc. I will do it on rare occassion provided *I* know who sent it, and provided there is some good explanation for the privacy request as there was in this case. PAT] ----------- Pat asked me to write an article about a personal experience I have recently had with toll fraud. Because of the embarrassing nature of the problem, and to avoid having more phreakers target us, I have asked that Pat not reveal my name, or the name of my employer. I work in the communications department of a large Pacific Northwest organization (206 area code). In March, we were hit for thousands of dollars in toll fraud. The fraud will have a real impact on our department, our ability to service the rest of our organization, and the product that we provide to our customers. As is always the case, the cost of the clean up may be greater than the cost of the problem. Those of you who are out there stealing long distance services, please stop. It hurts a lot of people. If you find, or hear about, a hole in someone's telecom network, please let the owner know. Don't tell me about the phreaker providing a valuable service by pointing out flaws in a network, that is just a second class rationalization for your harmful actions. In February our department began receiving complaints about phone calls made by automated devices. These calls all seemed to come in during late afternoon early evening hours. When the called party answered, all that was heard was a modem/fax like tone. We determined that the incoming calls seemed to be moving sequentially through our phone lines. We tried to transfer some of these calls to a modem and a fax machine. The modem would not handshake with the tone. The fax machine printed a "1" in the middle of a two inch page. While I don't know if these calls are related to our fraud, the timing makes them suspicious. Shortly after that, I read a TELECOM Digest article by a Canadian/English author that mentioned a "friend" in the 206 area code who was helping the author reach American 800 numbers. The impression I received was that the "206 friend" had established some kind of trunk to trunk conference on a standard phone line. The foreign author would call the "friend's" phone number, and the "friend" would pick up another line, dial a requested 800 number, and allow the author to complete the call. For those new to the Digest of Telecom, persons outside of the United States are generally not able to call US 800 numbers for a variety of technical and billing reasons. This is doubtless frustrating to people who get American periodicals and want to order things from companies who only list an 800 number. I thought the "friend" was a kind hearted person indeed. Then I read (Pat's) Moderator's Note at the bottom of the article. (In the past, these notes have caused me to question Pat's objectivity. This note saved us tens of thousands of dollars. I will question no more.) Pat stated that this "friend" was probably an unrestricted DISA port, and that some poor company's phone lines were being used without their knowledge or permission. Note -- DISA stands for Direct Inward System Access. It is a feature available on many phone systems, including the systems that we use. Our organization uses relatively small phone systems at each location, rather than one large PBX. DISA allows a caller to dial a phone number that is answered by the phone system. Generally the phone system answers with dial tone. Callers may then dial the intercom number of someone on the system, getting a call directly to an internal party without having to take up the time of a receptionist. In some cases, the incoming caller can also dial "9", get an outside line, and dial a long distance phone call. Most companies restrict this feature in some way. The modem/fax calls that we had received, coupled with Pat's note formed a critical mass when a co-worker stated that she had a complaint from one of her user groups about some weird calls on their February phone bill. As the amount was only about $300.00, no one was really too concerned. There had been a disgruntled employee recently terminated from that group, and this was thought to be the explanation. I asked the co-worker if that group had DISA. It did. When I tested the DISA, I found it to be unrestricted. I then tested all 30 systems with DISA, and found eight of them were completely unrestricted, a violation of our internal policies. By this time it was late March. At my request, Pat asked Digest readers to tell him the phone number of the "friend in 206." No one volunteered any information. Then came the March long distance bill. I sent the message below to Pat. [Moderator's Interuption: Before we get into that, I should say that I did receive one message -- from the UK writer whose 'friend' was making those calls. He merely repeated a number which had already come to your attention ... PAT] ----------------- Pat- The gruesome truth is in. Our DISA was being hit for toll fraud. The initial report that I received was that calls were coming from a 702 number in Reno, going to Canada. This seems backwards to me, but I will know more later. On the one system where we were alerted to the problem, there are several thousand dollars worth of fraud. It appears that they only found the last line in a five line hunt group. I am so glad that they didn't get the lead number. I still don't know if they found any of the other unprotected systems. I am pretty upset with the person who left them open; I can't believe the head in the sand attitude that some people have. I can't count the number of times I have seen warnings in professional journals, or even the general press, about guarding DISA ports. Her reaction to this problem was a sort of "huh?" In any case, thanks for your assistance in helping us try to find the leaks. The Digest saved us thousands of bucks. If I hadn't seen the article from the guy with the "friend in 206," coupled with your commentary, I probably wouldn't have started closing the holes until this month's bill came in. As fraud tends to grow every month, this probably would have become a REAL problem. In any case, I will never again question the placement of your Moderator's Notes. :) If you happen to hear of any other potential problems like this, please let me know. ----------- I really doubt that we would have figured out the problem in March without the Digest. By the time we would have received it in April, the charges would probably have been astronomical. Because of the way the charges appeared on our bill, we may not have figured out that we had a DISA leak for even another month. Pat's comment really saved us. Thank you Pat. To the phreaks: Shame on you. If you would like to send a message to me, and if Pat is willing, please send it through him. Burned in 206. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 May 92 11:08 PDT From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Hang-up Pirates polk@girtab.usc.edu (Corinna Polk) writes: > I'd call PacBell to ask them, but everytime I try to ask them any > questions they get real suspicious and want my name and home phone > before they search for anyone who might know any answers. Well, my Pac*Bell residential rep, who already HAS my number and is always suspicious of me :-), says that CLASS should start becoming available sometime in third quarter of this year. My understanding is that it will be offered simultaneously in the Bay Area and in the Los Angeles area. There is not a chance in Hades that GTE will put it on line before Pac*Bell. First, that is not the GTE way. Second, the hold up is not technical but regulatory. GTE will not get the go-ahead before Pac*Bell, since GTE always uses the "wait and see" approach to all regulatory matters. (Ask 976 providers about that!) John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Wolf.Paul@rcvie.co.at (Wolf Paul) Subject: Re: Hang-up Pirates Reply-To: Wolf.Paul@rcvie.co.at (Wolf Paul) Organization: Alcatel Austria - Elin Research Center, Vienna Date: Sun, 03 May 1992 10:34:59 GMT In article linc@tongue1.Berkeley.EDU (Linc Madison) writes: > Evidently, in China it is customary for the CALLED party to first > identify him/herself and begin the conversation -- a protocol that is > entirely foreign to Americans. As far as I am aware, in most of Europe, too, it is customary for the called party to answer the phone with some sort of identification. In England, a lot of people answer the phone with their phone number. Thus, when I call my In-Laws, they'll answer, "Four-Two-Five-One-Eight" although you're still left guessing whether you reached the right area code :-) ... In the German-speaking countries as well as elsewhere, it is quite customary to answer the phone with your last name, prefixed with "bei" (German) or "chez" (French) if you are not actually a resident or member of the family (i.e a babysitter, visitor or domestic servant). Thus, we answer our phone, "Paul", while I would answer my grandmother's, when I'm visiting her, "Bei Zitta". Businesses (but usually not government offices :-() will also add some greeting formula after their name, as in, "Smith Travel, Good morning!", or "Ordination Dr. Ginner, Gruess Gott!" (the latter being a doctor's office, in German, not an agency that creates Christian ministers). Wolf N. Paul, Computer Center wnp@rcvie.co.at Alcatel-Elin Research Center +43-1-391621-122 (w) Ruthnergasse 1-7 +43-1-391452 (fax) ------------------------------ From: vixen!jadams@uunet.UU.NET (26546-adams) Subject: Re: Enforcing Phone Bill Payment Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ Date: Sun, 03 Apr 92 14:26:30 GMT /* FLAME ON */ In article , lchiu@animal.gcs.co.nz (Lawrence Chiu) writes: > ... > I guess the real answer is to pay ^^^ What a novel idea! > on time and wait for competition in local phone service -- we already > have competition in LD which has improved service a great deal. To paraphrase our illustrious Moderator ... I guess competition allows you to screw over SPRINT, MCI, AT&T equally ... huh?! > [Moderator's Note: ... > You gloss over in one sentence the fact that upon payment your > service was restored almost immediatly, ignoring the fact telco could > have left you cut for a couple more days while they cleared your check > at the bank; required a deposit to assure prompt payment in the future > and otherwise diddled around with paperwork. Do I have all that > correct? PAT] I'm with PAT 100% on this one! /* FLAME OFF */ Jack (John) Adams | Bellcore RRC 4B-259 (908) 699-3447 {Voice} | (908) 336-2871 {Facsimile} jadams@vixen.bellcore.com | kahuna@attmail.com [Moderator's Note: Mr. Chiu has REsponded, and shall be heard from in the next message. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 May 92 21:58:08 GMT From: lchiu@animal.gcs.co.nz (Laurence Chiu) Subject: Re: New Method of Enforcing Phone Payment TELECOM Moderator notes: > [Moderator's Note: So if I understand your complaint correctly, after > your phone bill went unpaid for almost three months and telco made > nine attempts to reach you by phone, they cut your service. You feel > imposed upon that they took such an action, and intend to give your > business to a competitor if one ever comes along. As is quite common > with debtors, you turned things around to become the injured party and > demanded to speak with a supervisor. Instead of speaking with a > supervisor, you should have been instructed to stand in line and wait > your turn at the cashier's window. > You note that since there is competition in LD it has improved, and > your implication seems to be that if a competitor for local service > comes on the scene things will improve locally also. How? Will the new > company let you go six months and a dozen phone calls without paying > your bills? You gloss over in one sentence the fact that upon > payment your service was restored almost immediatly, ignoring the > fact telco could have left you cut for a couple more days while they > cleared your check at the bank; required a deposit to assure prompt > payment in the future and otherwise diddled around with paperwork. Do > I have all that correct? PAT] Not quite. My phone bill was only one month overdue. I.e. I had not paid a bill due mid-March (oversight) and then I got the April bill which showed the outstanding amount. I of course being a conscientious bill payer fully intended to pay both of them. Then I went of holiday for a week and during that time the Telco called me nine times on the same day. Since their machine had assumed the message had been delivered since the phone was answered nine times by my machine a week later my phone was cut off. This is a new "service" and some warning might have been appreciated like a note in my current bill that I had an unpaid amount and if I did not pay by a certain date the phone would be disconnected. One month's overdue is hardly a capital crime and I am sure we all have forgotten about a bill every now and then given so many arrive all at different times. I would be interested to know how people in the US would react if their Telco's did the same given the much higher penetration of answering machines over there and much stronger consumer advocacy groups. LD competition has improved LD service immeasurably here. Notwithstanding the fact that the local Telco is owned 100% at present by two BOC (Ameritech and Bell South?) when a new LD player came along and offered lower prices and six second billing for domestic LD Telecom had to follow. Then the alternative LD offered lower international and one second billing after the first minute (very useful when you send faxes) and again Telecom had to follow. Laurence Chiu Principal Consultant GCS Ltd, Wellington, New Zealand Tel: +64 4 801 0176 Internet lchiu@animal.gcs.co.nz Fax: +64 4 801 0095 ompuserve : 71750,1527 ------------------------------ From: warren@worlds.COM (Warren Burstein) Subject: Re: Toll Free Calling From Israel to USA Date: 3 May 92 11:26:00 GMT Reply-To: warren@nysernet.org Organization: WorldWide Software In s1369046@techst02.technion.ac.il (Ophir Prusak) writes: > I recently found out that it is possible to call toll free to the > States from Israel by using 177 numbers. (That is the Israeli > equivilant to 1-800 ). These numbers are NOT listed anywhere here in > Israel. The format for making calls is 177-aaa-xxxx . If I use 906-909 > for the aaa I get places in the States. For example 177-906-4304 got > me to Gateway. > [Moderator's Note: If these numbers are not published or documented > anywhere, and the telco refuses to discuss them, then *how* do you > know they are toll-free, and not some routing error, etc? Is it > because you have not yet received a bill? PAT] Well the 177 prefix is Israel's equivalent of 800 numbers. Of course we might have an equivalent of 800 numbers that bill, too, but I haven't heard of such a thing. I tried the number, it just rang, no pickup. I don't know what Gateway is, anyhow (maybe they're not up yet? It's 6:27AM EDT right now), or how the seven digits following the 177 might map into the US. I use 177-100-2727 to get to ATT's USA Direct. My guess is that there are other services that use a 177 number that is answered abroad. How these services pay for the cost of the 177 line, I suppose is up to them. BTW, has anyone ever asked the USA Direct operator in what part of the world he or she is located? Are they in the region where the 800 area code is located :-)? (a skit on Saturday Night Live once had 800 be the area code of a place where all the inhabitants made their living answering the phone.) warren@nysernet.org [Moderator's Note: The USA Direct operators are located in the IOC (International Operating Center) of AT&T in Pittsburg, PA. Is there any particular reason our correspondent could find nothing published in the phone books there about 177 or could find no one at telco to discuss it (or claims he couldn't)? PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #361 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02954; 5 May 92 1:32 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05044 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 4 May 1992 23:20:12 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29393 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 4 May 1992 23:20:01 -0500 Date: Mon, 4 May 1992 23:20:01 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199205050420.AA29393@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #362 TELECOM Digest Mon, 4 May 92 23:20:00 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 362 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Need Handheld Cellular Phone Recomendations (Mike Dove) Advice Sought: Portable Cellular Phones (Neil R. Ormos) Re: GTE Mobilnet in Cleveland, OH - IntraLATA Call Questions (Doug Sewell) Re: GTE Mobilnet in Cleveland, OH - IntraLATA Call Questions (J Wisniewski) Car Phone Questionnaire (Bill Levison via Andy Malis) Roaming in New Jersey (Ken Levitt) Re: Looking For 900 MHz Telephone (Bill Berbenich) Re: New Cell User Needs Information (Rob Warnock) Re: Does Cellular Antenna Choice Affect Battery Life (Phil Howard) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 04 May 92 10:29:14 PDT From: mike@acteon.MicroUnity.com (Mike Dove) Subject: Need Handheld Cellular Phone Recomendations I am looking for recommendations on handheld cellular phones. I will occasionally be using this phone in areas which will require a high performing phone to succeed. I am interesting in experiences good and bad with any of the hand-held phone. Right now, one of the ones at the top of many people's list in the durability, performance and battery life category is the Motorola Micro-TAC series of phones. They are claimed to be very durable (can take big drops and still function), perform very well, and long life battery gets it up to 24 hour standby, 120 minute talk. Very respectable. However its 7-segment display seems to be far to small to be useful. Manuvering through the menus is painful, and time consuming. On the service front, some outlets will be outfitted with equipment which will download the entire state of your phone into a loaner while yours is out for service. Very handy. The other one that looks very promising is the new NEC P400/P600 series of phones. The P600 is the P400 plus alphnumeric, plus a few more features. It has a nice 42 character, multiline display which seems like a big win. Its size is very smaller and has very high performing batteries for its size. Its high capacity batteries do 24 hour standby and 120 minute talk time. It also apparently has an extenable antenna so flexible that you can tie a knot in it. I have only seen a dummy which does not have the antenna attached. I am very interested in experiences with this phone. This also runs about $100 cheaper than the Moto, but I am not sure it is a comparable package (batteries, charger, etc). Also I would be interested in good and bad experiences with any of the Mitsubishi/DiamondTel, Fujitsu Pocket Commanders, OKI, etc. BTW: Do these passive repeaters really work? Thanks in advance, Mike Dove Email: mike@MicroUnity.com MicroUnity Systems Engineering, Inc. Phone: 408-734-8100 x313 255 Caspian Way, Sunnyvale, CA Fax: 408-734-8136 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 May 92 07:06:36 -0600 From: "Neil R. Ormos" Subject: Advice Sought: Portable Cellular Phones My sisters and I are looking for advice on buying a light-weight (i.e. less than one pound) hand-held portable cellular telephone as a gift for our parents. There seem to be many models available, and we are finding it difficult to differentiate between them. As usual, the salespeople with whom we've visited have provided little assistance. Our primary goal is to provide a convenience for our folks; we don't expect them to use the telephone much. We would also like them to feel safer by being able to call for help in case of car trouble. They occasionally travel through rural areas so we thought it would be a good idea to be able to connect the telephone to a permanently mounted vehicle antenna, when the phone is to be used in the car. Our folks are technologically unsophisticated, so we are more concerned with quality and reliability than whiz-bang features. I've listed a few specific questions below, but we would be interested in any general comments people might have. 1. Which hand-held models can be easily connected to an external antenna? A few of the lightest phones we looked at, particularly the Motorola "flip-phone" models, appeared to have a permanently installed antenna and to lack an antenna socket, but we were looking at mock-ups, and not actual phones. Can these light-weight phones be adapted for an external antenna connection? 2. Do any brands or models have particularly good or bad reputa- tions for reliability or quality? 3. Is an external vehicle antenna necessary for reliable operation in rural areas? 4. Is the limited transmitter power of a hand-held phone a significant handicap in actual use? If so, is this handicap eliminated by connection to an external antenna? 5. Are the battery life specs provided by the manufacturer (i.e. talk time/standby time) realistic? 6. Do any models have batteries which are particularly easy to remove, recharge, and install? 7. We've seen brochures for some phones advertising around 2400 channel capacity. Do all modern phones have this capacity? We would appreciate comments from anyone who has experience with one of these phones or who has studied them recently. Suggestions or experience with a particular model, or "Street Prices" for various products would be very helpful. Thanks for your help. I'll post a summary of responses if there's any interest. neil ormos wd8bdp thssno@iitmax.iit.edu ------------------------------ From: doug@cc.ysu.edu (Doug Sewell) Subject: Re: GTE Mobilnet in Cleveland, OH - IntraLATA Call Questions Organization: Youngstown State University Date: Sun, 3 May 1992 13:43:41 GMT In article Jeffrey Wisniewski writes: > In Cleveland Ohio, GTE Mobilnet is one of the cellular carriers. When > I used to be a customer with GTE (2+ yrs ago) one of the features I > liked was the extended local calling area. I could place calls from > Cleveland to Medina (a suburb of Cleveland but in a different LATA) > for the price of a local call (ie. no long distance charges). When I > switched over to Cellular One I lost this ability and started to be > billed for LD on out of LATA calls. Since I have switched, I have > talked to a few people who are with GTE (customers) and they said that > the calling area is even larger now; some saying it reaches almost > into Pennsylvania! Hmmmm. I have Cellular One service out of Youngstown, OH and have the extended local calling service all over area code 216, which covers the Youngstown-Warren, Cleveland, Akron, and Canton (maybe the last two are actually one) cells. If I remember right, I can call anywhere in Ohio for very reasonable rates (I think it might be air-time only), as well as to Pittsburgh PA. Wilcom/Cellular One here also provides the standard perks (forwarding, three-way, call waiting) in the standard $20/month plan, and also has automatic "follow-me" roaming free throughout Ohio (well ... one of the major cities has a roam fee that applies, but that's the extent of it). Nationwide automatic roaming is $2/month additional, but I don't use it because when I'm out-of-state I don't WANT to be that available (and I don't want the roam fees). Incidentally, air-time is $.35/minute all day. That was a trade-off -- "with all the new features we've made available to you, we feel you won't mind that we're dropping the $.20/minute non-prime-time rate". Didn't matter to me ... 80% of my calls were prime-time (8am-8pm) anyway. I suspect part of the difference between C1-Cleveland and C1-Youngstown is that they have to throw in extra perks here in Youngstown to get buyers, where there's more willing buyers in Cleveland. Locally, Centel offers just about the identical package. Now, for your real question: how can they do the intra-lata calls and bill them as local? I suspect it's because they're using their trunks and/or the mark-up for air time over their cost more than covers it. Doug Sewell, Tech Support, Computer Center, Youngstown State University doug@cc.ysu.edu doug@ysub.bitnet !cc.ysu.edu!doug ------------------------------ From: wisniews@carp.cis.ohio-state.edu (jeffrey wisniewski) Subject: GTE Mobilnet in Cleveland, OH - IntraLATA Call Question Organization: Ohio State University, Dept. of Computer and Information Science Date: Mon, 4 May 1992 16:19:57 GMT In Cleveland Ohio, GTE Mobilnet is one of the cellular carriers. When I used to be a customer with GTE (2+ yrs ago) one of the features I liked was the extended local calling area. I could place calls from Cleveland to Medina (a suburb of Cleveland but in a different LATA) for the price of a local call (ie. no long distance charges). When I switched over to Cellular One I lost this ability and started to be billed for LD on out of LATA calls. Since I have switched, I have talked to a few people who are with GTE (customers) and they said that the calling area is even larger now; some saying it reaches almost into Pennsylvania! I have a few questions: 1) Is there any truth to this rumor of larger local calling areas? 2) If this is still the case (free intralata calls) how can GTE afford to do this? Are they eating the cost? Or do they have their own little network? For example, say I am in Cleveland calling to Medina. Does GTE realize that this is a intralata call and thus route it over their own network to a GTE office in Medina and then place it as a local call? 3) If the above network example is true, can these companies use the same strategy and bill you anything they want? I assume this is covered is some tariff. Well? Anyone have any ideas/input? Jeffery L. Wisniewski OSU/TIS/IE jeffwis+@osu.edu Disclaimer: "My ideas are my own and therefore they do not reflect the ideas and/or views of my educator, employer, or the little green man sitting next to me!" ------------------------------ Subject: Car Phone Questionnaire Date: Mon, 04 May 92 16:31:16 -0400 From: Andy Malis The following questionnaire has been forwarded from Bill Levison of Bolt Beranek and Newman. Please mail replies directly to levison@bbn.com. To users of in-car telephones: BBN is assisting the University of Michigan in its contract with the Federal Highway Administration to develop human factors guidelines for advanced in-vehicle controls and displays, including in-car telephones. We are in the process of designing laboratory experiments to explore the effects of telephone usage on driving performance, and we are attempting to develop a math model for same. Since neither I nor my clients have in-car 'phones (and even if we did), we need some data from in-car 'phone users on the mechanics of telephone use -- especially in regard to dialing and terminating the call. For those of you who have have car telephones and want to help out, I would appreciate your responses to the following questionnaire. If the questions indicate erroneous assumptions on my part on how car 'phones are used, please point them out. Also, please send the answers to me directly (levison@bbn.com), not to the telecom list. Thanks, Bill Levison, Bolt Beranek and Newman ------------ 1. When you have finished talking, do you press "END"? 2. If you do not press "END" when done talking, do you pay for time? 3. If you do not press "END", is there any auditory feedback that you have not closed the connection? (like on home phones) 4. Do you clear the number in the display when you are finished with the call or just before entering a new number (assuming time between calls)? 5. When talking, can you clear the number from the display before pressing "END"? 6. Do you always have to clear the display to enter a new number after a call, or can you "write over" the old number? 7. When receiving an incoming call, is the number in the display automatically cleared? 8. When you finish a call, and assuming you are not about to make another call in the near future, do you turn the power off? 9. Do you pick up the 'phone to dial, or do you dial it while it is still in the cradle? [Moderator's Note: As stated above, send replies to the persons collecting them -- NOT here to telecom. Thanks. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 May 92 17:07:09 EDT From: levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org (Ken Levitt) Subject: Roaming I just went on my first long distance trip with my cell phone and did some testing and investigations along the way. I have a Motorola bag phone that came with an eight inch rubber antenna and a magnetic mount car antenna. I decided that I didn't want to leave the window open for the cable on the outside antenna, so I tested with just the little rubber one. I made a round trip between Eastern Massachusetts and North Eastern New Jersey. The only area I had trouble with was from the Sturbridge MA area to the CT border. The phone was set to B carrier only. In this area it kept going in and out of ROAM mode and a few brief times it lost service. My questions are as follows: 1. If I had been on a phone call in the area where it was going in and out of roam mode, would the call have been dropped or passed off to the other system? 2. Would the results have likely been different if I was using the outside antenna? I was in Fair Lawn which is between Paterson and Paramus. Before leaving Massachusetts, I checked with Nynex and was told that the area was covered by Nynex. My roaming guide from Nynex does not list an A carrier for that area. I used the Nynex access port in Newark which worked fine when I tested it. What confuses me, is my understanding that the B carrier in any area is always the wireline carrier. The wireline carrier for the area I was in was not Nynex, but Bell Atlantic. I then looked in the Yellow Pages and found four different cell phone companies listed. (Nynex, Bell Atlantic, Mobile One, and Cellular One.) Can someone out there explain this? Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 UUCP: zorro9!levitt INTERNET: levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org or levitt%zorro9.uucp@talcott.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Looking For 900 MHz Telephone Date: Mon, 4 May 92 21:49:25 BST From: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu (Bill Berbenich) Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu Macy's in Atlanta is selling the Tropez 900DX digital cordless 900MHz phone for $299. Get 'em while they're hot! My 900DX is charging up for the recommended 10 hours at this very moment and I intend to thoroughly test it in the coming days. The audio is advertised as digital, so that should discourage the casual eavesdropper from knowing what is being said on the Tropez 900DX. Bill Berbenich, School of EE, DSP Lab Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 May 92 22:29:55 -0700 From: rpw3@rigden.wpd.sgi.com (Rob Warnock) Subject: Re: New Cell User Needs Information Reply-To: rpw3@sgi.com (Rob Warnock) Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org (Ken Levitt) writes: > a. Is there some sort of quick disconnect adaptor I could get that > would make it easier to swap antennas? Since they started selling cellular phones, Radio Shack has also been carrying TNC-to-BNC and BNC-to-TNC adapters. I use them to jump back and forth between the 1/4-wave whip on my handheld and a side-window clip-on in my car. For Radio Shack stuff, they're pretty high quality. I've been using the same set for a couple of years now, several reconnects per day, and the BNC males haven't gotten too wobbly (a common problem with cheap BNCs). And having the adapter pair in series with the 1/4-wave whip doesn't seem to have hurt the impendance match at all. In fact, I recently took advantage of PacTel Mobile's "free cellular checkup", and the service guy's VSWR meter said that the whip+adapters combo was ever-so-slightly better than the whip alone. Rob Warnock, MS-9U/510 rpw3@sgi.com Silicon Graphics, Inc. (415)335-1673 before 6pm PDT May 8, 1992 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd. (415)390-1673 after 6pm PDT May 8, 1992 Mountain View, CA 94039-7311 "Please make a note of it." ------------------------------ From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard) Subject: Re: Does Cellular Antenna Choice Affect Battery Life? Date: Fri, 01 May 92 21:19:21 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) pturner@eng.auburn.edu (Patton M. Turner) writes: > Makes a lot of sense, as gain increases beamwidth decreases. > Cellphones are bound by conservation of energy just like anything > else. As you send more power torwards the cell site, they will reduce > you power, saving batteries. But, as you point out, with higher gain, > antenna position becomes more important. The signal is vertically > polarized, not horizontaly however. Apparently some transmitter designs draw the same or nearly the same current even though RF power changes. My ham radio HT's get warm faster when I drop from high power to low power. I measured the current drawn on one and found it reduced only slightly on low power. So just how much saving of battery life you get will depend on many factors such as the design and battery voltage relative to the range the unit accepts. Phil Howard --- KA9WGN --- pdh@netcom.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #362 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04964; 5 May 92 2:28 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23073 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 5 May 1992 00:10:16 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30750 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 5 May 1992 00:10:03 -0500 Date: Tue, 5 May 1992 00:10:03 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199205050510.AA30750@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #363 TELECOM Digest Tue, 5 May 92 00:10:03 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 363 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Summary: Data Over Cellular Responses (Lynne Gregg) AT&T 700-Number Service: What a Crock! (John L. Shelton) Re: New AT&T 700 Service (Steve Elias) Re: New AT&T 700 Service (John R. Covert) Re: AT&T 700 Easy Reach Service (Tom Reingold) Re: AT&T 700 Easy Reach Service (Myron E. Drapal) Re: AT&T EasyReach 700 Service (Phil Howard) Re: AT&T EasyReach 700 Service (John Slater) Re: White House Telecomms (Michael Rosen) Re: White House Telecomms (Carl Moore) Re: Moderator's Surprise (Peter da Silva) Re: Unauthorized Third-Party Billing on my Line (Nigel Allen) Re: Comments on Tadiran Coral PBX (David Ptasnik) Re: Why Are War Dialers Illegal? (Phil Howard) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 04 May 92 14:18:12 EDT From: Lynne Gregg <70540.232@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Summary: Data Over Cellular Responses I would like to thank all of you who replied to my query with your comments and experiences in data transmission via cellular networks. My background includes high speed data communication applications and technologies so when I developed an interest in cellular networks, I thought (as many of you did) that these networks would not be feasible for a number of reasons including reliability and cost. Well, just like every other technology, it's application dependent. For many data transmission applications, cellular networks are proving to be both reliable and cost-effective. Here are some of your remarks: Gerald Peppers, gpeppers@hns.com, replied that {Cellular Business} magazine detailed phones that allow you to send data over cellular. I'll check it out. After checking with a couple of providers, indications are that the interface between lap/notebook modem and cellphone is via RJ11 (NEC's smart RJ11 seems to be popular). Aaron Rosenbaum, root@gamma.com, Gamma Consulting, reports that Apple's PowerBook is ideal for data and fax communication. Aaron points out that the PowerBook is the only notebook on the market that can receive faxes while powered off. The PB "sleeps", but when a call comes in it wakes up, accepts the fax then goes back to sleep. Good point, Aaron, my PC-compatible laptop would have to be powered on to accept data/faxes. Aaron connects the PowerBook to his cellphone with the NEC smart RJ11 interface and is probably reading this in his car. timo.pelkonen@hut.fi remarks that error correction is essential because "cellular nets switch channels from time to time". Also says that 1200 (v22) works better than 2400 and batch applications are better than interactive "because of the delays caused by errors". John Anderson, andrson@rtsg.mot.com, forwarded a copy of the Ericsson GE Mobidem press release that included details on its use with the HP 95LX palmtop computer and Anterior's Radio Mail. Mmmm, pretty hefty both pound-wise and price-wise, don't you think? (email me or John for a copy of the release). The Mobidem is designed for use on radio networks, not cell (but, thanks anyway, John). Scott Kludge, kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov, says cellular modems are available w/ 2400 being about the max. Cellular nets have a tendency to drop connections at handoffs every once in a while. Cost is the same for your average cell call -- "damned expensive". Bill Kennedy of San Antonio, bill@carpet.wlk.com gets 90% of his news via cellular communication (including TELECOM Digest). His comments: speed is 1200 bps, his particular cellular call plan provides "free" time from 2000 to 0700 weekdays and all day on weekends, so he takes advantage and obtains approx. 6,000 free minutes per month. Mike Bray, mike@camphq.FIDONET.org is not currently using cellular, but expects to. He's looking for advice on phones and RJ11 interface. Lonnie Filbrun, lfil@athos.az.stratus.com, says "yes, it works but boy, it can be VERY expensive". Did a test in Phoenix using USWC net. No probls exp. at 1200/2400 rates. USWC pals use faxes in their cars at 9600 (MNP fax modems). Lonnie suggests optimizing your use of cellular data transmission by only sending necessary data, formatting and sending data packets in batches, i.e., "dial, connect, dump packet, disconnect". (Lonnie, I'm not surprised by your remark on cost in light of a recent conversation with a USWC sales rep who said their rates are probably going to go up. Great sales pitch, eh? Other carriers, like McCaw, say the trend is the other way. Rates or at least billing on data calls should decrease.) KRUSE_NEIL@Tandem.com tells about a Cellular Data demo he recently saw. CDI has their own X.25 over cellular for use in credit card verification and other transaction applications. Jim.Rees@umich.edu, Jim Rees says no problem to 2400 baud data (no way at 9600 or 19.2) and discussed cellular modems. (By the way, the recently announced CelluPlan II will boost data rates to 19.2.) Thanks to all of you for your responses. I have also recently been discussing cellular data communication with some of the cellular carriers and I know that most of you with an interest in this area have already heard of the IBM CelluPlan II trial with Sears that's scheduled for this summer. I expect to see the utilization costs (on cell nets) decline while the reliability and performance (speed) increases. Any comments, questions, please email me and I'll sum. What's next, satellites? Regards, Lynne Gregg 70540.232@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: jshelton@ads.com (John L. Shelton) Date: Mon, 04 May 92 11:21:53 -0700 Subject: AT&T 700-Number Service: What a Crock! What a crock. AT&T has come up with a new way of confusing things. Why do I want to pay money for a "lifetime" phone number that has similar (but worse) behaviour than 800-service. Consider: 1. Area 700 is "special"; it's the only area code in which each LD provider has it's own "namespace". My phone number (700) CALL-MOM in AT&T land isn't the same as MCI's (700) CALL-MOM. And the cost to the caller could be different, too. 2. Because of (1), I would have to tell all my callers to dial 10288 1 700 CALL MOM (16 digits) instead of either seven or ten digits. 3. Like an 800 number, AT&T is asking me, the recipient, to pay for the calls. That's not a feature for me. With no set procedures for area 700, they could have placed the burden of payment on the caller, not the recipient. 4. While I can change the routing for my 700 number, Cable & Wireless has allowed this feature for 800 numbers for a while. 5. Bell Atlantic will be allowing reprogrammable LOCAL numbers soon. And, they will offer scheduling (send calls to home from 5pm to 8am, to work from 8am to 5pm, and to my beeper if no answer after N rings.) AT&T isn't offering these features (yet.) Bottom line: Big Deal. John ------------------------------ Subject: Re: New AT&T 700 Service Date: Mon, 04 May 92 11:41:49 PDT From: Steve Elias According to an ATT rep at their 800 number, the 700 service will be unlike their 800 service in at least one key area: 700 calls will be completed within California, unlike 800 numbers, which require PacBell "complementary" (gack) 800 service. eli ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 May 92 12:26:08 PDT From: John R. Covert 30-Apr-1992 1524 Subject: Re: New AT&T 700 Service Well, I already see a serious problem. It's going to be very hard to call these numbers from many PBXs. If your company, or your school, or your hotel doesn't make it easy for you to get to AT&T, you'll probably have to call these numbers via 1-800-CALL-ATT. Remember, 700 numbers are carrier specific, so you have to get to 10288. john ------------------------------ From: tr@samadams.Princeton.EDU (Tom Reingold) Subject: Re: AT&T 700 Easy Reach Service Organization: Noo Joizy, USA Date: 30 Apr 92 20:06:59 GMT When I heard about this service this week, my initial response was to think that this is really neat. I tried to think of why I would want it. I still haven't thought of a reason. The phone number can follow me wherever I go. So when I move, I don't have to call everyone I know and give out my new phone number. But if I only give out my 700 number, I will be hit with a lot of forwarding charges. So to avoid those charges, I give out my local number. Then I'm back to where I was. If this is the first step in implementing personal telephone numbers for everyone, what will happen when all 700 numbers are exhausted? How is this whole thing implemeneted? Is there a central database of forwarding information? When this gets big, how will such a giant database work? I fear that if we are aiming for everyone to have a personal number, following each of us wherever we go, it will be expected of us to be reachable at all times. We will lose the advantage of being able to walk away from our phones. Who can make the best use of this new service? Tom Reingold tr@samadams.princeton.edu OR ...!princeton!samadams!tr ------------------------------ From: med@druwa.ATT.COM (Myron E. Drapal) Subject: Re: AT&T 700 Easy Reach Service Date: 1 May 92 15:59:15 GMT In article , LEWANDOWSK_J@CUBLDR. Colorado.EDU (JOHN C. LEWANDOWSKI, 786-3512) writes: > Does anyone have any additional information, or an AT&T > number that I can call to find out more? You can get more information on AT&T EasyReach 700 service by calling AT&T Customer Service at 1-800-222-0300. Myron Drapal AT&T Bell Labs, Denver med@druwa.att.com ------------------------------ From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard ) Subject: Re: AT&T EasyReach 700 Service Date: Fri, 01 May 92 21:57:11 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) monty@proponent.com (Monty Solomon) writes: > Excerpt from the 4/29/92 {New York Times}: ... > Part of the reason for call-forwarding's slow growth may be that the > subscriber has to remember to establish and disconnect call-forwarding > for each phone. The doing and undoing of the service could be > annoying to customers. While that may be true, the applicable problem that AT&T's service seems like it will fix is the ability to make the changes in where your calls are forwarded as you move around. I had been wondering how I might set up a system whereby I can call in to home on one line and connect into the other line and make the changes. It would have had to be a secure system to make sure I don't hand over my dial tone to someone else. But it looks like the AT&T service will do this for me with features. Phil Howard --- KA9WGN --- pdh@netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 May 92 12:34:47 BST From: John.Slater@UK.Sun.COM (John Slater) Subject: Re: AT&T EasyReach 700 Service In article 4@eecs.nwu.edu, monty@proponent.com (Monty Solomon) writes: > Subscribers can choose which calls they want to receive. And they > have the option of receiving calls that are toll-free to the caller. > All the caller has to do is remember to punch in a four-digit PIN > assigned by the service subscriber after dialing the 700 number. This > way the call is automatically billed to the called party. The charge > to the subscriber is $0.25/min peak (M-F 8-5) and $0.15/min off-peak. Assuming reverse billing with four-digit PIN is *not* used, how much does the caller pay for the call to the 700 number? John Slater ------------------------------ From: mrosen@isis.cs.du.edu (Michael Rosen) Subject: Re: White House Telecomms Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci. Date: Mon, 04 Apr 92 17:39:19 GMT > [Moderator's Note: The Pope is listed in the phone book. PAT] Yeah, 1-900-THE-POPE. :) Mike ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 May 92 9:18:42 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: White House Telecomms The Pope is listed in what phone book? [Moderator's Note: Rome, Italy, or more precisely, within the Vatican City listings of that directory. PAT] ------------------------------ From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Moderator's Surprise Organization: Taronga Park BBS Date: Mon, 4 May 1992 11:58:47 GMT In article Jack@myamiga.mixcom.com (Jack Decker) writes: > None of this excuses the ripoffs, but if you are asking the question > "Why are the telephone companies the target of this sort of > victimization more than other types of companies", What makes you think they are? Now companies that deal in "soft services": cable companies, software vendors, phone companies, record companies, and other cases where the product is purely information ... they tend to be the target of this sort of thing. But within this group I don't think that phone companies are more victimised than any other. Also, your argument about frustration with monopolies doesn't hold water: long distance companies aren't a monopoly over here. Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS. +1 713 568 0480/1032 ------------------------------ From: Nigel Allen Date: Sun, 3 May 1992 20:00:00 -0400 Subject: Unauthorized Third-Party Billing on my Line Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto In telecom12.353.8@eecs.nwu.edu>, Norman Soley (soley@trooa.enet. dec.com) writes: > Bell Canada recently did a publicity campaign about how, in order > to avoid fraud, they were going to require verification on all > third party billing. I seem to remember them doing the same > thing about five years ago too. It looks like they do this every > few years, the crackdown lasts about a year and then they get > lax again. Actually, Bell Canada has just begun verification of all third-number calls. Previously, verification was required only on third-number calls from pay phones. Bell Canada has also decided to make life more difficult to people calling overseas from a pay phone. It will no longer accept Bell calling cards for overseas calls placed from a pay phone, but you can use a Visa, MasterCard or American Express card from a card reader telephone. Nigel Allen nigel.allen@canrem.com Canada Remote Systems - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 May 1992 18:52:00 -0700 (PDT) From: David Ptasnik Subject: Re: Comments on Tadiran Coral PBX From: toddi@mav.com (Todd Inch) > I've finally done enough research to recommend that our corporation > buy a Tadiran Coral II PBX to replace our aged, maxxed-out, "dumb" key > system. > Before we sign the check, does anyone have any experiences with the > Coral to share with me? I'm particularly worried about "normal" > configurations which one would want to program which are impossible, > such as I've heard about the Norstar and some others, or features > which are poorly implemented or unnecessarily conflict with each > other. The Tadiran is a truly fine product. It's DC based power system make battery back up cheap, easy, and strongly recommended. The hardware is very solidly built both in the cabinet and at the set. The field upgradability of the sets is really nice. The ability to replace any board in the cabinet, including the CPU is tremendous. I did wish that the phones came with more dedicated fixed feature keys (last number redial, etc). Putting routine features on the phones gets a little button intensive, consider more buttons on each phone. The PC operators console was VERY nice. Reliability is high, and the Tadiran people in Florida really know what they are doing. Good technical support. If it has the features and price you are looking for (and it probably does), you will be happy with it for a long long time. Dave davep@u.washington.edu ------------------------------ From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard) Subject: Re: Why Are War Dialers Illegal? Date: Fri, 01 May 92 20:43:24 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) ronald@ixstar.att.com (Ronald H Davis) writes: > Automatic callback was not offered by Ohio Bell at the beginning of > this year and, as far as I know, is still not available. In fact, > Ohio Bell seems to be behind the times in terms of optional features > offered to customers as they don't offer any "advanced" features: call > waiting, call forwarding, and speed calling; and that's about it. Maybe someone can collect a list of what features are known to exist in what states (or cities or by carrier) and post it regularly. This would include particular laws in those states as well. Then those of us contemplating moving to a new state can have some data to work with. Phil Howard --- KA9WGN --- pdh@netcom.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #363 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28243; 5 May 92 12:17 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19990 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 5 May 1992 07:52:26 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07558 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 5 May 1992 07:52:18 -0500 Date: Tue, 5 May 1992 07:52:18 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199205051252.AA07558@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #364 TELECOM Digest Tue, 5 May 92 07:52:15 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 364 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: How Many Bits/Sec Necessary For a Voice Connection? (Jack Decker) Re: How Many Bits/Sec Necessary For a Voice Connection? (Tim Christensen) Re: Nokia P-30 Pinout Query (Jim Baty) Re: Electromechanical --> Digital (John Nagle) Re: Electromechanical --> Digital (John Higdon) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 05 May 92 17:01:30 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: How Many Bits/Sec Necessary For a Voice Connection? This thread has given rise to an idea for a product that somebody ought to develop. I realize there are probably EXPENSIVE commercial systems that may do something like this already, but I'm talking about something that would be affordable to computer hobbyists and small businesses. Here's the proposed product: Hardware: A plug in card that would occupy one slot in an IBM (or compatible) computer (XT or AT clone). The card would have the following connectors on the rear: 6 conductor telephone type jack Audio out jack (line level) Headphone out jack (would drive stereo headphones with mono audio) Audio in jack (line level) Microphone in jack Microphone hi/lo impedence switch Also, a telephone type handset would be provided which would plug into the six conductor telephone jack. This handset would contain: Telephone type earpiece -- GOOD quality microphone capable of high quality speech recording (i.e., NOT your typical cheap carbon granule microphone). Momentary contact switch (normally open) switch in handle. Each of these would have its own pair of wires in the handset cord which would connect to a pair on the six conductor plug that inserts into the card. Plugging in an external microphone or audio source would disable the handset microphone (unless you want to get fancy and have the inputs software selectable). This card would take audio or speech and digitize it into a byte stream which could be stored in a file OR sent out the COM port. The card would also take digitized audio and decode it back to "real" audio. Now, in typical use you'd press the switch on the handset, would would indicate that the card should begin capturing and digitizing audio, and you'd release it when you are through speaking. But the state of the switch could be ignored when desirable. Basically, the switch would just be an aid to the system in helping it determine whether actual sound is present or not. In effect, when the switch is NOT pushed, any sound would be considered "background noise" and ignored. The software supplied with the product (or by a third party) should ideally allow selection of the sampling rate of the audio signal (more on that in a moment), and also allow one to specify that the handset switch is to be ignored. And, it should allow the digitized audio to be sent directly to and received directly from a COM port (and therefore, a modem). It should also allow a choice of minimal error detection and correction (only as much as can be done in "real time") or full error detection and correction (it will try as many times as necessary to transmit the data error-free ... usually you'd only use this if the digitized data were being stored on a hard drive for later replay at the receiving end). It should also allow NO error detection, for cases where freedom from errors is not as important as speed of transmission OR for cases where the modems themselves are doing the error detection and correction. Now the question is, if you put audio into this thing, would it come out the other end in "real time"? That would depend upon several things, including: 1) The sampling rate used ... a higher sampling rate would give you better bandwidth and a better quality signal, but if you overrun the modem's transmit speed, there might be gaps (short pauses of silence) at the other end as the modems "catch up." In that case, you'd either use a lower sampling rate (losing audio clarity) or store the speech for later playback. In some situations, it might be desirable to record a few seconds of speech (using the handset button to indicate start and end of the message), let the system transmit it, store it on the other end, and then play it back when the entire audio segment is received. This would provide "not quite" real time speech, but of considerably higher quality than would be possible over a normal phone line. 2) The amount of noise on the phone line, 3) The level of error correction used, 4) The speed of the modems involved. The uses of such a unit would be fairly obvious ... anytime you need to transmit audio of higher than normal quality via a phone line, you could use this thing. If it could be made affordable, every radio and TV journalist in the country would want one. And computer hobbyists would want them as well. I envision that with the proper software, a BBS user could hold a nice voice chat with the sysop, while downloading a file simultaneously. Of course the software would have to disting- uish between voice and data "packets", but it could make use of silent periods in the conversation to transmit data. Or digitized voice or audio could be stored and forwarded via a packet switching network, perhaps in semi-real time. Imagine an audio journalist caught in a situation where the telephone lines are poor quality and/or nearly unavailable, but the packet switching networks are open and working fine. An audio report could be digitized and sent back to the home office. Imagine taping a short recording for a friend (say three minutes of music, talk, or whatever) and sending it across town or around the world in digital format, so that the recipient would get audio of the highest quality. Even if a three minute segment takes 20 minutes to send, it may be considerably less expensive than other available means. (Actual case in point: I know of a weekly radio program on shortwave that gathers three-to-five minute reports from various correspondents. When they phoned in audio reports, the audio quality was terrible and listeners complained that they couldn't understand. So now the correspondents have to Fed-Ex in tapes. That means late-breaking news can't be included, and there's a weekly expense of around ten dollars. If those segments could be digitized and transmitted over the phone lines in, say, half an hour online (which is probably much longer than it would actually take), the cost would still be less than one-fourth of Fed-Ex, NOT counting the pickup charges or cost to take the tape to Fed-Ex). Yes, I know there is EXPENSIVE equipment that will do things like this, but ... I suspect that "hobbyist grade" equipment could be made for much less money AND would ultimately do a better jobe than the commercial stuff (just as much home stereo equipment outperforms the equipment your local radio station uses). Please remember me if you make a million bucks with this ... :-) > It depends. I once saw a demonstration of a low bit-rate secure voice > system that operated at 300 bps! The system used "code-book lookup" > and translated words or phonemes into codes that were looked up and > played out at the other end of the data link. Needless to say, the > voice that came out didn't sound at all like the voice that went in, > but it got most of the message across. The question you should be > asking is how much computer power do you have to process the speech > and how much distortion can you tolerate? Voice processing delay also > needs to be considered. Now THAT raises interesting possibilities. Suppose that you could have a phoneme coder/decoder running all in one box (forget modem transmission for a moment)... would this not provide some possibilities for changing speech? For example, let's say that you played the soundtrack of a few old W.C. Fields movies into a computer (only the parts where Fields is speaking) and had the computer "learn" all of Fields' speech patterns. Then I recorded the same words and phrases using my voice, and let the computer "learn" my speech patterns. Then the computer was programed to detect phonemes in my speech and replace them with the equilavent phonemes from Fields' speech. Now, let's suppose we do all this on a relatively fast system (a '486 box may well be plenty fast enough). I could speak in real time, answering any questions put to me, and it would all come out in W.C. Fields' voice... and it would actually be segements of HIS voice electronically "spliced" together, not MY voice reformed to sound something like his. Now, that may sound harmless enough, but suppose that instead of using W.C. Fields' voice, I used the voice of the President of the United States? Can you see where that could possibly cause some problems if misused? I'm afraid that the day is coming (and is already here, in many ways) where we will not be able to believe anything we see on television or hear on radio. If you saw the segment on "Prime Time Live" a few weeks ago on "morfing" (sp?), where they can actually construct new faces from parts of other faces or change one face to another (as in the Michael Jackson "Black or White" video), you know that computers can do many tricks with video that were formerly impossible. Want to shoot a scene of an old city that's supposed to have been filmed before the turn of the century, but there's some nasty old telephone cables strung across the scene that spoil the effect? No problem, just use a computer to "erase" the wires and poles from the scene! And now you say that you can do voice substitution on a phoneme for phoneme basis ... wonder when the day will come when we see a talking head on the screen that is totally computer generated and virtually indistinguishable from the real thing! And just ignore the man behind the curtain ... Jack Decker jack@myamiga.mixcom.com FidoNet 1:154/8 ------------------------------ From: christen@hpspkla.spk.hp.com (Tim Christensen) Date: Mon, 04 May 1992 21:05:35 GMT Subject: Re: How Many Bits/Sec Necessary For a Voice Connection? Organization: Hewlett Packard Company, Spokane, Wa. The use of different compression or prediciton techniques allows good quality voice down to 4800 bps. Such names as VSLEP and RTLP come to mind. All of these techniques us digital analysis of the voice, then send long and short term descriptors to the distant end where DSP recreates the voice. Using such technologies has largly made PCM obsolete. The voice is still oversample at greater than 8KHz, but the quanitized voice data from this is fed to DSP where the digitial filtering and long and short term coefficients are identified and sent to the modulator usually after additional FEC and interleaving. Checkout just about any of the Digital Cellular specifications TR45, GSM 5.xx etc ... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 May 92 14:10:29 CDT From: baty@sw.mcc.com (Jim Baty) Subject: Re: Nokia P-30 Pinout Query Organization: MCC, Austin, TX Date: Mon, 04 May 1992 19:10:22 GMT rees@pisa.citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) writes: > I think it's safe to say that you can't get a v.32 (or v.32bis) > connection at 9600 bps or above over a cellular link. I've never been > able to get a connection at these speeds, and I've tried with a > Qblazer, a T2500, and a T3000. > There is also a cellular modem made by Microcom that uses v.32-like > modulation at 4000 bps (I think) and includes v.42bis compression. The Microcom Microport 1042 is described above. They have a newer model the Microport 4232bis which supports v.32bis & v.42bis. Its serial prt speed is limited to 38.4kbps though. I have used it consistently at 9600 connect (with throughput of approaching 38kbps) over cellular. I have not been able to make reliable connections at 14.4 (I do get a normal mode connect but the handshake fails to make an error correction protocol, and noise is too high to be useful). Making consistent 9600 connections over cellular is not the norm, but it is possible. Most of my experience is in good cell locations I believe the cellular switch is Ericson (sold through AT&T?) My experience has been best with an NEC p300 w/ NEC 1202 smart interface. (ie. 600 milliwatt). This has been a better performer than a Motorola bag phone (ie. 3 watt) w/ internal smart data interface. My application is X windows under DOS remotely accessing Sun servers. Both Microcom modems use MNP 10, designed for cellular connection, but also good for bad terrestrial links. MNP 10 includes dynamic speed adjust, dynamic packet size adjust and dynamic gain. With dynamic gain on I can hold the cellular connection at higher speeds under adverse conditions (eg. taking the antenna off and shorting the antenna connection to introduce noise). PS: I don't know if the P-30 pinout question has been answered but the phone is basically identical to the old Radio Shack handheld (model number forgotten 2001?) and Radio Shack will sell you the tech manual for that phone. This has been discussed here in the past. jbb ------------------------------ From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) Subject: Re: Electromechanical --> Digital Date: Sun, 03 May 92 07:49:52 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) The one great thing about pure step-by-step offices is that although they are noisy, misroute calls, take huge amounts of space, and offer very few features, they have absolutely no single point of failure. No component failure can take down more than one line; most just reduce the capacity of the exchange by one call. Step-by-step switches are true distributed systems. No component has more than a tiny fraction of the intelligence of the system. In the entire history of the Bell System, no electromechanical CO was ever down for more than 30 minutes for any reason other than a natural disaster. And now they're gone. John Nagle ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 May 92 00:48 PDT From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Electromechanical --> Digital Jack.Winslade@ivgate.omahug.org (Jack Winslade) writes: > This 'clunk' was typical on direct-control (translated: dumb as a > rock) step offices and would occur after all digits except the > next-to-last. (The reason for this will be left as an exercise for > the diehard techie trivia types. ;-) I don't ever remember it on > crossbar, especially the genuine Ma Bell #1 and #5 crossbar switches > that we all loved. The 'cluck' after each digit was the selector "selecting" the next switch in the train. The Strowger switches had two motions: vertical and rotary (XY offices had vertical and horizontal). Each click of the dial sent the center rod of the switch up one notch. When the dial pulsing stopped, a relay with a capacitor across it (to make it slow-acting) would start the switch in a rotary motion, sweeping the contact arm around a set of contacts that were connected to the available subsequent switches of that level. The stepper solenoid would pull in and release as fast as it could until an idle set of contact was found. This gave the characteristic "thrruummp" after each digit was dialed. However the last two digits were handled on the same Strowger unit. The sixth digit would step the vertical rod to the proper lever and the seventh digit would rotate the arm until it contacted the called party's contacts. Since there was no "automatic" selection in the rotary plane, there was no "thrruummp". > One feature of these old direct-control step switches was that (when > they worked) they appeared to the sub to be almost as fast as > intra-office calling on a modern ESS. Intra-office call completion on a SXS was FASTER than any ESS switch. The slight pause was the "slow-acting" relay described above to ensure that the dial had actually stopped at that number. Otherwise, everyone's phone on that final switch might jingle as the last digit was dialed! The intra-office SXS call actually completed faster than on any common control switch past or present. It was not an illusion. Hell, my old #5 crossbar switch completed intra-office calls faster than the "new and improved" #5 ESS does now! (The 1/1AESS beats everything other than SXS for speed of intra-office call completion speed!) > Dial the last digit and !BANG! > ring or busy, even when calling inter-office to another direct-control > step system. Of course. The selectors in the distant office were following your dial pulses in real time, just as if they were in the same office. > This was, however, not the case with the modern > 'directorized' step offices, (such as the old 366 office on the south > side of Council Bluffs, the last stepper around here) where they had > some kind of a common-control register-sender glued in the system > between the line finder and first selector. GTE use to do this on a large scale. It did enable them to do a lot of things without having to upgrade to more sophisticated equipment. In many cases this setup allowed expeditious implementation of Touch Tone dialing. The sender could be adapted to receive the DTMF and then "direct" the steppers accordingly. 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 V12 #364 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00690; 6 May 92 1:11 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20147 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 5 May 1992 22:57:07 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13087 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 5 May 1992 22:56:59 -0500 Date: Tue, 5 May 1992 22:56:59 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199205060356.AA13087@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #365 TELECOM Digest Tue, 5 May 92 22:57:00 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 365 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: ISDN Problem in Switzerland (Helge Oldach) Re: TCAP Protocol (Alan L. Varney) Re: New Applications of Voice Recognition Technologies (Jack Decker) Crossbar or Stepper: That is the Question (Ken Dykes) Re: Wiring Question in Old Telephone (Bob Furtaw) Re: ATM Discussion Group (Allen Robel) Re: ISDN References and Technical Books Wanted (Tim Christensen) V&H to LAT/LONG Conversion (Peter M. Cohen) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Helge.Oldach@Stollmann.DE (Helge Oldach) Subject: Re: ISDN Problem in Switzerland Date: Tue, 05 May 92 16:08:42 GMT Organization: Stollmann GmbH, D-2000 Hamburg 50, Germany santo@pictel.com (Santo Wiryaman) writes: > My question is this. Is looping back B channels during call-setup a > standard practice in ISDN networks? In Europe or elsewhere? Definitely not. I have never observed this with videotelephones in Germany with connections in the German ISDN. Helge.Oldach@Stollmann.DE ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 May 92 11:08:52 CDT From: varney@ihlpf.att.com (Alan L Varney) Subject: Re: TCAP Protocol Organization: AT&T Network Systems In article meb@beau.atlanta.dg.com (Michael Brown) writes: > I'm looking for information on the protocol, TCAP. TCAP stands for > Transaction Capabilities Protocol, and is used primarily in telephony. > Any pointers to documents, code (if available) would be appreciated. I had a long write-up I sent to an e-mail requester, but can't seem to find it. TCAP is an Application layer protocol, but the full series of Recommendations/requirements specify what is called the SS7 Transaction Capabilities (TC). This is basically TCAP plus the underlying Presentation, Session and Transport layer. These last three layers are called the Application Service Part (ASP) in SS7. Since current TCAP-using services all assume SS7 SCCP as a Network layer (connectionless, either Class 0 or 1) and explicitly state there are no required ASP services, the distinction between TC and TCAP is blurry. Unfortunately, it looks like SCCP will have to start supporting sequencing, segmentation and reassembly for some "bloated" TCAP services, thus making it look more and more like a Transport layer (and part of the Network layer as well). End of lesson 1 ... The protocol itself is specified in: Recommendations Q.771 to Q.774 of the CCITT "Blue" books. (But this is only the International version ... USA uses a somewhat different version ...) ANSI T1.114.x series of recommendations (used to be ANSI Q.771-Q.774) (The official standard is continuously modified by periodic meetings of the T1S1.3 standards working group, primarily by the TCAP Sub-working Group. If you have more than a casual interest in ongoing TCAP issues, you should find or create a group member.) Bellcore re-publishes a snapshot of the MTP, SCCP, ISUP and TCAP recommendations in TR-NPL-000246 "BCR Specification of Signaling System Number 7", currently at Issue 2, Revision 1. Revision 2 is due out in December. Expect it to cost about $500 -- and I don't believe they will break out the TCAP part (about 15%) as a separate (cheaper) document. I have also mis-placed by ordering info. for ANSI T1 standards, but maybe someone else can supply it. Lesson 2 ... TCAP is now described in ASN.1 terms in Appendicies that are semi-formally part of the standards. It is based on X.409 encoding and X.410 Section 2 (Remote Operations). So an understanding of ROSE and associated concepts is very helpful, since none of the Recommendations are Tutorials on the protocol. In fact, they are there is effort ongoing to more closely align TCAP with ROSE, but the older version of the standard was a confused merger of X.410 and TCAP "enhancements" needed to make the protocol useful in applications not supported by the typical Query/Response model. The language of X.410 and ROSE has evolved in the ten years or so that TCAP has been "in process". These changes and others account for major terminology differences between the ANSI T1.114-1988 and -1990 standards. Al Varney -- the above is not the official view(s) of AT&T. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 May 92 17:15:27 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: New Applications of Voice Recognition Technologies I recently forwarded a message from another newsgroup regarding a system that would, in essence, have convicted criminals under "house arrest" telephone a computerized system at specific intervals, and the system would use voice recognition and Caller-ID to make sure that the criminal was really at home. I pointed out that there would be many ways to defeat this, and postulated that said criminal could set up call forwarding on his home phone so that when he called into the computer from wherever in the world he was, the Caller-ID would show the number of his home phone. Several readers of the Digest took the time and trouble to point out that Caller-ID could NOT be defeated in this way, since SS7 (required to support Caller-ID) would also forward the number of the actual originator of the call for Caller-ID purposes when call forwarding a call. However, some also suggested other ways that the system could be defeated. Two of the most popular suggestions were these: 1) Get three-way calling on the line and get a relative or hire a neighborhood kid to set up a three-way call at the proper time. This would show the criminal's home phone number as the originating number, 2) Get one of those hardware call-forwarding devices that requires two phone lines. Call in on your "second" phone line, have the device dial the parole office voice recognition system on your primary line. You talk to the computer from anywhere, and if your "second" line is unlisted, few other people would try to call you and get the voice recognition system instead. Another option that would work is an "off-premises extension" of the first line run to some other location (such as the criminal's "office"). My whole point was to show that this type of system COULD be defeated by anyone who really wanted to do so. It might well be an adequate method of punishment for someone convicted of having too many parking tickets, but I certainly would not care to see it used on anyone convicted of a violent crime, or any felony. It's just too easy to defeat by anyone who really wants to do so. It was just unfortunate that I chose call forwarding as an example of a way that this system could be defeated. Of all the methods I could have suggested, that is the one that apparently will NOT work. Thanks to all who took the trouble to netmail me on this. I now know a little bit more about how the telephone system works! Jack Decker jack@myamiga.mixcom.com FidoNet 1:154/8 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 May 92 05:57:39 EDT From: ken@Thinkage.On.CA (Ken Dykes) Subject: Crossbar or Stepper: That is the Question Jack.Winslade@ivgate.omahug.org (Jack Winslade) wrote: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 357, Message 4 of 7 > In a recent message, KEN DYKES writes: >> Well, what is probably one (if not THEE :-) last crossbar era switches >> (definitly not digital) left in Bell Canada Ontario territory is going >> digital. This is the switch I have been on for most of my life. ... >> ... and, if you have a rotary dial set, you will not hear a click in >> the receiver as the dial returns to rest. > This 'clunk' was typical on direct-control (translated: dumb as a > rock) step offices and would occur after all digits except the > next-to-last. (The reason for this will be left as an exercise for Definitely after *last* digit, not second to last. > the diehard techie trivia types. ;-) I don't ever remember it on > crossbar, especially the genuine Ma Bell #1 and #5 crossbar switches Don't forget in Canada, we probably used some sort of NorTel xbar design. To call back your own number, you dialed 99x-xxxx instead of your number of 88x-xxxx, got a strange tone, hook-flash, hangup. voila, instant ringing phone. >> Be sure to begin dialing as soon as you hear the dial tone. If you >> delay, the equipment may time out and you will need to hang up and > Wow! This >>>WAS<<< old. No timeout on dialtone. This has to be an > old stepper. Take the receiver off hook and tie up a linefinder all It did/does timeout, first to a LOUD recording, then a loud fast-busy. >> When dialing to other exchanges you may find a noticeable silent pause >> from the time you finish dialing until the telephone rings. > One feature of these old direct-control step switches was that (when > they worked) they appeared to the sub to be almost as fast as > intra-office calling on a modern ESS. Dial the last digit and !BANG! > ring or busy, even when calling inter-office to another direct-control Takes time, but less than two seconds. There was a time a while back during a city wide rationalization of digital signaling when it took MANY long seconds to pulse dial the local digital exchanges on its interoffice trunks. My boss who lives off the New Hamburg, Ontario exchange was defintely stepper until about a year ago; geeez, farmers go digital before the big city :-) >> If You Have Ident-A-Call: >> If you have the Ident-A-Call feature >> [multiple numbers, distinctive ringing, one hard line] >> you will notice a change in the duration of the distinctive ringing > This is the first time I have heard of this on an electromechanical > office, but I can see how it might work. Well, I got a hint in a surprising way myself ... a year ago I was on the 'fone to the business office about ordering a long-distance plan or something, and was making an enquiry if BOTH of my numbers would be covered under one plan/one-fee since I only get one bill printed. They said, "Sorry, it cannot be done with Ident-a-call." I say, "What Ident-a-call? ... I have two physical lines ..." It turns out their database had a typo that I had Ident-a-call for two numbers rather than two physical numbers. I went on to say "This exchange isn't even capable of it!" They went "Mumble, maybe, well, yea, mumble, your file has been fixed, and yes the plan will cover both numbers." When I was a kid I remember this exchange (whole new building even, I lived about three blocks away) going into service. If you wanted the new-fangled touch-tone service you had to get a new number via this exchange. During the last few years if you wanted one of the new fangled services, you had to leave this exchange ... Over the years, various little quirks, and talking briefly to various Bell techies has led me to believe that at one time during its early "glory" years this was a model-exchange of new technology and new tricks were tested and installed -- if not advertised -- on it, but this is just a gut feeling. It would make sense given the profile of Waterloo being the home to a very technically literate population (two universities, electronics companies like Raytheon, insurance head offices, etc), and also a relatively high average household income. (Daddy, what's a slum?) (How many areas do you know where the citizens REGULARLY pay Ma Bell a couple dollar charge to do an operator interrupt on a busy line?? On some days it seems dollars mean nothing to the permanent residents, and that underlying feeling that "of course" everyone has call-waiting, and so "of course" something is unusual with a busy signal ... yuppie scum everywhere). Talk to the transient student population and you get quite another perspective however :-) :-) I swear that students must synchronize their watches and have a conspiricy to go off-hook at 11pm (cheap rate time) and try to grab long-distance/inter-office trunks; normal sentient switch behavior returns around 11:15pm :-) I would suspect even the most radical and generous capacity-planning couldn't compensate for this conspiricy of the residents of Suitcase-U. Ken Dykes, Thinkage Ltd., Kitchener, Ontario, Canada [43.47N 80.52W] kgdykes@thinkage.on.ca postmaster@thinkage.on.ca thinkage!kgdykes harley-request@thinkage.on.ca kgdykes@watmath.waterloo.edu ------------------------------ From: furtaw@comm.mot.com (Bob Furtaw) Subject: Re: Wiring Question in Old Telephone Organization: Motorola Date: Mon, 4 May 1992 12:42:25 GMT In article , acg@hermes.dlogics.com writes: > Both phones are the steel-base standard-issue home variety that > columnist Dave Barry has said could be used as murder weapons ("Try > that with today's phones!"), both finished in Regurgitation Beige > color. One is a Princess touchtone circa 1972, the other a touchtone > wall phone from 1980. > On testing, I found that the wall phone wouldn't generate any DTMF > tones with the keypad. I took it apart, hoping to find something > obvious such as a broken wire, but nothing seemed wrong. I DID, > however, find two wires disconnected and capped with insulating > sleeves; one was gray, the other was gray with red striping. On the > theory that the keypad might have been disconnected for incoming calls > only, I called the previous owner, who had thoughtfully left his phone > number on the telephone. He hasn't called back yet. ;-) It was a common practice at one time, because the REN of "1", to disconnect the bell on one or more phones, if you had others connected at the same time. See if these leads go to the bell. As for the DTMF, older phones don't have steering diodes to power the DTMF from the line. This requires polarity to be observed. Reverse the two leads (tip and ring) to see if DTMF is restored. ------------------------------ From: robelr@ucs.indiana.edu (Allen Robel) Subject: Re: ATM Discussion Group Reply-To: robelr@mythos.ucs.indiana.edu Organization: Indiana University Date: Mon, 4 May 92 22:21:56 GMT In article smcdowell@exlog.com (Steve McDowell) writes: > In message bajaj@thumper.bellcore.com > (Shikhar Bajaj) writes: >> I heard there is an ATM discussion group and am very interested in >> joining such discussion group. Appreciated if anyone has information >> on how to join the discussion. >> Send mail to ATM@sun.com [atm-request@sun.com, edited, robelr] > Well, this is a group for discussing IP over ATM, *not* for discussing > general ATM related issues. In fact, when general issues are brought > up they are usually flamed. For discussions of general ATM issues, the group comp.dcom.cell-relay will be formed on May 6th barring objections to the voting that ended on May 1st. The results, which will be posted soon to news.announce.newgroups were 220 YES, 11 NO. I am also working to set up an email (mailing list)/USEnet gateway for those who do not have USEnet access. Look for another post in the next few weeks concerning this gateway and how to subscribe. Regards, Allen Robel robelr@mythos.ucs.indiana.edu University Computing Services ROBELR@IUJADE.BITNET Network Research & Planning voice: (812)855-7171 Indiana University FAX: (812)855-8299 ------------------------------ From: christen@hpspkla.spk.hp.com (Tim Christensen) Date: Mon, 04 May 1992 20:55:42 GMT Subject: Re: ISDN References and Technical Books Wanted Organization: Hewlett Packard Company, Spokane, Wa. Aside from the latest revisions of the CCITT standards, try the ISDN book by Stallings from MacMillan Books (1989). Otherwise try the trade journals. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 May 92 09:21:35 EDT From: pcohen@cseic.saic.com (Peter M. Cohen) Subject: V&H to LAT/LONG Conversion I am searching for a program that will convert Vertical & Horizontal coordinates to Latitude & Longitude. I have a Macintosh Plus connected via modem to a SUN II computer running SUN-OS (Unix). I would like to know if there is a program out there that I could either run on the SUN or the Macintosh. I am looking for a program that will accept input from a data file (a file containing a bunch of V&H's) rather than one that converts interactively. If the program can do both then that's even better. Better still would be a program that can convert either V&H to LAT/LONG or vice versa. Please email your response to me at pcohen@cseic.saic.com Thanks. Science Applications International Corporation 8619 Westwood Center Drive Vienna, Virginia 22102 Peter M. Cohen (703) 749-5474 pcohen@cseic.saic.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #365 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02328; 6 May 92 1:53 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20732 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 5 May 1992 23:47:20 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05900 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 5 May 1992 23:47:03 -0500 Date: Tue, 5 May 1992 23:47:03 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199205060447.AA05900@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #366 TELECOM Digest Tue, 5 May 92 23:47:00 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 366 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Looking For V.11 Pinout (Tim Christensen) Re: Wiring Question in Old Telephone (Andrew C. Green) Re: Wiring Question in Old Telephone (Patton M. Turner) Re: Electromechanical --> Digital (Winston Sorfleet) Ericsson to Receive IEEE Corporate Recognition Award (Ericsson PR News) How Does E&M Signalling Work? (John Boteler) UUNET Thruput (was Re: The Telebit WorldBlazer) (Jiro Nakamura) Needed: Some Hardware to Interface to Telephones (Warren Burstein) Caller*ID Schematic Offer V2.0 (Rob Bailey) Re: Dialtone Spec Needed (Alan L. Varney) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: christen@hpspkla.spk.hp.com (Tim Christensen) Date: Fri, 1 May 1992 17:25:34 GMT Subject: Re: Looking For V.11 Pinout Organization: Hewlett Packard Company, Spokane, Wa. Here is the V.11/X.21 pinout for the DB15 connector: CCITT Circuit Pin# Mnemonic Description 1 PG Protection Ground 103 2 T(A) Transmit (A) 105 3 C(A) Control (A) 104 4 R(A) Receive (A) 106 5 I(A) Indicate (A) 114 6 S(A) Signal Element Timing (A) 7 F(A) Frame Start Indication (A) 8 SG Signal Ground 103 9 T(B) Transmit (B) 105 10 C(B) Control (B) 104 11 R(B) Receive (B) 106 12 I(B) Indicate (B) 114 13 S(B) Signal Element Timing (B) 14 F(B) Frame Start Indication (B) 15 - Unassigned For the sense on the balance circuits refer to this diagram: |\o-----T(A)-----------o|\ -----------------------| > | >-------------- |/------T(B)------------|/ The *(A) wires are the LOW sense lines and the *(B) wires are the HIGH sense lines. (I've never heard any standard way to refer to them.) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 May 1992 14:03:05 CDT From: acg@hermes.dlogics.com Reply-To: acg@hermes.dlogics.com Subject: Re: Wiring Question in Old Telephone Previously I wrote: > My father has recently bought two genuine Western Electric telephones at > a garage sale, and I'm hoping that someone in Telecom-land can answer a > question on the internal wiring. I have since been inundated with replies, every single one of which told me to reverse the red and green wires and all will be fine. So noted! I conclude that I am the only person in the Western Hemisphere who didn't know this tip to begin with. I also learned from Telecom readers that, among other things, the Princess phone was highly sought-after by ham radio aficionados for its parts, and that the wall phone is capable of being blown through a window by a shotgun blast without sustaining serious damage. This will come as good news to our Los Angeles friends, no doubt. :-) Thank you all for your help. I'm very impressed by the expertise and fast response of the Telecom group! Andrew C. Green Datalogics, Inc. Internet: acg@dlogics.com 441 W. Huron UUCP: ..!uunet!dlogics!acg Chicago, IL 60610 FAX: (312) 266-4473 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 May 92 22:48:34 CDT From: Patton M. Turner Subject: Re: Wiring Question in Old Telephone [Andrew Green asks about slate (grey) and slate-red wires inside princess TT and wallmount 2500 set.] If memory serves me, the wires are a connection to a resistor (?) used to tip party identification on Bell party lines. Shouldn't present any problems if disconnected and, and maybe a little noise if not. Try reversing the tip/ring polarity going to the set, most sets from that age were not equiped with a diode bridge to power the TT pad. If this fixes it, add a diode bridge to power the pad, RS should carry them. > Both phones are the steel-base standard-issue home variety that > columnist Dave Barry has said could be used as murder weapons Not only do they make good weapons, but afterwords you can use it to call an ambulance. I have seen one that survived a blast of #7 birdshot, was blown through a window, and after being reconnected to the 42A block, still worked. Pat Turner KB4GRZ pturner@eng.auburn.edu [Moderator's Note: Another good piece of news for L.A. denizens! PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 5 May 92 15:59:00 EDT From: Winston (W.L.) Sorfleet Subject: Re: Electromechanical --> Digital The following circulated around Bell-Northern on April 1. Important News Announcement From Northern Telecom, April 1, 1992. On April 1, 1992, Dr Paul Stern of Northern Telecom Inc. announced NT's bold new vision of the future. "We call it Strowger World" said Dr. Stern as he showed off the latest model of NT's new series of switches. "It goes along with our new quality and excellence thrust. You just can't get any more reliable than these babies. Before, with the software based switches, we had no ends of problems. With these, a drop of oil here, burnish a contact there, and they'll go for decades. If the power fails, the switch is ready to go as soon as power is restored. With our old software based switches, if the power failed, it took hours to get it running again. Now switch recovery is instantaneous!" When asked about NT's previous direction, FiberWorld, Dr. Stern replied, "Fiber World? Don't make me laugh. Where are the electrons going to go? Glass is an insulator! I admit that we were temporarily blinded by the insane promises of a few egg-headed visionaries, but the one, true, path became evident very shortly afterward. As our technical experts said at the time of that announcement -- 'Don't trust your ass to glass'." "It was time to go back to basics. Telephone switches should be made from real switches, not this electronic stuff where you can't see what is going on. 'Real switches for real people' is our new motto" he said proudly. After citing many of the advantages of the Strowger World switches -- among them the ability to do literal call tracing, Dr. Stern closed the session by inviting all Northern Telecom customers to "Come join us as we go step-by-step into the future." ------------ Winston Sorfleet Bell-Northern Research, Dept. 7D34 sorflet@bnr.ca Opinions expressed are purely personal and do not represent Northern Telecom or Bell-Northern Research in any way. [Moderator's Note: Very clever, thank you! I'm sorry we did not have this a month ago to share with the TELECOM Digest readers. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 May 1992 15:15 +0200 From: ERICSSON CORPORATE RELATIONS Subject: Ericsson to Receive IEEE Corporate Recognition Award PRESS RELEASE 1992-05-04 ERICSSON TO RECEIVE IEEE CORPORATE RECOGNITION AWARD Swedish Pioneer of Cellular Radio Technology to be Honored LM Ericsson of Stockholm will receive a 1992 IEEE Corporate Recognition Award "for significant contributions to the development and implementation of analog and digital cellular radio technology." The award will be presented on Sunday, May 10, 1992, during the IEEE Honors Ceremony in Boston. Dr. Lars Ramqvist, Ericsson President and Chief Executive Officer, will accept the award for the company. Ericsson is the world's largest supplier worldwide of analog cellular radio systems, with more than 40 percent of market share. Founded in 1876, it is one of the world's leading manufacturers or telecommun- ications equipment and has been a success in merging radio and switching technology into effective, high capacity networks. "We have entered an era of 'personal communications,'" according to Dr. Ramqvist. "Cellular and wireless communications products allow us to use advanced information services in a convenient, natural way. Ericsson has been a pioneer in cellular and advanced wireless communications systems, applying advanced electrotechnology to solve important practical problems." With operations in over 100 countries, half of Ericsson's 70,000 employees work outside of Sweden. Ericsson is also known for its contributions to international telecommunications standards and specifications. Its concept of narrow band transmission has had a significant impact on specifications for the Pan-European Digital Mobile Telephone System (GSM) and the Telecommunications Industry of America (TIA). Further technical development by Ericsson formed the basis for Digital European Cordless Telephony (DECT) for wireless communications within buildings. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) is the world's largest technical professional organization, with more than 320,000 members in over 145 countries. The Institute is a leading authority in areas ranging from aerospace, computers and communications, to biomedical technology, electric power and consumer electronics. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT: Kathy Egan, Director of Press Relations, The Ericsson Corporation Tel. +1 212 685 4030, tec.tecke(at)memo.ericsson.se Lynne Howell, International Press Officer, Ericsson Tel. +46 8 719 9174, lme.lmedlh(at)memo.ericsson.se ------------------------------ From: John Boteler Subject: How Does E&M Signalling Work? Date: Mon, 4 May 92 15:12:41 EDT I need a Big Dummy's guide to E&M signalling. It's kind of tough getting the right answers when I can't ask the right questions. I am experimenting with receiving real-time ANI over a T1 circuit and trying to pick up the ANI information using D/40 cards. The T1 channels under consideration are currently configured for Ground Start operation. Carrier=MCI, BTW. I'm afraid phrases such as "it's just like Megacom", et al won't help me very much (besides, I've already heard that from Telco Systems). So, now it's your turn. I would really like a 1, 2, 3 step-by-step guide that describes what the office sends, what it expects of the station end, etc. until call completion. Unless you think the whole net is interested you'd best email me at 'bote@access.digex.com'. Thank you way in advance. bote@access.digex.com (John Boteler) ------------------------------ From: jiro@shaman.com (Jiro Nakamura) Subject: UUNET Thruput (was Re: The Telebit WorldBlazer) Organization: Shaman Consulting Date: Sun, 3 May 1992 23:47:39 GMT In article <1992May2.013936.11713@uunet.uu.net> asp@uunet.uu.net (Andrew Partan) writes: > The metric that we use to measure our performance is Megabytes per > Connect hour. This is total Megabytes sent & received divided by total > connect time (from the start of the call all the way though to the end > of the call - including all interfile time). The connect time is the > total off all connections - including all of the 1200 & 2400 folks. > Up until a few months ago, we were running running at about 2.0 > Meg/hr. We have now increased the performance to about 2.2 or 2.3 > Meg/hr. We are working on increasing this further. 2.0 meg/hr. * 1,048,576 bytes/meg / 60 min/hour / 60 sec/min = 582 bytes/sec. Given that UUNET counts dead time, includign login time and interfile gaps, this is not as bad as it looks. But I see why they use meg/hour -- doesn't look as bad on the surface. I applaud them on trying to increase performance 10%. However, given that most of the problem is dead time, UUNET should seriously think about ways to cut down on dead time, including batched mail or other forms of batched UUCP transport. Jiro Nakamura jiro@shaman.com (NeXTmail) NeXTwatch / Technical Editor 76711,542 (CIS) The Shaman Group +1 607 277-1440 (Voice/Fax) ------------------------------ From: warren@worlds.COM (Warren Burstein) Subject: Needed: Some Hardware to Interface to Telephones Date: 4 May 92 16:58:41 GMT Reply-To: warren@nysernet.org Organization: WorldWide Software My boss just asked me what we can buy off the shelf to do all or at least some of the following: There will be two systems in different cities, countries, whatever. They will be connected via a packet-switching line. People will call a phone number that is connected to system A. They will enter an access code, their phone number (or, if it's somewhere that does Caller-ID, of course we can skip this) and a phone number (located where system B is), and hang up. A will verify the information and pass it to system B over the packet-switching line. B will call the local phone number, and if the call goes thru (how does it know?) it says "please wait for a call to ", calls the phone number from which this all started, and connects the two. The result is that a person at A can call a person at B, but pay the rates from B to A (plus an additional charge, of course) rather than from A to B. The number of conversations supported at one time should be configurable. So can anyone recommend anything that we could buy, that would either do it all, or significant pieces of it? We would not mind having to do the software ourselves, but we really don't want to start building telephone interface circuitry, touch-tone/Caller-ID recognition, speech circuitry (and some way of knowing if the call was answered, I wouldn't even know how to start doing this unless call supervision is supported on side B and we cannot assume that) and getting it certified. Don't tell me about legal issues, because you'd have to know where A and B are to give accurate info, and the customer doesn't want this disclosed. An anti-hint for people who remember that I am in Israel although my address is in New York: even though Israel is known for high international telephone rates, this system is *not* intended to save on calls out of Israel. Please reply by email if you have answers or would like to receive a summary of the answers. Thanks. warren@nysernet.org ------------------------------ Date: 03 May 92 21:06:13 EDT From: Rob Bailey <74007.303@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Caller*ID Schematic Offer V2.0 I missed issues 33? thru 350, so if there were any questions or cursing of my crappy hand-drawn schematic, please repeat or forward them. The real reason for this message: I have made a few copies of the spec sheets for both the MAX-23x series chips and the XR-2211 FSK demodulator used in the Caller*ID-to-PC interface, and if the folks who have already wasted $0.58 would care to waste another 6 bits, send (yet another) SASE back to me (I say 6 bits 'cause ya probably oughta put $0.58 on the SASE just in case -- it's a buncha pages), I'll send them. If you cut out the XR2211 schematic given as an example and paste it onto the MAX232 example schematic - Voila! - the Caller*ID interface, sans DAA. SASE to: ROB BAILEY 211 GEORGES DR #B-301 CHARLESTON WV 25306-7501 I hope nobody else's transformers got eaten by the snail mail machine. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 May 92 09:20:11 CDT From: varney@ihlpf.att.com (Alan L Varney) Subject: Re: Dialtone Spec Needed Organization: AT&T Network Systems In article pjh@mccc.edu (P. J. Holsberg) writes: > Could someone please post the specs for the interrupted dialtone that > voice mail systems use to inform the user that a voice mail message is > waiting? I'm sure you understand that the voice mail systems do not offer the interrupted dialtone to the client's line; they just ask the CO Switch to notify the client that a message is waiting. This interface is also used with Message Desk services. Whether the client has a message waiting lamp, the "interrupted dialtone" signal or some other method of notification (ISDN) is known only to the Switch. The voice mail or message desk service is also responsible for turning off the message waiting indication. The Voice Mail/Message Desk interface to the Switch, and the inter- switch signaling interface (SS7/TCAP) for turning on/off the indication are described in Bellcore's TR-NWT-000866 (Iss. 1, Jan. 1991) titled "ISDN Message Services Generic Requirements" ($75). In spite of the name, it discusses the inter-switch signaling for ISDN and non-ISDN clients, as well as ISDN and non-ISDN interfaces to the voice mail or message desk provider. In the TR, Bellcore calls the audible message waiting indication a "special interrupted dial tone", but I'm unsure what makes it "special". Frequencies are 350 + 440 Hz, at a (.1 second ON, .1 second OFF) rate, for at least 2.5 seconds, then steady ON. I haven't seen a statement specifying whether or not customer dialing must be accepted during the interrupted period, but that would seem to be reasonable. The tone and interruption rate are identical to the "Confirmation Tone" used to confirm Speed Calling recording or Call Forwarding activation/ deactivation -- but those only last .6 seconds. And 350 + 440 Hz at a steady rate is regular Dial Tone. [All tones are +/- 0.5% in more modern Switches, but could be different or less precise in some areas.] Hope this helps. Information on most switch tones are in TR-NPL-000275, "Notes on the BOC Intra-LATA Networks - 1986" (if you have it) or the replacement, SR-TSV-0002275, "BOC Notes on the LEC Networks - 1990", dated March 1991 ($395). ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #366 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03970; 6 May 92 2:40 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22661 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 6 May 1992 00:46:52 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26571 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 6 May 1992 00:46:43 -0500 Date: Wed, 6 May 1992 00:46:43 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199205060546.AA26571@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #367 TELECOM Digest Wed, 6 May 92 00:46:44 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 367 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson It's A Riot: Followup (Robert L. McMillin) Re: It's a Riot (Declan McCullagh) Re: Riots in LA (John Higdon) Re: Telecom While LA Burns (Michael A. Covington) Re: Riots in LA (Steven H. Lichter) Re: 213/310 Permissive Dialing Ends (No, Not Yet) (Rich Wales) Re: LA Riots Cause 213/310 Split to be Postponed (Carl Moore) Calling Out From LA (Matthew Holdrege) Re: L.A. Disturbances and Telecom (Robert S. Helfman) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 3 May 92 09:11:45 -0700 From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) Subject: It's A Riot: Followup And then on Thursday, it got horrible. My boss called to tell me that second and third shifts had been cancelled, although I didn't get the message on my answering machine until the loudmouth pool players downstairs in my apartment complex said something about people shooting at the Ralph's grocery store across the street. THAT woke me up (I work graves these days ... yikes!). There were rumors that the Circuit City next door had been looted (it hadn't), and that rioters robbed the bank next to my girlfriend's work (they had). Also, looters had sacked the Hawthorne Mall not five miles up the street from where I live, and two miles away from the Hughes facility where I work. This was at 3:00 or so in the afternoon; I then made about five calls before GTE shut down dial tone to residential customers. Pay phones continued to work. According to news reports in the {Orange County Register} -- I hid out for a couple of days at my parents' house in Huntington Beach -- Pacific Bell claims that as few as 50% of all attempted calls were getting through in the 310 and 213 area codes at the height of the rioting. My girlfriend was able to get through to her parents in Arkansas, and strangely enough, they were able to call me, even though my girlfriend was unable to successfully call me directly from work. TELECOM Digest really isn't the place for editorializing, but I would like to make a few brief comments: * The verdict was wrong. There was nothing that Rodney King could have done that could justify the violence those policemen used to subdue him. I can only hope that the subsequent federal investigation comes to a more reasonable conclusion. * This Sunday's {Los Angeles Times} contains a very reasonable proposal for the creation of an independent prosecutor whose job is limited to trying cases involving police and other public officials. It has been tried successfully in Philadelphia, and needs to be used in the City of Angels. * Whites need to recognize the legitimate concerns of blacks that the judicial system has collapsed for them. Part of this problem is that Los Angeles is woefully underpoliced to begin with, which has lead to the cops' paramilitary stance, whereby they hope to frighten residents into lawfulness. It hasn't worked, nor will it. If, as Lincoln believed, governance flows from the people, then cooperation with the governed -- and therefore, the policed -- is crucial. We simply cannot afford to have cops out there who believe that black men are automatically suspects. * Blacks need to understand that attempts to sweep criminal activity under the rug of race won't do. Too many were the cries that Marion Berry's accusers were motivated by racial rather than legal or political issues. The ethnic exclusionists only worsen the situation with their creed, "It's a black thang -- you wouldn't understand." People of EVERY color -- white, black, brown, yellow -- were busy looting. We all saw it on CNN and the local news. Now, maybe, we ALL can start calling a criminal a criminal, regardless of what color his skin is. * Lastly, unless we do something constructive about the underclass in our cities, and by this I do not mean the big-spending giveaway programs that serve to feed bureaucrats at the expense of those they purportedly help, we will find ourselves in a few years taking bulldozers to entire neighborhoods and simply starting over. The redistributionists, for whom capitalism is a four-letter word, have already started to crawl onto the Times' editorial pages. Let us hope that their rancid ideas for state-run looting don't seal the fate of the urban poor. It's been a scary, scary week. The most awful thing, though, is that the blacks I've talked to say that this is just the beginning. I hope it is not true, but fear they are right. 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 ------------------------------ From: declan@seas.gwu.edu (Declan McCullagh) Subject: Re: It's a Riot Organization: George Washington University Date: Sun, 3 May 1992 04:37:00 GMT Robert L. McMillin (rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com) writes: > Pacific Bell, the only telco in the area of the disaster, has urged > all residents in South Central to stay off the phone lines, since the > local exchanges are all but completely busy. Does anyone have any more information on how this disaster has affected telephone service? At a Jerry Brown campaign meeting in Washington, DC this morning, Brown was supposed to call from Los Angeles to speak to us via speakerphone. Unfortunately, even at 6:30 AM in California, it took the Governor over half an hour to place the call and we missed him by a few minutes. Declan declan@seas.gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 May 92 23:25 PDT From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Riots in L.A. aimla!ruby!rudholm@uunet.UU.NET (Mark Rudholm) writes: > As far as telecom issues go, (my theory on the cause of this whole > thing is that people are protesting the end of the 213/310 area code > permissive dialing on Saturday :)) Well, it apparently worked. Implementation of mandatory 213/310 prefixing has been delayed "indefinitely". Since Pacific Bell is so busy fixing the damage, it does not want to complicate matters with another major event. In addition, the company does not any confusion with emergency calls and complication of restoration activities. Maybe we should have done that here to dump this stupid 510 business :-) Wait until you find out what the 714/909 folks have in store ... John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) Subject: Re: Telecom While LA Burns Organization: University of Georgia, Athens Date: Sun, 3 May 1992 03:32:58 GMT All of this suggests that we need a plan for using the Internet as a carrier of emergency message traffic when the telephone network is overloaded or inoperative. Traditionally, amateur radio is the alternative to the telephone in times of crisis, and hams have very elaborate organizations that can swing into action quickly. The Internet needs a plan for doing the same. Example: Every UCLA student probably wants to call home. How about having them report to the computer labs (or call the computer labs via internal un-disrupted telephone), where messages about their welfare could be sent by Internet to sites near their parents' homes, and delivered by telephone from there? The crisis is over now, but you see the idea. Michael A. Covington, Ph.D. | mcovingt@uga.cc.uga.edu | ham radio N4TMI Artificial Intelligence Programs | U of Georgia | Athens, GA 30602 U.S.A. ------------------------------ From: GLORIA.C.VALLE@gte.sprint.com Date: 3 May 92 04:52:00 UT Subject: Re: Riots in LA Well all seems to be ok for now. But then there is a dusk to dawn curfew (which was lifted on Monday). As to GTE areas we have had a few dial tone problems, but that is from 'hey, there is a problem let's see if the phones work.' We had the same problem with the earthquake. Some newscaster had said that two of the people on the jury were GTE employee's so we have had some problems. In fact one of them was a PacBell Tech and the other was a splicer for Edision. I could not believe that the {Daily News} in LA (San Fernando Valley -- it was the {Valley News & Green Sheet} when I was young) published the names, hometowns and interests each of each of the jury. That is just real poor judgment and could put these people in danger, but then the paper has the right and the people don't. Steven H. Lichter GTECA COEI [Moderator's Note: The names and addresses of members of the jury are public records, available for inspection by the public. And for those who question the makeup of the jury, please remember the constitution calls for a jury of the *defendant's* peers ... not the victim's peers. The defendants were white police officers. PAT] ------------------------------ From: wales@CS.UCLA.EDU (Rich Wales) Subject: Re: 213/310 Permissive Dialing Ends (No, Not Yet) Reply-To: wales@CS.UCLA.EDU (Rich Wales) Organization: UCLA CS Department, Los Angeles Date: Sun, 3 May 92 05:05:07 GMT 213/310 permissive dialing =was= scheduled to end early on the morning of May 2. However, the local phone folks announced that the cutover was being postponed because of the unrest. I heard this on a TV news report. At least two reasons were given: (1) things were hectic enough down here right now without having to add another complication; and (2) the final cutover would require extra access to phone company buildings, and it was better not to make the employees do this during the present situation. In any case, it would clearly be best for everyone to act as if the cutover had already taken place and ignore the permissive dialing per- iod altogether. Rich Wales // UCLA Computer Science Department 3531 Boelter Hall // Los Angeles, CA 90024-1596 // +1 (310) 825-5683 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 May 92 9:07:29 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: LA Riots Cause 213/310 Split to be Postponed You were talking about the full cutover (i.e. would no longer be able to use 213 to reach 310). I have never heard of such a postponement before. Please keep us posted, because my archives file will be affected as well. {USA Today}, which is not a local paper (and could make some mistakes regarding local situations?), mentions the full cutover today: "AREA CODE: Besides their other problems, some Los Angeles telephone customers began operating with a new long-distance area code -- 310. Since November, callers to those affected could use either code, but the 213 code was replaced for about 2.4 million customers Saturday." I have the full cutover for 415/510 as Jan. 27, 1992. There was a big fire in the hills near Oakland not long ago; that was after the full cutover there? This Digest noted that some publications at that time forgot that there was a new area code in Oakland. I have just called 213-825-4321 at UCLA and it worked. This was in Maryland. If the full cutover of 310 was now in effect, it should NOT have worked. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 May 92 17:19 GMT From: Matthew Holdrege Subject: Calling Out From LA Well now that the riots are over (I hope) and 80% of residential service has been restored, I have time to read my e-mail. I had a few telecom problems during the riots obviously due to overloaded trunks. I don't understand a couple of them. From my home modem in Long Beach (ac310) I dial our HDMS dial back security system in Cypress (ac714). I get a dial tone OK and an answer. I enter my username and password, hang up and wait for call-back. The call-back never came. I could dial out fine from within the riot zone, but the call-back which comes from the safe haven of Orange County had trouble. Why is that? The other problem was with LD. When I tried to call to Mass (ac508) or IL (ac708) I got the "all circuits busy" BEFORE finishing the number. I would enter 1-508-8 and then instantly get the busy message. Why is that? Thanks in advance! Matt Holdrege 5156065@mcimail.com 714-229-2518 Pacificare Health Systems ------------------------------ From: helfman@aero.org (Robert S. Helfman) Subject: Re: L.A. Disturbances and Telecom Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA Date: Tue, 5 May 1992 01:48:38 GMT In article lauren@vortex.COM (Lauren Weinstein) writes: > The further you go from South-Central L.A. (an economically deprived > part of town in the downtown area) the more the problems were spotty > or non-existent. Calling South-Central a part of town in the downtown area is preposterous and reflects, I suspect, a Westside yuppie's blinders to the rest of the city. South-Central starts at Pico -- which is the equivalent of 13th street -- and runs down to El Segundo Blvd. -- which is about 127th. That is 114 blocks, which is no closer to Downtown than Beverly Hills. BUT, in the minds eye of a Westside type, that's "All down there", I suppose. > than smoke blowing around widely (even though fires weren't widely > spread geographically), I live in the Baldwin Hills, which is just about the geographical dead-center of the "Central/Western" AAA map. I look out (with a 210 degree view) over the whole of LA, Westwood through Beverly Hills to Hollywood to Downtown to the Eastside to South Central and down to Long Beach. My field of view was a mass of smoke and fires, visible in Hollywood, out on La Cienega, all across the city. There were, at any one time on Thursday afternoon, probably 30 fires going at once and many more burned out and smouldering. > According to my telco sources, almost all of the problems were caused > by overloading. Slow dialtone for sure on Thursday (15-30 seconds > much of the time). Try typically 60 seconds. It took me five minutes to get dialtone, and a half-dozen tries to reach 911 before I got something besides "busy". Trouble with getting interoffice trunks the same. > By Friday morning, most telecom seemed pretty much back to normal in > most West Los Angeles exchanges at least. That's the key phrase "West Los Angeles". It's served by GTE, whose equipment was probably completely un-impacted by 911 calls. They were probably frantic calls trying to locate spouses, etc, rather than emergency calls. > continuing nightly city-wide curfew to be pretty silly. Many feel > that it has been imposed city-wide only to avoid accusations of > discrimination (e.g., why was the curfew only imposed on "poor" areas > of the city?). That's right, and that's the only fair way to do it. > The irony is that now that it's essentially over, there are National > Guard units being sent in and Marines are "standing by". A little > fast action could have avoided a lot of grief for some people. The > whole thing could probably have been avoided by some fast action at > the scene of the first incident on Wednesday. I'll agree to that! Gates' ego could not admit that he wasn't prepared for what happened and that he couldn't handle it. So he stalled. He wouldn't even talk to the Mayor. If they hadn't run into each other at the command post, they never would have talked. Here is an unconfirmed bit of information which I think is extremely reliable: Before it all started, LAPD at the corner of Normandie and Manchester were taunting some gangbangers about the verdict. The crowd got ugly, the LAPD called for backup. Five cars came, they shagged out of there, leaving the poor random citizens who subsequently came through the intersection to suffer the wrath of an incensed crowd. Trucker Reginald Denny's beating on TV was one of the results. I called the LAPD Wednesday night when I heard distant shouts, looked out my view windows and saw, with binoculars, a crowd looting a swapmeet building. The LAPD showed up [after 20 minutes] in two cars, four officers total, told everyone to drop the stuff and go home, waited until the looters had left and split. The looters came back. I called again. This time they came back with eight cars, did the same thing. One tidbit overheard via the police megaphone and the wonders of uphill sound transmission (I live nearly 1000 feet away and 16 stories above the area in question): "Put down the merchandise. Put it down. Look man, I've got your license number [all these thieves had cars and were loading]. Do you want me to come to your house? Come on Homie, don't be a fool. Put it down." Homeboy put it down, got in his car, drove away. Absolutely no arrests were made, in either arrival. The LAPD. As they say so well in Iowa "worthless as teats on a boar hog." I hate to be a Monday morning quarterback, but if they had handcuffed a couple of looters near the entrance and left just one Black-and-White on location, I'll bet a lot less looting would have taken place. It was the clear understanding that no one was going to get arrested that encouraged the looters to get everything they could. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #367 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06420; 6 May 92 3:40 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29482 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 6 May 1992 01:47:02 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20453 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 6 May 1992 01:46:47 -0500 Date: Wed, 6 May 1992 01:46:47 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199205060646.AA20453@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #368 TELECOM Digest Wed, 6 May 92 01:46:45 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 368 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Rodney King Riots -- City of L.A. (John Schofield) LA Information Wants to Know if "I'm a Relative?" (Jonathan Welch) Re: Is America Online Connected to the Internet or Not? (Charlie Mingo) Re: Is America Online Connected to the Internet or Not? (George Browning) Ma Bell and the Flood (Max Moen and Jack Boogaart, FIDO via Jack Decker) Re: Using Answering Machine With Panasonic KX-T123211D (Todd Inch) Re: USWEST Wants to Hose Me! (Wingnut@cup.portal.com) USWEST Still Trying to Hose Me (Scott Colbath) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Rodney King Riots -- City of L.A. From: johns@quake.sylmar.ca.us (John Schofield) Date: Sun, 03 May 92 13:09:49 PDT Organization: Quake Public Access Well, the riots are over! I live in the San Fernando Valley, which was almost totally unafected by the violence. The pall of smoke that hung over much of the city Thursday and Friday was totally gone by Saturday. I am a photojournalism student at a local college, and I drove down to the most affected areas yesterday (Saturday). While we got some extremely poisonous glares (we're both white), everyone we talked to was friendly and open. People were telling us where the best burned out buildings were, and everyone smiled once we made the first step of talking to them. Burned out buildings and national guardsmen were everywhere! The city was truely on fire Thursday and Friday, with over 40 people dead from the rits and over 3000 fires lit. I must emphasize, however, that it is safe again in L.A. (as much as it ever was ) and that most of the city was not affected in any material way by the fires or civil unrest. [Moderator's Note: Not affected in any material way? The hell you say! The city as a whole will not recover for many years. Chicago still has not recovered from the riots in 1968, with the west side still in ruins over an area of several miles. You'll see! PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jonathan_Welch Subject: LA Information Wants to Know if "I'm a Relative?" Date: 4 May 92 07:50:27 GMT Over the weekend I called LA information to obtain a friend's phone number. After giving the name I expected to hear the number spit out to me but instead the operator asked me a question which, in my confusion, sounded like "are they a resident?" to which I bindly answered yes. Thinking about this later I realized that they had really asked "are you a relative?" Is this something that was put into place to help keep the phone system from being overloaded during the riots or is there a flag that can be put on accounts to help protect one's number from non-relatives? Jonathan Welch VAX Systems Manager Umass/Amherst jhwelch@ecs.umass.edu ------------------------------ From: Charlie.Mingo@p4218.f70.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Charlie Mingo) Date: Tue, 05 May 1992 03:01:07 -0500 Subject: Re: Is America Online Connected to the Internet or Not? To put an end to the earlier discussion, I have determined how to send internet mail both to and from America Online. From AOL to Internet, address mail to: Inet@user@site.edu [Note that there are two '@' signs in that address.] From Internet to AOL, address mail to: screenname@aol.com Any questions about this gateway should be addressed to: INetBeta@aol.com There is no charge levied for mail passing in either direction, other than regular connect charges. ------------------------------ From: gbrowning@aol.com Subject: Re: Is America Online Connected to the Internet or Not? Date: Tue, 05 May 92 16:42:06 EDT I have read many postings about America Online and the Internet in this newsgroup. Since some of the information has been not quite right I figured I should make a posting to clear up any misconseptions that might exist. There is an America Online gateway to Internet. It is now going into 'open' beta testing. To send mail to an America Online, Promenade or PC-Link user you need to know the user's screen name. The only way to get a user's screen name is to contact them by other means (ie there is no name server). Once you know a user's screen name remove any spaces, make it lower case, and append @aol.com. For example to send to the screen name A User you would address your mail to auser@aol.com. To send mail from America Online to the Internet you simply put the Internet address in the To: field on the regular mail form. In a previous post the question was posed as to whether or not there are 'special' gateways for Compuserve, MCI Mail etc. The answer is no, there are not. For some of the more popular services abbreviations have been created; for example to send to a Compuserve user you can use the address 123.4567@cis. Additional information can be found on America Online by using the keyword InetBeta. There is no additional charge for using the Internet mail gateway. Mail is limited to around 27k bytes in both directions. If you notice any problems with this gateway please send mail to inetbeta1@aol.com from the Internet or inetbeta from America Online. George Browning Programmer/Analyst gbrowning@aol.com ** BETA TEST MAIL Report bugs to INetBeta1@aol.com ** ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 May 92 16:40:30 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: Ma Bell and the Flood The following message was found in the Fidonet MDF echomail conference, although the message indicates it was originally posted in the RelayNet PHONES conference. See also the reply which follows. Original From: Max Moen To: All Subject: Ma Bell & The Flood [forwarded by RelayNet's PHONES conference] MA BELL AND THE CHICAGO FLOOD Since I work in the Chicago central office that serves the area flooded out in our fair city's recent tunnel disaster I thought some of you might be interested in hearing how Ma Bell fared in this crisis. If you could see, me you'd see an ear to ear grin. The Windy city is about as flat as a pool table, but there are a handful of well known ridges that were once ancient shorelines for what geologists call Lake Chicago (at one time the communities of Summit and Blue Island were the only areas of Cook County above what is now called Lake Michigan). Chicago was slough and wetlands area until the 1880's when George Pullman proposed raising the city up on at least six feet of topsoil. Actually, Pullman meant to level the city off, so to speak, but the City Council didn't understand and passed a law that said six feet from the present level. For that reason we still have those few ridges left (they're just six feet higher and we still get flooding, just not as much) and as fate would have it, the Franklin Central Office is about 3/4's of the way up one of them. We were like Moses in the Red Sea, floods to the east of us, floods to the west of us, but even our sewer didn't fill up, the muck just flowed past. They didn't even cut off our electricity, the boundary was the alley behind us! If they had, of course, our diesels could have handled the load until the fuel ran out. For the first few days we ran the diesels and powered the equipment from them just in case, but the building remained on Edison power and we never even shut off the elevator (phew). If you thought Hinsdale was a big deal, that's a two story building; Franklin is 18 stories, it services almost the entire Loop and everyone from the FAA to Network Television has circuits going through there. Actually, the likelihood of a flood taking out an Illinois Bell central office is pretty slim. The only time it did happen was because a once in a hundred year flood hit while the office was under construction and the emergency systems were shut down (i.e. someone really screwed up). BTW, we had two "once in a hundred years" floods in a row; the previous one was 45 years ago. Each C.O. has the power plant and batteries located at the highest point, if it's a level basement, the plant is located on an elevated platform. Each C.O. is provided with a special high volume flush valve that is said to pump thousands of gallons a second from a basement. Of course, they weren't expecting the whole Chicago River to show up as was this case. At one point the Board of Trade building was pumping 2500 gallons a minute and still saw the water level rising. Our only real involvement has been in relocating the telephone services of those companies that have temporarily moved. The only real problem we had there is that one of our Vice Presidents promised all sorts of people all sorts of extreme due dates, but nobody really called out the troops over the weekend to do all the necessary rewiring. It was pretty frantic Monday morning, but we seem to have met the commitments. SLMR 2.1a #T348 "What a bunch a maroons" PCRelay:BMCBBS -> #351 RelayNet (tm) 4.11 Bell Microcomputer Club, Chicago 312-727-5043 Mosaic v0.99/l * Origin: *Cloud Nine BBS* 9 Gig on line 713-855-4385 (1:106/99) -------------- This reply to Max Moen's message on the Chicago Flood was found in the Fidonet MDF echomail conference: Original From: Bill Boogaart To: Max Moen Subject: Ma Bell & The Flood In a message of , Max Moen (1:106/99) writes: MM> because a once in a hundred year flood hit while the office MM> was under construction. Hmm. Lessee. Back about 1974 I worked in the Kingsland CO in Calgary where it was decided that the roof needed replacing. So, off came the roof; in came the big black cloud which parked itself over the building and dumped gallons of water onto the building. It rained as hard over several banks of line finders, connectors, E6 repeaters and the MDF as it did outside the building. One CO man was soaked from head to toe as he tried to pull plastic sheets over the cable runways. Waste of time, as it was all in vain. The SP-1 office was miraculously spared. The old stepper was eventually replaced with a DMS100 and the SP-1 and the DMS100 have both since been replaced with a DMS100 Supernode. Next exciting time I had was in the Killarney CO where the roof was removed to put a second floor onto the building to house the SP-1 addition to handle the growth in the area. Same thing happened there. We had hair dryers and pressure cleaning fans running in there for a week to try and dry things out. Green grunge on selector banks for months afterwards, along with all sorts of noise trouble reports. Both the old stepper and the SP-1 followed the same path as the Kingsland equipment. My final experience with water was when a watermain burst just outside the Calgary Westin hotel. Flooded the hotel's basement and the NEC NA4-09 crossbar PABX that was in it. There it sat in four feet of water. No-one wanted to wade over to the rectifiers to shut them off and the battery string was just gurgling away! The 4-09 was a write-off and was replaced with a GTD-1000. The only saving grace was that it happened a couple of days before Christmas and the hotel was for all intents and purposes empty. Anyway, I don't know what was worse ... the NA4-09 or the GTD. Eventually the GTD got flooded out too (leaky toilet on the floor above) and was replaced with a nice Northern Sl-1. Bill msged 2.07 * Origin: Gorre & Daphetid BBS - Calgary AB Canada HST DS (1:134/14) -------- Jack Decker jack@myamiga.mixcom.com FidoNet 1:154/8 ------------------------------ From: toddi@hindmost.mav.com (Todd Inch) Subject: Re: Using Answering Machine With Panasonic KX-T123211D Organization: Maverick International Inc. Date: Tue, 05 May 92 22:22:35 GMT In article monty@proponent.com (Monty Solomon) writes: > Has anyone else here experienced any problems using an answering > machine with the Panasonic KX-T123211D EMSS? And says it essentially no longer detects "hangup" signals from the CO when wired behind the Panasonic. I'm guessing the Panasonic is a small PBX or hybrid key system? (I have no clue what a EMSS is.) I would assume that very few PBX's pass the flash or polarity reversal from the CO on to the individual extension circuits. Personally, I'd put it "in front" of the PBX instead of "behind" it, connecting directly to the CO line. If you have several lines or want to call it from a PBX extension (to retrieve messages using an in-house phone, for example), a two-line adapter device might work. Now somebody with more experience will follow up with some REAL advice. :-). ------------------------------ From: Wingnut@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: USWEST Wants to Hose Me! Date: Tue, 05 May 92 01:45:10 PDT scol@scottsdale.az.stratus.com (Scott Colbath) wrote that he could not get a third line because no lines were available, and they wanted $1000 to add more equipment, etc ... In about the last seven places I have lived I have added a second line ... first because I had a roommate and we wanted our own lines, then later because of my computer modem use. In the early instances they just ran another line from the nearest phone pole (evidently the existing wiring did not have two pairs.) Then I moved into a house pre-wired for two lines (from the previous occupant) but was told due to rapid expansion in the area I could not only not get two lines, but couldn't even get one line for a few weeks! Actually, a few days later the phone company had a technician spend hours moving wires around and somehow came up with two free pairs (or so they told me.) Later, I was living on a dead-end street and was told no pairs were available or would ever be available, so they piggy-backed a second line with a frequency shifter that put my call on top of the existing line. It had a little rechargable battery that trickle charged from the line ... if I made hours of calls in a single day the battery would run down to the point I could not use the line. Then I moved to Oakland, California and was cheered up over the prospect of getting two real lines again, partially because many of my two-line phones features, such as the memory and line use indicator did not work on the funny line. Guess what -- they gave me a real line and a frequency multiplexed line. Even then they had to run a line from down the street about one hundred yards. Perhaps others can use this 'old' but useful technology to work around a limit of wires. As more and more people add fax machines and modems, the line shortage may grow instead of shrinking! Wingnut@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ From: scol@scottsdale.az.stratus.com (Scott Colbath) Subject: USWEST Still Trying to Hose Me Date: 4 May 92 17:55:34 GMT Well ... those boneheads may have me but ... I'm not giving up yet. According to a tariff named A4 (don't ask me why) the flat rate of $1035 dollars is a valid amount for any and all situations where the street needs to be dug up. This comes from the ACC which sets or qualifies these prices here in Arizona. I am going to challenge the charge. There was a device called SLC-1, aka slick-1 which used a battery in the central office and one at the home externally which allowed a second signal to be carried over the same voice line. These are being pulled due to their inability to work with such things as call waiting, voice messaging etc. In addition, there is a distance limitation of approximatly one mile on this device from the central office to the home. I come in at the two mile mark. All of this information comes to me via the USWEST engineer for my area. If anyone has opinions on this which may differ or add more information, I'm open to suggestions. I had one last idea, that being, see if I could get a bordering neighbor who has only one line in use to let me use their free line and bury it all the way to my house. The USWEST rep said this could be a possibility and he is looking into it. Thanks to all who responded on the first round of this fun with phones. Scott Colbath Stratus Computer Phoenix, Az. (602)852-3106 Internet: scott_colbath@az.stratus.com [Moderator's Note: If a bordering neighbor has an unused pair, it is probably already multipled on the pole behind your house and could be brought in normally. Anyway, if there is *at least one* spare pair in the vicinity which is multipled to the pole or drop near you, I can't see how telco can hold you responsible for the costs of street excavation. I don't think they can hold out the pair from you merely in order to service a possible new (single line) subscriber who might come along later and be angry that *they* had to pay the big $$ to get a line installed. Are you *sure* no more pairs are available or that just what telco is saying to get a handout to help with the cost of a new cable in the near future? PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #368 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08171; 6 May 92 4:34 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22378 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 6 May 1992 02:31:12 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20616 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 6 May 1992 02:31:03 -0500 Date: Wed, 6 May 1992 02:31:03 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199205060731.AA20616@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #369 TELECOM Digest Wed, 6 May 92 02:31:07 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 369 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: CompuServe Mail Charges (Sam Neely) Re: Two-Line Phones and Answering Machines (Greg M. Paris) Re: Toll Free Calling From Israel to USA (Warren Burstein) Re: IXC's Carrying Intra-LATA? (John R. Levine) New AT&T USA Direct Services (Joe Lushnia, ATT News via Fred E.J. Linton) Re: Worth it to Use Hotel Phone + Wardialer (tmarshall01@cc.curtin.edu.au) Re: Lookee What Michigan Bell Put in My Bill (Kevin Crowston) Re: Interesting Caller-ID Twist: Blocking at the Far End (Phil Howard) Re: What Telcos REALLY Want (Sean N. Welch) Incoming Phone Line Question (acct069@carroll1.cc.edu) Computerized Fax Handler (Graeme G. Love) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 03 May 92 21:04:28 EDT From: Subject: Re: CompuServe Mail Charges jongsma@esseye.si.com (Ken Jongsma) wrote: > Being a rather heavy user of Compuserve, I think I ought to clear > something up. In one of his commentaries the other day, Pat said that > Compuserve charges for Internet mail. That is only partially true. > Compuserve's old billing plan (now called the "alternative plan") > charges each user $2 per month as an administrative charge, followed > by a per minute rate that depends on the speed of your connection. > There is no per message charge or surcharge for sending or receiving > Internet mail under this plan. > Compuserve's new billing plan (called the "standard plan") charges > each user $7.95 per month. A number of services are then provided with > no additional connect charges. (The most popular services, the > "forums" are not included in this flat rate.) Someone subscribing to > the standard plan is given an email allowance of $9 per month to cover > use of the CIS mail system. However, Internet mail is not covered by > the allowance and is billed on a per message basis for send and > receive. One is given the option of deleting Internet mail prior to > reading it if one does not wish to pay for it. This is not entirely correct. Internet mail IS covered by the monthly allowance. Here is the scoop directly from the rates database. (GO MAILCHARGES) COMPUSERVE MAIL RATES FOR STANDARD PRICING PLAN Your CompuServe membership of $7.95 per month includes an electronic mail allowance of $9.00. With this allowance you can send up to the equivalent of 60 three page messages per month with no additional charge. Note: Each 2,500 characters is about one double-spaced page.) This monthly allowance applies to both ASCII and binary messages. Your remaining message allowance expires at the end of each month. **The following is included in your monthly allowance: Send Mail (per message):* first 7500 characters $ .15 additional 2500 characters $ .05 Receipt Requested: per recipient $ .15 Read/Download Internet Messages:** first 7500 characters $ .15 additional 2500 characters $ .05 * The charge per message is multiplied by the number of recipients you have chosen to receive your message. Surcharged messages, such a Congressgrams, fax, telex, and postal are not included in the $9.00 monthly allowance. ** If Internet messages are deleted without reading or automatically deleted by the system after 30 days, no charges are incurred. NOTE: In general, you do not pay to read messages, except messages received from Internet. Sam Neely, CompuServe Incorporated +1 614 442 2089 (voice) 5000 Arlington Centre Blvd, Columbus, OH 43220 +1 614 457 0348 (FAX) Electronic Mail: InfoPlex: >CSI:SAM Internet: SAM@CSI.COMPUSERVE.COM ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 May 92 09:23:35 -0400 From: "Gregory M. Paris" Subject: Re: Two-Line Phones and Answering Machines In comp.dcom.telecom Mitch Wagner writes: > I said this sounded great, but why two answering machines? He said > that the double-line answering machines that he had shopped for lacked > features that allow you to rewind and review messages from a remote > phone, and were generally shoddily made and broke down. As a matter of > fact, he told me, only the AT&T answering machine was able to stand up > under heavy use of this type. > Okay, said I, but why two phones? Why not a two-line phone? I don't claim to know all the pros and cons of other possible arrangements, but our arangement is as follows. We have two lines, a two line answering machine and a two line phone. One line is set to hunt to the other; I couldn't get New England Telephone to make both hunt to each other. (As has been mentioned here before, hunting doesn't cost anything, neither for the initial installation nor as a monthly fee.) With this arrangement, I make outgoing calls on the line that hunts; that way any incoming calls can be picked up by the answering machine. (By the way, I despise call waiting and don't have it.) We give out one number to friends and family (no connection with MCI) and give the other to acquaintances and those of lesser relation. Our two line answering machine is the AT&T 1332. It works well enough and does allow calling in and replaying messages and a bunch of other functions. I wish it stored the announcements (it can handle four of them) in NVRAM instead of on tape; it does a whole lot of clicking and tape motion every time one of the phone lines rings. If you listen to your messages but don't rewind them, the "new messages" light keeps blinking -- a big misfeature in my book. It also won't record TDD messages (though many other answering machines won't either). A good argument could be made for buying two separate machines with more/better features and/or fewer bugs, but the convenience of having all messages on one tape (it identifies which line each message came in on) shouldn't be neglected. I don't know why someone would recommend two phones instead of a two line phone; I really like ours. One thing you can't get from separate phones is that it lets you join the two lines for a conference call; I never use that feature, but it might be handy for others. Greg Paris or Motorola Codex, 20 Cabot Blvd C1-30, Mansfield, MA 02048-1193 Office: +1 617 821-7020; FAX: +1 617 821-4211; Home: +1 401 333-2206 ------------------------------ From: warren@worlds.COM (Warren Burstein) Subject: Re: Toll Free Calling From Israel to USA Date: 4 May 92 09:06:38 GMT Reply-To: warren@nysernet.org Organization: WorldWide Software In warren@worlds.COM (Warren Burstein) writes: > [Moderator's Note: The USA Direct operators are located in the IOC > (International Operating Center) of AT&T in Pittsburg, PA.] Thanks. > [Is there any particular reason our correspondent could find nothing published in the phone books there about 177 or could find no one at telco to discuss it (or claims he couldn't)? PAT] Actually I could not find information about 177 in the 1992 Jerusalem phone book (aside from mention of a few 177 numbers operated by the telco) but he said that he recognized 177 as the "Israeli 800" and I think what he meant is that the telco would not discuss the particular numbers in question. Maybe he meant that they wouldn't tell him who they belonged to. warren@nysernet.org ------------------------------ Subject: Re: IXC's Carrying Intra-LATA? Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 05 May 92 17:34:00 EDT (Tue) From: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) Is there any general rule on whether inter-state intra-LATA traffic is open to competition? There are quite a few LATAs that span state boundaries, e.g. the Philadelphia LATA includes all of Delaware, and one town in northwestern New Jersey is actually in the northeastern Pennsylvania LATA. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ Date: 05-MAY-1992 22:19:22.64 From: "Fred E.J. Linton" Subject: New AT&T USA Direct Services If the following *didn't* start here, in c.d.telecom, perhaps it would be worth sharing (I found it in s.c.polish): From: lushnia@cbnewse.cb.att.com (joseph.s.lushnia) I came across the following announcement in another news group and thought it might be of interest to the readers of this news group. Wednesday, April 22, 1992 -- Noon EDT AT&T today introduced a new service for the residents of China that makes calling relatives and friends in the U.S. easy, affordable and reliable. The new service -- AT&T USADirect Service In-Chinese -- allows callers to place calls to the U.S. with the assistance of a Chinese-speaking AT&T operator located in the U.S. Calls can be made from virtually any phone, including home phones, calling centers and other public telephones. To access the service, a caller only needs to dial 10810. An AT&T operator in the U.S. who speaks Mandarin Chinese will answer, take the phone number and name of the person called, and place the call. Calls will be billed to the person accepting the call. AT&T today also introduced a similar service for the residents of Poland -- AT&T USADirect Service In-Polish -- which allows customers to place calls to the U.S. with the assistance of a Polish-speaking AT&T operator located in the U.S. Calls can be made from any phone in Poland that has international direct-dial capability. To access the service, a caller must dial 0, wait for a second dial tone, and then dial the number 010-480-0112. From some large businesses and hotels in Warsaw, a customer simply dials 010-480-0112. An AT&T operator in the U.S. who speaks Polish will answer, take the phone number and name of the person being called, and place the call. Calls will be billed to the person accepting the call. With today's announcements, AT&T USADirect Service In-Language is being offered in 15 countries and three languages: Spanish, Polish and Chinese. Joe Lushnia, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville, Illinois email: att!ihlpb!lushnia phone: 708-979-4882 --- 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) ------------------------------ From: tmarshall01@cc.curtin.edu.au Subject: Re: Worth it to Use Hotel Room Phone? + Wardialers Organization: Curtin University of Technology Date: Tue, 5 May 1992 09:09:35 GMT > [Moderator's Note: Sure. All Australians can immigrate to Holland, and > learn to bypass the billing equipment! PAT] In my wildest dreams ... although I do plan on moving back to USA. Incidently, has anyone heard any news on the deregulation of the monopoly Australian Telecom has on the business? What fees will the competitors charge? Are there any chances of free local calls and Wardialing like the good old days? :-) TIE [Moderator's Note: The return of free local calls in places where they have been discontinued is very unlikely. The modem users, phreaks and work-from-home telemarketers abused it too badly in most places. PAT] ------------------------------ From: crowston@uri.csmil.umich.edu (Kevin Crowston) Subject: Re: Lookee What Michigan Bell Put in My Bill Date: Tue, 05 May 92 13:25:42 EDT Organization: Cognitive Science Machine Intelligence Lab, Univ. of Michigan I believe that local service in Michigan was also deregulated. For example, University of Michigan uses (or used -- they might have switched) AT&T for intra-LATA calls from Ann Arbor to Detroit. However, this option is really only available to large companies who've already bypassed the LEC. As I understand it, Michigan Bell does not have to allow its subscribers to access another carrier for these calls and chooses not to. I should research this more; if I find something different I'll report back. ------------------------------ From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard) Subject: Re: Interesting Caller-ID Twist: Blocking at the Far End Date: Tue, 05 May 92 20:51:38 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) > [Moderator's Note: You've got some things wrong. One, the calling > number *is* frequently passed along; the other telcos en route just > choose to not give it to the end user. Two, the phone number in and of > itself is not adequate to send a bill. Send it to who, where? Under > the rules, the local telcos must share their data base with long > distance carriers for billing purposes on request. No choice in the > matter either way, whether your phone is listed or non-pub. PAT] Can they give this information to any LD carrier or just the ones you actually place a call through? Phil Howard --- KA9WGN --- pdh@netcom.com [Moderator's Note: I believe the LD carrier has to be trying to bill you. It can't be just for marketing purposes. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Sean N. Welch Organization: Experimental Computing Facility, UC Berkeley Subject: Re: What Telcos REALLY Want Date: Sun, 03 May 92 13:55:16 -0700 In article john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > A recent story on the front page of the {San Francisco Chronicle} is a > great indicator of the future of telephony as seen from the eyes of an > LEC. Let me start with a disclaimer that I haven't read the article. I'd like to know what day it was reported, however, so I can go look it up. [...] > So what is Pac*Bell doing to move ISDN along? Probably nothing. Pacific Bell is a large company, and it is moving in several directions at once. I make no claims as to having an understanding of any large scale goals it might have, but I can tell you what I know. Pacific Bell has been involved with a project at UC Berkeley for the last year that involves bring ISDN to the campus. To this end, there are a number of lines in labs (somewhere on the order of a dozen) and a number of lines into homes of people involved with the project. In addition, there are a few Frame Relay lines. Work has focused on expanding the campus network by sending IP over ISDN, connecting to a Frame relay network via ISDN, and exploring the feasibility of sending video over ISDN/Frame Relay. The project is expected to continue at least through next year. While this may be an isolated case, there is at least some interest in ISDN as a generally available service within Pacific Bell. Let me finish this with a disclaimer that I don't speak for Pacific Bell, UC Berkeley, or the ISDN project. I'm involved with all three, but not as a spokesman. Sean Welch welch@xcf.Berkeley.EDU Experimental Computing Facility ISDN: (510) 642 5490 ------------------------------ From: Ron Subject: Incoming Phone Line Question Date: Tue, 5 May 92 6:29:28 CDT I've got a friend that is moving into an apartment soon and would like to have one phone line handle multiple functions. He'd like a switch box or some other device to be able to detect whether the incoming call is fax, data, or voice and direct it to the proper device, (ie fax call to the fax machine, data call to the modem, and a voice call to the regular phone/answering machine.) I know there are fax/data switches out there, but I haven't seen one that could also handle a voice call. Any recommendations? Thanks, Ron | Lightning Systems, INC. acct069@carroll1.cc.edu | (414) 363-4282 62megs carroll1!acct069@uwm.edu | 14.4k HST/V.32bis ------------------------------ From: Graeme G Love IE90 Subject: Computerized Fax Handler Date: 5 May 92 11:27:33 GMT Organization: Comp. Sci. Dept., Strathclyde Univ., Glasgow, Scotland. I am currently working on a project to provide our CS computer network with fax handling capabilities. The system is a SUN network and it is desired to be able to do the handling through e-mail by putting a telephone number in the To field. Due to the short time with which I have to do this project, I have been looking around for equipment which could make my job easier. Therefore I am looking for a fax machine with an RS-232 port and character generator, or a fax card for a unix box. If anyone knows of such equipment, where I can get it, cost, etc. then please reply through e-mail. At the very least I am looking for standard ICs which I could build into a board. Ta. JANET: glove@uk.ac.strath.cs Internet: glove@cs.strath.ac.uk ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #369 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06738; 7 May 92 4:30 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00282 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 7 May 1992 02:28:59 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20382 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 7 May 1992 02:28:50 -0500 Date: Thu, 7 May 1992 02:28:50 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199205070728.AA20382@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #370 TELECOM Digest Thu, 7 May 92 02:28:50 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 370 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Chicago Telemarketing Scam (Juan Osuna) Re: Chicago Telemarketing Scam (Carl Moore) 800 Fraud - Misuse of 800 Numbers (mmiller1@attmail.com) Frustrated Phone Owner (How to Build Ultimate Call Screener) (Byron Jeff) FAQ List Updating (David Leibold) Re: The Beeper Scam That Isn't (Chris Johnston) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 6 May 92 01:19:17 GMT+0200 From: "Juan Osuna" Subject: Re: Chicago Telemarketing Scam In a recent message, the Moderator noted: > As to the case at hand, 312-296-9000 is a harmless bunch of dweebs > called 'MCS Associates' at 2708 North Halsted Street, Chicago. A > nuisance yes, but harmless. 312-296 is just a regular exchange here, > working out of the Chicago-Lakeview CO. They call all over the USA. > Since we don't have Randy Borow to kick around any more (smile), I > can't tell you anything about their calling patterns. You do not get > automatically charged for anything when you call; you have to speak > with an actual person, buy his pitch, etc. The rule about machines > calling humans in California only applies to calls intra-state, > since California cannot regulate interstate matters. I suggest you > advise 'security' they are full of Gas. I did an in-depth story on the operators of 312-296-9000 for a {The Bloomington Voice}, a local paper in Bloomington, IN. Beleive me they are not dweebs, and they are not harmless. By asking for the checking account numbers of people who call them, they were able, in at least one case I know of, to withdraw money from someone's account without authorization. This type of check fraud, which involves printing fake demand drafts, has become a major problem over the last two years. Also, the operators of 312-296-9000 appear to have violated an Indiana law that requires auto-dailers to begin messages with information describing who the telemarketers are and what they are selling. The name "MSC Associates" does not sound familiar to me. Here in Indiana, they have identified themselves as "American Consumer Services." One victim in Bloomington, IN, had money siphoned off his checking account shortly after he called ACS back. The money was deposited into the account of TRA Marketing Inc. at North Community Bank in Chicago. Incidently, the victim lost $239 and never received a prize like he was promised. I am hoping to do follow-up stories on this case. I'd appreciate anyone with information concerning these telemarketers to post, send e-mail, or write: Juan Antonio Osuna P.O. Box 6121 Bloomington, IN 47407-6121 [Moderator's Note: Well, but my point was *merely calling the number* will not cause any charges to appear on your bill. It is true they are very glib and convincing in their appeal; some people definitly have fallen for it. I will give you a bit more information for your next newspaper story however: TRA Marketing, Inc. is the sole invention and property of a fellow by the name of Louis E. Garcia, 1953 North Hudson Avenue, Chicago 60614. That address is his home, and the phone there is non-pub. You can probably understand why. You might want to write or otherwise contact Mr. Garcia about any unfinished business. MCS Associates, Inc. is the creation of Morris Spector and Carol Spector; thus the 'MCS' in the name. Morris is the President and the Registered Agent for process of legal service. Their residence address is 1550 North State Parkway, Chicago, IL 60610; their home telephone number is 312-280-1784. You may want to talk to them also! :) And I remind you that Indiana laws, like California laws, mean diddly-squat in interstate commerce, where federal law, interstate tariffs and the Uniform Commercial Code all take precedence. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 May 92 12:09:47 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Chicago Telemarketing Scam A recent Moderator's Note had MCS Associates, 2708 N. Halsted Street, Chicago, IL (60614), tel. 312-296-9000. This telephone would apparently be Chicago North (it was given as being part of Chicago-Lakeview CO). I don't yet know if it duplicates a prefix which went into 708 (is there a 296 in Des Plaines?). [Moderator's Note: (312) <==> 708-296 has been a prefix in Des Plaines for many years. The one in Lakeview (312-296) started a while back. ------------------------------ From: mmiller1@attmail.com Date: Wed May 6 12:11:27 CDT 1992 Subject: 800 Fraud - Misuse of 800 Numbers DATE: APRIL 24, 1992 TO: ALL BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS CUSTOMERS SUBJECT: CONSUMER ACTION AND LONG DISTANCE COMPANIES UNITE TO FIGHT MISUSE OF TOLL-FREE "800" NUMBERS April 13, 1992 - Consumer Action (CA) has joined forces with AT&T and Sprint to fight misuse of toll-free 800 numbers. Today, each organization is calling public attention to the potential for abuse of toll-free numbers and to describe the steps they are taking to protect consumers who call 800 numbers. CA is working closely with the carriers to develop changes in tariffs that would address the problem. According to CA Director Ken McEldowney, "The problem we are fighting is the use of 800 numbers to bill for 900-type information services. There have never been charges for making calls to 800 numbers. However, in the past month we have heard of phone bills or look-alike phone bills for information received over the phone. "This is the type of service for which "900" numbers were created. But with increased regulation of 900 numbers, some information providers are switching to 800 numbers, taking advantage of the fact that people assume they won't be charged for calling 900 numbers. Currently, there are no effective regulations to prevent the misuse of 800 numbers for billing of information services. This puts consumer confidence in the free 800 call in jeopardy. Long distance companies are also concerned about misuse of 800 services. AT&T and Sprint have discussed new tariff language with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to prevent use of 800 numbers to bill for information received over the phone, except in cases where there is a previous relationship between the caller and the service, or the caller agrees to be billed on a credit or charge card. To illustrate his concerns, McEldowney described three 800- number services that people had complained about to Consumer Action: - One was a postcard solicitation that had previously used a 900 number. It urged people to call a toll-free 800 number to learn the prize they had won in a "sweepstakes." Although callers were first told there was no charge for the call, they were later told that, for a fee, they could press a number on their phones to learn their prize. Many of those who did, subsequently received a bill containing a $10 charge listed next to the 800 number they had dialed. - Another service promised adult conversation at $4.95 a minute. Students at some midwestern universities and colleges called the service at an 800 number from campus phones. Four months later, the schools received charges for the calls on their phone bills. In some cases, the institutions did not know who made the calls: in others, callers had already left the institution. - The third service provided psychic information over an 800 line, for $120. Callers were to make appointment to speak to a psychic counselor, and to indicate whether they wanted to pay through their phone bill or through a credit card. "We are especially concerned about any charges that appear on a phone bill," said McEldowney, "because in some states people can lose phone service if they don't pay such bills." He stressed that bills for information received on 800 numbers are not subject to the same type of consumer protections as are calls to 900 numbers or charges billed to a credit card. "Billing for information services on 800 numbers also negates the protection offered by the blocking of 900 numbers. People who think that 900 blocking protects them from unauthorized charges will be vulnerable to similar bills for information services using 800 numbers." CA wants Congress to consider legislation to prevent abuse of 800 numbers. Legislation should codify the tariff changes proposed to the FCC by the long distance companies, said McEldowney. ACTION: For questions about this security issue, please call the DEFINITY Helpline at 1 800 225-7585. ------------------------------ From: byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) Subject: Frustrated Phone Owner (How to Build Ultimate Call Screener) Reply-To: byron@cc.gatech.edu Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology Date: Wed, 06 May 1992 20:21:20 GMT After many frustrating years of owning a phone I've decided to declare war on the following groups: 1. Telephone Sales People 2. Telephone Sales Computers 3. Hanger-Uppers 4. Wrong Numbers 5. Bill Collectors 6. Late Night Callers 7. Family/Friends/Children who make 1-900, 976, and long distance calls 8. Radio Stations 9. And anyone/anything else that uses/abuses my phone I've decided at last to build the ultimate call sceening box and I'd like your help and input. These are the features I'd like to see: 1. My phone never rings for the groups 1-6. Depending if I'm annoyed with them I'll either shunt them off to an answering machine or simply hang them up (for the cronic callers). No hint of an DTMF ID in the answering machine message. My reject list can include all numbers from an exchange or an area code. 2. Automatic pass through without DTMF ID for certain numbers (i.e. family, friends, work, and the like). Folks who want to reach you but are not at a known phone number have to give a DTMF ID during the answering machine message which rings and connects your phone. Again whole exchanges/area codes can be included. 3. Any phone number that calls you is automatically logged no matter how the caller is eventually handled. 4. Automatic/Repeat redial. 5. Speed dialing. 6. Must dial a code for long distance, 976 and 1-900 numbers. Date, time and length of call are automatically logged for any toll calls. 7. Both a console interface (via keyboard and display) and phone interface (via DTMF and speech synthesis) are required to allow for easy home use and remote use via the phone. Over the years I've seen bits and pieces of the functionality I want: 1. Steve Ciacia (of Circuit Cellar Ink and formerly of BYTE) has had several articles on manipulating the phone. The last article he wrote on phones used a voice synthesizer and a DTMF interface to give info about his home control system. 2. An article in {Radio-Electronics} (I think) showed how to build a 976/1-900 eliminator. 3. Local phone companies have a plethora of custom calling services as you well know. Unfortunately they can double your monthly phone bill and still not give you exactly what you want. 4. And of course the Caller-ID boxes and other phone screeners on the market. So the real question is how to pull all this together without spending an arm and three legs. Let's see what parts are needed: 1. The only custom calling service actually needed in Caller-ID. It'll provide the phone number and the screener can use the info to route the call. The screener can emulate the speed dialing, repeat and redialing, callback and the like. I know I can get these from the phone company but the monthly charges can and do add up. 2. A Part 68 DAA, an SC1211 caller ID detector, and a DTMF transceiver (Silicon Systems used to make one) should be enough to interface everything to the phone line. 3. B.G. Micro sells a text to speech synthesis board that takes speech over a serial line and speaks it. $70 isn't too too much for that. 4. A microcontroller with a serial port (for the text to speech board) and I/O ports to interface to the DAA, SC1211, DTMF transceiver, LCD display (Timeline has a nice 32x4 LCD display with ASCII interface for $20), and keyboard (PC keyboard or maybe just another DTMF matrix). Any of the 8051/68HC11/683XX families should do fine. 5. Battery Backed RAM and an EPROM for memory. Also a real time clock (maybe even a no slot clock from Dallas Semi). 6. Parts to switch the phone line to different destinations. Probably a few relays should do the trick. [actually I have most of 2-5 in my junk box. I need the DAA, DTMF xceiver, and the LCD display.] So I figure for $100 to $150 I can get a box that will make my telephone work the way I want it. I just need some serious software which is my specialty. I know that a PC can do much of this stuff but PCs in general are too big and/or too expensive for this dedicated task. My basic hookup plan is to put the screener box between the internal phone line and the external phone line at the network interface. The screener must monitor both lines. I figure it to have the following basic responses: 1. Ring on outside line: a. Get caller ID number after 1st ring b. Log number and Lookup number in phone number database c. If automatic accept then connect internal and external lines. d. If automatic reject then pick up external line then hang up. e. If neither c nor d the connect external line to answering machine and listen for DTMF. If valid code given then turn off answering machine and goto c (screener must give artificial ring to internal line). 2. Off hook on internal line. a. simulate dial tone. b. if detect special key then do special function on external line. Special functions include speed dialing, redial, long distance access, etc. When ring detected on outside line connect internal and external lines. If toll call then log date, time and length of call. c. if normal key then connect internal and external lines. Listen to DTMF tones. if 976 or 1-900 dialed then disconnect internal and external lines. Now I am unfortunately a computer dude and not a telephone engineer. So I have some questions: 1. How hard is it to simulate dial tones, ringing etc? How difficult is it to detect off hook? I'd have to do all the above for the internal phone line. 2. How difficult is it just to do ring detection? Is it legal to use an optoisolated circuit to do ring detection without a DAA? 3. Is it possible to use audio switchers to route the phone lines? Is there any other reliable method other than relays to accomplish this? 4. Does anyone know of a easy way to electronically record speech without resorting to a codec? I understand that intelligible speech can be encoded in 8-12Kbits a second. 64K/second is a litle to costly in terms of memory bandwidth. I'm hoping to put an all electronic answering machine in the screener box. 5. Does anyone know where to get an inexpensive DAA and DTMF Xceiver? I believe this box is doable and I for one can find many uses for it. If anyone has any suggestions on how to do/improve this idea I'd sure like to hear from you. Another random extraction from the mental bit stream of... Byron A. Jeff - PhD student operating in parallel! Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332 Internet: byron@cc.gatech.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 May 92 18:44:15 EDT From: DLEIBOLD@VM1.YorkU.CA Subject: FAQ List Updating It's getting time for more housecleaning on the FAQ List ... I don't foresee another edition getting out until about June, but might as well solicit updates and stuff now. One major gap in the list is the lack of cellular questions and answers. Perhaps someone with more expertise or familiarity with the cell world could do the honours of creating a cellular FAQ list (please net mail to me c/o dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca or dleibold1@attmail.com if interested). Perhaps one question that would be useful to add would be to describe who the Telephone Pioneers of America are and what they do. Please reply via mail as opposed to followup postings. dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca dleibold1@attmail.com dave.leibold@f730.n250.z1.fidonet.org (** new fidonet.org address **) ------------------------------ From: chris@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (Chris Johnston) Subject: Re: The Beeper Scam That Isn't Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations Date: Wed, 6 May 1992 19:59:46 GMT I once got such a number on my pager. I called it from home and got 'The Dating Tip Hotline' or some such thing. I immediately called the operator, but a three dollar charge still appeared on my next bill. At first the person at the business office claimed I would have to pay, but caved in and removed the charge when I stated that I would not pay under any circumstance and would like to speak with the supervisor. (Thanks Pat.) I doubt the dating hotline would bother to call my pager, a bored high school student ... cj [Moderator's Note: Why is that? They probably have suggestions for things you could do to relieve your boredom ... :) PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #370 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22785; 8 May 92 12:34 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12992 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 8 May 1992 08:31:46 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24609 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 8 May 1992 08:15:29 -0500 Date: Fri, 8 May 1992 08:15:29 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199205081315.AA24609@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #371 TELECOM Digest Fri, 8 May 92 07:54:19 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 371 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Dow Jones & BellSouth (Wall Street Journal via Monty Solomon) 800 Service Bureau Information Request (Howard Pierpont) Asymmetrical Digital Subscriber Line (Wall Street Journal via M. Solomon) Telephony and the Chicago Flood (Patton M. Turner) NEC P200 Handheld Cellular (Ben Black) News Reports Carrier Line Down in NE Iowa (Kevin Houle) Phone War Escalation (New York Times via Charlie Mingo) CLID Block Block (David Lesher) CRTC to Mandate No Charge Call Display Blocking (Norman Soley) Block of Call Display (Canada) (Henri Schueler) CLID on TV (Barry Margolin) Bell Canada Plans its Own Lifetime Number (David Leibold) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 6 May 1992 23:14:25 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Dow Jones & BellSouth From the 5/1/92 {Wall Street Journal} Dow Jones & Co. and BellSouth Corp. said they formed a strategic alliance to identify, develop and market information services. The agreement includes the current market test of a voice-based service for mobile-phone subscribers that was announced in March. The two companies are offering the service, called Personal Info Clips, through BellSouths's cellular affiliate in Los Angeles; cellular subscribers can receive customized news reports on business, stocks, sports, weather and other topics. The alliance is the first agreement between a major publisher and a Baby Bell to explore new opportunities in information services. Several newspapers have agreements with regional telephone companies to provide local news reports and other information using telephone technology. The Baby Bells won court permission to enter the information services business last fall. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 May 92 20:21:33 PDT From: pierpont@snax.enet.dec.com Subject: 800 Service Bureau Information Request As part of a career plan, sometime you have to move on. I am considering advertising an item for sale in national magazines and am looking for recommendations on 800 inbound service bureaus. These service bureaus should be able to handle credit cards as well. When the operation gets big enough maybe I can get a customized in-house system. 8^) Howard Pierpont VoiceMail Cell 401-524-5900 FAX 508-568-0880 USPS P.O. Box 937, Dayville, CT 06241 Disclaimer: This request has no connection with my employer, Digital Equipment Corporation. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 May 1992 23:18:41 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Asymmetrical Digital Subscriber Line From the 5/1/92 {Wall Street Journal} Bell Atlantic Corp. said it picked Union City, NJ, for a joint test with AT&T of technology to bring information services to the classroom. The companies announced last October that they planned to test a technology that allows the transmission of interactive voice and data as well as full-motion video over existing copper wires in the telephone network. The technology is called "asymmetrical digital subscriber line," and allows compressed video signals to be carried only one way over regular copper phone wires. It also allows the same line to transmit voice, data and video signals simultaneously. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 May 92 19:11:50 CDT From: Patton M. Turner Subject: Telephony and the Chicago Flood There have been a pair of interesting articles in {Telephony} (Apr.20 and Apr 27) about the Chicago flood. I thought I'd post a summary of what they said about the various carriers. Remember this is from {Telephony}, so take it with a grain of sand: Illinois Bell They were pretty well prepared with two EOC's, one in town, and another in the suburbs. None of their CO's lost power, none of their cable was installed in the tunnel, and the only problem they had was with nine buildings where flooded basements shorted out cable terminations. Most of Illinois Bells involvment was to help bussinesses redirrect calls out of the loop. They call forwarded 2000 lines and installed 16 ISDN consoles [BRI?], 12 T1s, 2 T3s, 4k Centrex lines and 4K temp. cable pairs. Teleport Their biggest problem was a fiber cable going into the Chicago Board of Trade Building. It passed through conduit that was allowing water into the basement, and officals wanted to cut it to cap the conduit. MFS Had to run on emergency power for 12 hours as power was being rerouted before underwater transformers could fail. They also lost 100k dollars of equipiment in the LaSalle St. building. Their CEO said they were worried about all the holes being drilled all over the city, either for monitoring, or for pumping. Another article said the fiber of at least one carrier was encassed in a seamless aluminum jacket that would protect it as long as the tunnels were not drained too fast. [With 250 million gallons, or about 30 million cu. ft., this wouldn't seem likely.] No comments were made about Digital Direct, Inc. Patton Turner KB4GRZ pturner@eng.auburn.edu ------------------------------ From: gbb@mjbtn.jobsoft.com (Ben Black) Subject: NEC P200 Handheld Cellular Organization: JobSoft Design & Devel Co, Murfreesboro, TN Date: Thu, 07 May 1992 07:10:30 GMT I just bought a NEC P200 handheld cellular phone. Are there any special features or technical notes that current users can share with me? It's been a good phone so far. No tech or operational hassles yet. I'm a Cellular One subscriber in Nashville, TN. BTW, Cellular One has started a flat rate pricing plan that allows unlimited weekend calling (7PM Friday - 7AM Monday) for $10/month. Bellsouth Mobility has matched their plan here as well. Is this a new trend in the industry, or merely a gimmick to draw in new subscribers? Ben Black gbb@mjbtn.jobsoft.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 May 92 20:59:36 CDT Organization: Iowegia Waffle BBS, Clive IA USA, +1 515 226 2156 From: iowegia!kevin@grayhawk.rent.com (Kevin Houle) Subject: News Reports Carrier Line Down in NE Iowa I heard a news report today saying because Garth Brooks concert tickets went on sale in Waterloo, Iowa, the long distance lines in NE Iowa were simply overloaded. The news program said the traffic was so high the lines went down. Not sure what that means, but I can attest to traffic being unusually high. For the period between 8am and noon, our AMA tapes average between 185000-215000 call records. Today's set a record at 313000. Kevin Houle kevin@iowegia.uucp kh1461a@drake ------------------------------ From: Charlie.Mingo@p4218.f70.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Charlie Mingo) Date: Thu, 07 May 1992 02:21:36 -0500 Subject: Phone War Escalation From {The New York Times}, May 6, 1992 at D4. "Service Makes It Harder To Override Caller ID" By Anthony Ramirez In the cold war between those who find Caller ID appealing and those who find it appalling, Bell Atlantic is marketing a service that will disconnect callers who try to mask their telephone numbers using another service, also available from the Bell Atlantic Corporation. A unit of the Philadelphia-based regional phone company, the Cheasapeake and Potomac Phone Company of Virginia, said the new service, known as Anonymous Call Rejection, might be so attractive that even people who do not have Caller ID devices may want to subscribe. "It is a deterrent to people who block their calls and who could be a pain in the neck," said Susan J. Rubin, Bell Atlantic's product manager for Caller ID. Often marketed as a deterrent to obscene and prank callers, Caller ID displays the telephone number of of incoming callers on a small device beside the telephone. Some consumer advocates, however, regard Caller ID as an invasion of privacy and a way for businesses to record numbers for commercial purposes. Thus, many states require Bell Atlantic and other carriers to allow callers to block their numbers. This, of course, led inevitably to anti-anti-Caller ID. Someone with anti-Caller ID calling a household with Anonymous Call Rejection will now be told that if they want to complete their calls, they must redial without blocking their number. Centel, US West and Bell South either offer or plan to offer similar services. The Bell Atlantic service became available last Friday in Northern Virginia. Virginia callers cannot block telephone numbers, but customers in nearby Maryland and Washington can. The company plans to extend anti-anti-Caller ID to those areas and Delaware between now and September. ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: CLID Block Block Date: Tue, 5 May 92 21:07:46 EDT Reply-To: wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (David Lesher) Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Lakeside Terrace See & Pee Telco is looking for {tri-}PSC approval to offer blocking of CNID blocked calls. The irony is - At least in Virginia, C&P does not OFFER per line or per call blocking in the first place! The Maryland and DC PSCs required them to offer per-line, which they did only with loud complaints. I guess the VA block-block works on local DC calls coming from DC and MD. wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu ------------------------------ From: soley@trooa.enet.dec.com (Norman Soley) Subject: CRTC to Mandate No Charge Call Display Blocking Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Date: Thu, 7 May 1992 16:57:00 GMT According to an article in today's (May 5th) {Toronto Star} the CRTC has decided to require the phone companies it regulates to allow callers to block display of their number to called party either by entering a code or by calling through the operator at no charge (the article didn't specify if the two methods of blocking were options for the phone company to implement or if they would be required to support both). This is a change from the current regulation which allowed blocking only by calling through the operator at a charge of C$0.50 per call (certian organizations such as women's shelters were exempt from the charge). Norman Soley, Specialist, Professional Software Services, ITC District Digital Equipment of Canada soley@trooa.enet.dec.com Opinions expressed are mine alone and do not reflect those of Digital Equipment Corporation or my cat Marge. ------------------------------ From: jhs@ipsa.reuter.com (Henri Schueler) Subject: Block of Call Display (Canada) Organization: Reuters Information Services (Canada) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario Date: Tue, 5 May 1992 12:16:47 -0400 From {Globe & Mail}, 5-May-1992 BY LAWRENCE SURTEES Telecommunications Reporter Residential telephone subscribers will soon be able to block the electronic disclosure of their numbers without having to pay for it, the federal telecommunications regulator said yesterday. Responding to consumer group criticisms of electronic telephone call-screening services, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission has ordered five phone companies under its jurisdiction to eliminate the 75-cent-a-call fee to block the call display service by June 1. The CRTC also ordered the phone companies to change the rate for its call trace security service from a flat monthly fee to a pay-as-you-use charge. Both call display and call trace are part of a portfolio of specialized electronic consumer services called call management service. The call display service displays an incoming caller's phone number on an electronic screen attached to a phone line or built into the latest generation of telephone sets. Call trace allows a subscriber who has received obscene or annoying phone calls to electronically send a caller's phone number to the phone company's security department immediately. The call management portfolio also includes call return to automatically redial the previous local caller and call screen to block calls from up to 12 phone numbers. The services are offered by: Bell Canada, a unit Of Montreal-based BCE Inc.; British Columbia Telephone Co. of Burnaby, B.C.; and the four Atlantic telephone utilities. Subscribers can lease as many of the services in the portfolio as they choose: The first costs $4.75 a month and each additional option costs $2.25. Bell Canada has more than 300,000 customers using various call management services in six cities, a company spokeswoman said. B.C. Tel has 30,000 customers in Victoria and the lower mainland using the services. However, the CRTC has been assailed by numerous consumer and social welfare agencies since it approved the call management services two years ago because of its decision to allow the phone companies to charge 75 cents each time a customer blocked the transmission of a phone number by dialling through an operator or punching in a special code. Although the commission subsequently waived the fee for shelters and community agencies, CRTC chairman Keith Spicer argued at the time that the value of the call identification services to thwart annoying calls outweighed privacy concerns. Explaining the CRTC's change of heart to allow free identification- blocking to any subscriber who requests it, Mr. Spicer credited the input from several public interest groups. Customers with unlisted numbers, who already pay a premium to keep their numbers secret, were the most upset. "We now have much more information from the phone companies, as well, and data showing that new network features make it more convenient for the phone companies to block the release of numbers to protect subscribers' privacy," Mr. Spicer said in an interview. The CRTC also told the phone companies that the technology to trace an obscene call should supersede any request to block a caller's identity. Mr. Spicer believes widespread use of the call trace feature can preserve the benefits of call message services to thwart obscene callers while preserving individual privacy. "Taken together, we think both services have the potential to eliminate over 90 per cent of all obscene and annoying phone calls, " he said. The CRTC hopes to encourage wider use of the trace service by eliminating its monthly fee and ordering phone companies to file a pay-as-you-use fee for the service. Bell Canada spokeswoman Anna Di Gorgio said the company is pleased with the changes. The utility will immediately begin a rate study to determine the user fee for the call trace service in order to meet the June 1 filing deadline, she said. Bell Canada shelved its studies for pay-as-you-use basic local phone service, which it put forward in the mid-1980s, because of public opposition. However, Ms. Di Gorgio said the utility will likely analyze the response to the new call trace rate to determine if pay-for-use billing is a more attractive form of billing for optional services. Caller-identification services have been banned by a Pennsylvania judge in that state and California may do likewise because of privacy concerns. However, the Public Utilities Commission of Massachusetts recently issued a decision similar to the CRTC's latest ruling and told the New England Telephone Co. it could offer the caller-ID feature if it gave subscribers the option to block the release their numbers on outgoing calls. (J) Henri Schueler, Toronto +1 416 698 7014 (ex-Reuters) ------------------------------ From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) Subject: CLID on TV Date: 4 May 1992 02:54:51 GMT Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA Warning: spoiler for the 5/2 episode of the TV series "The Commish", in which Caller ID and database privacy issues figured into the plot ... One of the bad guys (or in this case, a girl) makes a date with a cop who's guarding a witness, and asks him to call her to confirm the date. He calls her from the safe house, and she uses a Caller Display device to get the phone number. Then she tricks a clerk at NY Telephone into telling her the address corresponding to the number (she calls to complain that she never received her phone bill and has the clerk tell her the address they have on file). This is the first time I've seen this class (pun intended) of telephone technology used on TV (the closest I've seen in the past was when Columbo made use of a telephone's "last number redial" feature -- perhaps this is why my office phone system requires the user to press the redial button while attempting a call in order to remember it). Barry Margolin System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 May 92 23:12:10 EDT From: David Leibold Subject: Bell Canada Plans its Own Lifetime Number CBC TV's _Venture_ tonight reported on the forthcoming AT&T 700 numbers that can be kept for life but will call-forward to whatever local number whenever moving, etc. (as discussed in previous Digests). However, the report added that Bell Canada expects its own service to take effect in August for its own customers. No more details other than the brief report reference are available (presumably a CRTC application would have to be made to approve this service). dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #371 ******************************  ISSUE 372 ARRIVED LATE AND APPEARS FOLLOWING 373.  Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06481; 9 May 92 4:39 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22298 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 9 May 1992 01:31:36 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23213 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 9 May 1992 01:31:21 -0500 Date: Sat, 9 May 1992 01:31:21 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199205090631.AA23213@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #373 TELECOM Digest Sat, 9 May 92 01:31:00 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 373 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson British Rail Enters Telecom Market (IEEE via Bryan Montgomery) Challengers to BT (Portsmouth Evening News via Bryan Montgomery) Goliath and David? (Portsmouth Evening News via Bryan Montgomery) Polarity: Red = Negative? (Michael A. Covington) Bell Canada to Drop Fee For Caller-ID Blocking (Nigel Allen) Sending High-Quality Audio Over Digital? (Peter Desnoyers) An Unwelcome Guest on my Line (Collin Forbes) Centralized Home Phone System (Dan Ganek) FCC Network Chain Letter Tax! (Update on "Modem Tax") (Fred R. Goldstein) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 8 May 92 08:42:27 GMT From: eb4/91/92 Subject: British Rail Enters Telecom Market This article appeared in {IEE Magazine}, April 1992. BR Telecoms running late. British Rail has finally lodged an application with the Department of Trade & Industry to provide a full telecoms service in Britain. The application covers local, national and international voice and data switched services, private circuits, mobile radio (Band III) and mobile data services. BR's entry into the telecoms market has been long awaited; what is impressive is the scope of its application. BRT, a subsidary of BR, owns and operates an extensive telecoms network used mainly by BR. It boasts some 3000 route-km of installed fibre and over 14,000km of coppper coaxial cable. It presently carries traffic for Mercury, runs some private circuits (both voice and data) and supplies a national trunked Band III radio service. Now it is looking to co-operate with cable-TV suppliers to complete the local loop in some areas; another option for the final link to the home is using radio, from base stations on BR land, which, the company says, could cover almost all of the population using GSM or PCN radio standards. Since its launch as a seperate enterprise in September 1990, BRT has been looking for partners and sponsors for its expansion into the public market. It is still looking - and admits that the whole enterprise 'has taken us longer, it's been far more complicated, than we thought.' The hope now is that the licence, if granted, will help to convince potential partners by setting the conditions of BRT's entry into the market. BRT reckons to be roughly in the position where Mercury was two years ago, and says that Mercury has 'broken the ground' in international markets, making it easier for competitors to enter the market. We're getting there (BR's motto)? Bryan bmontgomery@ev.port.ac.uk montgomery_br%port.ee@uknet.ac.uk monty@vnet.ibm.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 May 92 08:43:58 GMT From: eb4/91/92 Subject: Challengers to BT Yet another article hot off the press from the {Portsmouth Evening News} (24/4/92): Picking up the telephone is a part of everyday life that we tend to take for granted. But callers in the Portsmouth area are now in the front line of a telecommunications revolution as technology advances and companies offer increased competition. Established operator BT is facing a concerted challenge from Mercury and cable firm NYNEX as the battle for domestic and business customers along the South Coast intensifies. Nynex, an American-based company, is investing 100 million pounds in the solent region to provide cable television and telephone services by 1996. It won the local franchise after the Government ordered an end to the telephone duopoly of BT and Mercury. The project involves 218,000 homes. Workmen are laying 2,200km of fibre optic cables under roads and pavements. Mercury whose digitial network is being used by Nynex, boasts it is increasing its market share, converting thousands of customers in Hampshire and West Sussex and undercutting BT on prices. There is also a bullish mood at Nynex, which has established a local headquarters at Waterlooville and electronic nerve centre at Cosham. The company has other southern franchises for cable, including Sussex and Surrey. Domestic subscribers in the Portsmouth area have already been connected to cable telephone and the first local buisness is expected to be using Nynex later this month. The service is available so far to homes in parts of Waterlooville, Purbrook, and Cowplain. Cable has just been laid in Wymering and Paulsgrove and workmen are currently in Hilsea. Bedhampton, near Havant, is next on the list. South East Hampshire has 7,400 Mercury subscribers, with 7100 in West Sussex. Mercury expects the figure to increase as local cable-laying continues. Under the non-cable Mercury system, users still have a BT line into their homes or offices and pay line rental. Subscriptions to Mercury costs 8.81 pounds a year and a PIN number is programmed into the telephone to access the Mercury network for long-distance calls. With cable, dialling does not change and there's only one bill. The company claimed calls could be as much as 35 per cent cheaper than BT, which charges by whole units even if they are not all used. Mercury charges by 100ths of a second. Interesting or what? Bryan bmontgomery@ev.port.ac.uk montgomery_br%port.ee@uknet.ac.uk monty@vnet.ibm.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 May 92 08:43:02 GMT From: eb4/91/92 Subject: Goliath and David? I thought readers may be interested in a story that appeared in the {Portsmouth Evening News} on Tuesday 14 April entitled "Natural Monoplies? A force to be reckoned with in the near future?" Read on ... Two teenage whizz-kids are laying plans to dig up roads near their Locks Heath homes so they can link their friends to a private telephone network. And Fareham council says it cannot see a reason why the proposal should be turned down. Riza Sobrany, aged 14, and Matthew Furber (13) have spent three years building a telephone exchange in a garden shed at the bottom of a Locks Heath garden. The two schoolboy telecommunications boffins have got the exchange working and a waiting list of customers for their brainchild named `Retsu Communications Empire.' But before they can take their first calls through the exchange they need permission to lay cables to the homes of a dozen friends waiting to join the network. A spokesman for Fareham council said the authority would be prepared to grant a road opening agreement to the two schoolboys if they fullfilled the same requirements as any other private company wishing to carry out works on a public highway. The spokesman said "When I first heard about it I was a little bit puzzled. But having looked into it I can see no reason why we should say no." Matthew of Park Glen, Park Gate, said: "We've applied for a road opening agreement and we have a contractor who will do the work for free." The exchange was built using dismantled equipment from the former British Telecom exchange in Locks Heath, which was modernised in 1989. It has cost the two boys just ten pounds in spare parts. The very first customers on the exchange were Riaz's parents, whose house at the top of their garden is connected to the shed where Riaz and Matthew spend many hours. The entrepreneurial duo plan to charge their customers just five pounds per year subscription and 3p per minute for standard rate calls between *am & 10pm. Cheap rate calls at night would be free. Construction giants Pirelli said it could carry out the work for free pending a survey. Spokesman Nic Hart said the company commended the duo's enterprise and already had the two million pounds blanket insurance cover required to carry out the works. And he said Pirelli would provide the cable for the job. Enjoy, Bryan bmontgomery@ev.port.ac.uk montgomery_br%port.ee@uknet.ac.uk monty@vnet.ibm.com ------------------------------ From: mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) Subject: Polarity: Red = Negative? Organization: University of Georgia, Athens Date: Fri, 8 May 1992 03:02:12 GMT Do telephone company standards still call for the red wire to be negative and the green wire to be positive? A few weeks ago the phone company (Southern Bell) replaced some lines in the neighborhood and got rid of a pesky line-noise problem. Now I discover that the polarity of my line has been reversed (red is now positive, green negative). I discovered this while checking some wiring with a voltmeter; it has not caused problems. Should I call Repair Service? Michael A. Covington, Ph.D. | mcovingt@uga.cc.uga.edu | ham radio N4TMI Artificial Intelligence Programs | U of Georgia | Athens, GA 30602 U.S.A. ------------------------------ From: Nigel Allen Date: Fri, 8 May 1992 20:00:00 -0400 Subject: Bell Canada to Drop Fee For Caller-ID Blocking Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto Bell Canada now charges 75 cents each time you block Caller-ID by placing a local call through the operator. According to press reports, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has ordered Bell Canada and some other telephone companies under its jurisdiction to drop the 75 cent charge, effective June 1. The CRTC also orderd the telephone companies to change the rate for call race from a monthly fee to a pay-per-use service. For more information, see the story by Lawrence Surtees on page B5 of the May 5 {Toronto Globe and Mail}. It isn't clear whether blocked calls with still have to be placed through the operator, or whether caller-ID will be blockable by using a special prefix. Nigel Allen nigel.allen@canrem.com Canada Remote Systems - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044 ------------------------------ From: peterd@merlin.dev.cdx.mot.com (Peter Desnoyers) Subject: Sending High-Quality Audio Over Digital? Organization: Motorola Codex, Canton, Massachusetts Date: Fri, 8 May 1992 15:26:27 GMT A friend of mine is looking for equipment to run an FM radio remote broadcast from a distant (1K miles?) location. The signal to be transmitted is stereo (maybe mono if necessary) with 50Hz-15KHz bandwidth -- I don't know the SNR requirements, but I would guess 50dB or so. Obviously the solution used for local remotes (an equalized copper pair) won't work. Is there any solution out there that works over fractional T1 or similar digital services? (I suppose they could use a digital audio -> analog video converter and then get analog video bandwidth from one site to the other via satellite*. Seeing as one of the participants in this is a telco, I'm not sure this would be the preferred route :-) [*reportedly used by the Boston Pops to get from the Esplanade to WGBH for live broadcasts.] Peter Desnoyers ------------------------------ Subject: An Unwelcome Guest On My Line From: Collin Forbes Date: Fri, 08 May 92 00:22:30 -0800 Can someone explain to me how two people can apparently be 'sharing' the same phone line? I have been having a problem lately where another person can pick up his phone and have it interfere with my data phone line. I don't think he is aware of any disturbance because he does not respond to me asking him questions across the phone line when I encounter him ("What is your name? What is your phone number?") but there is nothing like some touch-tones to terminate an error- correcting modem's connection. I have checked my outside hookup for signs of "beige boxing" while this was happening. Nothing. Neither have I noticed any long distance calls not made by myself or my roommate (we keep logs). I have not spoken to the local telco about this because the line is being used to run a BBS. While I am almost sure that I am running a BBS that would be considered a hobby under Idaho PUC, I don't want to take any chances. Can somebody offer a probable diagnosis? I will eventually have to go to the phone company about this sometime, but I'd like to face them more prepared than I am right now, about the "mystery guest" and the PUC. Collin Forbes min@cardboard.mocw.id.us visual!cardboard!min@tau-ceti.isc-br.com (also bn745@cleveland.Freenet.Edu) [Moderator's Note: The most likely cause of this is that somewhere in the wire pair between yourself and the CO, a multiple was left in place and someone else has done a sloppy job of wiring their phone, somehow getting one or both sides of your pair involved. Searching by yourself would be futile. Report it to repair ASAP. PAT] ------------------------------ From: ganek@apollo.hp.com (Dan Ganek) Subject: Centralized Home Phone System Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA Date: Fri, 8 May 1992 15:12:20 GMT I need some advice. Last year New England Telephone entered the 20th Century and we got this great new feature -- touch-tone dialing! In a fit of euphoria I went out and bought a few programmable phones. I quickly realized what a pain it is to program each phone. This is complicated by the fact that I am cheap and bought three different brands at various clearance and going-out-of-business sales. (GE is the best program feature wise.) Then I realized that business systems are centrally programmed; and I ask why not a home system? I checked around and two-line business systems would start at around $700! Plus, they may not have the features I need. So, I'm asking does anyone make a centrally programmed system that is useful for a two-line home? Here's my situation: 1) We have two lines - one is our primary private line and the other is used for work (modem). We pay for the private line and use this line for all our family business. My wife's employer reimburses us for the second line -- so we don't want to put personal toll calls on that line. Although we may use it for toll-free calls if our primary line is in use. The two lines are daisied-chained throughout the house. 2) I would like a centrally programmable system that allows us to use standard phones, i.e. supports some sort of "speed-dialing", supports two lines, a reasonable price! ($150 for the programmable unit?) Does such a beast exists? Daniel Ganek Hewlett-Packard Chelmsford, MA ganek!apollo.hp.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 May 92 12:53:01 EDT From: Fred R. Goldstein Subject: FCC Network Chain Letter Tax! (Update on "Modem Tax") (forwading headers removed) URGENT! I GOT THIS FROM THE SHIRLEY HUGEST BULLETIN BOARD SYSTEM (617 937 1234) AND YOU GOTTA PASS IT ON: Four years ago, the FCC tried to change the way it classified telephone access to Information Service Providers such as Comp-U-Serve and Dial-a-Porn. While this idea, erroneously called a "modem tax", was dropped and has never been revived, a far more insidious threat to the way we use our networks has been proposed instead. The FCC now proposes to tax network chain letters. All network connect time spent sending, forwarding, distributing, or editing network rumors and chain letters such as the "modem tax" and "Craig Shergold is dying" will be subject to a tax of up to $5/hour. All networks which propagate these messages across public, leased-line or microwave radio facilities will be required to analyze their network utilization and determine how much time and bandwidth was spent on these chain letters. A semi-annual payment must then be sent to the FCC's Bureau of Redundancy Bureau. I know this is true because I heard it on the Harry Lipschitz show on WLFD radio in Passaic, NJ, where a caller heard about it in an article written in the Globe. They even read some of the details of what the tax will cover and it's huge! A message will be counted as a network chain letter if it meets such broad criteria as: a) uses the phrase, "Modem tax", without explaining that it's a hoax; b) does not contain a date, so that it cannot be shown to be old; c) cites as authoritative hearsay like, "I heard from somebody who heard on KGO Radio that the New York times said that..."; d) cites as a source a Bulletin Board System and gives a phone number that has long since been disconnected or changed; e) includes addresses of present or former members of Congress ca. 1989, with a suggested text of a letter to send them, citing an aforementioned or similar chain lettter topic; f) requests people to "pass this along urgently" or similar language designed to encourage the spread of disinformation at the speed of light; g) has had its original headers removed, making it impossible to trace to the original source. This tax would obviously cost us very much money, and could conceivably lead to the end of computer networking as we know it! Please pass this along urgently to everyone you know. And also send protest letters to: Congressman Wilbur Mils Tidal Basin Washington, DC 20000 and Commissioner U. Ben Hadd FCC 1919 M St. NW Washington DC 20554 letting them know your feelings on this subject. [Moderator's Note: Fred, I love it! That nasty rumor keeps going around. I get five or six messages here weekly from people wanting to put something up in the Digest about it. Thanks for once again setting the record straight, and doing it in a humorous way. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #373 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08828; 9 May 92 5:43 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22012 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 9 May 1992 00:38:45 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21622 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 9 May 1992 00:38:34 -0500 Date: Sat, 9 May 1992 00:38:34 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199205090538.AA21622@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #372 TELECOM Digest Sat, 9 May 92 00:38:31 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 372 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson An Incident in DC (Paul Robinson, FIDO via Jack Decker) Phoning Home in an Area Wide Emergency (David Ptasnik) Calling Card Fraud on "48 Hours" (Corinna Polk) Digital Cordless Phones: Do They Exist? (Doug Barlow) Qualcomm CDMA Cellular Specs Available For FTP (Phil Karn) Fiber in Our Streets (Dave Levenson) Looking For a PBX (Pat Barron) Modem Access to Pager Networks (Jeremy Brest) Pope's Phone Number (was White House Telecomms) (Linc Madison) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 8 May 92 16:26:05 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: An Incident in DC The following message was seen in the FidoNet/RelayNet PHONES conference. I found it rather interesting, and all too typical of telco behavior: * From : Paul Robinson (04 May 92 07:09) * To : All * Subj : AN INCIDENT IN DC I live in the Washington, DC area. At our address in DC, we had installed two telephone lines, one for me and one for a relative. The phone lines are billed separately. On one of the lines the person there ran up a large long distance bill, about $4,000. What I gather about it is that they figured the phone company would disconnect them in a month. For some reason the phone company kept sending threats of disconnection and kept advancing the dates they would disconnect. I have discovered the person never asked the phone company for an extension, the phone company just kept putting off the disconnection date after sending serveral notices -- each with a specific date that they would -- which I have not figured out why. Eventually C&P Telephone company disconnected the service. It was made clear to this person that they were not to make long distance calls on the other phone; and they did not. The other bill was normal and there were no unusual charges. Then one day the phone did not return dial tone even though it did earlier that day. I went to a pay phone to discover why the phone wasn't working. This other line is billed to someone other than that relative. The phone company representative at repair service said that the service had been disconnected for nonpayment. I called the business office. I got this woman who told me because the person who ran up the large phone bill was still living in that house, they had the right under tariff schedules to discontinue all phone service -- even that issued under another name -- when someone else there has been disconnected for nonpayment, because they had so many people who had not paid their bills then had someone else there get the service turned on. I told the woman we are living over a dentist's office that shares the same address as us. Does that mean that they can cut off HIS service too? Does that mean if an employee at the Pentagon doesn't pay his home phone bill they can cut off the Pentagon's phone service!? She tells me the only way I can get service restored is to send them a notarized afidavit that the person had left. Since they are paying part of the rent there, evading phone service payments or not that would require a formal eviction -- this person used to work for a real estate office and knows every trick to prevent eviction, and could easily stall one for six or eight months -- and I've had no problems with them paying me so I didn't see throwing them out on the street was an answer. Actually, as I understand it, they just stopped paying their bill on the assumption the phone company would disconnect it in a month. The phone company took four months before they disconnected the service. I found this was hard to believe that the phone company could cut off one person's service due to nonpayment by another. Further, I considered that the person who didn't pay the phone bill could sue the telephone company on the grounds that their action against a third party jeopardized their life -- by throwing them out on the street -- and that the tariff might not be constitutionally valid, since it holds one person responsible for the debts of another which they have no control over, and thus get a court order to restore service which the bill has been paid on. Or they might sue me, then I could issue a third-party suit against the phone company in the interim. But I said, before we take a drastic route, let me see exactly what the tariff says. I had asked the clerk the number of the tariff but her claim was she didn't know which one it was. I went down to the telephone company office and asked to see the local tariff schedules. After the usual bureaucratic runaround -- anyplace I've gone they don't want to show you the schedules or can't find them. (In California I once had to call the business office and threaten to pay my bill through the PUC claiming inability to discover tariffs, to get them to show them to me) -- I got to see the tariff schedule. I went through all of it. The phone company can disconnect for nonpayment of the particular account. It can disconnect for nonpayment of long distance carrier charges. It cannot disconnect for nonpayment of directory advertising. There was no tariff indicating that service may be disconnected for failure of a third party to pay a bill issued to the third party, nor anything of any nature permitting service issued to one to be disconnected for the actions of someone else on a different line. So, at the business office, with tariff schedule in my lap, I called up the billing office to ask about this. They informed me that my service would be turned back on in two hours. I never had to even ask which so-called tariff it was. The service was restored in about an hour and a half. RBBS-UTI v2.0 : by Bob Snyder - (703)323-6423/1782 HST PCRelay:BRODMANN -> #1206 RelayNet (tm) 4.11 BRODMANN'S PLACE (301)843-5732 USR/DS v.32bis Mosaic v0.99/l * Origin: *Cloud Nine BBS* 9 Gig on line 713-855-4385 (1:106/99) ---------- Jack Decker jack@myamiga.mixcom.com FidoNet 1:154/8 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 May 1992 09:58:41 -0700 (PDT) From: David Ptasnik Reply-To: David Ptasnik Subject: Phoning Home in an Area Wide Emergency The University of Washington has been reviewing it's disaster preparedness plans in the light of recent events (earthquakes, floods, riots). Much has been learned lately, and we want to put that knowledge to good use. One thing that we have discovered was recently noted by another Digest contributor: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) wrote: Subject: It's A Riot: Followup > And then on Thursday, it got horrible. > in the {Orange County Register} -- I hid out for a couple of days at > my parents' house in Huntington Beach -- Pacific Bell claims that as > few as 50% of all attempted calls were getting through in the 310 and > 213 area codes at the height of the rioting. My girlfriend was able > to get through to her parents in Arkansas, and strangely enough, they > were able to call me, even though my girlfriend was unable to > successfully call me directly from work. If the crisis is not nationwide, you can frequently make long distance calls when local calls are blocked. These calls often use different facilties than the local calls. Most calls in these kinds of crises tend to local -- calls to families, calls for help, calls to tell people not to come to work, calls to tell your buddy the cool thing you just saw, etc. As a result, if your city has a disaster, and you need to contact your family, call a long distance friend or relative, tell them that you are OK, and leave a message for your family. Have them call the same place to send and receive messages to and from you. On a smaller scale, voice mail seemed to help alot as well. With people moving around so much, and lines being so busy, if you were patient you could eventually get to your company's voice mail, leave messages for others, and collect yours. This again emphasizes the value of leaving detailed messages on voice mail, not just call back numbers. Just some food for thought. Dave davep@u.washington.edu ------------------------------ From: polk@girtab.usc.edu (Corinna Polk) Subject: Calling Card Fraud on "48 Hours" Date: 8 May 1992 12:11:04 -0700 Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA The CBS show "48 Hours" ran a show last week on scams and their lead story was on calling card fraud and how prevalent it was in bus and train stations, and in airports. They had a camera hidden on a bank of phones and had a reporter go in to use a phone and gave the operator her calling card number vocally. It was unreal to see all the people who leaned in towards her as she began to recite the digits. There were at least half a dozen people who moved in. After she completed the process, the police moved in and grabbed a couple of the people there. The guy at the phone next to her already had it written down (this was a number that MCI had given "48 Hours" to use and abuse in their report). They had plenty of tapes of people leaning to see digits being pressed on the phones, and had a printout of calls that had been made using the reporter's number within minutes of her "giving it away". People had called half a dozen different countries! This raised two questions: 1. Why do operators still ask you for your card number? I assume that if they complete the call in that manner they can bill for an operator assisted call and thus charge more. But wouldn't it make more sense to either flag certain numbers (pay phones in busy locales) for non-verbal calling card ID unless the customer has no other way to complete the call (slimy COCOTs) or to instruct operators to not ask for the calling card number first thing? 2. When the police did pick up people at the pay phones for selling the numbers, apparently there was little they could do with the offenders. According to what I heard (and we all trust TV journalism) it is only illegal to steal someone's calling CARD, and not the number. The only way to charge someone is to prove that they used the number to make unauthorized calls. It was a great scene though: a camera watching the phones, a guy in the ceiling watching what was going on, half a dozen people watching an analyzer spitting out numbers called with phone numbers, a woman calling owners of the phone codes to see if they had possibly just authorized a call to Bulgaria to be made from the bus station, and a bunch of transit police waiting for their chance to arrest someone. But even the guy they showed who had written the reporter's number down wasn't really charged with anything. They just held them in jail as long as they could without charging them and then released them. Doesn't it seem like there should be something else in place if LD companies really want to fight fraud? ------------------------------ From: dougb@novell.com (Doug Barlow) Subject: Digital Cordless Phones: Do They Exist? Organization: Novell Inc., Provo, UT ,USA Date: Fri, 8 May 1992 20:01:46 GMT I am in the market for a cordless phone and daily I hear about people complain that analog cordless phones have many problems (i.e. people can listen in on your conversation, poor quality reception, sounds like you're talking into a tin can, etc). I have asked around and no one seems to sell a digital cordless phone (at least none of the big name companies). I would think that would solve all of the problems listed above. Opinions? The only company that I have seen sell one is VTech Communications from Beaverton, Ore. {Newsweek} did a short piece on them from the Consumer Electronics Show (Jan 20,1992) page 6. Do YOU know of any others? Send me an E-mail and I will compile a list and post it in a few days. Any comments welcome. Doug Barlow Email: DOUGB@NOVELL.COM Novell, Inc. Provo, UT The opinions expressed above are solely my own and do not in any way represent the opinions of Novell, Inc. ------------------------------ From: karn@Qualcomm.COM (Phil Karn) Subject: Qualcomm CDMA Cellular Specs Available For FTP Reply-To: karn@chicago.qualcomm.com Organization: Qualcomm, Inc Date: Fri, 8 May 1992 02:34:21 GMT I am happy to announce that Qualcomm has released most of the text of the CAI (Common Air Interface) for its CDMA (Code Division Multiple Access) digital cellular technology, as recently submitted to the TIA TR45.5 standards committee evaluating wideband spread spectrum digital cellular telephone technologies. It can be retrieved by anonymous FTP from lorien.qualcomm.com (192.35.156.5) in the directory /pub/cdma. Due to copyright considerations, chapters 2-5 of the CAI are not yet available for FTP. They deal only with the analog FM mode used for backward compatibility with existing cellular systems and as such contain material previously copyrighted by TIA. If or when we receive permission to release these chapters, we will. The /pub/cdma directory contains the following files: announce - this file (ascii text) copyright - copyright notice (ascii text - please read) FrontMatter.ps.Z - Table of Contents, compressed Postscript Chapt1.ps.Z - Chapter 1, " " Chapt2-5-notice Chapt6.ps.Z Chapt7.ps.Z AppendA.ps.Z - Appendices AppendB.ps.Z AppendC.ps.Z AppendD.ps.Z AppendE.ps.Z AppendF.ps.Z The RSA MD-5 message digests for these files, as computed on a Sun Sparcstation, are as follows: 18cd3fa05520dbd289936bf8d64b0743 copyright 56d3da1d12b69756a3505ee416c8d0d3 FrontMatter.ps.Z 2da2c9970ba0566bf60130c7000fd522 Chapt1.ps.Z 3a693d7b04f2cc68fec629228f4e3885 Chapt6.ps.Z 8e31076167186c84a762f3c5867b0bc5 Chapt7.ps.Z d99d63bd845fc98939ffebbba31fe6f4 AppendA.ps.Z 93a61a01890c5deeaef0844533440fd8 AppendB.ps.Z dd7c78429f9a7456db36abffb312b6fe AppendC.ps.Z ba162fc6eeccaa68605c2756815ff748 AppendD.ps.Z 9de7775645fc1ffeca42161d8e6ca921 AppendE.ps.Z 5757c868512e77986bd297d60a6554d6 AppendF.ps.Z As Qualcomm's connection to the Internet is a 56kb/s link, we encourage other sites with faster connections to also make these files available so we can minimize the load on our connection. Thanks! Phil Karn Qualcomm, Inc karn@qualcomm.com 619-597-5501 ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson) Subject: Fiber in Our Streets Date: 9 May 92 03:27:09 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA While taking a walk last weekend, I noticed that someone has been installing lightguide cables along the utility poles in our neighborhood. What is most interesting about it is that this lightguide appears not to be the work of New Jersey Bell, but of TKR Cable Television. Anybody else in New Jersey know what TKR has planned for us? They still have co-ax to our house, and do a reasonable job of delivering about 40 channels of one-way television over it. 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: Thu, 8 May 1992 12:49:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Pat_Barron@transarc.com Subject: Looking For a PBX I'm looking for a small PBX (8-16 lines or so), preferably with DID capability, preferably very cheap (in fact, used equipment is just fine, probably preferable). I'd also like it to be fairly small, physically. I have no clue where to even start looking for such a thing. Can anyone give me any hints? Thanks, Pat ------------------------------ From: jeremy@cs.swarthmore.edu (Jeremy Brest) Subject: Modem Access to Pager Networks Organization: Swarthmore College Date: Thu, 8 May 1992 23:09:42 GMT I know there are a couple of companies that privide pager access software for desktop systems with modems. What interface do they use, what networks can they access, and what is the command set? Also, does anyone know of any email forewarding companies that take advantage of this? Please send replies by email. Thanks, jeremy@cs.swarthmore.edu Jeremy Brest / 228 Byron Street / Palo Alto, CA 94301 / 415-322-1728 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 May 92 00:15:16 PDT From: linc@tongue1.Berkeley.EDU (Linc Madison) Subject: Pope's Phone Number (was White House Telecomms) Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article Carl Moore writes: > The Pope is listed in what phone book? > [Moderator's Note: Rome, Italy, or more precisely, within the Vatican > City listings of that directory. PAT] Even more specifically, the telephone numbering space of Vatican City is rather limited: there is only one number in the entire country, which is the main switchboard. Evidently, they don't have DID to individual extensions. It's a local Rome number. Linc Madison == Linc@Tongue1.Berkeley.EDU ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #372 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06148; 10 May 92 7:54 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08185 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 10 May 1992 05:53:18 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10498 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 10 May 1992 05:53:08 -0500 Date: Sun, 10 May 1992 05:53:08 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199205101053.AA10498@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #374 TELECOM Digest Sun, 10 May 92 05:53:00 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 374 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson PacBell ISDN (was: Re: What Telcos REALLY Want) (Rob Warnock) Problems With Telebit Modems and Three Xenix Systems (Mark Seiffert) FAX Mail Comes to Seattle (Phillip Dampier) Qualcomm CDMA Specs Available for FTP (Phil Karn) Rec.radio.broadcasting is on the Air (Bill Pfeiffer) Harrassment and Call Waiting Chuckles (Todd Inch) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 9 May 92 23:34:48 -0700 From: rpw3@rigden.wpd.sgi.com (Rob Warnock) Subject: PacBell ISDN (was: Re: What Telcos REALLY Want) Reply-To: rpw3@sgi.com (Rob Warnock) Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA John Higdon writes: > "Pac*Bell to Unveil 'Dial-a-Movie' Plan" describes a system that > would allow movies to be distributed to theaters and others digitally > via fiber optic lines. It would take three minutes to transmit the > highly-compressed data that represents a two-hour movie. The company I work for is a memnber of the "Bay Area Gigabit Testbed", so I've been following the planned broadband ISDN offerings pretty closely. What is currently scheduled for availability to subscribers sometime in 1995 is 155 Mb/s ATM service over SONET OC-3c fiber-optic links. While 155 Mb/s is a lot, it's not nearly enough to send a two-hour movie in three minutes. Raw NTSC video ("network television") is roughly 60-80 Mb/s (depending on coding). Compressed with lossy JPEG but still with "good quality" it's between 10-20 Mb/s, depending on motion. On the other hand, a first-run movie is more on the order of 10 Gb/s raw data rate (4000x3000x36 x 24 frames/sec) as it comes out of the movie magicians' morphing engines. Highly compressed, however, it could just about fit within a single OC-3 channel. So the transmission of a movie-theatre quality image could occur in one-to-one realtime. Maybe the reporter got it wrong? Perhaps they meant it would take three minutes from "dialtone" until the videotape/videodisk had been fetched from the library and was mounted on the player? > Pac*Bell has not the slightest interest in offering ISDN to the masses ... > So what is Pac*Bell doing to move ISDN along? Probably nothing. > Pac*Bell has ABSOLUTELY NO PLANS at this time to offer basic rate ISDN > to ANYONE, business or residence ... John, this is simply not true. I can get PacBell ISDN service at home *today*, for $45.15/month for two lines -- one analog, one digital 2B+D, or "three dialtones for $15/mo/dialtone" -- or $58.97/month for two ISDN lines (four dialtones for $15/mo/dialtone). True, the tarriffs are a bit weird, requiring you to have Centrex service, with a whopping $585 installation charge -- of which $300 is "establishment of Centrex service". But the intra-LATA call rates are exactly the same as voice call rates. [Inter-LATA depends on one's ISDN IEC carrier. Some are the same as voice; some are a *lot* higher.] And ISDN Basic Rate service is only available within 18,000 wire-feet of an ISDN-provisioned CO, which at the rate they're going I will absolutely agree with you is nowhere near universal access ... yet. But PacBell *is* selling and installing ISDN today, in some non-trivial quantity. By the way, they've just about given up trying to push it based on the data transmission capabilities -- not enough of their anticipated audience seems to care (so says an ISDN Makreting Manager). What they're doing now is going after the high-volume business users, promoting the fact that a single ISDN line gives you *two* dialtones at a monthly cost *less* than two standard business lines. This marketing strategy seems to be working better for them than pushing the data capabilities. If you absolutely *must* have ISDN today and are outside the 18kft limit, there's a way to get ISDN in groups of eight lines ABSOLUTELY ANYWHERE AT ALL for about the same price as a T-1 line. In fact, that how they do it: They run a T-1 line [with the usual repeaters every 6000(?) feet] and stick a D4 channel bank on the end of it and a thing called a "Bright Card"(?) on that, giving eight ISDN "U" interfaces. [Note that this is *not* ISDN PRI (23B+D), but merely eight BRI lines (each 2B+D).] Each of those can then be run in any direction up to 18kft from the termination. But it's not cheap. A typical "medium-short" run for "ISDN Extended" is over $7000 to install and $1200/mo (or ~$75/mo/"dialtone"). Rob Warnock, MS-9U/510 rpw3@sgi.com Silicon Graphics, Inc. (415)335-1673 before 6pm PDT May 8, 1992 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd. (415)390-1673 after 6pm PDT May 8, 1992 Mountain View, CA 94039-7311 "Please make a note of it." ------------------------------ From: ssdc!delta1!mark@uunet.UU.NET (Mark Seiffert) Subject: Problems With Telebit Modems and Three Xenix Systems Date: 30 Apr 92 22:10:25 GMT Organization: My Organization, Inc., Hometown, ST I am unable to solve a problem with three systems with Telebit modems and SCO Xenix systems. My system is a 486/33 with a Telebit TB+ on a specialIX port running SCO Xenix 386. Its a dog with an average of 32 Users, the response time is bad. I am not sure how this would affect the modem, the SI board is an intelligent board with RTS/CTS flow control. System A is a 386 with a T1000 on COM1: with the interface locked at xxxx baud. System B is a 286/12 with a T1000 on COM1:, the interface is locked at xxxx baud. When system A tries to send a 20K file to system B using UUCP, the line is lost. When system A tries to get the file from system B using UUCP, the line is lost. All systems are set with m2s61=255, micro-packets disabled and tone before packets, the modems are not retraining at the point where the error occurs. On my system I have s58=2s68=2, on system B, s58=3s68=255, on system A, s58=3s68=3. When I send a 1.2MB file to system A, the file transfers fine, when uucp changes to to slave mode and tries to retrieve a 170K file, the line is lost. When System A calls me and attempts to send the file, the line is lost. When I try to download using Zmodem from A to me with Xmodem spoofing on (because I was going to try Xmodem if Zmodem failed), there were errors but the file made it. When I uploaded the same file to system B using Xmodem with Xmodem spoofing, the transfer took a long time, had a large number of errors but it finally made it. With Xmodem, there were a lot of pauses when nothing was being sent. With UUCP, the transfer procedes for a while and all of a sudden I start receiving alarms, eventually it will abort with line lost. I had thought that 'spoofing' meant that the modems would take care of error correction between themselves and return the user an error free data transmission. Why am I seeing errors with Xmodem? What is going on here? Can you help me? Does anyone have list of the undocumented features in the Telebit modems? I know of some of the information for disabling micro-packets and adding tone before packets, and I remember some S registers have undocumented 254 and 255 values. This is the register setting for my Tbit+: E1 F1 M2 Q4 T V1 X1 Version BA4.00 S00=001 S01=000 S02=043 S03=013 S04=010 S05=008 S06=002 S07=060 S08=002 S09=006 S10=007 S11=070 S12=050 S45=255 S47=004 S48=000 S49=000 S50=255 S51=005 S52=001 S53=001 S54=002 S55=000 S56=017 S57=019 S58=002 S59=000 S60=000 S61=100 S62=003 S63=001 S64=000 S65=000 S66=001 S67=000 S68=002 S90=000 S91=000 S92=001 S95=002 S100=000 S101=000 S102=000 S104=000 S110=001 S111=020 S112=001 S120=012 S121=000 This is the register setting for system A's T1000: E0 F1 M0 Q0 P V1 W0 X1 Y0 &P0 &T4 Version FA2.10 S00=001 S01:001 S02=043 S03=013 S04=010 S05=008 S06=002 S07=040 S08=002 S09=006 S10=007 S11=070 S12=050 S18=000 S25=005 S38=000 S41=000 S45:255 S47=004 S48=000 S49=000 S50=000 S51:005 S52:002 S54:003 S55:003 S56=017 S57=019 S58=003 S59=000 S60=000 S61=150 S62=003 S63=001 S64=000 S65=000 S66:001 S67=000 S68=255 S69=000 S90=000 S91=000 S92=000 S94=001 S95=000 S96=001 S100=000 S101=000 S104=000 S111:030 S112=001 S121=000 S130=002 S131:001 S255=001 This is the register setting for system B's T1000: E0 F1 M0 Q0 P V1 W0 X1 Y0 &P0 &T4 Version FA2.10 S00=001 S01:001 S02=043 S03=013 S04=010 S05=008 S06=002 S07=040 S08=002 S09=006 S10=007 S11=070 S12=050 S18=000 S25=005 S38=000 S41=000 S45:255 S47=004 S48=000 S49=000 S50=000 S51:005 S52:002 S54:003 S55:003 S56=017 S57=019 S58=003 S59=000 S60=000 S61=150 S62=003 S63=001 S64=000 S65=000 S66:001 S67=000 S68=255 S69=000 S90=000 S91=000 S92=000 S94=001 S95=000 S96=001 S100=000 S101=000 S104=000 S111:030 S112=001 S121=000 S130=002 S131:001 S255=001 Mark Seiffert UUNet: mark@delta1.UUCP Delta Systems InterNet: mark%delta1@rex.cs.tulane.edu New Orleans, LA 70002 Voice: +1 504 837 9835 Fax: +1 504 837 9838 ------------------------------ From: Phillip.Dampier@f228.n260.z1.fidonet.org (Phillip Dampier) Date: Sat, 09 May 1992 23:45:46 -0500 Subject: FAX Mail Comes to Seattle SEATTLE -- Fax Mail, a new service that is like voice mail, but for faxes, was unveiled here today by US West and will soon be available in the Seattle area. Richard McCormick, chairman and chief executive officer of US West, said Fax Mail is the first of many such enhanced information services the company plans to offer. He said future services will be based on innovations in voice, fax, and data communications. "The desire for these services is exploding," McCormick said. "We see a total market opportunity within our 14-state territory of more than $1 billion by 1995, and we expect to capture a significant portion of that market. In just the fax market, we see the number of machines doubling and moving from central locations to desktops, automobiles and homes," he said. McCormick announced Fax Mail at US West's eighth annual shareholders meeting, being conducted for the first time outside Denver, the company's headquarters. "It's especially gratifying to be able to tell our shareholders about the introduction of Fax Mail here in Seattle," he said. "We've been talking about new information services -- and here they are." Bill Gillis, president of US West Enhanced Services, the recently formed unit that will market Fax Mail and other new services, said Fax Mail electronically stores incoming faxes until a subscriber chooses to print them. Fax mail subscribers can then print fax messages on any available fax machine, anywhere, in complete confidentiality. The service also works with personal computers equipped with fax modems or fax cards. All Seattle area telephone subscribers will have access to Fax Mail, regardless of the company that provides their local service. Each fax mail user is provided a personal fax telephone number to which faxes are sent and stored electronically. When a fax is received, Fax Mail can automatically notify the customer by depositing a message in voice mail or beeping a pager. The user then calls Fax Mail from any Touch-Tone phone, enters a personally selected security code, and enters the number of the fax machine where the subscriber wants the faxes printed. "Fax mail allows you to retrieve all of your personal faxes with a single telephone call and eliminates the inconvenience of trying to track down faxes and messages," Gillis said. "For frequent business travelers, that represents a significant cost savings." Customers wanting more information may call 1-800-945-9494. 1 May 1992 US West Contacts: Lisa Bowersock (206) 345-6885 Mike Szumilas (303) 294-1627 ------------------------------ From: karn@chicago.qualcomm.com (Phil Karn) Subject: Qualcomm CDMA Specs Available for FTP Organization: Qualcomm, Inc Date: Sat, 9 May 1992 19:23:50 GMT I am happy to announce that Qualcomm has released the entire text of the CAI (Common Air Interface) for its CDMA (Code Division Multiple Access) digital cellular technology. It can be retrieved by anonymous FTP from lorien.qualcomm.com (192.35.156.5) in the directory /pub/cdma. The files in that directory are: read.me - description of files and copyright notice (please read) cdma_cai_v2.sit - "Stuffit" format archive containing the individual chapters of the CAI in Microsoft Word format for the Macintosh Be sure to specify "macbinary" when transferring this file. Note that it is about 1.1 megabytes in size. The RSA MD-5 message digests for these files, as computed on a Sun Sparcstation, are as follows: 8b1a2de27923a08181b0fda6e4a5a347 CDMA_CAI_V2.sit 90a69c85af287452894f73f2f6006dce read.me (unix newline convention) We are working on producing a set of Postscript files for those who cannot handle the Macintosh formats. These will appear in this same directory as soon as they are available. (Please don't bug us until they're ready!) As Qualcomm's connection to the Internet is a 56kb/s link, we encourage other sites with faster connections to also make these files available so we can minimize the load on our connection. Thanks! Phil Karn Qualcomm, Inc karn@qualcomm.com 619-597-5501 ------------------------------ From: wdp@gagme.chi.il.us (Bill Pfeiffer) Subject: Rec.radio.broadcasting is on the Air Date: Sat, 9 May 92 14:14:16 CDT Greetings Telecom Readers. Thanks to a vote of 234 - 34, rec.radio.broadcasting is now approved and has been newgrouped since May 6, 1992. Rec.radio.broadcasting (as many of you already know) is a moderated newsgroup dedicated to the wide world of domestic broadcast radio. By domesatic, we mean all radio designed for reception within ones own country, regardless of what country that may be. We deal with all aspect of broadcast radio, including (but not limited to): * Formats and programming * Engineering and technical * Historical and cultural significance * Radio's future potential * New innovation and technology * Legislation affecting radio b'casting * Radio's differences and similarities between nations * Pirate radio * Network radio, yesterday and today * Low-Power and community radio * Broadcast band DXing * Radio's news and political coverage * Assistance to those attempting to find employment in the industry * General gabfesting and exchange of information, opinion and what- have-you, between broadcast professionals, hopefuls and affectionados throughout the world. About the only traffic NOT welcome in this group is ... ! Flame wars, and personal attack ! Endless, pointless "my-opinion-is-gospel-and-yours-is-garbage" arguments. ! Traffic not pertaining to radio broadcasting, reception or related fields. I am starting a limited e-mail distribution of a digest (much like telecom) to those who DO NOT HAVE USENET, or who's site won't carry the group. PLEASE only request this method of delivery if you cannot get it through the regular Usenet channels. My little Unix has limited stroage and until I can get access to more storage, I am limited in the number of digests I can send out. If you can re-distribute the digest within your system, feel free to do so. Please do not distribute it to commercial systems like Compuserve, GEnie, AOL, and such without contacting me first. To post to r.r.b send e-mail to -- rrb@airwaves.chi.il.us For non-posting communications -- wdp@airwaves.chi.il.us Thanks to all Telecom readers who voted YES to this proposal. The response thus far (three days into the group's creation) has been fabulous. Again, thanks to all. William Pfeiffer Moderator -- rec.radio.broadcasting ------------------------------ From: toddi@mav.com (Todd Inch) Subject: Harrassment and Call Waiting Chuckles Organization: Maverick International Inc. Date: Sat, 09 May 92 23:15:20 GMT In a blurb at the end of an article in the May {Reader's Digest}, from a "Police Blotter": 'Resident reported she has been receiving phone calls from a male named Lee for 25 years. She is tired of the calls and will change her phone number.' There are several other telecom chuckles elsewhere in that RD issue. On the radio the other day I heard a contest winner whose name was drawn. She had to phone the radio station within X minutes to collect her $100 prize. You could barely hear her and she made the DJ's repeat everything because her call-waiting tone was constantly beeping as dozens of friends and neighbors called to tell her to call the station. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #374 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08342; 10 May 92 9:09 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11105 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 10 May 1992 07:11:41 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11497 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 10 May 1992 07:11:34 -0500 Date: Sun, 10 May 1992 07:11:34 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199205101211.AA11497@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #375 TELECOM Digest Sun, 10 May 92 07:11:39 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 375 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Switchover to Digital Service (Bruce Carter) ISDN in Massachusetts (Monty Solomon) New Generation of Airplane Payphones (John R. Levine) A Real-Life Residential ISDN Bill (David E. Martin) HAL Catalog (Todd Inch) Strange Phone Behaviour (Guy Martin) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: bcarter@claven.idbsu.edu (Bruce Carter) Subject: Switchover to Digital Service Organization: Boise State University - CBI Product Development Date: Sat, 9 May 1992 21:15:13 GMT Greetings all, BSU is changing its on-campus phone service over to a digital system from Ericsson. Although we have most of the hard spots figured out, I have a couple of questions, as well as a request for general comments from anyone who has been involved with this sort of conversion. 1) The telephone service group has pretty much determined that the use of TAU units and a modem pool will take care of dial-out needs. Are there any particular circumstances in which this is not a good solution? I suggested that services requiring special front-end programs (AppleLink, CompuServe Navigator or Information Manager, America OnLine) might be problematical, but the Ericsson people say that the TAUs respond to Hayes type AT commands so it should be no problem. 2) Can anything be done with Shiva NetModems? These are shared devices on an AppleTalk network that allow modem dial-in and dial-out services (when you dial-in you appear as a node on the zone of the network where the NetModem is located). The current suggestion is that we'll have to get a separate analog line. 3) A UNIX based "gateway" system is being hooked into the switch to control dial-in access to the campus fiber-optic network. Any particular words of wisdom here? 4) One of the groups here has an audio teleconference bridge that appears to require analog lines. Are there similar systems for digital setups? 5) We have a system that forwards calls into a PA system in a television studio that the vendor has told us is not compatible with a digital system. Run analog lines to it too? I am not on the implementation team for this changeover. My concern is that none of our ongoing project work gets disrupted by this. We have a lot of strange setups in this building. Thanks for your thoughts. Bruce Carter, CBI Product Development bcarter@claven.idbsu.edu Simplot/Micron Instructional Technology Center amccarte@idbsu (Bitnet) Boise State University, Boise, ID 83725 (208)385-1851@phone ------------------------------ From: Monty Solomon Subject: ISDN in Massachusetts Date: 9 May 92 01:05:25 GMT In article <3742@rosie.NeXT.COM> mmeyer@next.com (Morris Meyer) writes: > We're going to put out a document that tells how to deal with your > friendly RBOC in a way that you can get the service that our software > and hardware needs. If it makes you feel any better, the people who > wrote all of the software (myself and Richard Williamson) have gone > through all of this angst before. The phone companies are getting > better. Just a note on the state of ISDN here in the People's Republic of Massachusetts, in case others are interested and/or need some amusement today. While it is getting better as Morris states, the improvement is happening at a ponderous pace, as befits the phone company and other dinosaurs. I suspect that my problems may be symptomatic of the nation at large, so I figure I'll post this little story and see what, if any, comments come back. A little background: I've been looking to upgrade the current SLIP connection between my partner's home and the office, which is currently running over normal residential lines and a pair of v.32bis/v.42bis modem. I was hoping that basic rate ISDN would enable me, by bridging the B channels (thanks Morris and Richard), to step up to a 128K connection. I hoped that at that speed, NFS mounts and NXHost'ing of apps would become feasible (they aren't now). Both locations are served out of the same Central Office (CO) which is a 5ESS and is ISDN capable. At the moment we pay about $14/month on each end for our connection and we keep it up 24-hours a day or as needed for various other purposes. Quick disclaimer: after literally one year of calling the phone company and the Mass Dept of Public Utilities with inquiries about ISDN, I have developed a visceral aversion to regulated utilities and the technology-challenged liberal arts/law school graduates who regulate them. When I have a really bad day, I call these guys up, (especially the DPU) because they give me the perfect means of venting a lot of spleen without the guilt of doing so on someone who doesn't deserve it. :^) The point is: salt the little parable below to taste. Anyway, this past week, I finally got someone on the phone at New England Telephone who could actually tell me what services the State of Massachusetts was now allowing me to buy. I WAS APPALLED (but not surprised :^) ) The conversation with NE Tel started out just rosy. The sales guy informed me that ISDN was available out of my CO (a fact that I knew a year ago and which influence a relocation decision) and that it could be had by subscribing to their Centrex service with quantity one line. Now, I knew that Centrex is essentially renting part of a switch and is typically sold to signicantly larger customers as a way of enticing them not to buy a PBX, thereby cheating the phone company out of its hard-earned return on assets. I was a bit hazy on exactly what Centrex features one can use on a single line, but I let it ride. Since this was a business line (residential customers don't do digital), I would of course have to pay the tariffed business line rate of $30/month. That's fair, gotta subsidize my personal line somehow, and it sort of fits with making me buy commercial plates for my pickup truck (only businesses in MA drive trucks). Anyway, I let this ride, too. Now we add $23/month because this is a DIGITAL line. I asked him if he knew the function of the A/D chips and codecs that are on the line card in the switch that my analog line attaches to. He allowed that that was not really his area. I bit my lip and reluctantly let it ride. Then I enquired as to any usage fees. He said yes, all of this can be had for the low-low price of 9.6 cents/call plus 1.6 cents/minute. I did a quick back of the envelope calculation: $.016/minute * 60 min/hr * 24 hr/day * 30 days/month and came up with a usage fee of about $691/month. I could not let this one ride. I felt a bad day coming on :^) ... I asked exactly why NE Tel felt that I ought to be paying a per minute usage fee when placing an intra-CO call on a non-blocking switch. He assured me that even though this was not his area, those switch services cost real money. I said that I used to program state code in line cards on phone switches for a living and that yes, I understood that I used switch services during call set-up or if I went outside my CO and tied up trunk capacity, but that I knew damn'd well that I did no such thing once the call was established to another line in the same switch. He replied that this really wasn't his area, but he assumed that since it was in the tariff, I must be wrong. I decided to try another tack. I asked him why anyone would possibly be interested in paying $1,488/month ($691+53 on two lines) to get ISDN for circuit switched data calls when one could pay $28/month for a private connection. (Admittedly the $28/month solution is "only" 14.4 up to 56KB, but it ain't 1/50th the speed). At the mention of the words "private line", I could hear a giant switch being thrown. Why hadn't I mentioned that I wanted a private line. Why for "only" $80/month on each end he could provide me with 56KB DDS and they could sell me a DSU/CSU for about $1000/bucks on each end and everything would be just peachy. This was when I said sorry to have troubled him, I'd call back when the DPU actually let someone compete with New England Tel for the local subscriber loop. I've said all of the above to say this: if you're counting on ISDN to provide flexible data connections, you need to be fairly wealthy, given the current regulatory environment. Small businesses need not apply. This is changing in places like NYC and Chicago, but in other places the free market is still seen as a dangerous innovation that has not been proven to work. At this point, I'm interested in hearing from other parts of the country what sort of use people expect to get out of an ISDN connection over the public switched network and how much they anticipate that it will cost. If anyone's interested, over the course of the next month or so, I'm going to give Metropolitan Fiber and Teleport a call and start trying to find out what services they offer. You never know, might not be more that about five years before they're local loop providers and it would be great to get in on the ground floor. I'll post if I find anything vastly amusing or useful. PS: Sprinkle all of the above liberally with smileys. It's all true but its also all funny in an ironic sort of way. Cheers, Ronald V. Simmons rvs@vnp.com ------------------------------ Subject: New Generation of Airplane Payphones Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 9 May 92 13:24:23 EDT (Sat) From: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) Tuesday's {Microbytes} reports on a new generation of airplane phones under development by In-Flight Phone of Oak Brook, IL. It is headed by John Goeken who was the founder of Airfone and, as I recall, was also the founder of MCI. The new phones are all-digital, and use 12 kilobit channels. The ground stations are controlled by 386 DOS PC clones. On the plane, each phone (one per seat or perhaps group of seats) has a small CPU with a codec that turns the voice into a 64Kb bit stream, and an in-plan LAN passes that to a server that uses a DSP to squash it down to 11.2kbps. There is provision planned for handling faxes, though at the moment all they seem to have is something that passes ASCII to the ground station which then turns it into a fax. It implies that there is also provision for modem traffic, as one of the major complaints about the current scheme is that the fidelity is so lousy that it can't even do 300 baud. US Air is starting trials this month, with American and Northwest expected to follow. The rate is $2/minute, same as Airfone, but without the $2 setup charge that Airfone has. The computer stuff is from Desktalk Systems of Torrance CA, and the radio part from Digital Microwave of San Jose CA. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 May 1992 15:26:10 -0500 From: "David E. Martin" Subject: A Real-Life Residential ISDN Bill Several people have asked, so I have placed a copy of my first residential ISDN bill on our anonymous ftp server, hepnet.hep.net (131.225.100.1). Look for purchases/april-isdn-bill.txt. Some highlights: - montly services is about $44 - installation cost about $200 - circuit-switched data calls $0.12 for the first minute, $0.01 for each additional 1/10 of a minute, insensitive to time or volume. - voice calls are standard rates. David E. Martin National HEPnet Management Phone: +1 708 840-8275 Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory FAX: +1 708 840-2783 P.O. Box 500, MS 234; Batavia, IL 60510 USA E-Mail: DEM@FNAL.FNAL.Gov ------------------------------ From: toddi@mav.com (Todd Inch) Subject: HAL Catalog Organization: Maverick International Inc. Date: Sat, 09 May 92 22:59:11 GMT I recently received a new catalog at work which had quite a few interesting goodies in it. The company is Home Automation Laboratories (HAL) and can be reached at 800 HOME-LAB (800 466-3522) or 404 319-6000. It includes: - Several phone and intercom systems, including the much-raved-about Panasonic small PBX/Key phone systems - which I've never seen for sale retail and have failed to purchase in the past. - Many phone accessories, including: A box that answers the phone and demands a password be punched in by the caller before ringing. Apparently this is a replacement "bell" and doesn't ring the callee's phones, so I doubt it works with modems or answering machines and additional ringers would have to be kludged in. Several interesting voice/Fax phone line sharing devices with a new twist: They let YOU or your answering machine answer the phone and it eavesdrops listing for a fax tone. If it hears the tone, it disconnects your phone or answering machine and connects the Fax to the line. They say this is guaranteed to work 100% of the time with any fax or answering machine, including behind a PBX. Another box is similar but listens for an originating modem's tone and assumes it's a Fax call if there's no tone within eight seconds. It says no modem programming is required since it listens for the origination tone, and apparently ignores the answering modem's tone, which must normally occur first. The usual distinctive-ringing detector which routes the ringing line to different devices depending on the ring cadence. Music-on-hold boxes, which can synthesize Bethoven or use an external music source. Dial-uppable devices to eavesdrop on sound, temperature, and external detectors, commonly used to monitor computer rooms from off-site. - Many, many X10 (wireless AC switch/dimmer module/controller) accessories, including PC interfaces, and remote controls which do X10 and infra-red. - Many, many infra-red (standard audio/video remote control) replacement remotes, PC-interface remotes, "wired" remote extenders including several to use existing TV coax for both CATV and run the wired remote detector. - Surge suppressors for everything, including a "whole house" one that connected directly to your breaker/fuse panel!! - Alarms, motion detectors, and closed-circuit TV systems. - Multi-room speaker systems, including interesting impedance-matching devices. - Systems/devices/solutions which combine all of the above into your worst nightmare! :-) The catalog is not terribly well organized and doesn't do a wonderful job of explaining some things, but there are definitely some hard-to-find and interesting items in it. I have no idea what their quality or service is like. Maybe their tech support is all-knowing, helpful, and just waiting for the phone to ring?? (Well, Dorothy and the gang ARE on a yellow brick road on the cover of the catalog, so who knows?) ------------------------------ From: guy@library.calpoly.edu (Guy Martin) Subject: Strange Phone Behaviour Organization: Polycat/Systems Support - Kennedy Library, Cal Poly SLO Date: Sun, 10 May 1992 06:15:32 GMT I was wondering if anyone has experienced the following strange behaviour from their phone ... I try to call my sister in the East Bay (510) from San Luis Obispo (805) several times. I got a busy signal the first few times, which I didn't think was abnormal (she talks on the phone a LOT #:-)), but then when I did get a ring, it was one ring, followed immediately by a "static"y sound with no more ring tone ... I sat on the line, and after about two minutes of the static, I got ring tone again, but it just kept ringing out, until Boom!, I got fast busy (VERY LOUD I might add) ... What is strange about this is that there should have been an intercept recording if there was a network problem, right? Anyone ever experienced this before? Guy Martin -- Polycat/Systems Support | Internet: guy@library.calpoly.edu Robert E. Kennedy Library, Cal Poly SLO | UUCP: voder!polyslo!library!guy ----------------------------- Standard Disclaimer ----------------------------- My opinions are my own! They do not reflect those of the Kennedy Library. [Moderator's Note: The problem might have been very local, within her wires or instrument. If between the CO and the 'network' no problem was seen, the call would have been passed along to your sister, but if the wires somewhere around her were wet or poorly connected, the busy signals you got earlier and the static could be accounted for. The intermittent connection to her phone (due to wet or improperly connected wires) then might have caused the CO switch to do something strange, all the while the CO or network itself saw no problem. Have you since asked your sister if she experienced any problems that day in answering the phone when it rang, or in placing outgoing calls? I've had cases of one ring then silence with no answer, and it turned out to be someone (won't say who!) had accidentally connected the ring of one line to the tip of another, or etc. Once or twice of these calls, then the CO started returning fast busy. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #375 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10069; 10 May 92 10:04 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13155 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 10 May 1992 07:50:17 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09097 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 10 May 1992 07:50:07 -0500 Date: Sun, 10 May 1992 07:50:07 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199205101250.AA09097@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #376 TELECOM Digest Sun, 10 May 92 07:50:05 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 376 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Help Me Complete This One (Pierre-Martin Tardif) Reference to AT&T News Line in Someone Else's News Line (David Leibold) Bell Canada Voice Mail Demo Line (David Leibold) Detroit Area Code Split Questions (Linc Madison) Another Hotel Experience (Stephanie da Silva) Seeking Continued Net Access in the Boston Area (Scott Fybush) Device to Prevent Interference From Picked-up Extension? (Michael Rosen) Need: Software for Panasonic KTX-1232 Phone Systems (Jeff McCartney) Scams Discussed on Recent "48 Hours" Show (Gordon Burditt) Wanted: Differential Ringing Fax/Voice Switch (Douglas Camp) Integretel Response (Carl Moore) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: tardif@chicoutimi.ulaval.ca (Pierre-Martin Tardif) Subject: Help Me Complete This One Organization: Universite Laval Date: Fri, 8 May 1992 20:51:47 GMT Can anyone help me complete this list? Please, reply on the net so everybody will be able to add their comments. If no one replies, what should I think? Anyway, here it is: Here is more about phone lines: Remember this is for Canada, but the USA should be similar. You should conform to the following: TYPE MIN (Ohm) NOM. (Ohm) MAX. (Ohm) ==================== ========= ========= ========= *******************************Impedance********************************** ---------------------------OFF-HOOK--------------------------------- DC 100 200 AC (200 Hz to 3500 Hz, T=R) 600 ---------------------------ON-HOOK---------------------------------- DC 20,000 AC (20 Hz, T/R=G) 14,000 AC (30 Hz, T/R=G) 10,000 ---------------------------RINGING---------------------------------- AC (at 40Hz, T=R) 1,000 AC (680 Hz to 1660 Hz) 2,000 ********************************Over-Voltage******************************* DC pulse of 1 sec. -1,000 1,000 AC at 60 Hz 1,000 TYPE MIN NOM. MAX. ==================== ========= ========= ========= ********************************Power************************************** In-band signal (300 to 3000 Hz) -9 dBm (3 sec.) +3 dBm (250 ms) Out-of-band into 600 Ohm -20 dBV ********************************Parasitic signals************************** CC (T=R) -25 mV 25 mV CC (T/R=G) -0.5 AC (10 to 100 Hz, T=R) -33 dBm AC (in C band, T=R) 17 dBrnc AC (100 to 4000 Hz, T/R=G with 500 Ohm to G) -30 dBV ********************************Signaling********************************** PULSE Duty cycle 58% 64% Pulses per second 8/sec. 11/sec. On-hook time 53ms 80ms Off-hook time 33ms Between digit time 0.7s 3s DTMF Frequency tolerance -1.5% +1.5% Power during emission 0 dBm Power during silence -55 dBm Emission time 50ms Between digit time 45ms 3s You can use an automatic signaling system with 10 tries with a 60s pause between calls. THE PHONE COMPANY WILL PROVIDE YOU: TYPE MIN NOM. MAX. ==================== ========= ========= ========= Voltage DC (T=R) 47 V 48 V 105 V Ring AC voltage (T=R) 40 Vrms 90 Vrms 130 Vrms Ring frequency 15.8 Hz 20 Hz 68 Hz Ring ON/OFF time 1s/1s DC current 20mA 30mA 120mA Noise 15dBrnC Also, the domestic cable should look like this: RED is RING is NEGATIVE(dc) GREEN is TIP is POSITIVE(dc) YELLOW is GROUND if available BLACK is not connected Lexical: T was Tip, R was Ring, T=R was between Tip and Ring, T/R=G was between Tip and Ground OR between Ring and Ground A good telephone line transformer should have an impedance of 600 Ohm, a resistance around 120 Ohm, a good frequency response between 300 Hz and 3 kHz, a good operating level (-45 dBm to 10 dBm), be able to wisthand 90mA DC without saturating, have a good longitudinal balance (60 dB is good) and a good dielectric strengh (1.5 kVrms for 1 min.). You should use a relay to put your line ON/OFF-HOOK. A good one is a G6E-134P-ST-US from I don't remember who...if you're interested, I will find out. You also use it to generate your pulse signalisation but you need to put a resistor-capacitor in parallel to remove to voltage transients generated by the switching. It's control come from a 5Vdc supply and you should put a diode to remove the voltage transients: Your interface ------* | | *------------------------ TIP * | | * don't forget your * | | * protection ------* | | *-------| |-- RING Transfo +-_-_-_--| |--+ | R C | | | --------------------- | |______/ _____| | | | | --^^^^^^^^^^^-- | | | | | --------------------- + 5Vdc |----| | |---|<|-------| DIODE | | |\ | HOOK -----| *------ |/ ULN2804 DIODE: 1N4003 R and C: sorry I don't remember.... For protection, don't forget to put, between T and R, a transorb for it small reponse time and a spark gap for longer and higher transients. If you think it's too complicated for you ... then don't play with phone lines! Pierre-Martin Tardif, etudiant gradue (email: tardif@gel.ulaval.ca) Laboratoire de Vision et Systemes Numeriques Universite Laval, Pavillon Adrien-Pouliot, local 00100-I, Ste-Foy, Quebec, Canada, G1K 7P4 (418-656-2131, ext 4848) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 May 1992 02:43:13 -0400 From: Dave Leibold Subject: Reference to AT&T News Line in Someone Else's News Line The Amateur Video News Network (1 800 221 NEWS) will prompt whether information is needed on their service, or on the AT&T News Line. When AT&T News Line is chosen, a recording is played which mentions the regular number for AT&T News and stating that there is no toll-free access to this line. Even though the former 800 number for AT&T's news was actually 1 800 2 ATT NOW, it would seem many people have been trying this number. AT&T's news line can be reached at +1 908 221 NEWS, but no longer as toll free. In the U.S., an appropriate long distance carrier can be used to place this call (hint: dial 10222 or 10333 first :-)) dave.leibold@f730.n250.z1.fidonet.org dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:250/98 INTERNET: Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 May 1992 02:47:29 -0400 From: Dave Leibold Subject: Bell Canada Voice Mail Demo Line Bell Canada has just introduced Call Answer, a voice mail service integrated into their residential or business lines. The advantage Bell has over private, non-PBXed voice mail suppliers is that Bell's Call Answer can works on the subscriber's number, and when the line is busy or not answering. A demonstration line is available at (416) 242.1282 (need touch tone to skip through menus, etc). No information is immediately available on whether an 800 number equivalent is available for this (though this might only be effective in Ontario and Quebec only). dave.leibold@f730.n250.z1.fidonet.org dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:250/98 INTERNET: Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 May 92 00:28:33 PDT From: linc@tongue1.Berkeley.EDU (Linc Madison) Subject: Detroit Area Code Split Questions I have some relatives who live in Michigan, just north of Eight Mile Road, and therefore will be affected by the area code split that has been mentioned here in the past. However, they haven't heard much of anything about the subject, and if these questions have been answered here, I missed them. (1) What will the new area code be? 810 and 910 are the only possibilities left, but which is it? (2) What are the effective dates for initial and final cutover? Have they been announced? Linc Madison == Linc@Tongue1.Berkeley.EDU ------------------------------ From: arielle@taronga.com (Stephanie da Silva) Subject: Another Hotel Experience Organization: Taronga Park BBS Date: Sun, 10 May 1992 07:53:40 GMT In light of all the hotel telephone service bashing, I thought I'd relay our recent experience, which turned out to be a positive one. We went to Austin about three weeks ago so Peter could attend a meeting of a committee that he was asked to participate in. We stayed at the Hawthorne Suites Hotel. The rooms were very nice -- like little apartments with a kitchen and a living room. We were pleased to see that the long distance carrier was AT&T. Local calls were fifty cents apiece, and there was no charge for 800 numbers. You could also make direct dial long distance calls for a horrendous surcharge which I did one time when I got frustrated trying to use the Sprint card because the buffer on the modem was too small to hold the incredibly huge string of numbers one has to dial. I wish I had timed the call, but it couldn't have been longer than ten minutes (just long enough to check my mail) and the charge was over five dollars. This for a call placed at three in the morning! When we checked out, we scrutinized the bill and found we had not been charged for any calls we didn't make. The hotel clerk explained that they didn't even do the billing for the phone calls. In fact, we weren't charged for a call we did make, but it was one where I had timed out on the system for taking to long to log in and I guess it was too short of a duration to register for a call (I guess they had a minimum call length before they started charging). Not a perfect experience, but not too bad, either. As a footnote, we went and visited with Peter's parents right before we left for Austin. They were staying at a hotel near the airport here as they had arranged a short layover in Houston so we could visit with them as we don't see them very often. We looked at the card that explained the telephone service, and it said the long distance carried was Allied TeleScam or something like that, based out of Dallas. On the back of the card was a disclaimer saying the hotel wasn't accountable for the service and it gave the name and number of some Consumer Advocacy service to direct complaints to. Kind of tells you something about the quality of the service, doesn't it? Stephanie da Silva 568-1032 Taronga Park * Houston, Texas arielle@taronga.com 568-0480 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 May 1992 18:03 EDT From: Scott Fybush Subject: Seeking Continued Net Access in the Boston Area I will be graduating from Brandeis University in two weeks (gulp!) and will therefore lose the use of this account. I want to remain active on the Internet, though, as this newsgroup and several others have proved not only entertaining but most educational over the years (Thanks, PAT!) So here's what I'm looking for: A system which will allow me access to USENET and Internet mail, reachable by 1200-baud modem from a number in the metro Boston area, preferably in the western suburbs (small unmeasured calling area, you know). And being a college graduate in 1992 with no clear prospects of employment, the cheaper the better. Suggestions are appreciated by e-mail to ST901316@pip.cc.brandeis.edu, which will be active until at least the 24th of May. Anyone wanting a summary of what I find can e-mail me at that address or my new address, whatever that may prove to be. Thanks in advance ... Scott Fybush -- ST901316@pip.cc.brandeis.edu *UNTIL 24 MAY 1992* ------------------------------ From: mrosen@isis.cs.du.edu (Michael Rosen) Subject: Device to Prevent Interference From Picked-up Extension? Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept. Date: Sun, 10 May 92 02:54:38 GMT Whew, long winded subject line ... Does anyone know if there's any kind of device that will cut off another extension when the modem is in use? I would like to have something that, when I am on the modem, will prevent someone from picking up another extension and interrupting my session. Is such a device available? Thanks, Mike [Moderator's Note: There are plenty of things like this. The easiest most convenient source would probably be at your local Radio Shack store. Price is just a few dollars. PAT] ------------------------------ From: gt8963a@prism.gatech.edu (MCCARTNEY,JEFFREY ELWOOD) Subject: Need: Software For Panasonic KTX-1232 Phone Systems Date: 9 May 92 00:17:31 GMT Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology That's right. I need to learn about the good software for the KTX-1232 key phone systems. Voice messaging and all that. Typcially not sold by Panasonic. We are looking to install such soon and know the software is crucial. Any recommendations and gotchas would be appreciated. Thank you. uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt8963a Internet: gt8963a@prism.gatech.edu ------------------------------ From: gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt) Subject: Scams Discussed on Recent "48 Hours" Show Organization: Gordon Burditt Date: Thu, 7 May 1992 07:08:56 GMT The CBS news program "48 Hours" recently had an interesting program on various types of scams. One of them was on the theft of calling card numbers in airports and train stations, and the resale of these numbers to make international calls. Apparently the "going rate" is $10 for an unlimited-duration international call. A reporter made a phone call using her MCI calling card in Penn Station in Newark, without being careful to protect it, and there were apparently at least five people around her trying to get the number. One of them asked the camaraman if he got the number. One guy was pretending to use a phone while actually trying to get calling card numbers of the people next to him. In a later interview with MCI's fraud control people, it turns out that the stolen number was used two minutes later. In the process they gave viewers a nice shot of the MCI calling card number. Presumably this card has been cancelled already. There were also some nice shots of call logs, identifying calls to Algeria, Egypt, and Switzerland, complete with apparently real numbers, and computer screens of AT&T Security with what looks like login passwords on them. The police had cameras monitoring the phones and were logging all the numbers. Several arrests were made. One of the number resellers didn't think he was doing anything wrong. It is apparently New York law that you have to be caught with a stolen calling card, not a calling card number, in order to be prosecuted, unless you actually make a phone call, which the resellers don't. Also covered were the pigeon-drop scam, loan scams, fake lottery ticket scams, stolen cars/fake auto accidents/insurance fraud taken to the point of being an industry, and home-repair scams. Parts of the program were sponsored by MCI, with a pitch for their "Friends of the Firm" program, the business equivalent of "Friends & Family". Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 May 1992 13:39:58 -0500 From: douglas camp Subject: Wanted: Differential Ringing Fax/Voice Switch Organization: Indiana University Can anyone recommend a FAX/Voice switch which will recognize differential ringing? (Different sequences of short/long rings). I'd like to use it at home to route calls between voice/ modem/fax based on the incoming ring (so that the switch doesn't have to pick up the line, fake a ring, listen for a FAX, etc.). Price is a _key_ consideration. Thanks for your help. Doug ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 May 92 16:44:53 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Integretel Response I have received a form postcard in response to my complaint to Integretel in San Jose, California. The dates were filled in by handwriting. It reads: "DATE Apr 28 '92 "Thank you for your letter which we received on 4-27-92. "Integretel is committed to providing quality inquiry service and we will do whatever we can to ensure your dispute is resolved fairly and accurately. "This card acknowledges our receipt of your complaint. We will now begin to investigate the facts surrounding the dispute and may be contacting you for additional information. "Every attempt will be made to conclude our investigation by 5-27-92. At that time we will contact you to indicate our findings and explain the action that has been taken regarding your account. "Again, thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention. "Consumer Relations Department Integretel, Inc." ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #376 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11040; 10 May 92 10:32 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15099 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 10 May 1992 08:31:53 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10465 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 10 May 1992 08:31:45 -0500 Date: Sun, 10 May 1992 08:31:45 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199205101331.AA10465@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #377 TELECOM Digest Sun, 10 May 92 08:31:30 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 377 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Offical Spokesmen Can be Wrong (was Beeper Scam) (Wm Randolph Franklin) Seeking Morrison & Dempsey (William Degnan) Looking For a Good Answering Machine (Pascal Gosselin) Phone Companies to Pay *Dearly* For Outages! (Gregg E. Woodcock) Digital Cordless Phones: Do They Exist? (Doug Barlow) Tropez 900DX 900 MHz Digital Cordless Phones (Brian Crawford) Tropez 900DX 900 Mhz Phone Review (Dave Rand) Positions Available at Hayes (Toby Nixon) Career Change Time (Robert L. McMillin) 911 for Seagoing Cellular Users? (Todd Inch) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wrf@ecse.rpi.edu (Wm Randolph Franklin) Subject: Offical Spokesmen Can be Wrong (was Beeper Scam) Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY Date: Sat, 9 May 1992 20:34:09 GMT In article on 2 May 92 22:41:31 GMT, Jack@myamiga.mixcom.com (Jack Decker) writes: > But a spokesman for New England Telephone says the phone company knows > of no such scams and that company regulations require any service > charging more than $3 to let a caller hang up without being charged. Official spokesmen and the truth are not always positively correlated. Two months ago, when that fortune-telling company was charging people for 800 calls, I called first local NyTel and then AT&T about this practice. NyTel punted to AT&T. AT&T adamantly denied that any such thing could possibly occur, and also denied that such a thing as the {USA Today} billing for an 800 call could occur either. Twice the person I talked to put me on hold for several minutes while she checked her info. When she came back she continued to deny this. Whether she was playing a semantic logic-chopping game with me, in that she considered such charges to be for information provided during the call, and not for the call itself, or whether she, and her supervisors, had really never heard of such things, I don't know. (Other organizations also do this. Last year, after a power blackout, the official NiMo power company spokesman told the newspaper that all service had been restored by such-and-such a time. I wrote a letter to the newspaper saying that I knew from personal experience that this was false. The paper published my letter. The day it appeared, the spokesman wrote me a full-page letter of explanation. Basically, in principle, Nimo intended that power be almost completely restored at that time, so his story to the media was correct, just simplified. It reminded me of Gilbert and Sullivan's Mikado. The Mikado ordered that someone be executed, and since his word was law, then for all practical purposes the execution had then occurred.) Just wondering, but if the charges for 900 calls are for the informa- tion, then a defense for not paying should be that the information provided wasn't worth the charge. Wm. Randolph Franklin Internet: wrf@ecse.rpi.edu Bitnet: Wrfrankl@Rpitsmts Telephone: (518) 276-6077; Telex: 6716050 RPI TROU; Fax: (518) 276-6261 Paper: ECSE Dept., 6026 JEC, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst, Troy NY, 12180 [Moderator's Note: Well, of course whether or not the information was worth the charge is a very subjective decision. That's why once the information is delivered, the payment is due. How do you go about giving it back to the seller as with undesired merchandise? Do you get hypnotized to clear the knowledge out of your brain cells? :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: William.Degnan@mdf.FidoNet.Org (William Degnan) Date: 09 May 92 22:41:40 Subject: Seeking Morrison & Dempsey I have a cellular to bridged tip and ring adapter unit from Morrison & Dempsey Communications. It claims to be a "AB1 Data Adapter". My US Mail to the manufacturer's address was returned as undeliverable. Directory assistance to Northridge, CA and 800 DA came up empty. Anybody know if these folks are still in business? If so where? I'd like to see if I can find some practices for it and see if it might be adaptable for my telephone. William Degnan, Communications Network Solutions -Independent Consultants in Telecommunications- P.O. Drawer 9530 | wdegnan@mdf.fidonet.org | mfwic@mdf.fidonet.org Austin, TX 78766-9530 | !wdegnan@attmail.com | Voice +1 512 323 9383 Origin: Private Line - Stealth Opus in Austin (1:382/39.0) ------------------------------ From: pascal@CAM.ORG (Pascal Gosselin) Subject: Looking For a Good Answering Machine Organization: Altitude, St-Lambert QC CANADA Date: Sat, 9 May 1992 18:22:34 GMT I'm looking for an answering machine with excellent remote touch-tone control that will let me do ALL operations remotely. I'm looking specifically for: -Time and date stamp -Remote erasing/storing of messages -Ability to change outgoing message remotely -Very good security (at least 4 digits) -Beeperless operation -Fast operation I will not have easy physical access to the machine, so it needs to operate reliably in a closet without human intervention. Recommendations in email preferred. Thanks. Pascal Gosselin | Internet: pascal@CAM.ORG AppleLink: CDA0129 Omer DeSerres Informatique | Voice (514) 843-3082 Fax (514) 843-9327 ------------------------------ From: "Gregg E. Woodcock" Subject: Phone Companies to Pay *Dearly* For Outages! Date: Fri, 8 May 1992 09:16:08 -0500 For those who missed this article in {Information Week}, it shows how businesses are dependent on robust software and hardware (and disaster recovery plans): "Phone companies may have to start paying for service outages with more than their public image. Under a bill proposed by Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), carriers would pay fines to regulators and refunds to customers scaled to the severity of a network outage. When 25,000 lines or more go down for one to six hours, carriers would have to refund 1/4 of the previous month's phone bill to their customers. When the outage lasts 6 to 12 hours, customers would get back 1/2 their bill; outages over 12 hours would require carriers to refund the entire bill. Moreover, carriers found to be 'negligent' could also face penalties of $10,000 to $20,000 PER MINUTE (!) for disrupted service." OUCH! [Moderator's Note: It will never become law. Telephone service is governed by tariffs, one of which clearly specifies that the most a customer can expect in the way of compensation is a pro-ration of the month's bill based on the length of time the service was out. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 May 92 14:00:26 PDT From: dougb@novell.com (Doug Barlow) Subject: Digital Cordless Phones: Do They Exist? Organization: Novell Inc., Provo, UT ,USA I am in the market for a cordless phone and daily I hear about people that complain that analog cordless phones have many problems (i.e. People can listen in on your conversation, poor quality reception, sounds like you're talking into a tin can, etc). I have asked around and no one seems to sell a digital cordless phone (at least none of the big name companies). I would think that would solve all of the problems listed above. Opinions? The only company that I have seen sell one is VTech Communications from Beaverton, Ore. {Newsweek} did a short piece on them from the Consumer Electronics Show (Jan 20,1992) page 6. Do YOU know of any others? Send me E-mail and I will compile a list and post it in a few days. Any comments welcome. Doug Barlow Email: DOUGB@NOVELL.COM Novell, Inc. Provo, UT The opinions expressed above are solely my own and do not in any way represent the opinions of Novell, Inc. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 May 92 18:56:42 -0700 From: Brian Crawford Subject: Tropez 900DX 900 MHz Digital Cordless Phones In article is written: > Finally, the 900MHz cordless phones have hit the market. A full page > ad in today's {New York Times} touts the _Tropez_ 20-channel 900 MHz > phone with a half-mile range. Only $299, and it's "fully digital," > whatever that means. I hope some Telecom readers take a test drive > for us. I just ordered mine. They say it should take two to three weeks. If no one else posts a "test drive review", I'm happy to do so. Rather than post an incomplete review and receive numerous inquiries, if those interested parties will let me know what details they'd like to see, I'm happy to include it. A call to the downtown San Francisco store reveals that this is TRUE digital transmission (they verified this by tuning into the unit's operating frequency with a scanner). Hope this helps. Brian Crawford, KL7JDQ INTERNET: crawford@stjhmc.fidonet.org PO Box 804 crawford@p12.f15.n114.z1.fidonet.org Tempe, Arizona 85281 crawford@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu USA ------------------------------ From: dlr@daver.bungi.com (Dave Rand) Date: Sat, 9 May 1992 08:37:39 PDT Subject: Tropez 900DX 900 Mhz Phone Review Well, I've had my phone for several days now, so here is an update on it. The 900DX is one of the first of the new breed of 900 Mhz cordless telephones. It uses 20 channels from 925.5 to 927.4 Mhz (handset to base), and 20 channels from 905.6 to 907.5 Mhz (base to handset). They do not list a power level, but simply state that it uses the "maximum power allowed by FCC". The signal path is fully digital from base to handset, and handset to base. This prevents casual evesdropping from people with scanners, but will not provide high security. The signal, when tuned in on a scanner, sounds like a dead carrier, with the occasional 'pop' or two. Nothing even resembling voice is present. The weight of the handset is 335 grams, and is 19.5 cm x 5.8 cm x 3.5 cm, excluding the short antenna. Range is extrordinary. They claim 2600 feet, on level ground. I was able to use the phone for almost a 1.5 block radius around my house, in a typical suburban environment. Because the signal is digital, there appears to be a go/no go type of response. When you are on the edge of the coverage area, there is a slight 'popping' sound, as the signal comes in and out, but no static at all. When you have moved out of range, the handset is silent, except for a 10-30 second 'beep' tone to let you know that you are out of range. Noise is non-existant, even in the harmonic-rich environment of my computer room, where my 46/49 Mhz Sony unit is almost unusable. The base unit comes with a hands-free option, and a separate keypad so that it may be used even if the handset is not present. An intercom facility is provided, and works well. Now, for the bad news. The audio quality is best described as 'acceptable'. True, there is no additional noise. The level of the received audio is low, even with the four position digital volume control at maximum. The level of the transmitted audio, however, is even worse. On international calls, callers were often unable to hear me, and I was forced to change to either the Sony or a regular wired phone. There are several artifacts audible to the user, and to the called party when using the phone, especially when high audio levels (like ring signals, SIT tones, and touch-tones) are present. I suspect that it is using an 8-bit A/D, D/A convertor, with (perhaps) some form of delta compression. Even on local calls, the most often heard phase when using this phone is "pardon me?". I started to get in the habit of shouting when using the 900DX! So far, I have tried three of the 900DX phones. The first one was significantly worse on the RX audio, but all were not really good enough. Calls to the 800 number for tech support (800-624-5688) yielded a good response, but they are not able to adjust the outbound volume level. Bottom line: The phone is going back to Macy's. I really like the idea of a fully digital phone, but the Tropez unit is just not quite there yet. I'll try the Panasonic unit next -- I've had good luck with their cellular phones, and answering/fax machines. Dave Rand {pyramid|mips|bct|vsi1}!daver!dlr Internet: dlr@daver.bungi.com ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Positions Available at Hayes Date: 9 May 92 16:56:11 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA The following advertisement appeared recently in several newspapers. I thought I'd pass it along in case anyone is interested. -- Toby ------ Begin Ad ------ Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. is a global company whose professionals are widely recognized as experts in the computer communications industry. To maintain our leadership position in a rapidly changing and challenging market, we have the following opportunities available in our Norcross office for experienced engineers with a BSEE/BSCS or equivalent. FIRMWARE ENGINEERS Requirements include 2+ years experience in the development of communications systems or software and a demonstrated ability to expand expertise into new areas. Experience in one of the following is desired: LANs, multiplexors, transmission systems, or network management systems. Excellent written and verbal communications skills are essential. A Masters degree would be a plus. SENIOR HARDWARE ENGINEERS Working with the design and development of hardware designs for microprocessor-based communication equipment, these hands-on professionals will be involved from inception through manufacturing and delivery. A minimum of 6+ years hardware design experience with microprocessor-based equipment for high volume production is required. Additional experience must include designing with 68000-family processors, FPLAs, SMT, and PCB layouts for RFI. Design of ASICs desirable. Masters degree a plus. SOFTWARE ENGINEERS A minimum of 3+ years experience developing software applications in DOS, OS/2, or UNIX environments for data or telecommunications products. We are also seeking individuals with a minimum 2+ years MS Windows application development experience. Hayes is a progressive company that respects and recognizes the work and contribution of every individual. We offer a competitive salary and comprehensive benefits package. For confidential consideration, please send resume with salary requirements to: Human Resources, Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc., P.O. Box 105203, Dept. 01-595, Atlanta, GA, 30348. An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer M/F/D/V. 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, 8 May 92 10:11:12 -0700 From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) Subject: Career Change Time The defense market being what it is, even my current employer, one of the best in the business, has contracted greatly and will continue to do so. There are some real financial worries at our facility of late, which leads me to wonder out loud exactly how much longer we'll likely remain here. The question at the fore, then, is this: having about five years of real-time software development under my belt, what kind of software jobs are available in the telecom area right now? More specific questions: * What kinds of experience are managers looking for? * Who's hiring? And where? (Sorry, but we don't get Usenet news at our site.) * What kind of degree requirements are these folks asking for? * What else can I do to help sell my skills? If it's any help, I'm particularly interested in work in the cellular telephony area. If I get enough responses, I'll post them, assuming Pat doesn't object. 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 ------------------------------ From: toddi@mav.com (Todd Inch) Subject: 911 for Seagoing Cellular Users? Organization: Maverick International Inc. Date: Thu, 07 May 92 23:01:57 GMT I heard on the radio the other day that some cellular providers will soon provide a "hotline" to the Coast Guard by pressing #CG{Send}. Perhaps that will obsolete Marine Band channel 16? [Moderator's Note: I don't think it will simply because there are different transmission characteristics between the two, and the VHF radios have a better coverage area in some applications. Certainly cellular phones can supplement VHF, but not replace it. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #377 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05634; 10 May 92 22:03 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28623 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 10 May 1992 20:12:55 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25707 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 10 May 1992 20:12:45 -0500 Date: Sun, 10 May 1992 20:12:45 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199205110112.AA25707@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #378 TELECOM Digest Sun, 10 May 92 20:12:47 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 378 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: 800 Fraud - Misuse of 800 Numbers (Ron Dippold) Re: 800 Fraud - Misuse of 800 Numbers (Carl Moore) Re: 800 Fraud - Misuse of 800 Numbers (Eli Mantel) Re: Frustrated Phone Owner (Build Ultimate Call Screener) (Mark Wuest) Re: Frustrated Phone Owner (Build Ultimate Call Screener) (Carl Moore) Re: Frustrated Phone Owner (Build Ultimate Call Screener) (Mike Rosen) Re: Frustrated Phone Owner (Build Ultimate Call Screener) (Peter da Silva) Re: Moderator's Surprise (Brad Hicks) Re: Toby Nixon a Candidate For Public Office (Toby Nixon) Re: AT&T Ship Sets Trans-Oceanic Cable Installation Record (D. Griffiths) Re: Perks For MCI (Int'l) Customers (Andrew Klossner) Re: Chicago Telemarketing Scam (Carl Moore) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) Subject: Re: 800 Fraud - Misuse of 800 Numbers Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA Date: Sat, 9 May 1992 19:39:47 GMT mmiller1@attmail.com quotes a press release: > According to CA Director Ken McEldowney, "The problem we are > fighting is the use of 800 numbers to bill for 900-type information > services. There have never been charges for making calls to 800 > "This is the type of service for which "900" numbers were > created. But with increased regulation of 900 numbers, some ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > information providers are switching to 800 numbers, taking advantage There's your problem right there. 900 numbers existed for a reason. If you called them and got burned, you had yourself to blame, and the company if they used false advertising. With legislation to basically regulate 900 numbers out of existence (by requiring that you mail in consent in advance, or other such measures) it was inevitable that companies would move to other means of continuing their operations, including ones that had previously been left alone. I continue to be astounded by the idiocy of those legislators who think they can get rid of a problem by regulating it. Superstition sees the Finger of God even in trivialities. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 May 92 10:13:40 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: 800 Fraud - Misuse of 800 Numbers You mean there have been some cases where an 800 number was printed on a phone bill along side the charge? In other words, it would say something like "SWEEPSTKS" (in this example, "sweepstakes") for place called, and the 800 (instead of 900) number? And did anyone learn what would show up on the phone bill if the $120 charge for that psychic service was accepted? And what if you had called from a pay phone and had asked (via the keypad) that the charge be assessed to the phone you were calling from? (I stopped short of doing that, but stayed on long enough to hear the correct phone number -- all the way down to area code 410 -- read back to me.) [Moderator's Note: In the {USA Today} case, the number on the bill was given as 900-555-5555 even though 800-555-5555 was dialed. I don't know how the fortune tellers handled it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Eli.Mantel@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Eli Mantel) Subject: Re: 800 Fraud - Misuse of 800 Numbers Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service Date: Sun, 10 May 1992 16:44:58 GMT In article , mmiller1@attmail.com writes: > According to CA Director Ken McEldowney, "The problem we are > fighting is the use of 800 numbers to bill for 900-type information > services. There have never been charges for making calls to 800 > numbers. However, in the past month we have heard of phone bills or > look-alike phone bills for information received over the phone. [text omitted] > [one] service promised adult conversation at $4.95 a > minute. Students at some midwestern universities and colleges called > the service at an 800 number from campus phones. Four months later, > the schools received charges for the calls on their phone bills. In > some cases, the institutions did not know who made the calls: in > others, callers had already left the institution. So do these schools have any actual legal liability for the calls placed? My understanding was that, in general, a telephone subscriber accepts responsibility for the charges incurred for calls placed through his phone line ... but does this include other goods or service purchased via my telephone? Am I any more responsible for the purchases someone makes using an 800 number (and says to bill it to *my* phone) than Southern Bell is responsible if I go to a Southern Bell pay phone, place an order, and tell them to bill it to *my* credit card. It might be argued that someone billing the charges to my phone is guilty of fraud, just as I would be if I billed something to a someone's credit card without authorization. But that's a vastly different issue. > "We are especially concerned about any charges that appear on > a phone bill," said McEldowney, "because in some states people can > lose phone service if they don't pay such bills." Can someone identify the states or phone companies that are still trying to do this? The local phone companies only have a contract to provide billing services ... I assume that, by tariff, the phone companies must provide service to all comers who are not in arrears *with the local phone company*. If the local phone company STILL doesn't understand this, then the state public service commission needs to get involved. If the state public service commission doesn't understand this, then they need to be booted out. Eli Mantel, eli.mantel@bbs.oit.unc.edu The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service. internet: bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80 ------------------------------ From: mdw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (mark.d.wuest) Subject: Re: Frustrated Phone Owner (How to Build Ultimate Call Screener) Organization: AT&T Date: Sat, 9 May 1992 14:26:52 GMT In article byron@cc.gatech.edu writes: > After many frustrating years of owning a phone I've decided to declare > war on the following groups: > 1. Telephone Sales People > 2. Telephone Sales Computers > 3. Hanger-Uppers > 4. Wrong Numbers > 5. Bill Collectors > 6. Late Night Callers > 7. Family/Friends/Children who make 1-900, 976, and long distance calls > 8. Radio Stations > 9. And anyone/anything else that uses/abuses my phone > What happened to: 1. Answering machine with ringer turned off. If you're taking calls, turn up the volume and screen them, otherwise just turn volume all the way down. Our AT&T digital model doesn't even make all the clicks and whirs when it answers our phone. 2. Caller ID for when you just *have* to know who didn't leave a message. ?????? This takes care of all but number 7. Did someone decide that this wasn't kosher? Mark Wuest mark.wuest@att.com mdw@corona.att.com (NeXT Mail Welcome!) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 May 92 10:17:33 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Frustrated Phone Owner (How to Build Ultimate Call Screener) As regards wrong numbers, be sure to have enough of an overview to know what is going on. As I have said previously in the Digest, I am amused to recall that I have picked up one call intended for Marilyn in Beverly Hills and a few calls for a gynecology clinic; but in these cases I knew what had happened and was able to explain such to the caller. (The call for Marilyn had a messed-up area code, and the calls for the gynecology clinic were a case of two digits transposed.) ------------------------------ From: mrosen@isis.cs.du.edu (Michael Rosen) Subject: Re: Frustrated Phone Owner (How to Build Ultimate Call Screener) Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci. Date: Sat, 9 May 92 07:02:15 GMT I believe that CallerID won't read numbers that are out of your calling area. What would your system do with these calls? Mike ------------------------------ From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Frustrated Phone Owner (How to Build Ultimate Call Screener) Organization: Taronga Park BBS Date: Sat, 9 May 1992 12:52:51 GMT In article byron@cc.gatech.edu writes: > I know that a PC can do much of this stuff but PCs in general are too > big and/or too expensive for this dedicated task. If your PC is an Amiga or runs UNIX you don't need to dedicate the computer to this task. OS/2 should be able to do the same thing ... I know OS/2 is a hog and is seven years late, but it seems to finally bring DOS into the '80s. You'll need to drop at least a grand into the computer that'll support this, unfortunately, unless you go with Coherent or Minix. Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS. +1 713 568 0480/1032 ------------------------------ From: mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@mhs.attmail.com Date: Mon May 4 20:15:56 -0400 1992 Subj: Re: Moderator's Surprise Pat, in light of the explicit .sig I think that dragging MasterCard and its policies into this argument is flatly inappropriate. Besides, you obviously have the same misunderstanding that most people have. I don't work for the "MasterCard billing center", as there is no such entity. MasterCard doesn't bill cardholders; issuing banks bill cardholders. Nobody bothers to hack MasterCard, because there isn't much worth hacking at a not-for-profit corporation with only around 1k employees. Actually, if our phone system supported DISA, I would expect people to try and phreak that. But since neither or telecom manager nor our security manager are morons, we don't have a DISA number. And in my entirely personal opinion, since it is cheap, practical, and much, much more secure to use something like AT&T's VTNS or even hand out calling cards than to use DISA, after all the publicity on the risks of DISA, anybody who installs DISA on a PBX is a moron, and more or less deserves whatever happens to them, to paraphrase "Canada Bill" Jones. (And if it's true that there are PBXs out there that come installed with DISA turned on and standard passwords, anybody who buys one of these should, in my opinion, sue the installer for negligence.) I will not comment on the credit fraud case you mentioned or any other specific case; it's not my department. Contact Richard Woods, MasterCard International, 888 7th Avenue, New York, NY 10106. In general, well, you don't have to work here to know that yes, credit card fraud is up, and MasterCard's security department has been very successful in helping to track down and prosecute credit card fraud rings, world-wide. But given that credit card frauds are stealing real merchandise, the comparison between phreaks and credit card fraud is inappropriate. Steve Forrette wrote to remind me that if a Dutch phreak blue-boxes his way into the international trunk lines and calls elsewhere, the PTTs end up having to fork real money over to each other for trunk time. Look, a mechanism already exists for disputing charges. When no customer can be proved to have made the call and when the originating PTT can't collect, the receiving PTT should waive the charge ... and they should BOTH work on making it harder to phreak. If all the money that went into phreaking investigations and prosecutions went into network security and customer education instead, there wouldn't be phreaking. And finally, to that nameless person in 206: You admit yourself that your own telecom department knew about the dangers of unprotected DISA. And you let uneducated end-users manage their own phone systems, knowing how dangerous it was? No wonder you asked that your name and company be withheld. J. Brad Hicks Internet: mhs!mc!Brad_Hicks@attmail.com X.400: c=US admd=ATTmail prmd=MasterCard sn=Hicks gn=Brad I am not an official MasterCard spokesperson, and the message above does not contain official MasterCard statements or policies. ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: Toby Nixon a Candidate For Public Office Date: 9 May 92 23:49:36 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA Ted Koppel wrote: > Good luck, Toby. and PAT wrote: > [Moderator's Note: We all second that motion. Good luck, Toby. PAT] Well, thanks! I was a little disappointed in the press coverage I got locally from my campaign announcement, but I guess I can take some comfort now in knowing that the news has been spread around the world via Telecom Digest! Of course, if anyone is interested in making a campaign contribution, send me email and I'll send my campaign committee mailing address to you (I won't be so crass as to post it publicly). 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: dag@ossi.com (Darren Alex Griffiths) Subject: Re: AT&T Ship Sets Trans-Oceanic Cable Installation Record Organization: Open Systems Solutions Inc. Date: Sat, 9 May 1992 18:21:09 GMT nigel.allen@canrem.com (Nigel Allen) writes: > AT&T ship sets trans-oceanic cable installation record > SOUTHAMPTON, England - AT&T's new cable ship, the Global Link, > completed its maiden voyage here April 3 after battling snow squalls, > rough seas and the threat of waterspouts in the wintery North > Atlantic. It marked what was called the longest, fastest single > installation of trans-oceanic communications cable. > The Global Link installed 5,621 kilometres (3,500 miles) of the > next transatlantic fibre-optic cable system, TAT-10, in 21 days. This > tops the record set by AT&T's cable ship the Long Lines in 1988 when > it installed 5,224 kilometres (3,250 miles) of cable for the > transpacific system, TPC-3. This was a very interesting message that made me think of a few questions. If someone in the know can spend some time letting us know more details about the techniques used to lay trans-oceanic cables, or point to a good reference source, I'd appreciate it. Some of the things I'd be interesting in hearing about include how the cable is spliced together. I assume that the ship didn't have 3,250 miles of continuous cable on a big spindle. Does another ship provide additional cable every mile or so? How do they lay a cable part way? I assume that if it's half way across the Pacific they don't simply let it drop to the bottom and hope they find it again. Is it anchored to a buoy? Finally, what if the cable develops problems; can they go down and fix it and is the topology of the ocean floor and the depth a serious concern? Cheers, Darren Alex Griffiths dag@ossi.com Open Systems Solutions, Inc (510) 652-6200 x139 Fujitsu Fax: (510) 652-5532 6121 Hollis Street Emeryville, CA 94608-2092 ------------------------------ From: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) Subject: Re: Perks For MCI (Int'l) Customers Date: 9 May 92 19:49:58 GMT Reply-To: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville, Oregon > "Friends and Family ... as a special offer you can add *anyone* > to your calling circle regardless of their PIC ... The letter > says that MCI will write or call on my behalf." My mother gave my unlisted phone number to F&F half a year ago. The slimeballs won't stop calling. I recommend that you get permission before giving somebody's number to these people. Andrew Klossner (andrew@frip.wv.tek.com) (uunet!tektronix!frip.WV.TEK!andrew) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 May 92 9:58:27 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Chicago Telemarketing Scam It has been brought to my attention (in the "Chicago Telemarketing Scam" and followup items in telecom) that some people have been talked into giving out their checking account numbers. I fail to see where, in legitimate deals, you'd give out your checking account number. In the matter of CREDIT CARD numbers, I've previously seen advice that you should not give out such a number in a call you did not originate; however, the checking account numbers, according to what I have read, were given out during calls originated by the VICTIMS. [Moderator's Note: One legitimate 'deal' where you give out your checking account number is when you ask Compuserve to bill via Check-Free each month. Another legitimate 'deal' where you would give out your checking account number is when you apply over the telephone for (such as) the AT&T Credit Card. I consider both Compuserve and AT&T to be reputable organizations. They both do it ... The important point to remember about 312-296-9000 is they don't call anyone and ask for information ... they let their GREEDY victims -- people who expect to get a free vacation, etc -- call them. It seems to work nicely. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #378 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05817; 12 May 92 12:05 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21882 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 12 May 1992 08:00:51 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20017 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 12 May 1992 08:00:35 -0500 Date: Tue, 12 May 1992 08:00:35 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199205121300.AA20017@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #379 TELECOM Digest Tue, 12 May 92 08:00:20 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 379 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: AT&T Ship Sets Trans-Oceanic Cable Installation Record (Floyd Davidson) Re: AT&T Ship Sets Trans-Oceanic Cable Installation Record (John R. Levine) Re: AT&T Ship Sets Trans-Oceanic Cable Installation Record (John Nagle) Re: Phone War Escalation (Doug Sewell) Re: Phone War Escalation (Peter da Silva) Re: A Real-Life Residential ISDN Bill (Scott Colwell) Re: A Real-Life Residential ISDN Bill (Jack Haverty) Re: Fiber in Our Streets (Terry Kennedy) Re: Polarity: Red = Negative? (John Higdon) Re: Polarity: Red = Negative? (Andrew Green) Re: Chicago Telemarketing Scam (Karl Denninger) Re: Offical Spokesmen Can be Wrong (was Beeper Scam) (Peter M. Weiss) Re: Toby Nixon a Candidate For Public Office (David Lesher) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) Subject: Re: AT&T Ship Sets Trans-Oceanic Cable Installation Record Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science Date: Mon, 11 May 1992 01:47:06 GMT In article dag@ossi.com (Darren Alex Griffiths) writes: > questions. If someone in the know can spend some time letting us know > more details about the techniques used to lay trans-oceanic cables, or > point to a good reference source, I'd appreciate it. > Some of the things I'd be interesting in hearing about include how the > cable is spliced together. I assume that the ship didn't have 3,250 > miles of continuous cable on a big spindle. Does another ship provide > additional cable every mile or so? How do they lay a cable part way? > I assume that if it's half way across the Pacific they don't simply > let it drop to the bottom and hope they find it again. Is it anchored > to a buoy? Finally, what if the cable develops problems; can they go > down and fix it and is the topology of the ocean floor and the depth a > serious concern? I know just a little bit. I've seen sample pieces of the North Pacifc Fiber. The topology is of considerble importance, and the differences in types of cable are good indicators. Some of the cable is as small as about 1 inch in diameter (most of which is sheathing for protec- tion). It gets larger and larger depending on how much armor is added! There are five or six different sizes in use. At the point where it comes on shore it is about five inches, and the added part is almost all steel armor. That portion is also buried. The North Pacific Fiber is presently being repaired due to problems just off the Oregon coast. I could guess at various ways they might locate the cable, but I really don't know what they do to find it. I do know that it is located and hauled up very quickly. My understanding of the current situation is that it is up on three buoys, they have replaced one repeater and spliced in some new cable ... and it was supposed to go on line Friday night but it did not pass a 24 hour bit error rate test. Floyd ------------------------------ Subject: Re: AT&T Ship Sets Trans-Oceanic Cable Installation Record Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 10 May 92 23:48:20 EDT (Sun) From: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) > I assume that the ship didn't have 3,250 miles of continuous cable on a > big spindle. I believe that you assume incorrectly. I've seen pictures of a cable vault in the Long Lines and it is truly enormous -- there was a guy supervising as they laid cable into the vault and he looked like a fly, the vault must have been over 50 feet high. They've got to splice the cable into a continuous trans-Atlantic length at some point, and it'd seem to me a heck of a lot easier to do it while the ship's at the dock so they can test it and if need be repair it before they go out into the middle of the ocean. > Finally, what if the cable develops problems; can they go > down and fix it and is the topology of the ocean floor and the depth a > serious concern? Yes to both, there were some notes a few months ago about how a trans-Pacific cable had failed and they went back to inferior satellite conections while a ship steamed out to the middle of the ocean and spent a few weeks fishing around looking for the cable so they could pull it up and fix it. I'd expect that with modern navigation aids they should be able to record within a few feet the route that the ship took as it laid the cable. Close to shore they bury it, but once it gets deep they lay it on the ocean floor so it's just a matter of trawling until they find it. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) Subject: Re: AT&T Ship Sets Trans-Oceanic Cable Installation Record Date: Mon, 11 May 92 07:48:04 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) dag@ossi.com (Darren Alex Griffiths) writes: > Some of the things I'd be interesting in hearing about include how the > cable is spliced together. I assume that the ship didn't have 3,250 > miles of continuous cable on a big spindle. No, they actually do carry enough cable to do the whole job. Cable is carried in big round holds, but they don't rotate; the cable is pulled out layer by layer from the top, having previously been carefully loaded in port. Splices between sections are done on shipboard when necessary. The cable isn't just dropped overboard; the ship tows a heavy plow that makes a furrow and buries the cable, at least in areas where other ships are likely to be dragging anchors. John Nagle ------------------------------ From: doug@cc.ysu.edu (Doug Sewell) Subject: Re: Phone War Escalation Organization: Youngstown State University Date: Mon, 12 May 1992 15:17:03 GMT Charlie.Mingo@p4218.f70.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Charlie Mingo) writes: > From {The New York Times}, May 6, 1992 at D4. > "Service Makes It Harder To Override Caller ID" By Anthony Ramirez > In the cold war between those who find Caller ID appealing and > those who find it appalling, Bell Atlantic is marketing a service that > will disconnect callers who try to mask their telephone numbers using > another service, also available from the Bell Atlantic Corporation. Speaking of this, is 1-900-stopper still around? Has anyone tried it? (1-900-stopper basically gave you a dial tone to call on, and the phone you called received the ID of the service bureau, not your phone number. I guess this is the high-tech alternative to a pay phone, as far as anonymous calling goes). Doug Sewell, Tech Support, Computer Center, Youngstown State University doug@cc.ysu.edu doug@ysub.bitnet !cc.ysu.edu!doug ------------------------------ From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Phone War Escalation Organization: Taronga Park BBS Date: Sat, 9 May 1992 14:57:28 GMT YES! With Caller-ID, free Call-Block, and this service everyone wins. Hopefully you'll be able to turn Call-Rejection on or off relatively easily (though a charge for doing so is reasonable). This is the combination of services I've been wishing for for some time. Now if only SW Bell gets a clue ... In article Charlie.Mingo@p4218.f70. n109.z1.fidonet.org (Charlie Mingo) writes: > A unit of the Philadelphia-based regional phone company, the > Cheasapeake and Potomac Phone Company of Virginia, said the new > service, known as Anonymous Call Rejection, might be so attractive > that even people who do not have Caller ID devices may want to > subscribe. Sort of like putting out fake dog dishes or using dummy car alarm stickers. Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS. +1 713 568 0480/1032 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 May 92 14:24:28 +1000 From: scott@labtam.labtam.oz.au (Scott Colwell) Subject: Re: A Real-Life Residential ISDN Bill Even $0.10 per minute seems high. Could you please let us know over what distance this applies. As a data point the rate in Australia is 19.2c for the first 110 seconds and 7.2c for each additional 110 seconds. i.e. 3.9c per minute. (AUD$1 ~= US$0.75) This is for unrestricted data within the local calling area which is in my case an area 80km across, 3.1KHz audio and outside business hours is less than this. I am _very_ interested to hear how your ISDN pricing compres with your switched 56 pricing. ------------------------------ From: Jack Haverty Subject: Re: A Real-Life Residential ISDN Bill Date: Mon, 12 May 92 13:48:14 PDT Out of curiosity, can you post the comparable charges for a non-ISDN switched service, e.g., a "switched 56/64"? At $1.00 per minute, ISDN sounds very high; my recollection (which may be totally wrong) is that switched services are about an order of magnitude less costly. Jack ------------------------------ From: "Terry Kennedy, Operations Mgr" Subject: Re: Fiber in Our Streets Date: 12 May 92 07:08:36 EDT Organization: St. Peter's College, US In article , dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson) writes: > While taking a walk last weekend, I noticed that someone has been > installing lightguide cables along the utility poles in our > neighborhood. What is most interesting about it is that this > lightguide appears not to be the work of New Jersey Bell, but of TKR > Cable Television. Well, it could be a number of things. When I was in the planning stages for a fiber run between my office and my home, NJ Bell suggested that I might want to use the installation services of the local cable company, as they did a bit of fiber work. [This is in Jersey City, and the local cable company is Cable TV of Jersey City]. They ran my fiber for me. While they were doing that, the mentioned that their antenna to studio feeds were on fiber, and that some of the local- origin programming was delivered to them via fiber. They're in the middle of some upgrade work right now - they may be using fiber for their main trunks these days. Perhaps your local cable company is doing something similar? Terry Kennedy Operations Manager, Academic Computing terry@spcvxa.bitnet St. Peter's College, Jersey City, NJ USA terry@spcvxa.spc.edu +1 201 915 9381 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 May 92 12:43 PDT From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Polarity: Red = Negative? mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes: > A few weeks ago the phone company (Southern Bell) replaced some lines > in the neighborhood and got rid of a pesky line-noise problem. Now I > discover that the polarity of my line has been reversed (red is now > positive, green negative). I discovered this while checking some > wiring with a voltmeter; it has not caused problems. Should I call > Repair Service? First, why worry about it if it is not causing any problems? Most modern telephone equipment is designed to be polarity insensitive. Old 2500 sets will not work if the polarity is reversed, and many PBXes are sensitive to polarity reversals, mainly because polarity is significant on trunks. However, given that there are so many opportunities for the polarity to get switched (in the CO, in the outside plant's many terminal locations, and even in your home), telco repair would be run ragged if everyone called about such a trivial problem. In essence what I am saying is, if the polarity reversal bothers you, flip it yourself. And if the only reason you know about it is because you happened to measure it with a voltmeter, then find something else to worry about. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 May 1992 10:19:23 CDT From: acg@hermes.dlogics.com Reply-To: acg@hermes.dlogics.com Subject: Re: Polarity: Red = Negative? mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes: > Do telephone company standards still call for the red wire to be > negative and the green wire to be positive? > A few weeks ago the phone company (Southern Bell) replaced some lines > in the neighborhood and got rid of a pesky line-noise problem. Now I > discover that the polarity of my line has been reversed (red is now > positive, green negative). Good question. Count me in as another person waiting for an answer. I'm the one who asked why my recently-purchased used touchtone phone wouldn't generate DTMF; the answer was to swap the red and green wires. This worked fine, but I noticed that (1) the phone's original polarity had therefore been wrong for not one but two houses in two different towns that I tested it in, and (2) the internal wiring of the phone had obviously never been disturbed before; wires meeting at terminals in the phone agreed in color, etc. Now, either I found at least two houses 16 miles apart that were both wired backwards by the phone company, or something HAS changed regarding color assignments in the local wiring. Comments, anyone? Andrew C. Green Datalogics, Inc. Internet: acg@dlogics.com 441 W. Huron UUCP: ..!uunet!dlogics!acg Chicago, IL 60610 FAX: (312) 266-4473 ------------------------------ From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) Subject: Re: Chicago Telemarketing Scam Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc., Chicago, IL Date: Fri, 8 May 1992 17:24:20 GMT In article cmoore@BRL.MIL (VLD/VMB) writes: > A recent Moderator's Note had MCS Associates, 2708 N. Halsted Street, > Chicago, IL (60614), tel. 312-296-9000. This telephone would > apparently be Chicago North (it was given as being part of > Chicago-Lakeview CO). I don't yet know if it duplicates a prefix > which went into 708 (is there a 296 in Des Plaines?). > [Moderator's Note: (312) <==> 708-296 has been a prefix in Des Plaines > for many years. The one in Lakeview (312-296) started a while back. Yikes. Just for information, this is not the same MCS that I've run for a number of years now, and we've never been at that address! Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, !ddsw1!karl) Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions [Moderator's Note: The fine organization we have been discussing is operated by Morris and Carl Spector of 1550 North State Parkway in Chicago. (That is their residence.) PAT] ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Sunday, 10 May 1992 10:13:06 EDT From: Peter M. Weiss Subject: Re: Offical Spokesmen Can be Wrong (was Beeper Scam) In article , wrf@ecse.rpi.edu (Wm Randolph Franklin) says: > [Moderator's Note: Well, of course whether or not the information was > worth the charge is a very subjective decision. That's why once the > information is delivered, the payment is due. How do you go about > giving it back to the seller as with undesired merchandise? Do you get > hypnotized to clear the knowledge out of your brain cells? :) PAT] I wonder if it were a IP that provided the weather or time report ... and it was wrong (recent posts to comp.risks indicate that even NTP Servers screw up.) Pete [Moderator's Note: Yes of course IP's can be wrong, but in the example you gave above, the information was clearly wrong. What about opinion and commentary type services where there is no 'wrong' or 'right' answer, just information being passed? Incidentally, we've now discovered *how* the 800 <==> 900 scam works, where you call an 800 number, yet get billed as though you made a 900 call, ie, USA Today and Mystic Marketing: They are using programmable type 800 numbers with ANI. Incoming calls are *forwarded* to an unmen- tioned 900 number, and of course the ANI the 900 number sees is not that of the phone doing the forwarding to it, but that of the original caller. In effect, a call *is* made to a 900 number via call-forwarding from an 800 number. So you protest to telco, but everything they see indicates you called a 900 number and should pay. This information came from a supervisor in AT&T Long Lines repair. Neat scam! PAT] ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Re: Toby Nixon a Candidate For Public Office Date: Sun, 10 May 92 21:23:30 EDT Reply-To: wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu (David Lesher) Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Lakeside Terrace Toby said: > Well, thanks! I was a little disappointed in the press coverage I got > locally from my campaign announcement, and: > Of course, if anyone is interested in making a campaign contribution, > send me email and I'll send my campaign committee mailing address to > you (I won't be so crass as to post it publicly). What!? Mail!?!? Where's your 800 number, Toby? I bet you can get a deal on that Mistake Marketing one. When the reporters call and ask for your economic forecast, just charge'em $120.00 for it. :-] for the humor-impaired... wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu [Moderator's Note: See earlier message in this issue for details on *how* Mystic Marketing was able to pull this off. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #379 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20590; 13 May 92 4:46 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03927 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 13 May 1992 02:26:09 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24903 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 13 May 1992 02:25:59 -0500 Date: Wed, 13 May 1992 02:25:59 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199205130725.AA24903@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #380 TELECOM Digest Wed, 13 May 92 02:26:00 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 380 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson CWA May Strike GTE (Phillip Dampier) AT&T TeleTicket Service (Tom Lowe) AT&T Offices To Be Closed (Phillip Dampier) For Sale: 92A ROTL Transponder Set (Aaron Nabil) Michigan Bell Deregulation Rears Ugly Head (Ken Jongsma) 800 Calls Converted to 900 by Information Provider (Sean Williams) 800 Converted to 900 (Bob Frankston) Are we Thy Neighbors' Keepers? (Brad Yearwood) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Phillip.Dampier@f228.n260.z1.fidonet.org (Phillip Dampier) Date: Mon, 11 May 1992 18:48:20 -0500 Subject: CWA May Strike GTE DALLAS, MAY 11 -- The Communications Workers of America announced that the union is taking a strike vote, as the May 15 contract expiration date approached (sic). Union negotiations said the parties are still far apart on major issues, and charged that the company is demanding 19 separate givebacks from its workers, despite its profitable financial outlook. The results of the strike vote by the 5,670 union-represented workers will be announced on Wednesday, May 13, 1992. "We are fighting for our future with GTE," said Communications Workers of America Vice President T.O. Moses. "GTE's proposals would destroy the good American jobs our communities have come to depend on," Moses charged. "GTE is attacking the existence of a full-time, stable workforce in this company. They want to undermine good, stable jobs, that contribute to a good standard of living in our communities -- in favor of substandard out-of-town contractors, temporary low wage clerical jobs, and part-time jobs with inferior wages and benefits. "GTE's insistence on destroying good jobs with good pay, benefits, and a future with the company has forced CWA to seek authorization from our members for a strike," Moses said. "We must let the company know that we are serious about protecting good jobs for the people of our community, and quality service for the customers." CWA is bargaining with GTE Southwest for a new three year contract covering 5,760 workers in Arkansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas, represented by CWA Local 6171, based in San Angelo, Texas. Bargaining began on March 31; the current contract expires on Friday, May 15. The results of the secret ballot strike vote will be announced on Wednesday. One of GTE's principal demands is the right to unlimited subcontracting. CWA contends that this would mean no guarantee that ANY union members would have jobs at GTE. The union also argues that contract labor not only threatens good jobs for the communities served by GTE, it erodes the quality of service to the customer. "CWA has been running ads to reach out to customers and apologize for the inferior service they get from subcontractors," Moses said. "We want them to clearly understand that the veteran, skilled workforce that has provided years of quality telephone service is getting pushed out by GTE. We want to do a good job for the customers, but the company just wants to cut corners." "The community knows us," Moses said. "The wages and benefits we make and the service we provide benefits our communities. But GTE's subcontractors bring in people from all over the country. That means that local telephone rate-payers' money goes to benefit communities all over the country, but not your friends and neighbors right here at home. Our communities are losing money through this practice, and it should stop. "GTE is also degrading good clerical and accounting jobs and giving the work to temporary agencies," Moses stated. "Those jobs are primarily held by women, and GTE is jeopardizing some of the only decent paying jobs that clerical workers have in our communities. We're fighting for good paying, stable jobs with benefits and an opportunity to advance. GTE's clerical workers deserve no less." Communications Workers of America ------------------------------ From: tlowe@attmail.com Date: Mon May 11 22:46:43 EDT 1992 Subject: AT&T TeleTicket Service NEW YORK CITY -- AT&T today introduced the AT&T TeleTicket(sm) Service, which allows visitors to the United States to pre-pay for international news, U.S. weather reports, currency exchange information and interpretation services, as well as telephone calls. By purchasing AT&T TeleTicket Service, customers will be able to conveniently access services and place phone calls by simply dialing a toll-free 800 number. AT&T is providing nine different toll-free 800 numbers, one each for the nine languages in which AT&T will provide access to the service. Initially, AT&T TeleTicket Service will be offered in Dutch, English, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese and Spanish. Recorded messages will guide customers as they select their desired service, including placing a telephone call within the United States or to more than 190 countries. The same instructions are printed on the back of the TeleTicket in one of the nine languages chosen by the customer. If a customer needs more information about AT&T TeleTicket Service, they will be able to speak directly with an AT&T customer representative in one of these nine languages. "Anyone who has tried to get important information or use an unfamiliar phone in another country for the first time will understand the value of AT&T TeleTicket Service to visitors to the United States," said Marbgaret Barrett, director, global consumer services, AT&T. "AT&T wants to help make an international visitor's stay in the United States easier by providing services in the language of their choice. The AT&T TeleTicket Service can be purchased in denominations of 10, 25, or 50 units. A 10-unit TeleTicket is $6 U.S., 25 units are $15 and 50 units are $30. Each unit is valued at $.60 U.S. An attachment shows prices for the services, including the price of calls. [sorry ... don't have the attachments..but will tell what I know later]. The first U.S. distributor of the AT&T TeleTicket is the San Francisco Convention and Visitor's Bureau. The AT&T TeleTicket Service can be purchased directly from AT&T by calling an AT&T representative who speaks one of the nine languages. Customers can call a toll-free number in the United States. Outside of the United States, customers can call AT&T collect. The numbers are: Language Ouside U.S. Within U.S. Dutch 408-428-2739 1-800-354-2210 English 408-428-2734 1-800-462-1818 French 408-428-2735 1-800-537-5510 German 408-428-2736 1-800-682-4410 Italian 408-428-2737 1-800-772-1155 Japanese 408-428-2740 1-800-223-7707 Korean 408-428-2741 1-800-628-2290 Portuguese 408-428-2742 1-800-772-0710 Spanish 408-428-2738 1-800-752-2280 [To fill in the blanks about the attachment mentioned above ... calls to domestic numbers are one unit per minute; international calls range from three to five units per minute, depending upon country. I don't remember what the information services cost at this time. Call the above numbers for more information.] I have typed this in directly from a published News Release and cannot give any more information at this time. Any questions should be directed to the above customer service numbers. Tom Lowe AT&T Bell Labs tlowe@attmail.com or tel@homxa.att.com ------------------------------ From: Phillip.Dampier@f228.n260.z1.fidonet.org (Phillip Dampier) Date: Sun, 10 May 1992 18:43:49 -0500 Subject: AT&T Offices To Be Closed The following AT&T offices have been scheduled to close their Operator Services Offices because of introduction of voice recognition, automated operators: Alcoa, TN Des Moines, IO Redwood City, CA Anaheim, CA Glen Burnie, MD* Santa Rosa, CA Billings, MT Grand Rapids, MI Shreveport, LA Birmingham, AL Howell, NJ* Smyrna, GA Brookhaven, IL Kansas City, MO Springfield, MA Burbank, CA Lakewood, CO Syracuse, NY Charlotte, NC Lansing, MI Tacoma, WA Commerce, CA Middleboro, MA Westchester, FL Collinsville, IL Orlando, FL Youngstown, OH Dallas, TX Pensacola, FL Davensport, IO Pittsburgh, PA * - Offices closed or Previously Announced to Close. Earliest Possible Close: November, 1992 Latest Possible Close: December, 1994 Voice Recognition technology will first be deployed in Seattle, WA and Jacksonville, FL effective June, 1992. (Source: Communications Workers of America - May 8, 1992) ------------------------------ From: nabil@ogicse.cse.ogi.edu (Aaron Nabil) Subject: For Sale: 92A ROTL transponder set Date: 12 May 92 03:32:05 GMT Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR Since this is of such specific interest to the c.d.t crowd, I thought I'd offer it here first. If you don't know what a ROTL is, skip to the next article. I don't know if any CO's in my area still have ROTL's hooked up, and even if they did I don't think I'd have the, uh, "moxie" (b***s) to screw with them. Most lines had the security dial back enabled for all of the interesting functions anyway. Chaos-in-a-suitcase for the uninformed, given sufficient time you could busy out the whole CO with one of these stupid things. So other than chucking it in the rubbish bin, I thought maybe someone out there would like one of these beasts. It's your basic suitcase sized set, 'cept it's missing the manual (I have the number of the BSP around here someplace) and all of the hook up widgets that would normally go in the top. Make me an offer I can't refuse. $50? Aaron nabil@cse.ogi.edu ------------------------------ From: jongsma@esseye.si.com (Ken Jongsma) Subject: Michigan Bell Deregulation Rears Ugly Head Date: Tue, 12 May 92 12:30:10 EDT Some of you may recall that Michigan Bell was able (after extensive lobbying to get a rather extensive deregulation bill passed in exchange for "freezing" local rates. The fallout from that bill is starting to become apparent to the general public, as evidenced by the following excerpts from a recent local newspaper article: [Description of Caller-ID scenario deleted] The effects of deregulation are already prompting calls for a return to tighter regulation. Meanwhile, phone companies are chafing at what little regulation was retained by the state. Michigan Bell Telephone Co. began offering Caller-ID -- which displays the caller's phone number on the receiver's end of the line -- to about one million customers in Southeast Michigan on March 1. Just 11,400 are paying the $6.50 monthly charge and about 900 are businesses, said Bell spokesman Phil Jones. [Interesting! This is the first hard statistics I've seen on usage. The Bells usually keep that data pretty close to the chest. - Ken] [Additional Caller-ID blocking arguments deleted] Bell is also opposing the continued regulation of touch-tone service, used by 70% of it's 2.9 million residential customers. Last year, Bell lobbied to lift oversight on touch-tone rates, now about $2.45 a month. Lawmakers instead left it up to the Michigan Public Service Commision, which has decided to continue regulation. PSC staff say it costs Bell less than 50 cents a month to provide the service. [I'd bet it's closer to 0 than 50.] Bell and other phones companies are challenging that PSC order because they say touch-tone is not vital to the public and therefore should remain unregulated. "This is a competetive service and doesn't need to be regulated," said Harold Krauss, executive vice president of the Telephone Association of Michigan. "You can buy equipment that does the same thing with the telephone handset." In order to win deregulation, Bell was forced to agree to a two year freeze on basic residential service. Consumer groups say Bell's motive in challenging the PSC is to circumvent its freeze on basic rates with price hikes on touch tone. "If you deregulate touch tone, you make a mockery of any kind of rate control," said Rick Stoddard, president of Michigan Citizens Lobby. "What they're doing is looking for back door ways to jack up rates." [Article goes on to talk about recent increases in operator service charges after degregulation and new auto connect after directory assistance option for .30. Mentions that rates charged for intralata calls (using auto connect) would be Michigan Bell rates and cost about 30% more than other carriers.] Ken Jongsma ken@wybbs.mi.org Smiths Industries jongsma@benzie.si.com Grand Rapids, Michigan 73115.1041@compuserve.com ------------------------------ Date: 12 May 1992 18:17:16 -0400 (EDT) From: "Sean E. Williams" Subject: 800 Calls Converted to 900 by Information Provider In a previous message, PAT noted: > They are using programmable type 800 numbers with ANI. Incoming calls are > *forwarded* to an unmentioned 900 number, and of course the ANI the 900 > number sees is not that of the phone doing the forwarding to it, but that of > the original caller. In effect, a call *is* made to a 900 number via > call-forwarding from an 800 number. So who do you think is responsible for initiating this sort of 'scamming'. Have the Long Distance companies told the IPs how to do this sort of thing, or is it something that the IPs have thought up on their own? I personally find the latter difficult to believe, and furthermore it seems that the telcos win either way (aside from a heightened number of customer complaints), so it really doesn't matter to them. Sean E. Williams, Student (sew7490@ritvax.isc.rit.edu) Rochester Institute of Technology, School of Photographic Arts & Sciences Department of Imaging and Photographic Technology Rochester, New York 14623-5689 [Moderator's Note: My contact at AT&T said an IP figured this out through some experimentation, and the news spread rapidly around to others in the industry. Apparently all you need is an 800 line with call forwarding on it and a non-published 900 number to send it to. The ANI generated on the 800 number is very handily given over to the 900 side for billing purposes. No one has to twist the arm of anyone at telco ... it just looks like any other 900 call to them. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bob_Frankston@frankston.com Subject: 800 Converted to 900 Date: Tue 12 May 1992 16:29 -0500 Cute scam. I presume the ability to forward the 800 => 900 will be viewed as an "oops" and will be blocked in short order. But that does raise interesting questions about the propagation of ANI and CID information through forwarding. What are the technical rules? More interesting, what are the ISDN protocols for dealing with forwarded calls. Can the caller find out that the call was forwarded and via what forwarding path? I presume it would be too much to expect that the called party would be able to use the back channel to interrogate the links (subject to access control and privacy considerations). There are a number of attributes that would be of interest including the ability to ask the caller for authorization for certain kinds of services and billing. ------------------------------ From: brad@optilink.com (Brad Yearwood) Subject: Are we Thy Neighbors' Keepers? Date: 13 May 92 04:02:51 GMT Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA A recent twist in bill collecting appears to involve calling up neighbors of alleged deadbeats, trying to obtain information or to have messages delivered. Someone called this morning claiming to be from "Century Research, in Chicago", asking about a neighbor Lisa (name changed) in (place two doors down). I'd received another similar call a couple of months ago asking about another neighbor. The earlier call claimed to be an old school buddy wanting to get back in contact. Exactly how many old school buddies have street-address-order phone directories? I guess this is what I get for doing things the old-fashioned way: keeping my phone number listed. I let this morning's caller know in no uncertain terms what I thought about receiving this type of call. The chirpy twit even had the unmitigated gall to opened the call with "Hi, Brad howya dooin", as if we were actually acquainted. A call to Chicago information found, of course, that there is no listing for Century Research. This is the most cynically predatory and invasive non-lewd practice that I've yet seen involving a telephone. Anyone know whether this practice is legal, and what the real name and location of "Century Research" (or other organizations doing this) might be? Brad Yearwood brad@optilink.com {uunet, pyramid}!optilink!brad Petaluma, CA [Moderator's Note: The rules for this sort of thing are outlined in great detail in the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, signed into law by President Carter. But bear in mind skip tracing services operate under somewhat different rules than collection agencies, and the agencies in turn have different rules than creditors who are collecting their own debts or attornies. The general rule is a third party collector cannot 'publish' someone's indebtedness in order to collect. If they do skip tracing, they are entitled to talk to the neighbors (if the neighbor wishes to speak with them), but must NOT reveal the reason for their call. If asked point blank if they are a collection agency, they must tell the truth, but reveal nothing further. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #380 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21273; 13 May 92 5:04 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11643 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 13 May 1992 02:46:42 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29258 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 13 May 1992 02:46:31 -0500 Date: Wed, 13 May 1992 02:46:31 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199205130746.AA29258@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #381 TELECOM Digest Wed, 13 May 92 02:46:30 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 381 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Announcing the PRIVACY Forum Digest! (Lauren Weinstein) Oddities with 800-CALL-ATT (Douglas Scott Reuben) Senate Debate on Caller ID (Jack Decker) Internet in Emergencies (was Telecom While LA Burns) (Jim Haynes) USWEST Third Line Problem (Scott Colbath) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Announcing the PRIVACY Forum Digest! Date: Wed, 13 May 92 00:09:18 PDT From: privacy@cv.vortex.com Announcing the global Internet PRIVACY Forum! The PRIVACY Forum is a moderated digest for the discussion and analysis of issues relating to the general topic of privacy (both personal and collective) in the "information age" of the 1990's and beyond. Topics include a wide range of telecommunications, information/database collection and sharing, and related issues, as pertains to the privacy concerns of individuals, groups, businesses, government, and society at large. The manners in which both the legitimate and the controversial concerns of business and government interact with privacy considerations are also topics for the digest. Except when unusual events warrant exceptions, digest publication will be limited to no more than one or two reasonably-sized digests per week. Given the size of the Internet, this may often necessitate that only a small percentage of overall submissions may ultimately be presented in the digest. Submission volume also makes it impossible for unpublished submissions to be routinely acknowledged. Other mailing lists, with less stringent submission policies, may be more appropriate for readers who prefer a higher volume of messages regarding these issues. The goal of PRIVACY Forum is to present a high quality electronic publication which can act as a significant resource to both individuals and organizations who are interested in these issues. The digest is best viewed as similar in focus to a journal or specialized technical publication. The moderator will choose submissions for inclusion based on their relevance and content. The PRIVACY Forum is moderated by Lauren Weinstein of Vortex Technology. He has been active regarding a wide range of issues involving technology and society in the ARPANET/Internet community since the early 1970's. The Forum also has an "advisory committee" consisting of three individuals who have offered to act as a "sounding board" to help with any questions of policy which might arise in the course of the Forum's operations. These persons are Peter Neumann of SRI International (the moderator of the excellent and renowned Internet RISKS Forum digest), Marc Rotenburg of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (a most clear and articulate spokesman for sanity in technology), and Willis Ware of RAND (one of the U.S.A.'s most distinguished champions of privacy issues). Feel free to distribute this announcement message to any interested individuals or groups, but please keep this entire message intact when doing so. Thanks! How to subscribe to PRIVACY Forum --------------------------------- Individual subscriptions for the PRIVACY Forum are controlled through an automated list server ("listserv") system. To subscribe, send a message to: privacy-request@cv.vortex.com or: listserv@cv.vortex.com with a line in the BODY of the message of the form: subscribe privacy where is your actual name, not your e-mail address (your e-mail address is determined automatically by listserv). Also please note that the subscribe command must be in the BODY of your message, not in the "Subject:" field; the "Subject:" field of all messages to listserv is ignored. Example: subscribe privacy Dr. Sidney Schaffer Please note that the "subscribe" command is used to create your own individual subscription to the PRIVACY Forum mailing list. Site managers who wish to establish site-wide local redistribution mailing lists for PRIVACY Forum should contact a human at: list-maint@cv.vortex.com and provide the requested local redistribution mailing list address and any other details. Individuals who wish to subscribe directly to PRIVACY Forum (not to a local redistribution mailing list) should *not* contact "list-maint@cv.vortex.com" unless they are having problems with the automatic listserv "subscribe" command. For more information regarding the listserv system, follow the same command procedure described above, but send to: privacy-request@cv.vortex.com or: listserv@cv.vortex.com the command: help in the BODY of your message instead of "subscribe". ------------------------------ Date: 11-MAY-1992 03:58:30.89 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Oddities With 800-CALL-ATT I've been playing around with AT&T's 800-CALL-ATT calling card service lately, and noticed something interesting. Let's say you place a calling card call from Armonk, NY, a suburb of New York City, near White Plains, in Westchester County. You dial 800-CALL-ATT, then 2, then 1, and then the destination number. After you enter your card number and finish your call, you hit the "#" sign for a sequence call. You then enter ONLY 686-9950 (and then "#" to make the call go through faster, which will help with seven OR ten digit sequence calls.) You will get a recording, in NYC, that says that 686-9950 is not in service. You can then sequence call to other seven digit numbers, and they are all in area code 212. They are NOT in area code 914, where Armonk is. If you drive up to Pittsfield, Mass, and try the same thing, you will be dialing seven digit numbers in the 413 area code, which is the correct area code for Pittsfield. But, when I tried this from Vermont, sequence-calling to seven digit numbers got me people in Boston (area code 617). It would seem what is going on here is that the 800-CALL-ATT system connects you to the nearest "center" (POP?) for calling card calls. But how are you billed for this? Let's say I'm in Vermont, and I call some out of state number via 800-CALL-ATT. I then hit "#", and do 343-7626, one of Cell One/VT's roam ports. Will the AT&T equipment be smart enough to say "Hey, the call is coming in from the 800 from VT, and going to VT, so don't bill the 80 cent surcharge, but only the 40 cent (or whatever) VT in-state Calling Card surcharge, and apply In-state VT rates."? Or will it bill as a call from Boston to VT? IE, is there any sort of splashing problem, or did AT&T (as one would assume) figure this out and take measures to prevent it? Note that this may be especially useful in states that don't allow AT&T to handle Intra-LATA traffic, but where you tend to make multiple sequence calls from Intra- to Inter-LATA calls. Thus, rather than having to hang up each time you switch from Intra to Inter, you can use 800-CALL-ATT and make all your calls that way. Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 May 92 16:25:26 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: Senate Debate on Caller ID The following message was seen in the Fidonet FCC echomail conference: * From : Donn Dubuque, 1:170/707 (07 May 92 10:46) * To : All * Subj : Senate Debate on Caller ID For those with access via their own disk [sic - I think he means "dish" -Jack] or cable system, CSpan2 has been running debate from the Senate floor the past couple of days on the legislation on regulating Caller ID. The bill and proposed amedments seems to have wide support among both Demos and Repubs, but there was one issue that had me laughing on the floor a bit. Seems that the bill as it is worded in the House allows you to purchase caller ID blocking 'per line' as well as 'per call' (where your number is 'blank' on the called parties terminal). The Senators were all basically agreeing they liked the idea of 'per call' blocking (where you'd have to set up the blocking on each call with a code) rather than being able to have your individual line set up to never allow your number to be shown. Of course, what they don't understand is that per call blocking + speed dial = line blocking. Apparently no one sat down for 2ms and figured that if all you needed was at 2-10 digit 'pre-code' to set up a blocked call, you could easily just assign such a code to the beginning of EVERY number listed in your speed dial directory, right on your memory telephone. Of course, if you can't AFFORD a memory telephone, then it gets a little tiring pushing all those buttons all the time ... Call your senator, point this out. I have mine (Boren). Star-Net v1.0 * Origin: DigiVision BBS 918-250-6477 *Orderline 254-1718 (1:170/707.0) ----------- This message is a reply to the previous message: * From : will summers, 1:114/18.6 (08 May 92 14:14) * To : Donn Dubuque * Subj : Senate Debate on Caller ID > Cspan2 has been running debate from the Senate floor the past > couple of days on the legislation on regulating Caller ID. Hmmm. S652 had been on "hold". The feeling among Az Caller-IDites was that they would wait for the FCC to sort out the issues before acting on this extremely complex subject. I fear that the PhoneCos pulled some strings to get this one out before the full FCC docket record is available to the congress. > Of course, what they don't understand is that per call blocking > + speed dial = line blocking. Not necessarily. As the spec is written, one must dial *67 and then _wait_ for a confirming "stutter dial tone". According to the company's witness in the Arizona hearings, existing speed dialers may _not_ be capable of reliably converting per-call-blocking to line-blocking. The spec allows software to take up to 10 seconds after receiving *67 until a confirmation (or denial) tone is given. The caller _must_ wait. (Though response is supposed to be 7 seconds or less 95% of the time, to be sure you would have to program the speed dialer to wait 10 seconds). Even with speed dial or other Customer Premises Equipment designed with caller-ID in mind, per-call blocking is not the same as line blocking ... unless _every_ user of a phone uses the speed dial on _every_ call. This gets into one of the troubling areas in the Caller-ID debate -- though numerically insignificant from a political standpoint, there are nonetheless many people in our society who for one or another legitimate reason will suffer dire negative results if their number "gets out". Examples are: Members of disfunctional families, persons dealing with relatives/acquaintances with mental instabilities, victims of "stalkers" ... these people cannot depend on all their children and all their visiting friends to dial *67 or use the speed dialer _every_ time they use the phone. In the Arizona hearings we heard of some techniques those wishing to persuade a child or other family member to call them back without dialing *67. Telephone preditors are far more sophisticated in techniques of deception than the average user is aware of how to render them ineffective. > Call your senator, point this out. I have mine (Boren). I hope you will point out to your senator that there is no need for a national prohibition on the offering of line blocking (that is what S652 as passed by committee would do). Even on interstate calls, whether a call was blocked as result of line or per-call blocking is only significant as far as the originating caller's central office -- from that point on the call is handled exactly the same. The US Congress simply cannot devote as much time and attention to this issue as the individual PUC's have/will. (Arizona held nine days of evidentiary hearings, for example.) I feel line blocking should be offered at no charge except perhaps a "paperwork" charge for a change status after the initial deployment period. A major problem with Federal law/regulation prohibiting line blocking, or with any national pre-emption that would _limit_ the protections local PUC's could order, is that such action would be grossly premature. Calling Number Delivery is but the first of many pieces of information that will be delivered with the call for a fee. In Az, US West was pioneering delivery of the name the originating phone was registered to along with the number. This was test-marketed in Boise Idaho, but Az was to be the first large market. With Calling Name and Number Delivery, at the called-party's switch a query to a centralized data base is sent and the response added to the packet that is sent to the called party. I found it disquieting that the design of the information packet is such that not only subscriber name, but any information linkable to phone number could just as easily be retrieved from the data base and injected into the packet: the packet is a variable-length record. There is no technical reason that the database querried could not, for example, be Equifax's national credit database, or MasterCard's, or ... whoevers. There's plenty of time during call set-up for a query to travel cross country and back to any database (or up-and-back to a satellite). The change being contemplated here is, in the word of expert witness Dr. Lee Selwin, "epochal". How it will all play out is anybody's guess. But one thing is clear: to decide on a national level that individual subscribers will not be afforded an opportunity to opt-out of this Brave New World of telephony by retaining their "plain old telephone service" that does not participate before _significant_ experience with how it all plays out is premature to say the least. Some early jurisdictions offered Caller-ID with no blocking at all. As experience with the system grew, per-call blocking became commonplace. Then jurisdictions began mandating the per-line blocking for a fee be offered. Bills now are pending in jurisdictions without blocking to offer at least per-call blocking. [..Garbled sentence in message deleted ...] Lately jurisdictions like Nevada, New York, and Arizona have been saying that per-line blocking be offered at no charge to those who choose it during a window (90 days in Az, 180 in NY and Nev) after time Caller-ID is initially deployed. So support the parts of S652 which mandate minimum protections (free per call blocking), but let your Senator know that it is quite premature to prohibit states from adding requirements above the Federal Minimum, including deciding that it should not participate at all until more experience is gained in other jurisdictions. I was an intervenor in the Arizona Caller-ID hearings, Feb-March of this year. Existing modems probably cannot accurately distinguish between a "blocking request accepted" and a "blocking request failed" status either. The question was put to US West's witness. He was the product implementation manager for a 14-state region. His answer was that he knew of no compatability tests for either existing speed-dialers or modems. In my opinion, blocking was an afterthought added to neutralize public resisance that was neither well designed, well thought out, nor well tested. ConfMail V4.00 Origin: . (1:114/18.6) ------------- Jack Decker jack@myamiga.mixcom.com FidoNet 1:154/8 ------------------------------ From: Jim Haynes Subject: Internet in Emergencies (was Re: Telecom While LA Burns) Date: 12 May 92 19:01:42 GMT Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz In article mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes: > All of this suggests that we need a plan for using the Internet as a > carrier of emergency message traffic when the telephone network is > overloaded or inoperative. I agree. We had a similar situation here after the '89 earthquakes. We got some computers up fairly quickly after the quake, thanks to the cogeneration plant being undamaged and turning out some electricity for us. Right away I started getting messages from sites around the country offering to make phone calls for people, and other messages addressed to people here; so I got to live out my childhood ambition of being a Western Union operator :-) Ham radio came in too; but there's no computer connection near where the ham station was. Radio was carrying a lot of traffic for such things as requesting various kinds of supplies from state agencies and the Red Cross. haynes@cats.ucsc.edu haynes@cats.bitnet ------------------------------ From: scol@scottsdale.az.stratus.com (Scott Colbath) Subject: USWEST Third Line Problem Date: 11 May 92 19:26:05 GMT Well, It seems there may be a solution on the way for my third line problem. There is a very new device called a UDC which is supposed to replace the slick-1 as a carrying device for the additional signal over the same line. The engineer I spoke with said they have ordered some of these devices for testing and he is trying to get me one right now. More to follow. Scott Colbath nStratus Computer Phoenix, Az. (602) 852-3106 Internet: scott_colbath@az.stratus.com All opinions are my own and do not reflect that of my employer. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #381 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06247; 14 May 92 11:43 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24032 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 14 May 1992 08:02:01 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29406 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 14 May 1992 08:01:50 -0500 Date: Thu, 14 May 1992 08:01:50 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199205141301.AA29406@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #382 TELECOM Digest Thu, 14 May 92 08:01:50 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 382 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Moscow Cellular Routing Problem (Andrew Robson) Pac$Bell Gets Tricky (Nick Sayer) Telecom Digest Mentioned In June '92 Scientific American (William L. Urton) MCI Mail -- Problems With "Free" Dow Jones Offer? (Patty Winter) Need Telephone Specs for Music Project (Benjamin Denckla) Phone Company Advertising in Australia (David E.A. Wilson) All Zeros in the Subscriber Number (Dave Mausner) Cellular and ANI (Tom Lowe) Looking For Pay-Phone Key (Joseph W. Stein) 700 Numbers, Calling Cards, and Carrier Access Codes (Phil Howard) CLID in California (Chris Calley) Seeking Companies for Hardware/Firmware Technology Interchange (T Barrios) Looking for Sources of 2500 Sets (Joe Konstan) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 13 May 92 13:25:21 -0700 From: arobson@nv2.uswnvg.com (Andrew Robson) Subject: Moscow Cellular Routing Problem Organization: US West NewVector, Bellevue, WA *** Problems with International Routing to 7-096 (Moscow Cellular) *** I have been having problems resolving troubles experienced by people trying to call numbers on the new Moscow Cellular service. Many switches world wide have not had their routing updated to include the new exchanges. Apparently the world letter that was sent out when these exchanges were established was unclear, and many services either block these calls or mis-route them. The affected exchanges are: 7-096-901-xxxx, 7-096-902-xxxx, and 7-096-903-xxxx all of which should be routed through the Moscow gateway (M1OC) to the "transit exchange" T4-1 to reach the cellular MTX AXE10. Moscow still has a serious problem with trunk availability which causes a large number of calls to be routed to a recording. This is a separate problem, but it makes identification of the routing problem more difficult since it can mask the real problem. The trunk shortage is expected to be resolved by equipment to be installed by year end. If you are in a position to place a test call, or to send a copy of this message to your international carrier's routing group, I would appreciate your assistance. Problems have been reported in reaching these exchanges from Scotland, Germany, Italy, Turkey and Hong Kong. Other areas may well be affected, but not reported to Moscow Cellular. Test calls can be placed to Thomas Poland 7-096-0031, trouble tickets filed with your international carrier. I would appreciate hearing of your results. Andrew Robson U S West NewVector Group Network Engineering Bellevue, WA USA (206) 644-7933 ------------------------------ From: mrapple@quack.sac.ca.us (Nick Sayer) Subject: Pac$Bell Gets Tricky Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'. Date: Wed, 13 May 1992 22:20:11 GMT I just got a tricky piece of literature from Pac$Bell. Ostensibly it is an offer for some service that purports to help those who work at home, and includes a card which you mail back to make an appointment for a sales drone to call you, etc, etc. Perhaps I'm paranoid, but it seems to me that Pac$Bell used calling patern data to pick out those customers who seem to use their residential lines for business purposes with the intention of using a response to this "offer" as ammunition to get them switched to business rates. Did anyone else get this mailer? Am I just paranoid, or is Pac$Bell trying to be tricky? Nick Sayer N6QQQ @ N0ARY.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NA 37 19 49 N / 121 57 36 W +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest' ------------------------------ From: wurton@netcom.com (William L. Urton) Subject: Telecom Digest Mentioned In June '92 Scientific American Date: Wed, 13 May 92 17:55:00 PDT You'll probably get a million pieces of mail about this, but TELECOM Digest was mentioned in the June, 1992 {Scientific American}, in a piece about the FBI's request that tapping capabilities be built into digital communications equipment called "Tap Dance" on pp. 115-116. I quote: The idea that digital technology could make it impossible to intercept communications appeared to be somewhere between incomprehensible and flat wrong. Soon after, participants in the TELECOM Digest, an international on-line discussion of communications-related issues, outlined how existing digital switching technology could be used to perform completely undetectable taps. The story goes on to describe how the FBI was "not pleased at having its technical prowess impugned" and several solutions to the problem of tapping digital communications. My personal favorite comes from Mitch Kapor of the Electronic Frontier Foundation; his solution was to give the FBI the funding they need to develop better taps and to leave the telephone and computer networks alone. Bill Urton. Columbia, SC. Internet: wurton@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: winter@Apple.COM (Patty Winter) Subject: MCI Mail -- Problems With "Free" Dow Jones Offer? Date: 14 May 92 04:25:33 GMT Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA Last fall, MCI Mail offered its subscribers a free 30-minute trial of WIRES, one of the Dow Jones News/Retrieval databases. I tried out the trial offer, and was promptly rewarded with a $43 charge on my next MCI Mail bill. When I called them, they said they were aware that there had been some billing errors, and that I would be credited on my next bill. Which I was. (More or less. They tried to charge me for time I spent in the main DJN/R menu before going into WIRES -- as though I could have done it any other way! Sheesh.) Anyway, I recently received a past-due notice from them for the $43! There was absolutely no indication that I'd received a credit for any of the amount. My question for netters: Did any of you try this offer, and if so, have you had any billing problems from it? I appears that I wasn't the only one who accidentally got billed for it in the first place, and perhaps not the only one who wasn't credited properly after the billing errors were supposedly fixed. If the mistakes on my bill weren't an isolated incident, I'd be happy to bring the matter to the attention of an appropriate government agency. Patty Winter N6BIS Internet: winter@apple.com Sunnyvale, California AMPRNet: 44.4.0.44 ------------------------------ Subject: Need Telephone Specs for Music Project From: bdenckla@husc8.harvard.edu (Benjamin Denckla) Date: 13 May 92 17:14:02 EDT Organization: Harvard University Science Center I'm interested in using my phone as a signal source in an electronic music piece. I've got the specs for my phone as far as power requirements, etc., and I found a listing of the frequencies for the touch tone system already. Just thought I might ask to see if any of you had any tips as far as how to get the audio signal out. I was thinking about running on batteries or maybe a small DC power supply. Thanks in advance. Ben Denckla ------------------------------ From: David E A Wilson Subject: Phone Company Advertising in Australia Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University, Australia Date: Tue, 12 May 1992 03:27:42 GMT I thought you might be interested to see how our current phone monopoly is advertising itself just before the second carrier is established. Here are the words from two currently running AOTC (formerly Telecom Australia) adverts. America has more freedom of choice than a hungry man can handle. Breakfast in America is the first nightmare of the day. Eggs over easy, eggs over difficult, pancakes with pepperjacks, crushed wheat fried in the pan, flapjacks with sugarpops, puffed free range rice twice with freshly squeezed guava juice. By the time you finish choosing you have to break for lunch. If you read the whole lunch menu you'll miss your dinner. And if you think the foods complicated what about the phone system. Here it can take three different phone companies to get from one part of the country to another. In Australia its much simpler because only Telecom connects you from anywhere in the country to anywhere in the world. America's dream is Australia's reality. Telecom, Australian for so much better. The Germans like to be in the forefront of technology. Their big high-tech cars are built to carry powerful men in the back flat out between cities. When the powerful man pulls off to refuel, he wants his powerful man's snack of cream cake with extra cream, the famous schmaltzkruger with extra schmaltz to have been whipped by lasers. In a country where two out of every three children are born with a PhD in electronics high-tech is a way of life. So its no wonder their telephone system is being replaced with new high-tech optical fibre. The Germans realize that optical fibre delivers the clearest sound quality; what they don't realize is that Telecom already uses optical fibre to link the capital cities of Australia. Telecom, Australian for so much better. David Wilson (042) 21 3802 voice, (042) 21 3262 fax Dept Comp Sci, Uni of Wollongong david@cs.uow.edu.au ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 May 1992 11:00:13 CDT From: Dave Mausner Reply-To: dlm@hermes.dlogics.com Subject: All Zeros in the Subscriber Number TELECOM has previously discussed zeros in the area code and zeros in the exchange. Now I would like to know what is, or was, so special about all zero subscriber numbers? One rarely saw a number like 201-234-0000 although every number from 0001 to 9999 could be found. In the last few years, 0000 is in evidence in many exchanges. Was there a technical problem, or was it "cultural"? I will summarize interesting e-mail replies. Thanks. Dave Mausner, Senior Consultant / Datalogics Inc / Chicago IL / 312-266-4450 dlm@dlogics.com ------------------------------ From: tlowe@attmail.com Date: Tue May 12 08:27:28 EDT 1992 Subject: Cellular and ANI As I write this, I am sitting in Cheyenne, Wyoming. For kicks, I called an 800 number I have setup that plays ANI from my cellular phone, and, by jove, it played my actual cellular phone number (609-290-xxxx) ... not a trunk line from the local cell switch. This was on the US-West side of things. The Cellular-One et al side of the house does not yet have any service in Cheyenne. I tried the same thing in Denver, and the US-West call worked the same way, but the Cellular One (or whatever they are out here) just played a local trunk line. Does anyone know what interace US-West uses to send my cell phone number to the network? If anyone would like to try this out from their neck of the woods, send me a note and I will give you my 800 ANI demo number. I don't want to publish it to the general public because of what has happened to past 800 ANI demos that have been published. Tom Lowe tlowe@attmail.com or tel@homxa.att.com ------------------------------ From: Joseph.W..Stein@f377.n105.z1.therose.fidonet.org (Joseph W. Stein) Date: Wed, 15 May 1992 23:28:04 -0700 Subject: Looking For Pay-Phone Key Hello all! An associate recently aquired an old [circa 1950's] American Electric Pay Phone ... you know, the ones with three coin slots up top? 25c, 10c and 5c? He is interested in placing it service (with the permission of Telco, of course, and hooking it up WITH telco [he's not a slime ... I explained about COCOT's and AOS's]) but has no keys to it. Are there any places where keys can be had [excluding locksmiths]? Any information would be helpful. joseph.w.stein@f377.n105.z1.fidonet.org UUCP !m2xenix!therose INTERNET: therose.fidonet.org FIDONET: 1:105/7.0 ------------------------------ From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard) Subject: 700 Numbers, Calling cards, and Carrier Access Codes Date: Mon, 11 May 92 02:52:34 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) jshelton@ads.com (John L. Shelton) writes: > 1. Area 700 is "special"; it's the only area code in which each LD > provider has it's own "namespace". My phone number (700) CALL-MOM in > AT&T land isn't the same as MCI's (700) CALL-MOM. And the cost to the > caller could be different, too. I dialed (from work) 9-1-700-555-4141 and got a recording indicating AT&T. I dialed 9-10222-1-700-555-4141 and before I could finish dialing I got the three tone beep and a recording that said "... it is not necessary to dial a carrier access code for the number you have dialed. I believe my employer (U of I... three prefixes on campus) has turned off the carrier access code ability (not sure how this is implemented). Given the distinctive namespace for 700 numbers, it would seem to me that it is VERY necessary to dial a carrier access code. Likewise, if one wants to charge a LD call to a non-AT&T carrier card (for personal purposes) they would have to dial the access code for their carrier (but this is not possible here). Any ideas on what I can do to get them to allow the carrier access code for these two categories of calls? Are there any replies I should give when I get a remark like "it cannot be done on our computer"? I've gotten this before from people I am sure don't know what a computer even looks like. Are there any legal requirements I could invoke (kinda doubt it since it is a "internal" situation). Phil Howard --- KA9WGN --- pdh@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: calley@optilink.com (Chris Calley) Subject: CLID in California Date: 11 May 92 18:43:44 GMT Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA Last I heard, an administrative law judge was going to make a decision on whether or not CLID would be made available in California. Does anyone know the status on this? Christopher A. Calley email: calley@optilink.com ------------------------------ From: asuvax!gtephx!barriost@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Tim Barrios) Subject: Seeking Companies for Hardware/Firmware Technology Interchange Organization: AG Communication Systems, Phoenix, Arizona Date: Mon, 11 May 1992 15:55:18 GMT We are seeking companies to exchange ideas about processes (methodologies, etc.) of hardware and firmware development. At AG Communication Systems, we develop large-scale, embedded telephone switching systems. We would like to meet (in person, via conference call, whatever) with companies involved in hardware development to exchange ideas on the processes used to develop these systems. Please contact me at the email address or phone number below if you are interested. [do not post since this is not of general interest to the rest of the newsgroup readers] Thanks in advance, Tim Barrios, AG Communication Systems, Phoenix, AZ UUCP: ...!{ncar!noao!asuvax | att}!gtephx!barriost Internet: gtephx!barriost@asuvax.eas.asu.edu voice: (602) 582-7101 fax: (602) 581-4022 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 May 92 10:35:49 PDT From: konstan@elmer-fudd.cs.berkeley.edu (Joe Konstan) Subject: Looking for Sources of 2500 Sets I know this has been covered in the past, but I couldn't find any summary in the Telecom Archives. Basically, I'm looking to buy a couple of old, well built, "Bell System" 2500 sets and wanted a list of reasonable suppliers (the local electronics shop had no idea) and a guide as to what prices would be reasonable. Since there isn't an archives article on this, I'd be happy to collect responses, if there are enough, and put together a list for the archives. (Pat, why don't you decide whether this is worth discussing in the Digest or just having responses mailed directly to me with a summary posted afterwards.) To make this of greater relevance, I'd be happy to collect source and price info for other old Bell System phones (500, wall-mount 2500, panel, whatever). I'll include your name/email unless you specifically ask to remain anonymous. Joe Konstan konstan@cs.berkeley.edu [Moderator's Note: Readers can reply direct to Joe; he'll summarize. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #382 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12256; 15 May 92 1:39 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27384 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 14 May 1992 23:43:18 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16408 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 14 May 1992 23:43:07 -0500 Date: Thu, 14 May 1992 23:43:07 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199205150443.AA16408@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #383 TELECOM Digest Thu, 14 May 92 23:43:08 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 383 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson AT&T Fraud Prevention Announcement (Andy Sherman) Moscow Cellular Routing Problem (Correction) (Andrew Robson) LD Carrier as Local Phone Company? (Joshua Hosseinoff) Training For New Telecom Engineers (Richard Smith) VSAT History and Latest Developments (Harold Sanchez) Televised Weather Coverage Using Cellular Phone (Martin McCormick) Toronto Star Line Hits Six Million Call Mark (David Leibold) OTA Has Issued a Report re "Software Property" (Jim Warren) Need Advice on Transportable Cellular Phone Purchase (Scott D. Brenner) A Musical Telecom Reference (Scott Fybush) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: andys@ulysses.att.com (Andy Sherman) Subject: AT&T Fraud Prevention Announcement Date: Thu, 14 May 92 14:08:58 EDT Quoted from an AT&T press release: To help business customers detect and prevent the theft of long-distance telephone service, AT&T today announced an aggressive program that includes a service to relieve customers from liability for international long-distance fraud. Long-distance calling fraud is a problem that nationwide costs companies more than $1 billion annually, according to the Communications Fraud Control Association, an industry group. Called the AT&T NetPROTECT program, the family of products and services sets a new standard of fraud protection for the industry. The program includes products, services and education that help customers secure their communications systems against unauthorized remote access and detect and prevent fraud. This week, AT&T began monitoring 800 Service to prevent thieves from using its network to commit fraud. On August 1, AT&T will begin monitoring its international long-distance service from the U.S. to countries experiencing high amounts of fraud, and deploy additional domestic 800 service security measures for all its business customers, automatically and without additional charge. Customers also will be able to choose the additional NetPROTECT products and service options that best meet their individual security needs. These options include services that enable customers to limit or even remove their financial liability for international long-distance and domestic 800 Service fraud involving customers' business telephone equipment, pending Federal Communications Commission approval. For all business customers, the program includes AT&T NetPROTECT Basic Service, offered at no additional charge with AT&T's long- distance and domestic 800 services. This service monitors calling to countries experiencing the highest amounts of long-distance fraud and domestic 800 service 24 hours a day, seven days a week. NetPROTECT Basic Service is designed to spot possible fraud as it develops. Once suspected fraud is spotted, AT&T attempts to notify affected customers. In addition to the basic service, customers can purchase other options to meet their security needs, including AT&T NetPROTECT Enhanced Service, which includes all NetPROTECT Basic Service options and provides more customized monitoring and offers a $25,000 per incident limit on customers' financial liability for fraud caused by thieves using the customer's PBX; AT&T NetPROTECT Premium Service, which also includes Basic and Enhanced Service features and frees customers who follow AT&T's specific PBX security requirements from financial liability for international long-distance and domestic 800 Service fraud; AT&T SDN NetPROTECT Service, which provides enhanced network management services and information designed to prevent, detect and control network fraud, for customers of AT&T's Software Defined Network service; AT&T Hacker Tracker, a software package that works with AT&T's PBX Call Accounting System Plus to detect and alert customers to unusual calling patterns that may indicate that fraudulent calls are being made; AT&T Security Audit Service, a consultative service that helps companies identify and minimize security risks in their AT&T PBX and voice messaging systems; AT&T Fraud Intervention Service, that gives AT&T's PBX and voice messaging customers easy access to a team of technical security experts who can help them detect and stop fraud while it is in progress; and AT&T Security Handbook and training, that provides technical documentation and individualized training tools on the security features of AT&T's PBX and voice mail systems. [Moderator's Note: When they say they will 'monitor' those lines, what do they mean? Will they listen, detirmine some 'appropriate' calling pattern, or what? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 May 92 11:39:09 -0700 From: arobson@nv2.uswnvg.com (Andrew Robson) Subject: Moscow Cellular Routing Problem (Correction) Organization: US West NewVector, Bellevue, WA [Moderator's Note: This is a reprinted version of yesterday's article, which screwed up the phone number given. PAT] The previous posting of this article lost four characters (at the brain-finger interface) in the worst possible place. Please accept this correction and my apologies. My thanks to Carl Moore for being the first to point this out (before my newsreader got a copy). ------ *** Problems with International Routing to 7-096 (Moscow Cellular) *** I have been having problems resolving troubles experienced by people trying to call numbers on the new Moscow Cellular service. Many switches world wide have not had their routing updated to include the new exchanges. Apparently the world letter that was sent out when these exchanges were established was unclear, and many services either block these calls or mis-route them. The affected exchanges are: 7-096-901-xxxx, 7-096-902-xxxx, and 7-096-903-xxxx all of which should be routed through the Moscow gateway (M1OC) to the "transit exchange" T4-1 to reach the cellular MTX AXE10. Moscow still has a serious problem with trunk availability which causes a large number of calls to be routed to a recording. This is a separate problem, but it makes identification of the routing problem more difficult since it can mask the real problem. The trunk shortage is expected to be resolved by equipment to be installed by year end. If you are in a position to place a test call, or to send a copy of this message to your international carrier's routing group, I would appreciate your assistance. Problems have been reported in reaching these exchanges from Scotland, Germany, Italy, Turkey and Hong Kong. Other areas may well be affected, but not reported to Moscow Cellular. Test calls can be placed to Thomas Poland 7-096-901-0031, trouble ^^^^ tickets filed with your international carrier. I would appreciate hearing of your results. Andrew Robson U S WEST NewVector Group Network Engineering Bellevue, WA USA (206) 644-7933 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 May 1992 15:27 EST From: JOSHUA HOSSEINOFF Subject: LD Carrier as Local Phone Company? I recently got a call from one of those annoying telephone pollsters, but as I wasn't in a hurry I figured I would answer it. It was mostly about my opinions on my long distance and local phone companies. One of the questions that most surprised me was: "If there was a new service whereby you would receive your local telephone service through your current long distance carrier, would you get that service?" Are there any rumors of such a service coming up or was this just a way to gauge how much [little] I like my local phone company? This didn't sound like AT&T's phone number for life that I've heard so much about. J. Hosseinoff eaw7100@acfcluster.nyu.edu eaw7100@NYUACF.BITNET [Moderator's Note: Actually, it is possible now, although only marginally legal. You can use a carrier's 800 number then dial your own area code and a local number. You can't do that through either one plus dialing or 10xxx dialing, of course. (Telco examines what digits follow the 1/0 plus or the 10xxx prior to handing them off to the LD company of choice.) PAT] ------------------------------ From: Richard Smith Subject: Training For New Telecom Engineers Organization: Simon Fraser Univeristy Date: Thu, 14 May 1992 19:56:45 GMT I have an issue I would like to raise in this group for comment and suggestions. It is based on the following assumptions: 1) The Telecommunications industry is technologically fast moving and intensely competitive. It is also subject to numerous external pressures in the form of public policy, regulation, and globalization. 2) Engineering schools are able to provide adequate training in the basic and theoretical elements of telecom, but the external environment, as well as business issues and plain old practical requirements (what "family" of switches a company uses) are beyond the scope of a university program. I would like to solicit comments from: a) people who have been in the industry for some time and can comment on the calibre of new graduates and how long it takes them to assimilate enough knowledge in order to be productive in the corporate world. b) people who have recognized this need and sought to enhance engineering training with training specific to the telecommunications industry, either via a university program or in-house program or a joint venture between university and industry. Although I would welcome comments in the area of continuing education, I am not chiefly concerned with upgrading or enhancing the skills of engineers already established in a company. What I would like to determine is how are other people dealing with the problem of getting new graduates 'up to standard' as fast as possible. Thank you for your responses. I encourage replies directly to me (smith@sfu.ca) or postings in this group (since I anticipate this might be a topic of some debate). I will summarize your responses, as well as my own research and post it in this group in three weeks. NOTE: I have browsed the Telecom Archives as best as I could, and I have found some references to GWU's Continuing Engineering Education, USC's Centre for Telecom Management, and a graduate program at Northwestern. I also have some questions posted by Bruce Klopfenstein asking for info to create a telecom course for undergrads in communication. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 May 92 10:41:45 UCR From: Harold Sanchez Subject: VSAT History and Latest Developments Could someone help me please with general info on VSAT (Very Small Aperture Satellite Telecommunications)? Thanks. HAROLD SANCHEZ Unidad de Investigacion y Desarrollo - DOT - San Pedro Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad Apartado 10032 San Jose COSTA RICA VOICE (506) 343543 (HOME) FAX (506) 245980 (WORK) BITNET: hsanchez@ucrvm2 X.400 : C=ch;A=arcom;P=itu;O=rpoa;OU1=ctr;OU2=ice;S=sanchez;G=harold ------------------------------ Subject: Televised Weather Coverage Using Cellular Phone Date: Thu, 14 May 92 16:06:15 -0500 From: martin@datacomm.ucc.okstate.edu In the never-ending battle for viewership, the TV stations in the Oklahoma City and Tulsa metro areas are slugging it out again this spring to see which station can sound the shrillest severe weather alarm and provide the most graphic pictures of destruction after the storm hits. One of the new toys being used by stations in both cities, this year is something called "first pix," or possibly "first pics." With "First Pix," the storm chase crew uses a digitizing still camera to snap a picture of a bad cloud or the pile of rubble caused by said cloud and send the image back to the station via cellular phone. Usually, while the station shows the stills on the screen, the chase crew members provide a running commentary on the progress of the storm. While the ads for "First Pix" mention the use of cellular phones to send the photos, I have not heard any of the details such as whether the cameras also contain the modems for transmitting the pictures, the data rate used, or the time it takes to send one picture. Oklahoma, like much of the Central United States, is in Tornado Alley. The National Severe Storms Laboratory, in fact, is in Norman, Oklahoma, just south of Oklahoma City. The ABC affiliates in both Oklahoma City and Tulsa have a system called "First Alert." It allows them to put warnings on the air about ten seconds after they come in on the National Weather Service wire. The "First Alert" system formats the message along with a map of Oklahoma showing the trouble-spot. The control-room people can preview the graphic to make sure that it is alright, (no centerfolds slipped in by pranksters), and then they push a button which puts it in a box on your screen. Like all things, the broadcast coverage of local weather has its pros and cons. Such things as "First Alert," and input from the sophisticated Nexrad, (Next-generation Radar), in Norman give us some of the technically most current weather alerting capabilities in the world. Such efforts have saved untold numbers of lives. Other things, though, such as "First Pix" and interviews with shaken or grief- stricken survivers standing next to mountains of trash that used to be homes, businesses, or schools, border on shere hype and only provide more excuses to interrupt normal programming more often than is already necessary. Martin McCormick WB5AGZ Stillwater, OK O.S.U. Computer Center Data Communications Group ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 May 92 18:44:32 EDT From: DLEIBOLD@VM1.YorkU.CA Subject: Toronto Star Line Hits Six Million Call Mark {The Toronto Star} reported today that its StarPhone automated touch-tone activated service line has received six million calls in its first 7.5 months of operation. The {Star} notes that some large U.S. papers with such information lines have only seen their five millionth callers after longer periods up to three years, but doesn't factor in whether these lines are in cities with local measured services or much smaller local calling areas. Information services on the StarPhone include stock quotes, entertainment info, lottery numbers, public service and health info, etc. StarPhone is at (416) 350.3000 and needs tone phones to skip through the menus. Examples of available services are Blue Jays line at 2055, or news headlines at 2071. There should be an on-line index available, or a printed service index occasionally appears in the {Star}. Disclaimer: I have no formal connection to {The Toronto Star} other than as a reader. dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 May 92 14:55:13 PDT From: jwarren@autodesk.com (Jim Warren) Subject: OTA Has Issued a Report re "Software Property" Hi, all. I just received this and thought you'd be interested. --jim From autodesk!megalon!wsgr Thu May 14 08:31:36 1992 To: megalon!jwarren Subject: Software Patent Report Jim - Just in case you hadn't heard, Congress' Office of Technology Assessment has released a new report on the state of protection for computer software. According to an article in the Daily Journal, the report entitled "Finding a Balance: Computer Software, Intellectual Property and the Challenge of Technology Change" has drawn praise for its sophisticated look at the unique problems in safeguarding technology rights. The report is available through the U.S. Government Printing Office ($11). MarkB ------------------------------ From: sbrenner@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (scott.d.brenner) Subject: Need Advice on Transportable Cellular Phone Purchase Organization: AT&T Date: Thu, 14 May 1992 17:05:29 GMT I'm about to jump into the world of cellular telephony with the purchase of two transportable cellular phones for my wife and I. I expect us to be very light users (ten minutes/month). The primary reason I want the phones is safety; I want to be able to call someone if my wife or I get stuck in our cars. I want a transportable so I can use it away from the car as well. I'm trying to decide between the OKI 891 transportable, the AT&T 3035 transmobile, and the Motorola transportable. Does anyone have any comments, good or bad, about these phones or other transportables that might be of interest to me? I'm mainly concerned with standby time, ease and time of battery recharge, adjustable power output level, call timers, volume controls, changable antennae, and modular cords (both handset <--> transciever and transciever <--> power source). All comments would be appreciated. Please respond directly to me at either email address below. a T d H v A a N n K c S e Scott D. Brenner AT&T Consumer Communications Services Basking Ridge, NJ scott@cimu03.att.com -or- sbrenner@attmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 May 1992 21:19 EDT From: Scott Fybush Subject: A Musical Telecom Reference While browsing a record shop tonight, I came across a new album by the British band Beautiful South. The album's title is: "0898 Beautiful South." I of course immediately recognized that this is a play on British 0898 numbers, which are the premium-charge lines like US 900 numbers. This being an American record shop, I have this weird feeling that I was the only one in the place who got the joke. And who ever said TELECOM Digest never taught me anything? :-) :-) :-) Scott Fybush -- ST901316@pip.cc.brandeis.edu *New e-mail address coming soon -- thanx for the suggestions!* [Moderator's Note: Did you buy the record? How about a review if you did? PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #383 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15285; 15 May 92 2:45 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20208 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 15 May 1992 00:50:42 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01849 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 15 May 1992 00:50:30 -0500 Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 00:50:30 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199205150550.AA01849@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #384 TELECOM Digest Fri, 15 May 92 00:50:33 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 384 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Senate Debate on Caller ID (Bill Janssen) Re: Senate Debate on Caller ID (John Higdon) Re: Senate Debate on Caller ID (Steve Forrette) Re: Senate Debate on Caller ID (Phil Howard) Re: Phone Companies to Pay *Dearly* For Outages! (Steve Forrette) Re: Phone Companies to Pay *Dearly* For Outages! (Phil Howard) Re: Phoning Home in an Area Wide Emergency (Arthur Rubin) Re: Phoning Home in an Area Wide Emergency (Gregg Kasten) Re: A Real-Life Residential ISDN Bill (Martin Schuessler) Re: A Real-Life Residential ISDN Bill (David E. Martin) Re: Wiring Question in Old Telephone (John David Galt) Re: Pope's Phone Number (Tim Tyler) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: janssen@parc.xerox.com (Bill Janssen) Subject: Re: Senate Debate on Caller ID Organization: Xerox PARC, Palo Alto, CA Date: Wed, 13 May 1992 09:09:46 PDT Perhaps the right thing to do in response to some of the caller-ID hysteria is to let the market decide. It would help if we had smarter phones. In particular, I'd like to buy a phone that would do the following: 1) Allow screening of calls based on caller-ID and time. That is, allow me to specify five different groups of caller-ID's that could cause my phone to "ring" between, say, 9 AM - 4 PM -- any caller, including caller-ID blocked callers, 4 PM - 6 PM -- any caller with caller-ID, 6 PM - 9 PM -- any caller in some restricted set of caller-ID numbers 9 PM - 11 PM -- any caller with caller-ID, 11 PM - 9 AM -- any caller in some *small* set of caller-ID numbers 2) Calls that don't qualify to "ring" the phone could be directed to either an answering machine or just hung up on, based on caller-ID. 3) While the phone is ringing, or the answering machine is answering, entry of a code number could either cause the phone to ring (in the case of the answering machine), or switch the call to the modem on my computer. Any manufacturers out there? Bill Janssen janssen@parc.xerox.com (415) 812-4763 Xerox Palo Alto Research Center FAX: (415) 812-4777 3333 Coyote Hill Road, Palo Alto, California 94304 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 May 92 17:11 PDT From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Senate Debate on Caller ID Jack Decker quotes Will Summers: > Not necessarily. As the spec is written, one must dial *67 and then > _wait_ for a confirming "stutter dial tone". According to the > company's witness in the Arizona hearings, existing speed dialers may > _not_ be capable of reliably converting per-call-blocking to > line-blocking. The spec allows software to take up to 10 seconds > after receiving *67 until a confirmation (or denial) tone is given. > The caller _must_ wait. (Though response is supposed to be 7 seconds > or less 95% of the time, to be sure you would have to program the > speed dialer to wait 10 seconds). The reality is that this is a non-issue. Dialing a *67 is the same type of thing as dialing a *70. It is nothing more than a class of service change for the calling number whose purpose is to provide a temporary feature associated with that temporary class of service. The software that drives *67 is available in every generic (in other words, spec or no spec, the feature has already been created), and the confirmation in all of them is instantaneous. Why? There are no facilities that must be waited for. A 0.5 second pause would be more than enough to ensure success with any equipment, proposed or in common use today. The only switch that I am aware of that requires ANY wait whatsoever is the 5ESS (tm). With the 0.5 second wait, there is no problem. Ever. > In the Arizona hearings we heard of some techniques those wishing to > persuade a child or other family member to call them back without > dialing *67. Telephone preditors are far more sophisticated in > techniques of deception than the average user is aware of how to > render them ineffective. Doesn't *67 toggle a line's status? For instance, it is my understanding that dialing a *67 on a normally blocked line unblocks that line. Even if it is another code entirely, how much trouble would it be for one of those "sophisticated preditors" to convince the child to call back using the "unblock" code? If there is no unblock code, does this not remove options from a caller who might want to reach some one who does not accept anonymous calls? > In my opinion, blocking was an afterthought added to neutralize > public resisance that was neither well designed, well thought > out, nor well tested. IMHO, it appears that the full effects of "per-line" blocking have not been thought out by the anti-CNID folks, either. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: Senate Debate on Caller ID Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA Date: Wed, 13 May 1992 09:45:18 GMT In article Jack@myamiga.mixcom.com (Jack Decker) writes: >> Of course, what they don't understand is that per call blocking >> + speed dial = line blocking. > Not necessarily. As the spec is written, one must dial *67 and then > _wait_ for a confirming "stutter dial tone". According to the > company's witness in the Arizona hearings, existing speed dialers may > _not_ be capable of reliably converting per-call-blocking to > line-blocking. The spec allows software to take up to 10 seconds > after receiving *67 until a confirmation (or denial) tone is given. > The caller _must_ wait. (Though response is supposed to be 7 seconds > speed dialer to wait 10 seconds). This doesn't quite make sense. The *67 for per-call blocking is just setting a flag in the local switch that will be acted upon when the call setup packet finally goes out. Why should it take any time at all? Is it not just like *70 for cancel call waiting as far as the processing time required (more or less?) Sure, if the switch is busy, things can take awhile, just like it can take "7-10 seconds" to get dialtone. But the switch is virtually never in a state where this is the case -- certainly not enough to worry about the effects this will have on speed dialers. Stutter dialtone can usually be dialed "on top of" with no delays on 1AESS and 5ESS switches, and can't be on DMS-100's. Modem users on DMS-100's should be familiar with putting a comma after the *70 in the dialing string. This is not required on the ESS switches however. While there are good arguments on both sides of the per-line vs per-call blocking issue, I don't see it as a technical issue. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard) Subject: Re: Senate Debate on Caller ID Date: Wed, 13 May 92 19:55:10 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) Jack Decker writes: > Of course, what they don't understand is that per call blocking + > speed dial = line blocking. Apparently no one sat down for 2ms and > figured that if all you needed was at 2-10 digit 'pre-code' to set up > a blocked call, you could easily just assign such a code to the > beginning of EVERY number listed in your speed dial directory, right > on your memory telephone. Of course, if you can't AFFORD a memory > telephone, then it gets a little tiring pushing all those buttons all > the time ... > Call your senator, point this out. I have mine (Boren). In this case, I'd just as soon leave my senators in the dark. If they knew what was going maybe they'd end up screwing around with it too much. And anytime Congress screws with anything, they are doing it to the people. Phil Howard --- KA9WGN --- pdh@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: Phone Companies to Pay *Dearly* For Outages! Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA Date: Thu, 14 May 1992 00:33:55 GMT In article woodcock@utdallas.edu (Gregg E. Woodcock) writes: > "Phone companies may have to start paying for service outages with > more than their public image. Under a bill proposed by Rep. Edward > Markey (D-Mass.), carriers would pay fines to regulators and refunds > to customers scaled to the severity of a network outage. [details deleted] > [Moderator's Note: It will never become law. Telephone service is > governed by tariffs, one of which clearly specifies that the most a > customer can expect in the way of compensation is a pro-ration of the > month's bill based on the length of time the service was out. PAT] Yes, but is the tariff not just a form of administrative law that has the force of a "real" law because the legislature has given the authority to the PUC to set the details of the regulated utilities' rates? The legislature is free to change the tariff-making and enforcing authority of the PUC at any time through additional legislation. It's much like the US Tax Code. The IRS, under the authority granted to it by the Congress, creates the Tax Code provisions to implement the tax laws that Congress passes. The Tax Code is administrative law (and the Tax Court is an administrative, not judicial, body). If, however, the Congress decides that it doesn't like something in the Tax Code (because the legislation it implemented was misinterpreted), it can pass new legislation which effectively forces an immediate change to the Tax Code. I believe the same would hold true with public utility tariffs. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard) Subject: Re: Phone Companies to Pay *Dearly* For Outages! Date: Thu, 14 May 92 03:19:48 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) "Gregg E. Woodcock" writes: > "Phone companies may have to start paying for service outages with > more than their public image. Under a bill proposed by Rep. Edward > Markey (D-Mass.), carriers would pay fines to regulators and refunds > to customers scaled to the severity of a network outage. When 25,000 > lines or more go down for one to six hours, carriers would have to > refund 1/4 of the previous month's phone bill to their customers. When > the outage lasts 6 to 12 hours, customers would get back 1/2 their > bill; outages over 12 hours would require carriers to refund the > entire bill. Moreover, carriers found to be 'negligent' could also > face penalties of $10,000 to $20,000 PER MINUTE (!) for disrupted > service." Can we apply this, instead, to my cable TV and electric power service? The outages of both of these are **MUCH** greater than telephone outage here in Urbana, Illinois. Yes, I *DO* know how to make my VCRs stop blinking "--:--". I have done it quite a lot. Phil Howard --- KA9WGN --- pdh@netcom.com ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Phoning Home in an Area Wide Emergency From: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin) Date: 11 May 92 16:32:12 GMT Organization: Beckman Instruments, Inc. In davep@u.washington.edu (David Ptasnik) writes: > If the crisis is not nationwide, you can frequently make long distance > calls when local calls are blocked. These calls often use different > facilties than the local calls. Most calls in these kinds of crises > tend to local -- calls to families, calls for help, calls to tell > people not to come to work, calls to tell your buddy the cool thing > you just saw, etc. Does this mean that you might do better using a long distance company under those circumstances? Remember the days with Sprint access numbers, in which a call from Los Angeles to San Francisco would be cheaper if you called your Sprint node to the Las Vegas Sprint node to the local number in SF? Could it be more reliable, as well? (WARNING: NOT RECOMMENDED, because it does use telecom resources needed by disaster relief teams, but would it work?) > As a result, if your city has a disaster, and you need to contact your > family, call a long distance friend or relative, tell them that you > are OK, and leave a message for your family. Have them call the same > place to send and receive messages to and from you. Yes, that's the correct way to do it. Arthur L. Rubin: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (work) Beckman Instruments/Brea 216-5888@mcimail.com 70707.453@compuserve.com arthur@pnet01.cts.com (personal) My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer. Ich bin ein Virus. Mach' mit und kopiere mich in Deine .signature. ------------------------------ From: gregg@xenon.stanford.edu (Gregg Kasten) Subject: Re: Phoning Home in an Area Wide Emergency Organization: Stanford University, California, USA Date: Sun, 10 May 1992 00:28:41 GMT davep@u.washington.edu (David Ptasnik) writes: > If the crisis is not nationwide, you can frequently make long distance > calls when local calls are blocked. These calls often use different > facilties than the local calls. Most calls in these kinds of crises > tend to local -- calls to families, calls for help, calls to tell > people not to come to work, calls to tell your buddy the cool thing > you just saw, etc. There is a good article that explains some of these things in a recent issue of {Smithsonian}. I believe it was the March issue, but I'm not certain. ------------------------------ From: martin@mozart.amd.com (Martin Schuessler) Subject: Re: A Real-Life Residential ISDN Bill Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.; Austin, Texas Date: Thu, 14 May 92 14:58:00 GMT In article scott@labtam.labtam.oz.au (Scott Colwell) writes: > Even $0.10 per minute seems high. Could you please let us know over > what distance this applies. As a data point the rate in Australia is Yeah, but just think -- you can talk so much faster on your ISDN line !!! BIG :-) Martin Schuessler Advanced Micro Devices ISDN Product/Test Engineer ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 May 1992 12:49:22 -0500 From: "David E. Martin" Subject: Re: A Real-Life Residential ISDN Bill In-Reply-To: Organization: Fermi National Acclerator Laboratory, Batavia, IL, USA Reply-To: dem@fnal.fnal.gov In article scott@labtam.labtam.oz.au writes: > I am _very_ interested to hear how your ISDN pricing compres with your > switched 56 pricing. The usage charges for Switched 56 and ISDN BRI CSD are the same. Illinois Bell uses their Switched 56 network to carry ISDN CSD calls and thus charges the same outrageous rates. David E. Martin National HEPnet Management Phone: +1 708 840-8275 Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory FAX: +1 708 840-2783 P.O. Box 500, MS 234; Batavia, IL 60510 USA E-Mail: DEM@FNAL.FNAL.Gov ------------------------------ From: John_David_Galt@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: Wiring Question in Old Telephone Date: Thu, 14 May 92 21:10:20 PDT I just got hold of a Princess phone myself, and have a different question. Does anyone out there know where I can get the transformer you need to power the lighted dial? John David Galt ------------------------------ From: tim@ais.org (Tim Tyler) Subject: Re: Pope's Phone Number Organization: UMCC Date: Thu, 14 May 1992 04:19:44 GMT In article linc@tongue1.Berkeley.EDU (Linc Madison) writes: > In article Carl Moore writes: >> The Pope is listed in what phone book? >> [Moderator's Note: Rome, Italy, or more precisely, within the Vatican >> City listings of that directory. PAT] > Even more specifically, the telephone numbering space of Vatican City > is rather limited: there is only one number in the entire country, > which is the main switchboard. Evidently, they don't have DID to > individual extensions. It's a local Rome number. The above is totally incorrect. The Pope's number is 698-3131. Even though I'm agnostic, don't tell him you got the number from me. 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 PADI, USPA, AFCEA, INEOA, P226, VFR700, etc. [Moderator's Note: You agnostics are all alike according to Madalyn E. Murray O'Hare, who has said uncharitable things about agnostics from time to time. The founder of American Atheists, MEMO was invited to speak at the Chicago Temple several years ago, and she noted in her remarks that agnostics were 'that way' so they could retain the option of chickening out at the last minute ... :). Don't worry, the Pope's private phone number is safe with us here. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #384 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18631; 15 May 92 4:01 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26617 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 15 May 1992 02:05:08 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04739 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 15 May 1992 02:04:55 -0500 Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 02:04:55 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199205150704.AA04739@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #385 TELECOM Digest Fri, 15 May 92 02:04:30 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 385 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: 800 Calls Converted to 900 by Information Provider (Steve Forrette) Re: 800 Calls Converted to 900 by Information Provider (Phil Howard) Re: AT&T Ship Sets Trans-Oceanic Cable Installation Record (Paul Zawada) Re: AT&T Ship Sets Trans-Oceanic Cable Installation Record (Jim Rees) Re: Fiber in Our Streets (Roy Smith) Re: Fiber in Our Streets (Tom Reingold) Re: 911 for Seagoing Cellular Users? (Roger Theriault) Re: 911 for Seagoing Cellular Users? (Rob Schultz) Re: An Incident in DC (Phil Howard) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: 800 Calls Converted to 900 by Information Provider Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA Date: Wed, 13 May 1992 09:31:52 GMT > [Moderator's Note: My contact at AT&T said an IP figured this out > through some experimentation, and the news spread rapidly around to > others in the industry. Such as to {USA Today}? > Apparently all you need is an 800 line with > call forwarding on it and a non-published 900 number to send it to. > The ANI generated on the 800 number is very handily given over to the > 900 side for billing purposes. No one has to twist the arm of anyone > at telco ... it just looks like any other 900 call to them. PAT] I'm not sure exactly what is meant here. In order to get the ANI for an 800 call from AT&T, you must have an ISDN BRI direct to AT&T. Sprint and MCI require regular T1 direct access. On these lines, is there such a thing as "call forwarding?" Forgetting call forwarding for a moment, a general feature of outbound calls placed over dedicated facilities to a long distance carrier is that calls to 800 or 900 numbers (even those of the serving carrier), calling card billing, etc., cannot be made. Only regular DDD or IDDD calls can be made. Also, at least in the Mystic Marketing situation, all calls to the number are not billed to the calling line. Only if the caller chooses that option is the charge made (other options included credit card billing). How would this selective billing be accomplished with call forwarding? Can you or your contact elaborate on exactly what configuration is involved? Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com [Moderator's Note: Forwarding is quite possible on 800 numbers. I am not sure what took place, but apparently there was some error which did not preclude forwarding the call to a 900 number. I don't know what to think about the {USA Today} thing. Apparently, the fortune tellers routed the call from the 800 answer onward based on what the caller dictated: If credit card billing was desired, it terminated then and there (and was passed to customer service to set up an appointment with the psychic of choice). If billing to the phone number was requested, then the call was shoved along through the 900 maze and on to customer service that way. Customer service was told which direction they got it from, and responded accordingly. During the interval while 'your phone number is being verified', the path via 900 was being set up somehow. Other ideas? PAT] ------------------------------ From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard ) Subject: Re: 800 Calls Converted to 900 by Information Provider Date: Wed, 13 May 92 20:06:55 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) > [Moderator's Note: My contact at AT&T said an IP figured this out > through some experimentation, and the news spread rapidly around to > others in the industry. Apparently all you need is an 800 line with > call forwarding on it and a non-published 900 number to send it to. > The ANI generated on the 800 number is very handily given over to the > 900 side for billing purposes. No one has to twist the arm of anyone > at telco ... it just looks like any other 900 call to them. PAT] Why do they even have to go this far? Why not take the ANI data right off the 800 number w/o call forwarding and report it back for billing under the 900 service? Well obviously they would be in a more vulnerable legal position by doing that. My big concern here is that the process of billing using ANI data puts the data itself through the company doing the charging. Details on my bill should ALWAYS reflect the number I *DIALED* to get at any charging service, NOT the number connected to. If I dialed a regular number that was forwarded, I would see the number I dialed, not the number I forwarded to, right? Just because 800 numbers are not billed to the caller, the process works differently. But I really am concerned that a charge can be generated by someone without being associated with an actual phone call which has the actual dialed number recorded. Phil Howard --- KA9WGN --- pdh@netcom.com [Moderator's Note: I may be mistaken, but I don't think the information provider is ever in a position to 'report back for billing purposes' the caller's phone number. I think telco has to be the one to see the number and capture it. And this makes me then wonder how did they accept the 800 call, yet manage to bounce it back to telco so it could come into their system 'the right (revenue-producing) way' *without either telco complicity OR an error which allowed forwarding to 900 numbers over the carrier's dedicated facilities.* Or perhaps they used POTS to forward the 800 call, along with its ANI to some service bureau or the carrier's POP (point of presence) and somehow it was diddled with there and sent back to the IP as a 900 paid call. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 May 92 09:34:54 CDT From: zawada@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Paul Zawada) Subject: Re: AT&T Ship Sets Trans-Oceanic Cable Installation Record In article , nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes: > dag@ossi.com (Darren Alex Griffiths) writes: >> Some of the things I'd be interesting in hearing about include how the >> cable is spliced together. I assume that the ship didn't have 3,250 >> miles of continuous cable on a big spindle. > No, they actually do carry enough cable to do the whole job. > Cable is carried in big round holds, but they don't rotate; the cable > is pulled out layer by layer from the top, having previously been > carefully loaded in port. > Splices between sections are done on shipboard when necessary. Not only are they done on shipboard, they are done well in advance of being deployed. This is done while there is still a substantial amount of the current piece cable still on board the ship. Repeaters are also spliced in in the same way -- well in advance of being deployed. The reason this is done is so they don't have to stop every time a repeater or splice is put in. This was a real problem with the old coaxial cables which had repeaters spaced one mile apart. > The cable isn't just dropped overboard; the ship tows a heavy > plow that makes a furrow and buries the cable, at least in areas where > other ships are likely to be dragging anchors. The cable plow was first introduced to combat fishing trawlers off the coast of Newfoundland. The cable is buried to a depth of about two feet in coastal areas. At one time the placing of a "Y" 200 miles offshore was considered, but redundant terminations were not as cost effective as burying the cable. In the middle of the ocean however, the cable is not buried; it just lays there ... It is interesting to note how the cable is let overboard in a controlled manner. The cables for TAT-1 and TAT-2 were wound around a large drum several times. The drum acted as a braking device to keep the cable from uncontrollably flying out of the ship. The drum, however proved to be unsatisfactory with the advent of rigid repeater housings. (TAT-1's repeaters had flexible housings.) Consequently, Bell Labs developed the "linear cable engine" which could control the release of cable without winding it around any parts. Since the linear cable engine could grip the cable in lengthwise, repeaters could pass through it without problems. Paul J. Zawada KB9FMN NCSAnet Network Engineer zawada@ncsa.uiuc.edu National Center for Supercomputing Applications ..!pur-ee!zawada ------------------------------ From: rees@dabo.citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Subject: Re: AT&T Ship Sets Trans-Oceanic Cable Installation Record Reply-To: Jim.Rees@umich.edu Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project Date: Thu, 14 May 92 22:49:05 GMT There is a fascinating book about the laying of the first trans-Atlantic telegraph cable. I believe the title of the book is "Great Eastern," which was also the name of the ship that laid the cable. I read the book in junior high school, so my apologies if it isn't really as fascinating as I remember it. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 May 92 10:02:20 EDT From: Roy Smith Subject: Re: Fiber in Our Streets Organization: Public Health Research Institute (New York) In article , dave@westmark.westmark.com wrote: > I noticed that someone has been installing lightguide cables along the > utility poles in our neighborhood. What is most interesting about it is > that this lightguide appears not to be the work of New Jersey Bell, but > of TKR Cable Television. The other day, I noticed a crew working on what appeared to be fiber in a downtown Brooklyn manhole. I stopped to chat. Turned out to be private fiber belonging to the Metropolitan Transit Authority. All sorts of people own fiber. roy@wombat.phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016, USA ------------------------------ From: tr@samadams.Princeton.EDU (Tom Reingold) Subject: Re: Fiber in Our Streets Organization: Noo Joizy, USA Date: 13 May 92 18:16:51 GMT dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson) writes: > While taking a walk last weekend, I noticed that someone has been > installing lightguide cables along the utility poles in our > neighborhood. What is most interesting about it is that this > lightguide appears not to be the work of New Jersey Bell, but of TKR > Cable Television. > Anybody else in New Jersey know what TKR has planned for us? They > still have co-ax to our house, and do a reasonable job of delivering > about 40 channels of one-way television over it. A few months ago, I read in the New Jersey section of {The New York Times} (which is distributed to New Jersey readers of this newspaper) that New Jersey Bell was proposing to build a fiber optic network throughout the state. It said that this would be by far the biggest fiber network in the world. A consumer group -- I don't remember which -- was lobbying against it because it claimed that NJ Bell would have all of its customers pay for it by building in the cost of the new network into phone bills. NJ Bell's point of view was that they can build it without increasing bills. I don't remember how they explained this. I don't know what happened since I read the article. To me it seems like an neat opportunity to have the first area with much more modern technology, but of course I don't fully understand all of the downsides of this. So the conclusion may be that while Bellcore and the Baby Bells (and everyone else) may be developing technology that *could* be delivered, regulation and other forces can prevent it from happening. I don't know what the TKR cable TV company has planned, but if their hands are bound more loosely than NJ Bell's they stand to profit. That doesn't mean we can buy the type of service we would like, though. Tom Reingold tr@samadams.princeton.edu OR ...!princeton!samadams!tr ------------------------------ From: theriaul@mdd.comm.mot.com (Roger Theriault) Subject: Re: 911 for Seagoing Cellular Users? Date: Thu, 14 May 92 7:53:41 PDT Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division, Vancouver, CANADA BC Cellular, the "B" wireline carrier in British Columbia, recently announced (last week) in their subscriber newsletter that the coast guard can be reached with "#16" for marine emergencies. It went on to claim that VHF channel 16 was often too busy to get through on. Strange, I assumed a good holler "Mayday!" would be effective in clearing the channel ... assuming the call is serious. BC Cellular has also improved their coverage in the Gulf Islands recently -- perhaps the cell sites are now in better range than the Coast Guard radio sites. Any boaters contemplating giving up their VHF radios: remember that if you call for help on your cell phone, you will only be heard by the Coast Guard operator. If you've only got a minute to call for help, use VHF 16 -- the chances are very good that a nearby boater will hear your call, and be able to come and help you before the Coast Guard. The cellphone can be useful, but almost every boat over 20' has a VHF radio listening on channel 16. If the coast guard does not hear, the boater should relay the mayday call. (The coast guard WILL broadcast your distress call over VHF 16, if it is necessary. I think the "#16" will be most useful for people on shore who spot a boater in trouble ... especially a boater without either VHF or cell phone. Readers with boats probably know all this.) Roger Theriault theriaul@mdd.comm.mot.com {uw-beaver,uunet}!van-bc!mdivax1!theriaul 1+604 241 6421 I am not a spokesman for Motorola or anyone else besides myself. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: 911 for Seagoing Cellular Users? Date: The, 14 May 92 14:05:11 EST From: rms@miles.miles.com (Rob Schultz) In article toddi@mav.com (Todd Inch) writes: > I heard on the radio the other day that some cellular providers will > soon provide a "hotline" to the Coast Guard by pressing #CG{Send}. > Perhaps that will obsolete Marine Band channel 16? > [Moderator's Note: I don't think it will simply because there are > different transmission characteristics between the two, and the VHF > radios have a better coverage area in some applications. Certainly > cellular phones can supplement VHF, but not replace it. PAT] I race sailboats on Lake Michigan. For the past several years, there have been at least two cellular telephones on board for the Chicago-Mackinac race (Chicago is at the extreme south end of the lake, while Mackinac is at the extreme north end). Cell coverage near Chicago is fine, however, as we head north, reception gets worse. Indeed, there are several places on the lake that have no practical coverage at all. I can't imagine relying solely on a cell phone for help even on Lake Michigan. I would expect that the coastal waters are probably even worse. There would also be a very big problem if the boat was sailed outside the US coastal waters. On a side note, all of the cell phones we have tried are handhelds. (One is a Panasonic, and there have been several Motorola MicroTACs [Pocket Phones]). A bag phone might work somewhat better, but we have also considered installing a car phone in the boat with the antenna at the top of the mast. Does anyone have any experience with this? Would a normal car antenna work? This should give us much broader coverage due to the increased power and the higher mount of the antenna. We should also be able to use the phone more since it would run off the boats batteries and engine rather than the smaller handheld batteries. Does anyone have an idea as to the legality of this? Rob Schultz At work: rms@miles.com At Home: rms@andria.miles.com {uunet|iuvax}!nstar!miles!rms {uunet|iuvax}!nstar!miles!andria!rms +1 219 262 7206 +1 219 262 2412 ------------------------------ From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard) Subject: Re: An Incident in DC Date: Mon, 11 May 92 03:26:44 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) Jack Decker writes: > So, at the business office, with tariff schedule in my lap, I called > up the billing office to ask about this. They informed me that my > service would be turned back on in two hours. I never had to even ask > which so-called tariff it was. The service was restored in about an > hour and a half. Next time, no matter what the issue, challenge them on the tariff in the first place. Claim that there is no such tariff and if they want to insist there is, for them to get the number of conference with their supervisor. Phil Howard --- KA9WGN --- pdh@netcom.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #385 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12114; 16 May 92 14:45 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17154 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 16 May 1992 12:32:03 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17988 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 16 May 1992 12:31:55 -0500 Date: Sat, 16 May 1992 12:31:55 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199205161731.AA17988@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #386 TELECOM Digest Sat, 16 May 92 12:31:56 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 386 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Seeking Morrison & Dempsey (Macy Hallock) Re: Seeking Morrison & Dempsey (Julian Macassey) Re: 800 Calls Converted to 900 by Information Provider (cavallarom@cpva) Re: 800 Calls Converted to 900 by Information Provider (Phil Howard) Calling Number/Forwarding (was 800 Calls Converted) (David G. Lewis) 800 to 900 Calls: Isn't This Double-Billing? (Jack Decker) Re: 800 Fraud - Misuse of 800 Numbers (Wes Perkhiser) Re: 911 for Seagoing Cellular Users? (Don Newcomb) Re: 911 for Seagoing Cellular Users? (Phydeaux) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 15 May 92 15:22 EDT From: fmsys!macy@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu (Macy Hallock) Subject: Re: Seeking Morrison & Dempsey Organization: The Matrix In article : > I have a cellular to bridged tip and ring adapter unit from Morrison & > Dempsey Communications. It claims to be a "AB1 Data Adapter". My US > Mail to the manufacturer's address was returned as undeliverable. > Directory assistance to Northridge, CA and 800 DA came up empty. I have one of these units. They are an AMPS standard to POTS adaptor and work reasonably well ... but can be cranky at times. As I recall, the manufacturer was sued by Tellular, Inc. of Chicago in a patent dispute, and manufacture of the AB1X was discontinued. I have no other direct knowledge of the fate of M&D. I do have the user's manual here for it. There is no identification information in the manual, but there were several versions made, for the different flavors of AMPS compatible cellphones that were out there. As I recall the versions went something like: Std. AMPS - Fujitsu, OKI, Audiovox/Toshiba, Harris, E.F. Johnson, Panasonic, ATT/Hitachi and a couple others NEC AMPS Motorola AMPS Note that all of these are older models of cellphones, made in the 1986-8 era. My AB1X is used with a 1987 version Fujutsu cellphone. 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: julian%bongo.UUCP@nosc.mil (Julian Macassey) Subject: Re: Seeking Morrison & Dempsey Date: 16 May 92 03:28:19 GMT Reply-To: julian@bongo.info.com (Julian Macassey) Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood California U.S.A. In article William.Degnan@mdf.FidoNet. Org (William Degnan) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 377, Message 2 of 10 > I have a cellular to bridged tip and ring adapter unit from Morrison & > Dempsey Communications. It claims to be a "AB1 Data Adapter". Yes, This is one of their products. It made a cellular phone work like a regular phone. You could have a Mickey Mouse phones in the back of the limo. You could also connect phone answering machines and even a PBX. What a nifty gadget. I just tried calling them and their number is no longer in use. But here is the entry from my Roladex: Morrison & Dempsey 19201 Parthenia Street Suite D Northridge, California 91324 Phone: (818) 993-0195 I called an old distributor of theirs and they are still in business. Here is their number; maybe they know what happened to Morrison & Dempsey. Cellabs Phone (818) 710-0010 The name Morrison & Dempsey was taken from a joke (Urban Legend) that the word modem is a combination of the names of the inventors -- MOrrison & DEMpsey. Julian Macassey, julian@bongo.info.com N6ARE@K6VE.#SOCAL.CA.USA.NA 742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue Hollywood CA 90046-7142 voice (213) 653-4495 ------------------------------ From: cavallarom@cpva.saic.com Subject: Re: 800 Calls Converted to 900 by Information Provider Date: 15 May 92 08:13:59 PST Organization: Science Applications Int'l Corp./San Diego In article , TELECOM Moderator noted in response to pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard): > [Moderator's Note: My contact at AT&T said an IP figured this out > through some experimentation, and the news spread rapidly around to > others in the industry. Apparently all you need is an 800 line with > call forwarding on it and a non-published 900 number to send it to. > The ANI generated on the 800 number is very handily given over to the > 900 side for billing purposes. No one has to twist the arm of anyone > at telco ... it just looks like any other 900 call to them. PAT] I have followed this discussion for awhile. This is pretty simple to implement. You order a regular 1mb phone line with call forwarding. Then you call AT&T, and order an 800 number to be sent to the 1mb line. Then you call forward the 1mb to the 900 number. To the CO, the call came from the 800 number; that's all there is to it. ------------------------------ From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard) Subject: Re: 800 Calls Converted to 900 by Information Provider Date: Fri, 15 May 92 21:38:26 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) TELECOM Moderator noted: > [Moderator's Note: Forwarding is quite possible on 800 numbers. I am > not sure what took place, but apparently there was some error which > did not preclude forwarding the call to a 900 number. > Apparently, the fortune tellers routed the call from the 800 answer > onward based on what the caller dictated: If credit card billing was > desired, it terminated then and there (and was passed to customer > service to set up an appointment with the psychic of choice). If > billing to the phone number was requested, then the call was shoved > along through the 900 maze and on to customer service that way. I want to have blocked on my line, any and all numbers which might be able to charge back to my line any charge, regardless of what is said over the line. I want to be able to allow visitors to use my line with no more charge to me than the cost to place the call. I can block toll calls if I need to, but I'd like to NOT have to block 800 numbers. As it turns out some equipment assumes 800 is toll free and cannot block it anyway. Phil Howard --- KA9WGN --- pdh@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) Subject: Calling Number/Forwarding (was 800 Calls Converted) Organization: AT&T Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 15:32:27 GMT In article Bob_Frankston@frankston.com writes: > I presume the ability to forward the 800 => 900 will be viewed as an > "oops" and will be blocked in short order. But that does raise > interesting questions about the propagation of ANI and CID information > through forwarding. What are the technical rules? There are no "technical rules" (standards or Bellcore specifications) regarding the propagation of ANI (Billing Number) on forwarded calls. ANI is only specified (in T1.104 and a Bellcore FSD) across an Exchange Carrier / Interexchange Carrier interface. Forwarding is outside the scope of these specifications. For Caller ID, the feature interactions specified in the Bellcore TRs require the original calling party number to be delivered to the forwarded-to address, if the forwarded-to address subscribes to CID. Note that in a SS7 Network Interconnect environment, this could lead to both the original calling party number and the forwarding number to be sent to an IXC; the original CPN in the Calling Party Number parameter, and the forwarding number in the Charge Number parameter (since the forwarding is billed to the forwarding party). > More interesting, what are the ISDN protocols for dealing with > forwarded calls. Can the caller find out that the call was forwarded > and via what forwarding path? Draft proposed American National Standards for Calling Line Identification Presentation and Call Forwarding call for the original calling party number to be carried in the Calling Party Number parameter (in SS7) or CPN IE (in DSS1 - ISDN access signaling) and up to two forwarding numbers (first and last) to be carried in the Redirecting Number parameters (SS7) or IEs (DSS1). The Redirecting Number IE also has a "Reason for redirection" field, which would presumably be set to "Call Forwarding Unconditional" or whatever the case is. > I presume it would be too much to expect that the called party would > be able to use the back channel to interrogate the links (subject to > access control and privacy considerations). There are a number of > attributes that would be of interest including the ability to ask the > caller for authorization for certain kinds of services and billing. Interrogating the "links" is questionable, since links don't have any intelligence ... interrogating various exchanges is more technically feasible, but still unlikely. Interrogating the calling user is more likely -- there are several mechanisms in draft standards for user-user communication via ISDN. I can provide more info if anyone's interested. David G Lewis AT&T Bell Laboratories david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!houxa!deej Switching & ISDN Implementation ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 May 92 18:03:49 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: 800 to 900 Calls: Isn't This Double-Billing? In message , Pat (the Moderator) notes: > [ ..... Incidentally, we've now discovered *how* the 800 <==> 900 > scam works, where you call an 800 number, yet get billed as though > you made a 900 call, ie, USA Today and Mystic Marketing: They are > using programmable type 800 numbers with ANI. Incoming calls are > *forwarded* to an unmentioned 900 number, and of course the ANI the > 900 number sees is not that of the phone doing the forwarding to > it, but that of the original caller. In effect, a call *is* made to > a 900 number via call-forwarding from an 800 number. So you protest > to telco, but everything they see indicates you called a 900 number > and should pay. Apparently, what this means is that when call-forwarding is in effect, the ANI of the caller is also forwarded. What I'm wondering is, couldn't the central office switch designers offer an option to block forwarding of the original caller's ANI *if* the call is forwarded to a 900, 700, or 976 type number? In such a case it could substitute the number of the phone actually doing the forwarding. It seems to me that if the ANI is being forwarded this, is incorrect operation anyway. After all, consider this scenario: Let's say (just as an example) that you have an 800 number that offers access from Canada, and at the receiving end it is call-forwarded to a 900 number that is only accessible from within the United States. Let's further suppose that the 800 and 900 numbers terminate at the same physical location, so that in essence the forwarded call only travels to the interexchange carrier's switch and back ... it's essentially a very short distance toll call. Now, a call comes in from Canada, and it is billed to the 800 number (as it should be). So the 800 line shows a bill for a call from Canada. Then, the call ALONG WITH THE ANI?!?! is forwarded to the 900 number, and it ALSO gets (incorrectly) billed for a call from Canada, rather than the (correct) bill for only the distance of the forwarded call. You may say, "So what? This is exactly what the customer wants, and they're charging so much for the call that they don't care if they get double-billed." Ah, but what about tariffs? Even if the customer wants it (in this particular case), is it really legal for a phone company to double-bill for the same call? Suppose you had the 800 number forwarded to another 800 number ... let's say an interstate-only 800 number forwarded to an intrastate- only 800 number ... would the intrastate-only 800 number receive the ANI, and therefore bill for calls from out of state? Or let's extend that logic a bit and say that I inadvertently set up call forwarding on my residential phone to forward to some company's intrastate, intraLATA only 800 number ... and then I leave for the weekend and my Uncle Fred calls from Nome? Would both Uncle Fred AND the company owning the 800 number get billed for a call from Alaska? It just seems to me that something is REALLY fishy here ... either this is a major software bug, or the telephone companies are knowingly allowing double-billing of calls to take place. Jack Decker jack@myamiga.mixcom.com FidoNet 1:154/8 [Moderator's Note: This technically is not 'double billing' since at the customer's request, two calls were placed over the network; not just one. If someone called a number and *telco* billed each end of the connection for just the one call, *that* would be double-billing. If two or more actual calls take place, from A to B, and at B's request the call is forwarded to C (even if B and C are the same but at two different places, etc) then telco has done its job twice and should be paid for two calls. If B manually intervened and forwarded the call to C it would work that way; the fact that telco follows instructions and handles B's forwarding for him makes no difference. What's needed is a change to prohibit forwarding POTS/800 ==> 900. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 May 92 22:18:20 CST From: Wes.Perkhiser@ivgate.omahug.org (Wes Perkhiser) Subject: Re: 800 Fraud - Misuse of 800 Numbers Reply-To: wes.perkhiser%drbbs@ivgate.omahug.org Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha In a message of <09 May 92 10:13:40>, Carl Moore (11:30102/2) writes: > And did anyone learn what would show up on the phone bill if the $120 > charge for that psychic service was accepted? And what if you had > called from a pay phone and had asked (via the keypad) that the charge > be assessed to the phone you were calling from? (I stopped short of > doing that, but stayed on long enough to hear the correct phone number > -- all the way down to area code 410 -- read back to me.) In the case of the Mystic Marketing, if you called from a pay phone, and tried to charge it to the phone, it would work (including reading back the correct number) until you pushed the button to accept the charges. Then it said "Please hold while the number is verified ..." After a few seconds, it came back and said that the charge could not be billed to that number. It then went into a loop of advertisements for 1-900 numbers. I don't know how long the loop was, or who ended up paying for the time on the phone (the local phone company, the long distance carrier, or someone else?) but, alas, you couldn't get a free psycic reading. :( Of course, the psycic knew you were calling from a pay phone: just like he/she knew you were going to call. Of course, this is all heresay: I never would call a company like this. :) Wes msged 1.99S ZTC Perk's 'Puter, Omaha (1:285/666.20) [Moderator's Note: I think you are wrong, at least in the early days of this. The pay phone number was read back, verified and you were given your PIN number to be used when setting up an appointment. I think after the abuse became very heavy the psychic's business office started following it a little closer. And of course the COCOTs were wide open all along. PAT] ------------------------------ From: don@q-aais.navo.navy.mil (Don Newcomb) Subject: Re: 911 for Seagoing Cellular Users? Reply-To: newcomb@navo.navy.mil (Don Newcomb) Organization: U.S. Naval Oceanographic Office Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 13:56:53 GMT In article theriaul@mdd.comm.mot.com (Roger Theriault) writes: > BC Cellular, the "B" wireline carrier in British Columbia, recently > announced (last week) in their subscriber newsletter that the coast > guard can be reached with "#16" for marine emergencies. Two of the largest cellular phone systems in North America cover the Gulf of Mexico from Mobile, AL to somewhere down the coast of Texas and out a couple hundred miles into the Gulf. Towers are located on oil and gas production platforms and signals are relayed to shore by either microwave or satellite. In both cases, dialing *911 will connect you with the U.S. Coast Guard. Many boaters in the western Gulf now carry cellular phones *in addition to* their VHF marine radios. Donald R. Newcomb * Views expressed are strictly U.S. Naval Oceanographic Office * those of the author. Mention Stennis Space Center, MS 39522 * of commercial products or newcomb@navo.navy.mil * organizations in no way Phone (601) 688-5998 * constitutes an endorsement. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 May 92 08:29:35 PDT From: reb@ingres.com (Phydeaux) Subject: Re: 911 for Seagoing Cellular Users? > I race sailboats on Lake Michigan. For the past several years, there > have been at least two cellular telephones on board for the > Chicago-Mackinac race (Chicago is at the extreme south end of the > lake, while Mackinac is at the extreme north end). Cell coverage near > Chicago is fine, however, as we head north, reception gets worse. > On a side note, all of the cell phones we have tried are handhelds. A coworker with a boat has a bag phone and an external antenna mounted on top of the mast. According to her, the three watts of phone, plus the height of the antenna allow it to be used most anywhere on Lake Michigan. I do know that near the middle reception is not very good. -- *-=#= 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 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #386 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09033; 17 May 92 18:22 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11883 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 17 May 1992 16:20:10 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29541 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 17 May 1992 16:20:00 -0500 Date: Sun, 17 May 1992 16:20:00 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199205172120.AA29541@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #387 TELECOM Digest Sun, 17 May 92 16:20:00 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 387 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: LD Carrier as Local Phone Company? (Keith Smith) Re: LD Carrier as Local Phone Company? (Jack Decker) Re: LD Carrier as Local Phone Company? (Patrick Tufts) Re: All Zeros in the Subscriber Number (Chris Ambler) Re: All Zeros in the Subscriber Number (Nigel Allen) Re: All Zeros in the Subscriber Number (Stephen H. Lichter) Re: 700 Numbers, Calling Cards, and Carrier Access Codes (B.J. Herbison) Re: 700 Numbers, Calling Cards, and Carrier Access Codes (zeta@yngbld) Re: 700 Numbers, Calling Cards, and Carrier Access Codes (Ed Greenberg) Re: AT&T 700 Easy Reach Service (Phil Howard) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Keith Smith Subject: Re: LD Carrier as Local Phone Company? Organization: Keith's Computer, Hope Mills, NC Date: Sat, 16 May 92 20:39:12 GMT Mine sorta already is. US Sprint own's Carolina Telephone. Ain't that some stuff? Keith Smith uunet!ksmith!keith 5719 Archer Rd. Digital Designs BBS 1-919-423-4216 Hope Mills, NC 28348-2201 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 May 92 13:40:08 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: LD Carrier as Local Phone Company? In message , EAW7100@ACFcluster.NYU.EDU (JOSHUA HOSSEINOFF) writes: > I recently got a call from one of those annoying telephone pollsters, > but as I wasn't in a hurry I figured I would answer it. It was mostly > about my opinions on my long distance and local phone companies. One > of the questions that most surprised me was: "If there was a new > service whereby you would receive your local telephone service through > your current long distance carrier, would you get that service?" ... and Pat (the Moderator) comments: > [Moderator's Note: Actually, it is possible now, although only > marginally legal. You can use a carrier's 800 number then dial your > own area code and a local number. You can't do that through either one > plus dialing or 10xxx dialing, of course. (Telco examines what digits > follow the 1/0 plus or the 10xxx prior to handing them off to the LD > company of choice.) PAT] Actually, Pat, in some states (such as here in Michigan) it is possible to do it now by dialing 10xxx plus the number (or 10xxx + 0 + number for an operator assisted local call). It really works from my phone, but I can't see any advantage to doing it that way because the carrier will always charge you for the call as though it were a TOLL call (the shortest distance toll call if the call is within your own exchange). I think they started charging for the calls because at one time, I heard that some businesses were routing all their local calls via their LD carrier to avoid paying per-call charges to the local telco. Of course, the carrier had to pay access charges for such calls, so they lost money. Even with the toll charge, if all of your local calls were one minute or less, I could see where placing a local call through a long distance carrier might be less expensive during the off-peak hours if you're a business customer (since the charge for each local call on a business line is about 9 cents, and a one-minute off-peak toll call would be around 5 to 7 cents). One little glitch that came about as a result of this was that for a short time after equal access was implemented (in 1985 here), you could place local calls from a coin phone by dialing 10288 plus the local number; the call would just complete and no coin deposit would be requested! Now I think you actually get an AT&T recording that says "please deposit 20 cents for this call." For many years now, in Michigan it has been possible to place a sent-paid call from a coin phone to a location up to 20 miles away for a flat rate of 20 cents (the telcos wanted this to avoid having to use operators to collect additional nickels on short-distance toll calls, back in the days when the operators still used cord boards), so the flat 20 cent rate would be correct for an in-Michigan toll call. I would suppose that when anyone actually dials a call using the 10288 prefix, Michigan Bell actually makes MORE money on the call (and AT&T loses money) if the call is of any length, because AT&T would be paying originating and terminating access charges (on a per-minute basis) to Michigan Bell for the entire duration of the call. But on a short call (say a one-minute call), Michigan Bell would lose money because they'd only get about four or five cents in access charges, and AT&T would get to keep the other 15 cents or so. I'm not sure it all works this way EVERYWHERE in Michigan ... I can only tell you how it works here! Jack Decker jack@myamiga.mixcom.com FidoNet 1:154/8 ------------------------------ From: zippy@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Patrick Tufts) Subject: Re: LD Carrier as Local Phone Company? Organization: Brandeis University Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 18:28:52 GMT Has anyone tried using a LD carrier for local calls? Since you'd have to use the (800) number to dial locally (10xxx being blocked for this sort of thing), would you get calling card rates or LD rates if you made the call from your home phone? Inquiring and enquiring minds want to know. Pat ------------------------------ From: cambler@zeus.calpoly.edu (The Squire, Phish) Subject: Re: All Zeros in the Subscriber Number Organization: Fantasy, Incorporated: Reality None of Our Business. Date: Sun, 17 May 1992 00:41:13 GMT xxx-0000 numbers used to be traditionally assigned to COs. This has changed. Pretty simple :-) cambler@zeus.calpoly.edu Fubar Systems BBS (805) 54-FUBAR 3/12/24, MNP5, 8N1 [Moderator's Note: I think when the very old stepping switches were in common use, 0000 was impossible to assign due to the way the switches worked. I notice we have a few 0000 subscribers in Chicago now. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Nigel Allen Date: Sat, 16 May 1992 20:00:00 -0400 Subject: Re: All Zeroes in the Subscriber Number Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto dlm@hermes.dlogics.com (Dave Mausner) asks in Volume 12, Issue 382, Message 7 of 13: > what is, or was, so special about all zero subscriber numbers? > Was there a technical problem, or was it "cultural"? In the old days of rotary dials and step-by-step switches, a number like 232-1111 would take less time to dial (fewer total "pulls") than one like 232-0000. (For the same reason, busy areas like New York City got area codes like 212; smaller population areas got area codes which would take longer to complete, like 902 for Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.) With touch-tone and electronic switches, having zeroes in your number today is no longer a disadvantage. Directory assistance is 555-1212 rather than 555-1111. I expect that this is so people wouldn't lose track of the ones they had dialled. In step-by-step days, when a company had more than ten lines (368-6041 for Canadian National's Toronto telegraph office, for example), the call would complete after you dialled the *sixth* digit. I don't know what the technical term for this was. Nigel Allen nigel.allen@canrem.com Canada Remote Systems - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044 [Moderator's Note: What you say about the shorter time required for shorter 'pulls' is correct, however there was a time when numbers ending in double or triple zero were very fashionable ... that may still be the case. That may be the reason you will find so many older hotels and other businesses with many lines that have directory numbers of X000 or XX00. I find them easier to remember. PAT] ------------------------------ From: GLORIA.C.VALLE@gte.sprint.com Date: 15 May 92 01:28:00 UT Subject: Re: All Zeros in the Subscriber Number For many years the telephone companies used numbers with the last four digits as zero's as numbers for their switch rooms. In the last few years you have started to see more of them used in non-telephone company numbers. I don't understand why they were let loose to be used as it will cause problems with people getting calls meant for telephone company business. There are several other numbers with zero's in them that are used for testing. Lets hope they don't start issuing them or someone is going to get a surprise when they answer their phone only to get a blast of tone. Steven H. Lichter GTECA COEI [Moderator's Note: Telco test numbers may begin with zero where you live; here they are 99xx style. 0XXX, 00XX, and 000X are valid numbers for subscribers in Chicago. Payphones generally are 9{2-8}XX. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 May 92 11:14:35 PDT From: B.J. 15-May-1992 1414 Subject: Re: 700 Numbers, Calling Cards, and Carrier Access Codes Phil Howard (pdh@netcom.com), talking about a phone system that doesn't allow carrier access codes for 700 numbers, writes: > Any ideas on what I can do to get them to allow the carrier access > code for these two categories of calls? If you can come up with a 700 number that you have a need to access for U of I business, that should help. > Are there any replies I should give when I get a remark like "it > cannot be done on our computer"? I've gotten this before from people > I am sure don't know what a computer even looks like. If you suspect that the person talking doesn't know much about the `computer' in question, ask: What is the make and model of the computer? If they admit not knowing, ask how they know the computer can't do what you want it to do. If they won't tell you the model, ask to speak with someone who knows. If they respond with a make and model number, try: What [version of the operating system/generic] is running? And respond to their answer as above. These two questions should take care of 99.9% of the front-line telephone support or customer service people. When you find someone who can answer these questions, compliment them on their knowledge and ask why the computer can't do what you want it to do. B.J. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: 700 Numbers, Calling Cards, and Carrier Access Codes From: zeta@yngbld.gwinnett.COM (SYSTEM OPERATOR) Date: Fri, 15 May 92 19:51:38 EST Organization: TCS Constulting Services, Peachtree City, GA pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard) writes: > jshelton@ads.com (John L. Shelton) writes: >> 1. Area 700 is "special"; it's the only area code in which each LD >> provider has it's own "namespace". My phone number (700) CALL-MOM in >> AT&T land isn't the same as MCI's (700) CALL-MOM. And the cost to the >> caller could be different, too. > I dialed (from work) 9-1-700-555-4141 and got a recording indicating > AT&T. > I dialed 9-10222-1-700-555-4141 and before I could finish dialing I > got the three tone beep and a recording that said "... it is not > necessary to dial a carrier access code for the number you have > dialed. > I believe my employer (U of I ... three prefixes on campus) has turned > off the carrier access code ability (not sure how this is implemented). > Given the distinctive namespace for 700 numbers, it would seem to me > that it is VERY necessary to dial a carrier access code. From what I have been told (and I could easily have been told incorrectly), the 700 number (555-4141) was created to take some of the pressure off local phone companies when people called in asking what their ld carrier was. To my knowledge, I have yet to see another 1-700 number anywhere else (if anyone has some, i'd be interested in seeing them). Normally, there is no need for most people on a cellular switch, or pbx, etc to dial that number (the person in charge of the system does, but that's about it), and so in most cases the 1-700 is either not defined, or blocked, so no one dials it. As to the dialing of the long distance carrier codes, I block 10???1xxxxxxxxxx. I do that because we have a special deal with our long distance carrier on my switch for 1+ calls. I don't want people rerouting calls on a more expensive carrier. NOTE that 10???0xxxxxxxxxx is not blocked and is allowed, and in fact defined in my system for calling card calls. Hope that helps. Greg ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 May 92 09:44:00 PDT From: edg@netcom.com (Ed Greenberg) Subject: Re: 700 Numbers, Calling Cards, and Carrier Access Codes Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) We won't know until they go live with EasyReach, but I believe that 700-555-4141 is a special case. It is used specifically to show what carrier the phone is presubscribed for. It may well be protected so that you can't dial random 10xxx codes, looking for carrier ID's. The ATT rep tells me that 10288 is expected to work with EasyReach. We'll see. Ed Greenberg | Home: +1 408 283 0511 | edg@netcom.com P. O. Box 28618 | Work: +1 408 764 5305 | DoD#: 0357 San Jose, CA 95159 | Fax: +1 408 764 5003 | KM6CG (ex WB2GOH) ------------------------------ From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard ) Subject: Re: AT&T 700 Easy Reach Service Date: Sat, 16 May 92 02:28:09 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) tr@samadams.Princeton.EDU (Tom Reingold) writes: > When I heard about this service this week, my initial response was to > think that this is really neat. I tried to think of why I would want > it. I still haven't thought of a reason. I have ... at the end of this post. > The phone number can follow me wherever I go. So when I move, I don't > have to call everyone I know and give out my new phone number. But if > I only give out my 700 number, I will be hit with a lot of forwarding > charges. So to avoid those charges, I give out my local number. Then > I'm back to where I was. Give it out only on a limited basis. If I had the service it would be used sparingly anyway. Anyone else can track me down if it is important. > If this is the first step in implementing personal telephone numbers > for everyone, what will happen when all 700 numbers are exhausted? 600? 500? 400? ... What do these numbers do anyway? PAT????? > How is this whole thing implemeneted? Is there a central database of > forwarding information? When this gets big, how will such a giant > database work? It appears that at the present it all goes through AT&T. I have no idea how the existent 700 numbers are routed or handled. PAT????? > I fear that if we are aiming for everyone to have a personal number, > following each of us wherever we go, it will be expected of us to be > reachable at all times. We will lose the advantage of being able to > walk away from our phones. This is partly why I would limit the number of people I would give the number to, as I do now with my unlisted second phone line (the "main" line only gets an answering machine to keep the telemarketers at bay). > Who can make the best use of this new service? Another use I would make of it, in conjuction with the limited distribution of the number, is a single number I can have routed and rerouted to different wireline and cellular phone numbers wherever I travel. Doing regular forwarding, while possible, can be a pain (you have to set up a box at your home where you can call in and invoke a change of forwarding). I wonder if, suppose I am visiting say, San Francisco (instead of being at home in Urbana, Illinois) and I have my 700 number directed to a number that is permanently based in San Francisco (wireline). If someone calls my 700 number FROM San Francisco or nearby, is the charge based just on the shorter path the call would need to go through? When AT&T gets the information out, maybe I will find out. If not in the information they promised to send when ready, I will certainly call up again and hit them with that question. Phil Howard --- KA9WGN --- pdh@netcom.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #387 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09442; 17 May 92 18:35 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30352 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 17 May 1992 16:50:00 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25453 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 17 May 1992 16:49:51 -0500 Date: Sun, 17 May 1992 16:49:51 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199205172149.AA25453@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #388 TELECOM Digest Sun, 17 May 92 16:49:51 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 388 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: PacBell ISDN (was What Telcos REALLY Want) (Joseph Grace) Re: PacBell ISDN (was What Telcos REALLY Want) (David G. Lewis) Re: PacBell ISDN (was What Telcos REALLY Want) (Alan L. Varney) Re: ISDN in Massachusetts (Fred R. Goldstein) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jgrace@netcom.com (Joseph Grace) Subject: Re: PacBell ISDN (was What Telcos REALLY Want) Date: Sat, 16 May 92 21:15:48 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) rpw3@rigden.wpd.sgi.com (Rob Warnock) writes: >> Pac*Bell has not the slightest interest in offering ISDN to the masses ... >> So what is Pac*Bell doing to move ISDN along? Probably nothing. >> Pac*Bell has ABSOLUTELY NO PLANS at this time to offer basic rate ISDN >> to ANYONE, business or residence ... > John, this is simply not true. I can get PacBell ISDN service at home > *today*, for $45.15/month for two lines -- one analog, one digital > 2B+D, or "three dialtones for $15/mo/dialtone" -- or $58.97/month for > two ISDN lines (four dialtones for $15/mo/dialtone). True, the > tariffs are a bit weird, requiring you to have Centrex service, with > a whopping $585 installation charge -- of which $300 is "establishment > of Centrex service". But the intra-LATA call rates are exactly the > same as voice call rates. [Inter-LATA depends on one's ISDN IEC > carrier. Some are the same as voice; some are a *lot* higher.] > And ISDN Basic Rate service is only available within 18,000 wire-feet > of an ISDN-provisioned CO, which at the rate they're going I will My one quibble with a very nice summary: "ISDN-provisioned CO" is a very big gotcha and a key to understanding the magnitude of PacBell's failure to support ISDN in a serious, fair (to all subscribers, not just big businesses) way. First a CO (Central Office: where your phone line goes/comes_from) must become digital before it becomes ISDN-provisioned (ISDN-capable). Then it must become ISDN-provisioned. Sounds easy: allocate money, gather money, go out, buy digital box, install box, go out, buy ISDN appendage for box, install appendage, make money. This is what telephony is all about! Oops, I forgot we're dealing with PacBell. Despite the fact we are in Silicon Valley and San Francisco where technology frontiers are regularly pioneered, despite the fact San Francisco is a world-wide port, the Northern California big city, and the largest commercial and residential center within Silicon Valley's direct influence, PacBell figger's [sic :-), first hand from PacBell] they can just humptey-dumptey along with 3 of 8 of their San Francisco COs digital for 1992. By (beginning of) 1993, they will add another for 4/8 digital COs. Ohhh, ISDN you say? Hmmm, don't see it on the schedule. Your CO, hmmm, no schedule even for digital-provisioned. Horror story (first-hand): when pressed for more informative, explanatory and/or responsive ISDN service information, I was told by a PacBell ISDN service representative "to move" my home to a CO where PacBell chose to support ISDN (i.e., your "high-volume" downtown district where micro-business, home-based business and residences are price-prohibited). "Yeah, that's the ticket!" NOT. Thumbs-down on ISDN support. Thumbs-down on customer service (why doesn't PacBell move one of its ISDN COs withing 18000 feet of my home?); what was that saying: the is always right? BTW, this little story is one of the definitive details referred to below which defines PacBell not only by its PacBell ISDN shortcomings (you can't have it at a reasonable price throughout our monopoly's most high-tech big city) but its generally poor quality service ("Sssssshhhhheeeerrrrr, we'll be nice ... we'll let you move to get the service you need that we should provide from our utility monopoly. Just move your residence within 18,000 feet of one of these 3/8 San Francisco COs, pay us lots of money for Centrex [which you don't want] and we'll let you pay us to receive ISDN service! Aren't we accommodating, reasonable and responsive. [No.] Thank you, I assure you we are. Have a nice day, and remember PacBell is your friend.") The breadth (not just ISDN junk) of such stories I have experienced and recently heard draw a pretty uncompromising picture (to me, at least) of top-level managemental incompetence at PacBell. The Peter Principle probably applies very well at PacBell. > absolutely agree with you is nowhere near universal access ... yet. > But PacBell *is* selling and installing ISDN today, in some > non-trivial quantity. > By the way, they've just about given up trying to push it based on the > data transmission capabilities -- not enough of their anticipated > audience seems to care (so says an ISDN Makreting Manager). What > they're doing now is going after the high-volume business users, > promoting the fact that a single ISDN line gives you *two* dialtones > at a monthly cost *less* than two standard business lines. This > marketing strategy seems to be working better for them than pushing > the data capabilities. > If you absolutely *must* have ISDN today and are outside the 18kft > limit, there's a way to get ISDN in groups of eight lines ABSOLUTELY > ANYWHERE AT ALL for about the same price as a T-1 line. In fact, that > how they do it: They run a T-1 line [with the usual repeaters every > 6000(?) feet] and stick a D4 channel bank on the end of it and a thing > called a "Bright Card"(?) on that, giving eight ISDN "U" interfaces. > [Note that this is *not* ISDN PRI (23B+D), but merely eight BRI lines > (each 2B+D).] Each of those can then be run in any direction up to > 18kft from the termination. But it's not cheap. A typical > "medium-short" run for "ISDN Extended" is over $7000 to install and > $1200/mo (or ~$75/mo/"dialtone"). While John is "wrong" (that PacBell is selling "no" ISDN) and Rob is right (with nice details and the best synopsis I've seen or heard of PacBell ISDN pricing and gotchas (including from PacBell)), I think John hits closer to the mark than Rob does in his overall assessment of PacBell for the following reasons: 0. Very first off, I haven't done any definitive research on PacBell or its management and my opinions follow. But these opinions are based on my experiences working at a government contractor (BBN) for four years, a hard-core contract programmer house (TCI) and soft-core development house (NetExpress "West") where I reached some level of un-naivete about management, bureacracy and people systems. I guess you could say I draw my picture from the details as in "It's the details that count." Especially when the details are inordinately numerous, consistent and definitive. (For example, see CO story above.) Also, in "logical" arguments, "ad hominem" argument are always considered "specious" and should be so, however, we are considering not a "utility service product line" but (in my picture) an organization of people -- where the only people who have final authority are those being paid the big $$$ to do for the employees, stockholders and community what best be done with the available resources. Not easy, I grant you (but be polite and step aside when you're over your head; Ohh, you're not over your head --- Eeeeexxxccuuuuuzzzzzeeeee me!). These people can be good or bad, but when they're bad, they and their entire organizations don't listen. This is the biggest problem, so I'll repeat: THEY DON'T LISTEN. Actually, I kind of like that! Because sooner or later they should get what they deserve. Ideally. In practice, depending on how the system is setup, this may not happen or may happen very late (too late to affect (much less punish) the perpetrators) or never. If the system has no accountability feedback or the feedback loop is slow, unresponsive, or broken for some reason (e.g., the stockholders are ill/mis/dis-informed on market/technology directions, currents), then the system breaks: the low calibre management perpetuates and promotes further poor personnel and bureacracy. These organizational features lead to definitively poor, unresponsive, partial, expensive, slow or otherwise low quality services and products. This explanation is the best I have for how the PacBell organization behaves, including their approach to ISDN, their customers and their Bay Area (especially San Francisco and Silicon Valley) captive subscribers. 1. Let the customer order what the customer needs, not what PacBell needs. If I want ISDN, I want ISDN (not Centrex). PacBell admits this but perpetuates this expensive (for the customer, "lucrative" for PacBell) charade. This price charade may be particularly self-serving for PacBell since it a) significantly confuses consumers, b) generates unearned revenue (obviously for the unneeded Centrex charges), and c) artificially depresses "market demand" for ISDN through consumer confusion, exorbitant pricing and distasteful business practices (boosting Centrex revenue at the cost of ISDN revenue). Apparently, PacBell "wants" Centrex "demand" to perpetuate artificially even (especially?) at the expense of ISDN. Board Meeting: "See, we did a great job planning for ISDN: we invested virtually nothing and the demand is ... virtually nothing! In fact, for every ISDN connection we get at least one new Centrex customer [guaranteed by our ISDN-Sells-Centrex Sales Package]. Centrex is still hot stuff and we forecast growth into 2010 and beyond. Last year's plan still holds in trumps for this year and probably for the next 15 years. Don't I do a good job? [Isn't my artificially self-fulfilling marketing plan with no serious feedback loops working?] Can I have my raise?" 2. "ISDN Marketing Manager". Maybe a joke? Who's got vision, authority and the bank account to make ISDN progress at PacBell? Somehow, I don't think such a beast really exists at PacBell. And won't as long as poor management is in authority. 3. High-volume business user. Yeah, no kidding. PacBell will do anything for money, even stuff they don't want to do because of bad planning/ managemental incompetence. Short-term capital gain moves bureacracies, despite themselves. But let's not forget, this same PacBell (is supposed to serve) serve the entire Bay Area. Where's the meat for the residences, home-based business, or micro-business? Ohh, they don't get any. Hmm, that makes for a level business playing field by an appropriate judge -- NOT. If PacBell can't even get the answer right planning their own business needs re: ISDN, why should they be able to choose mine? Oohh, it's a monopoly. Oohh, they're preferential. Oohh, I forgot, it's PacBell. So, Rob, congratulations on providing the local monopoly enough money or promised money to make them bend over despite themselves. Or for happening to live in a location within 18,000 feet of a PacBell preferred CO. But you are in the distinct minority, and while SGI is (by all the reports I've heard) a wonderful company, small business can be wonderful too -- and crucial during these high-inertia times (witness PacBell again). PacBell's ISDN incompetence affects my business and consulting plans in a very serious way. For a final anecdote (second-hand): Steve Jobs recently tried to get ISDN for *his* home. One of his companies, NeXT, has plenty of money to throw around, Steve has plenty of money to throw around, NeXT is pushing real hard to make ISDN the standard telecommunications medium (witness ISDN-Kit in NeXTstep 3.0) of the NeXT community (at least for point-to-point) and Steve is an extremely high-profile, flagship kind of customer. What did PacBell *do* when Steve tried to get an ISDN Basic Rate connection for his home? They offered him the T1 option you described above! Well, I guess it's only fair :-)! But if I were PacBell, I would consider Steve's aggressive ISDN push a valuable alliance and be wary of generating bad PR (with an $8000 charge for an ISDN connection to the home of someone who is helping make ISDN real in the U.S.). Gee, what if people heard about it? I guess nothing -- no significant, affordable feedback loop. 2.5 cents, = Joe = jgrace@netcom.com (415) 206-9150 ------------------------------ From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) Subject: Re: PacBell ISDN (was What Telcos REALLY Want) Organization: AT&T Date: Sun, 17 May 1992 15:52:37 GMT In article rpw3@sgi.com (Rob Warnock) writes: > The company I work for is a memnber of the "Bay Area Gigabit Testbed", I suppose it would be irreverent of me to suggest that this could be abbreviated the "BAG-iT" ... > They run a T-1 line [with the usual repeaters every > 6000(?) feet] and stick a D4 channel bank on the end of it and a thing > called a "Bright Card"(?) on that, giving eight ISDN "U" interfaces. It's a BRITE card; BRITE stands for Basic Rate Interface Terminal Extension. It goes into either a D4 channel bank or a SLC-96 digital loop carrier operating in the universal mode; there has to be a D4 or SLC-96 on both the remote and CO end. Generally, I believe that D4s are used in other COs (so they can effectively colocate ISDN lines in non-ISDN COs, and use the wire plant associated with your usual home CO), and SLCs are used in outside applications. There's also a version of the BRITE card that is installed in the SLC-5 or D5 channel bank. Another fine AT&T Network Systems product. (I don't support NS, but hey, I can play up their stuff ...) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 May 92 18:33:56 CDT From: varney@ihlpf.att.com (Alan L Varney) Subject: Re: PacBell ISDN (was What Telcos REALLY Want) Organization: AT&T Network Systems That's "BRITE Card", for Basic Rate Interface [BRI] Transmission Extension. The "ABSOLUTELY ANYWHERE AT ALL" is a little too far; the practical limit is about 150 miles. There are versions offering the AT&T AMI "U" interface, the ANSI "U" interface and the 4-wire "T" interface (no NT1 needed), that work with SLC96, D4-bank and Series 5 Remote Terminal units. But if you need more than a handful of ISDN "lines", the Remote Integrated Services Line Unit (RISLU) will handle up to about 150 mile T1 connection, supplying a mixture of Analog and ISDN lines (max. of about 300 ISDN and 200 Analog). No BRITE Cards needed -- just standard line/ISDN cards. For even more lines, it's time for Remote Switch Modules. This information is directly from available customer "line interface" documentation. Al Varney - not officially representing AT&T's opinion(s). ------------------------------ From: goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) Subject: Re: ISDN in Massachusetts Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA Date: Sat, 16 May 1992 20:20:15 GMT In article , Monty Solomon writes: (actually seems to be Ron Simmons writing) > The conversation with NE Tel started out just rosy. The sales guy > informed me that ISDN was available out of my CO (a fact that I knew a > year ago and which influence a relocation decision) and that it could > be had by subscribing to their Centrex service with quantity one line. Funny, but the PRM that I live in has a different ISDN deal from the one he found out about. Typical of somebody who doesn't read the Digest _every day_ and thus missed the article when it ran around February. :-) Actually the fault is with the telco dweeb who obviously does NOT know what's available or tariffed! If you have Centrex, then intra-Centrex data calls are free. You pay the local message charge (1.6c/minute, which replaced message units a few months ago) for calls outside of your Centrex. So if you buy Centrex, in which case ISDN costs considerably more than non-Centrex ISDN, then you don't pay for calls. Note that you have to make both sides of the line the same Centrex, but that is doable within one exchange. You can also add ISDN to regular residential service, and pay for flat-rate residential calling (contiguous, suburban, Metro, Circle, Bay State East, or whatever calling option you pay for). It costs something like $13/month extra, vs. analog. For a few bucks extra, you get to use both B channels at the same time. If you make the call specifying "bearer service=speech", then you pay the usual rate (free for most residential local rates). It'll usually work just fine for 56k data; just don't come running to NET if you have to redial a few times or if some paths don't work. Most will, since almost their whole network is digital fiber optics. Many devices, like the Gandalf and Digiboard bridges, are smart enough to send data over this bearer service. If you make the call specifying "bearer service = clear channel" (data), then you pay the local measured service rate, 1.6c/minute, even if your residential class is flat-rated. Kick yourself or don't kick yourself, it's your choice! So you have two ways of not paying 1.6c/minute: Use speech bearer service on a non-Centrex residence line, or use either bearer service WITHIN a centrex. And yes, private lines are useful too, if you want to pay the $150 or so a month; I know people who have them at home. Me? I'm waiting to hear which side of the 18kf line my house is on. Fred R. Goldstein goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com k1io or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice:+1 508 952 3274 Standard Disclaimer: Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #388 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16033; 17 May 92 21:22 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13500 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 17 May 1992 19:34:22 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18376 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 17 May 1992 19:34:13 -0500 Date: Sun, 17 May 1992 19:34:13 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199205180034.AA18376@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #389 TELECOM Digest Sun, 17 May 92 19:34:00 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 389 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Strowgerworld (Todd Inch) Consolidation of Northern Canadian Phone Services Approved (Dave Leibold) MCI Perspective (Keith Smith) 310/213 Permissive Dialing Ended Saturday, 5/16 (Lauren Weinstein) Canada Approves CT2Plus Digital Cordless Standard (Niall Gallagher) Namibia Dialing Codes (Carl Moore) Multiline Surge Protectors (Jeff Sicherman) CLID Displays Out of Area Number (Albert Pang) Area Code 200?? in Pac*Bell Land (Linc Madison) AT&T VideoPhone Delayed (Monty Solomon) Voice Mail Hanging up on Women (Thomas K. Hinders) Electronic Key System for Sale (Todd Inch) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: toddi@hindmost.mav.com (Todd Inch) Subject: Strowgerworld Organization: Maverick International Inc. Date: Fri, 15 May 92 21:16:48 GMT (Regarding a spoof "announcement" that NT is going back to ancient technology.) Well, it's a little scary, but primarily for monetary reasons -- nostalgia is just a side benefit -- I've just finished installing a 1A2 Key System Unit in my garage. This weekend I'll run the cable. 1A2 is the old-style five-line phones that looked very much like standard desk phones only a little longer, with the HUGE, short cable to the wall. Note for those shaking their heads disbelievingly: I picked up a bunch of the five-line sets about four years ago for about $5 each at a garage sale. I had been not-too-seriously looking for the KSU to match, and have been using them as totally featureless two-line phones since then. I noticed a KSU on the wall of our phone room at the business park at work and made discreet inquires (some with my 1970 WECo butt set) and found it disconnected but nobody knew if it was "available." Then about a month ago GTE ripped it off the wall and was about to shove it into a dumpster when I rescued it. Well, what I have found (back to Strowgerworld) is that with a few relays I can do almost anything with this baby. There was no intercom unit, but a line card and a resistor and the talk battery fixed that, and two more relays made the buzzers buzz while the lamp flashed off -- a relay NOR and a relay AND for you digital folk -- if you put the COM line on hold (okay, so I'm fascinated by simple things.) I DID resort to solid state by later changing the COM line signalling by using a laying-around RS paging adapter to decode the * tone into relay contacts. Still no direct station signalling, of course, but good enough for the two of us. Then I realized I could wire in the doorbell via a relay so we can hear it downstairs. Last night I was thinking that unused line 3 could conference lines 1 and 2 together if they were already on hold, with the advantage that the hold circuit on the 1A2 lets go when the call is dropped by the CO. (Just a couple relays and isolation transformers.) Wow! This Strowger-era technology really CAN be practical today (if you have more time than money, that is!) Seriously, though, I only resorted to the 1A2 because it was cheap/free and I've spent hours trying to find a vendor for any key/hybrid solution for two lines and ten + stations for under $400. If you know of any, please do let me know -- I haven't drilled my house full of huge holes for that 25-pair cable -- YET. Hopefully our Tadiran Coral PBX system here at work will be installed soon and I'll get to experience the flip side of the coin! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 May 1992 02:30:42 -0400 From: Dave Leibold Subject: Consolidation of Northern Canadian Phone Services Approved [From a CRTC news release dated 1st May 1992] CRTC APproves Amalagmation of Northern Telephone Operations Under Northwestel OTTAWA/HULL -- The CRTC today approved Bell Canada's (Bell) proposal to transfer its assets in the eastern part of the Northwest Territories (NWT) to Northwestel Inc. which already provides telephone service to the western portion of the NWT, the Yukon and northern British Columbia (Telecom Decision CRTC 92-6). The transfer to Northwestel, which is expected to be completed by July 1, 1992, will involve assets with an estimated net book value in the order of $18 million. [CAD$ - djcl] The commitments made by Northwestel and Bell to citizens in eastern NWT include the following: * the services currently provided by Bell in Inukitut [language] to the 22 eastern NWT exchanges will be maintained. The feasibility of enhancing services in Inukitut will be examined; * Bell will continue to operate Message Relay Service, although inquiries and complaints will be handled by Northwestel; * discounts for users of Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf, as well as calling card discounts for subscribers with disabillities, will be continued; * part-time community workers and community agencies will be established over the next two years in all eastern NWT communities where there is not currently a telephone company presence. Northwestel is also committed to maintaining Bell's current quality of service standards in the eastern NWT and to working with the CRTC to develop one set of standards which would be applied uniformly throughout the amalgamated operating territory. The CRTC's decision also approved Northwestel's proposal to make local and competitive service rates in the existing area and the eastern NWT uniform. The Commission's view is that this restructuring of rates will result in a minimal cross flow of revenues between Northwestel's existing territory and the eastern NWT. The company plans to gradually bring long distance rates charged to subscribers in the eastern and western NWT more in line. Contact: Bill Allen, Director General CRTC Public Affairs Ottawa, Ontario [Canada] K1A 0N2 (819) 997-0313 TDD (819) 994-0423 Fax (819) 994.0218 [list of regional offices in Halifax, Winnipeg, Montreal and Vancouver from news release not repeated here; net mail me if interested.] [More notes from djcl: there was a recent referendum in the NWT to approve a new boundary splitting the NWT to create a new eastern Nunavut territory largely governed by the Inuit; the remaining western part of NWT (which includes Yellowknife) would be a separate territory. Yukon Territory is not affected by the boundary change. This development, which could happen by the turn of the century, could prove interesting for telco/community relations.] dave.leibold@f730.n250.z1.fidonet.org dleibold1@attmail.com dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:250/98 INTERNET: Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ From: keith@ksmith.uucp (Keith Smith) Subject: MCI Perspective Organization: Keith's Computer, Hope Mills, NC Date: Sat, 16 May 92 02:26:25 GMT Anybody else besides me in netland used MCI Perspective? You get this MCI mail account, where they throw you a compressed copy of your itemized call detail over the phone into this DOS program written in foxbase or filepro or something. The whole deal is automated and runs as slow as molasses. The first time I tried it it ran out of disk space on the drive after six hours, so I deleted files and tried again. No disk space again, so I reformatted the 20MB dos box, and loaded just perspective and tried It took a 286/12 with 640K RAM over 8 hours before it barfed. Finally I added another 2MB of EMS RAM and I managed to get it to fly in about three hours. Printed a report or two. Tried to get the MCI folks to listen, but their attitude is that it is no problem to tie up monster PC all nite with this stuff. Additionaly they reqire an error correcting modem for the connection, as I think the protocols used don't do any. The 9600 baud modem's listed are limited to USR Duals, and Hayes ULTRA's; of course I've got T2500's and T3000's and Non-mnp 24's. There is *NO* ability to "roll your own" chat scripts. Anyway the problem is I'd like to use the Unix box to grab the data off of the MCI Mail account, but noone at MCI will tell me how it works so I can do it. That way I can VP/ix the data in the 4GL on the 486/33 at any time later on, and print the reports on the High speed Shuttle Matrix printers instead of some tinky PC printer. When I mentioned to the MCI T/S folks that the programs ran terribly slow with lousy kb response on a 286/12 they suggested a faster CPU. When I mentioned that a task as simple as downloading some data out of a mail account and processing some reports didn't really require a 4GL I got dead phone. When I asked for copies of the programs I got *NO WAY*. When I asked for Raw data specs, and MCI Mail commands to retrieve it I got *NO WAY* and open a MCI Mail account to find out. Can anybody here help? Keith Smith uunet!ksmith!keith 5719 Archer Rd. Digital Designs BBS 1-919-423-4216 Hope Mills, NC 28348-2201 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 May 92 11:56:50 PDT From: lauren@vortex.COM (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: 310/213 Permissive Dialing Ended Saturday, 5/16 Greetings. The 310/213 permissive dialing period, which was extended due to the recent problems in L.A., has ended as of Saturday, 5/16. As of now, the correct area code must be used. Re-use of some prefixes will be beginning almost immediately (a number of re-used prefixes will be opened in June). Calls to a prefix in the wrong area code, if it isn't being re-used, will result in a recording informing the caller of the change until either the prefix is re-used or until approximately six months has elapsed from the end of the permissive dialing period, whichever comes first. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: 14 May 92 09:46:00 EDT From: Niall (N.) Gallagher Subject: Canada Approves CT2Plus Digital Cordless Standard Readers may be interested in the following, from the {Globe and Mail}, May 14th: "A new generation of cordless telephone systems that could put a phone in every purse and pocket will be operating across Canada within a year, according to federal Communications Minister Perrin Beatty. Mr. Beatty announced yesterday the adoption of a standard for digital public cordless telephone services that will make it easier for consumers to use portable phones ... new phones are expected to be cheaper, about $150 compared with $350 to $1,000 for cellular ones." The standard referred to is CT2Plus - it's digital, FDMA-TDD, an extension to CT2 (UK digital cordless), 944-952 MHz band, 32 Kbit ADPCM, in-band and common channel signalling, supports two-way calling, roaming and hand-off. Cell sizes are about 100 metre radius. Applications are both for public cordless (airports, shopping centres etc.) and private cordless (home, office etc.) Niall Gallagher niall@bnr.ca Disclaimer: not speaking for BNR and not involved in the CT2Plus program ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 May 92 9:23:36 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Namibia Dialing Codes Enclosed are city codes taken from the archives for: 1. Namibia 2. South Africa (only those codes starting with 6) Today, I attempted a call to Windhoek using AT&T calling card from a C&P pay phone. Windhoek is city code 61, but it failed when I tried +27, so I had to use +264 instead. Recently, a radio station in Delaware, as part of ongoing trivia contest, asked what Namibian port was still part of South Africa; the answer was Walvis Bay (Walvisbaai). Would the "+27 6..." list be just a shortcut for callers in South Africa? Namibia +264 61 Industria 61 Olympia 61 Windhoek 6221 Okahandja 626 J G Strydom Airport 631 Keetsmanshoop 6331 Luderitz 6332 Oranjemund 641 Swakopmund [642 Walvisbaai - see South Africa] 651 Otjiwarongo 661 Mariental 671 Tsumeb 673 Grootfontein (one source: 6731?) 681 Gobabis South Africa +27 6... 61 Windhoek 6221 Okahandja 626 J G Strydom Airport 631 Keetmanshoop 6331 Luderitz 6332 Oranjemund 641 Swakopmund 642 Walvisbaai (Walvis Bay) 651 Otjiwarongo 661 Mariental 671 Tsumeb 6731 Grootfontein 681 Gobabis Namibia was claimed by South Africa, at least when it (Namibia) was called South-West Africa. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 May 92 23:24:29 -0700 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: Multiline Surge Protectors Organization: Cal State Long Beach Is anyone aware of phone-line surge protectors that will handle four or more incoming lines. RJ-11 interfaces are preferrable but others acceptable. Jeff Sicherman ------------------------------ From: albert@INSL.McGill.CA (Albert Pang) Subject: CLID Displays Out of Area Number Organization: INSL, McGill University, Montreal, Canada Date: Fri, 15 May 92 08:09:09 GMT I have noticed today when I received a long distance call from Ottawa that my caller ID display device shows the number (out of area code) that called me including the area code. I believe this is the first in North America (please correct me if I am wrong). I think this only works for certain switches operated by Bell Canada within Quebec and Ontario. My exchange is (514) 289-xxxx and the person that called me is (613) 741-xxxx. Albert Pang Information Networks & Systems Lab McGill University ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 May 92 02:08:43 PDT From: linc@tongue1.Berkeley.EDU (Linc Madison) Subject: Area Code 200?? in Pac*Bell Land I just heard something quite bizarre on the wee-hours-of-the-morning radio (it's 2 a.m. and I'm graphing data for my master's project report). Specifically, it was a little public-service blurb for the Rainforest Action Network, inviting listeners to call them at 1-200-xxx-xxxx. (I'm scotching the number because I didn't catch it, not for any editorial reason.) The deejay clearly emphasized the "200" part of the phone number, but no one answered when I called to get the number repeated, so I tried a couple of experiments. 1-200-555-1212 rings with no answer (I let it ring about 12 times). 10xxx-1-200-555-1212 gets a Pac*Bell recording "it is not necessary to dial a long-distance carrier code." 1-500-555-1212, with or without 10xxx in front, gets a recording, "we are unable to complete your call as dialed." Is there really an area code 200, or am I having end-of-semester hallucinations? If so, how is it assigned, billed, etc.? Reply in the Digest and/or by e-mail. Linc Madison == Linc@Tongue1.Berkeley.EDU ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 07:51:38 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: AT&T VideoPhone Delayed From the 5/15/92 {Wall Street Journal}: AT&T said it will delay initial deliveries of its AT&T VideoPhone 2500 to make further improvements to picture quality, motion and color. Originally scheduled to ship in May, the first products now will be delivered this summer, the company said. All the early models will go to people and businesses that have placed orders at AT&T phone stores, it said. AT&T said the number of orders exceeded expectations. People placing orders now won't be able to get a phone until late July or early August. The VideoPhone 2500, which costs $1,499, sends and receives video calls over existing phone lines for the same price as a regular voice call. Customers also will be able to rent the phone for less than $30 a day, the company said. ------------------------------ Date: 15 May 92 09:49:39+0400 From: /PN=Thomas.K.Hinders/OU=CCMAIL/O=CHAN.IS/PRMD=MMC/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/@sprint.com Subject: Voice Mail Hanging up on Women Reported by Distribution plus: VOICE MAIL HANGING UP ON WOMEN! Women with high voices are the victims of a strange new technology problem. Voice mail, the computerized telephone answering system, sometimes hangs up on them or loses their messages because the computer hears their voices as a command. That's the complaint of several big users of voice mail, which lets callers leave messages for office workers. Thomas K Hinders Martin Marietta Computing Standards 4795 Meadow Wood Lane Chantilly, VA 22021 703.802.5593 (v) 703.802.5027 (f) ------------------------------ From: toddi@hindmost.mav.com (Todd Inch) Subject: Electronic Key System for Sale Organization: Maverick International Inc. Date: Fri, 15 May 92 21:39:17 GMT Well, it's not quite ready to sell just yet, but probably in a month or so: Iwatsu Omega-Phone III 24 line x 60 phones maximum configuration, including ports and phones - about 40, and trunk cards for 12 lines. This is an older (circa 1980) electronic key system but is working well and would be perfect as-is for about 25 users (some phones have minor problems) with plenty of expandability of phone/lines, but not features -- it's a pretty dumb key system, not even a hybrid. It will be "freshly" removed from service, not sitting around untested and gathering dust. It's not compatible with single line devices and doesn't do anything "automatically", but is reliable and easy to use and requires only three pair station wiring. We have seriously outgrown it and want to do DID, share trunks with modems, faxes, etc, add autoattendant, voice mail, and least-cost routing and use some single-line phones, none of which it will do. Anyway, if you are interested or have questions, please e-mail me or call at 206 743-6659. It would be perfect for my home -- okay a little large -- but is worth more than I'm willing to spend. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #389 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19052; 17 May 92 22:28 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06647 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 17 May 1992 20:50:08 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08331 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 17 May 1992 20:49:59 -0500 Date: Sun, 17 May 1992 20:49:59 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199205180149.AA08331@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #390 TELECOM Digest Sun, 17 May 92 20:50:00 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 390 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Totally Portable Cellular Issues/Advice? (Paul Gauthier) Cellular and ANI (zeta@yngbld.gwinnett.COM) Northern Telecom-Voice Mail Integration (David Appell) ISDN Payphones in Japan (Robert J. Woodhead) Call Return/Trace (David Niebuhr) High Voices Take #-ing (USA Today via Sean E. Williams) New French Magazine For Telecard Collectors (Nigel Allen) Area Code Discussion From Relaynet (Nigel Allen) Red, Right, Ring, Positive (Jim Redelfs) Integretel Past Due (Carl Moore) Help Identify Mystery Box (Jeffrey Jonas) The Virgin Mary Speaks to America Today (David Leibold) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gauthier@ug.cs.dal.ca (Paul Gauthier) Subject: Totally Portable Cellular Issues/Advice? Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 20:51:26 -0300 I am exploring the possibility of getting a cell phone to replace the pager I now carry. I need to be accessable during all waking hours (and parts of the night sometimes) since I am the head technical advisor for a large platform of computers. Currently I am using just a numeric pager which will display the number which a person keys in when they page me. Here are the two models I've been exploring: Nokia P4000 -- $529CDN or $9.95CDN/month to lease for 36 months This unit is a little large for me, since I am planning to carry the phone with me while I am biking around this summer. Normally I just wear one of those "fanny paks", so it'd be a tight fit to squeeze it in. Motorola DPC 500 Plus -- $799CDN or $16.95CDN/month to lease for 36 months This one is small enough if I buy the $80 slim battery pack to go along with it. It, like the other model above, has a $10CDN buyout at the end of the lease. Both phones are 0.6W ... is this enough for around town reception? Do either have a "silent ring" mode where a light blinks when incoming calls arrive, or do either have a "vibrate" mode like many pagers do? I find it awfully pretentious if my phone kept ringing off in quiet places. Note: I can't just shut it off in those situations, I need to be in constant touch. The airtime package I am looking at is as follows: $299CDN for three years where I get 60min free per month for the first year, and 30min free per month for the next two years. No other charges, 'cept for the lease and a $50CDN gov't tax each year. Is this a good deal? Is 60 or 30min enough for light usage? Anyone in Canada know of a place to get better deals on (smaller sized) cell phones? Thanks, Paul Gauthier / gauthier@ug.cs.dal.ca | "All general statements have Phone: (902)462-8217 Fax: (902)420-1675 | exceptions." ------------------------------ Subject: Cellular and ANI From: zeta@yngbld.gwinnett.COM (SYSTEM OPERATOR) Date: Fri, 15 May 92 19:38:34 EST Organization: TCS Constulting Services, Peachtree City, GA tlowe@attmail.com writes: > As I write this, I am sitting in Cheyenne, Wyoming. For kicks, I > called an 800 number I have setup that plays ANI from my cellular > phone, and, by jove, it played my actual cellular phone number > (609-290-xxxx) ... not a trunk line from the local cell switch. This > was on the US-West side of things. The Cellular-One et al side of the > house does not yet have any service in Cheyenne. I tried the same > thing in Denver, and the US-West call worked the same way, but the > Cellular One (or whatever they are out here) just played a local trunk > line. Does anyone know what interace US-West uses to send my cell > phone number to the network? First we'll look and see what kind of switches they have. According to my source (Cellular Business, August 1991) the following switches are used: Cheyanne --not listed. Denver US WEST - Northern Telecom Cell One - AT&T From looking the MSA's over, US West appears to use a large majority of Northern Telecom (NTI) switches. These switches have to be set up so that they pass ANI to the phone company (your cellular number). It used to be, and still is in a large area, that cellular carriers didn't do this. What I think caused this to start taking place was the variety of long distance carriers. By passing ANI from the cellular switch to the phone company, individual cellular subscribers could then choose which LD carrier they wanted to use ... it was a big marketing plus. [Personal theory -- saw this happening in '89 in Atlanta]. Not all switches are set up to do this, for instance my switch, a NovAtel, does not do this, and neither do a lot of others. 'Neither do a lot of others' is a poor choice of words. I should have said that many other carriers may have elected NOT to send ani to the phone company for whatever reasons. I did not mean to imply that the sending of ANI from many cellular switches is not possible, because I don't know other switches. Greg Cellular One-Newnan GA The above are my personal opinions and not neccessarily the opinions of my company. ------------------------------ From: appell@attmail.com Date: Fri May 15 13:01:11 MDT 1992 Subject: Northern Telecom-Voice Mail Integration I'd appreciate hearing from anyone who has experience integrating a Northern Telecom PBX with a PC-based Voice Mail system. We are working to integrate a Dialogic-based VRU with a NT Meridian Option 61, and would like to be able to forward information (such as the extension number) from the switch to the PC. We'd also eventually like to send stutter dial tone to a phone that goes off-hook if it has new messages. Some specific questions we have are: -- are any hardware or software modifications required on the switch? -- what physical connection between the PBX and PC is needed? Thanks. David Appell e-mail: appell@attmail.com Gold Systems, Inc. phone: 303-447-2837 P.O. Box 1227 fax: 303-447-0814 Boulder, CO 80306 ------------------------------ From: trebor@foretune.co.jp (Robert J Woodhead) Subject: ISDN Payphones in Japan Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Date: Sat, 16 May 1992 12:35:30 GMT While I was married (to the beauteous Natsumi) last year, for technical reasons related to the gathering of friends and family from various nooks and crannies of the globe, the wedding is set to go off tomorrow. Everyone is staying at one hotel -- the Royal Park Hotel near the Tokyo City Air Terminal. This excellent establishment has a feature I had heretofore not encountered -- ISDN Payphones. The phones look similar to the typical prepaid-card/coin phones used in Japan, with the exception that they have a small crt screen and two jacks -- analog and digital. You can get instructions and help in both English and Japanese, and use coins and cards to pay for the call. One very handy feature is a display of exactly how many coins of the two possible denominations are currently being held, unused, in the phone. Not having an ISDN instrument or modem handy, I couldn't check out how it actually worked (as a normal phone it seemed, well, normal) but it was nice to actually see one. Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 May 92 10:43:02 -0400 From: niebuhr@bnlux1.bnl.gov (david niebuhr) Subject: Call Return/Trace Last month PAT mentioned that certain CLASS features may be implemented in a LATA without the official announcement. I tried call return and call trap and trace with no problems. This month when I got the bill, it showed a $1.50 charge for trap and trace. Above the entry CALL TRACE there was an entry stating "Calling number 516-281-XXXX" which equates to my home phone. My question is: "Is that a boo-boo on the part of NYTel or is that a standard feature of that option?" Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ Date: 16 May 1992 11:25:30 -0400 (EDT) From: "Sean E. Williams" Subject: High Voices Take #-ing By John Schneidawind USA TODAY; Thursday, May 14 People with high voices are having trouble getting their messages through. Voice mail, the computerized phone answering system, sometimes hangs up on them or loses their messages because the computer hears their voices as a command. That's the complaint of several big users of voice mail, which lets callers leave messages for office workers. In many voice mail systems, the "pound" button -- the "#" key to the right of zero on a touch-tone phone -- is used to transfer calls or erase messages. If your voice sounds like the "#" tone -- and this mostly affects women -- you can kiss your voice mail message good-bye. At the University of Rochester's Medical center, which has 6,000 phones using Rolm's PhoneMail system, the problem is a real pain. "I have women who start to leave me a message and PhoneMail hangs up on them," says John Fitzpatrick, a supervisor in the telecommunications department. He often tells female callers to lower their voices. Fitzpatrick says the problem also affects male callers with high voices. And, because of regional accents, "You also may notice that there are more callers disconnected in one area of the country," he says. Rolm says it's working to solve the problem. [A simple solution might be to require the # tone be one full second in length ... -Sean] Sean E. Williams, Student (sew7490@ritvax.isc.rit.edu) Rochester Institute of Technology, School of Photographic Arts & Sciences Department of Imaging and Photographic Technology Rochester, New York 14623-5689 ------------------------------ From: Nigel Allen Date: Sat, 16 May 1992 20:00:00 -0400 Subject: New French Magazine for Telecard Collectors Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto Some hobbyists collect the prepaid telecards used in pay phones in Jpan, France, and elsewhere. The first French ones, nicknamed "pyjama" cards from the blue and white stripes, are now quite rare and considered valuable by collectors. These days, telecards come in as many different designs as commemorative postage stamps. If you would like to receive Telecarte Actualite, a free new monthly magazine that lists the telecards you can buy from France Telecom, write to: Abonnements - Telecarte Actualite Bureau Nationale de Vente des Telecartes B.P. 456 54001 Nancy Cedex France The magazine is only available in French. All you need to do is send a letter saying "Veuillez m'envoyer sans engagement de ma part Telecarte Actualite." (Please send me Telecarte Actualite without any obligation.) Nigel Allen nigel.allen@canrem.com Canada Remote Systems - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044 ------------------------------ From: Nigel Allen Date: Sat, 16 May 1992 20:00:00 -0400 Subject: Area Code Discussion From RelayNet Organization; Echo Beach, Toronto * forwarded from RelayNet PHONES conference Original message from Max Moen to Matt Britt Original date: 05-15-92 (00:01) > Chicago now has it's own area code and I believe NYC has two. There > are only so many numbers between 000 and 999 and as they run out > something has to be done. Keep in mind that adding and modifying > things like this ... MB> Los Angeles has 3 NPA's!!!! (213/818/310) That's just the city! When you say "the city" do you mean the metro area or the actual city? This is very confusing to folks in many places because cities like L.A. and Atlanta include the whole county and even other cities (like Hollywood, Burbank, Beverly Hills, etc.) in their census. There are several little towns completely surrounded by Chicago, but they aren't included in our census figures and they do use the 708 "suburban" area code. Here's some interesting NPA trivia. There's a whole community of people who grew up in the so-called edge cities surrounding Chicago. Many of these folks never set foot in the big bad city until they got old enough to drink, then they tool into town in Daddy's big car and hang out in a "night club" area that is mainly populated with other suburbanites trying to act like city slickers. This was the area that supposedly "rioted" after the Bulls NBA championship last year, making the city look foolish. These kids drop a whole lotta money at places like the Hard Rock Cafe, Rock & Roll McDonalds, etc. so the city isn't likely to do anything about it, but Chicagoans are getting a bit fed up. The area is so desolate of Chicagoans on weekdays that Mike Ditka's Restaurant went bankrupt. A real backlash of resentment has arisen and the derisive term for these people is "708'ers." The area is called "708ville" and the operative saying about the situation is "I hate 708!" Chicago's area code is 312. PCRelay:BMCBBS -> #351 RelayNet (tm) 4.11 Bell Microcomputer Club, Chicago 312-727-5043 Canada Remote Systems - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044 [Moderator's Note: What you term the 'rock and roll McDonalds' (actually, a McDonald's designed as three period pieces from the 1950, 1960 and 1970 eras, with wax statues of the Beatles, old jukeboxes and other such memorablia on display) got raided by the police not long ago. It seems the employees were selling cocaine along with Big Macs. The Corporation yanked the franchise back from the guy who owned the place (and has made millions of dollars on it) and is deciding what to do with it. They even have an old fashioned wooden phone booth with a seat inside and a three slot payphone (non-operative.) I've eaten there many times, and the crowd changes with the time of day. It is full of locals all day, but so-called 708'ers evenings and weekends. Open 24 hours, the customers turn weird after 2 AM when the bars close; they are the sort of people the young 708'ers (and especially their parents!) don't know exist. Then comes dawn and the locals begin to filter in again for breakfast. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 May 92 04:59:32 CST From: Jim.Redelfs@ivgate.omahug.org (Jim Redelfs) Subject: Red, Right, Ring, Positive Reply-To: jim.redelfs%macnet@ivgate.omahug.org Organization: Macnet Omaha In the old scheme of "quad wire" - the color RED has always been RING, or positive. GREEN always was (and remains) TIP, or negative. In the more modern, PIC (polyethylene insulated conductor) cable, RED is a TIP color. If the RED lead on a RJ11C jack is NEGATIVE, and the 2500 Western Electric set WILL break dialtone, the PHONE is wired in reverse. JR Tabby 2.2 MacNet Omaha 402-289-2899 macnet.omahug.org (1:285/14) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 May 92 10:05:58 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Integretel Past Due The $4.69 which I withheld because of the duplicate Integretel billing has shown up as past-due on my latest phone bill, which arrived yesterday. This should be considered to be in dispute, with the rest of last month's phone bill having been paid. [Moderator's Note: Keep the pressure on them, Carl, and report back again when you get some results (or give up trying). PAT ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 May 92 17:36:22 -0400 From: krfiny!jeffj@uunet.uu.net Subject: Help Identify This Mystery Box I picked up a box of equipment as a bank building was being emptied. I called the company and the technical support doesn't answer, so I ask you what it is and why one would use one: It's a small metal box about the size of a 1200/2400 modem, with a lock through the center top. Teltrend model DAS 292A Inteliport 1 SDS 5486LA iss 2 It has a row of LEDS XMT RCV FAIL/TEST ALIGN/LPBK SC PWR (first 3 red, 1 amber, last 2 green) there are three cables: "DEMARC RJ48" - 8 pin modular a 4 wire cable (phone line red/black/green/yellow) a 3 wire cable (probably cut from the power supply) (red/green/black). (I need to know what voltages to put where) There's a bright orange sticker on top: ATTN NYNEX INSTALL SIDN CKT CURRENT DTC CKT NO 96 FDDC 23054 It apparently goes directly to a phone line and has NYNEX stickers on it, and a pocket with a card with the "circuit assignment". Is it a four wire leased line, or a normal four wire ring/tip? What does it do? Why would one use it? Do customers ever get the key? I thought the day of the telephone company putting locked mystery boxes on the customer's premesis was over. Jeffrey Jonas jeffj@synsys.uucp ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 May 92 20:43:20 EDT From: David Leibold Subject: The Virgin Mary Speaks to America Today In the current issue of that mad magasine of Christendom, {The Door}, one of their "Truth is Stranger than Fiction" items shows an ad which claims "The Virgin Mary Speaks to America TODAY / Toll Free Message 800-882-MARY". Indeed, as of this evening, it was reachable from Canada, and a recorded message contained information on Mary's urgent statement to America as made in a New York appearance, and allowed for people to record their addresses afterwards to receive more info in the mail. I only hope the creators of that message from Mary aren't pulling a 900 number forwarding stunt here ... dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca [Moderator's Note: I wonder if she will ever send a message to the infidels on Usenet where her intervention is most needed? :) PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #390 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22120; 17 May 92 23:36 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25791 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 17 May 1992 21:54:06 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00168 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 17 May 1992 21:53:54 -0500 Date: Sun, 17 May 1992 21:53:54 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199205180253.AA00168@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #391 TELECOM Digest Sun, 17 May 92 21:53:46 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 391 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Actual Research Into Alleged FCC Surcharge on Modems (Joseph A. Truitt) Networks/BBS's and Computers as Social Change Tools (Matt Baya) Pacific Bell to Discontinue Data Access Lines (Loren Amelang) ISDN Availability - Outside Plant Limitations (Henry E. Schaffer) 310 Area Code Switchover Foul-ups (Paul Eggert) Telephoning From Europe via MCI/AT&T (Jim Washburn) Limitations on Dialed Digits (David Esan) Philadelphia Scandal: 900 Calls From School District (Carl Moore) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph_Anthony_Truitt@cup.portal.com Subject: Actual Research Into Alleged FCC Surcharge on Modems Date: Sat, 16 May 92 19:15:07 PDT Well, I'm one of those silly bunts who were sucked into the age-old rumor about the FCC regulating modems. After being gently reprimanded by some of my seasoned net friends that I passed along the alert letter to, I decided to do some late homework. I called KGO to try to verify whether a discussion about FCC-imposed or related modem surcharges on phone networks was ever really a topic on Jim's talk show; they could not help me because I did not have an exact broadcast date. I called various branches of the FCC umpteen times. First, there was the initial barrier of main numbers that they don't bother to answer most of the time, and agents that promise to call back but don't. I was eventually promoted to status of probably-harmless-but-goddam- persistent-nuisance, priviledged to be routed all over bureaucracy hell in D.C. After several days of this, I finally reached a helpful person (gasp) in the Common Carrier Bureau, Policy Office today (May 15, 1992). She said that, according to her notes, the division Chief stated on May 31, 1991, that the FCC was _not_ in the business of regulating modem usage. There was indeed a proposal bouncing around the FCC some unspecified time before May 1991 regarding a "surtax" on modem usage, but for reasons they would not reveal, they dropped the issue. The Chief was not aware [or would not tell] if the proposal was subsequently picked up by any other gov't agency, but he apparently considered that a possibility. (Ah, there's nothing like a solid answer to refresh and soothe you :^) Darn. I had a really scathing letter that I was ready to unleash :^) If you ever want to have your own cheery conversation with the FCC about phone network regulations, here are the two most useful numbers I could find: 202/632-9342 Common Carrier Bureau, Policy Office 202/632-7553 Common Carrier Bureau, Enforcement Office Joseph (joseph@biocad.com) [Moderator's Note: I am *so glad* to finally get an article here which debunks the latest round of 'modem surcharge' stories. I suppose I get two or three long, tedious articles daily from different folks wanting to warn the telecom readers about the 'new tax being proposed for modems', each with a form letter to be sent in to the FCC, etc. I toss them all out without comment. Typical of the letters I receive is the one Mr. Truitt included as an example with his article, and I include it here so you know what to look out for. WARNING: What you read below is FALSE. Do not act on this! PAT] ----- begin offending alert ----- (Names deleted to protect the guilty until proven innocent! :)) Subject: FCC to Charge Modems Two years ago the FCC tried and (with your help and letters of protest) failed to institute regulations that would impose additional costs on modem users for data communications. Now, they are at it again. A new regulation that the FCC is quietly working on will directly affect you as the user of a computer and modem. The FCC proposes that users of modems should pay extra charges for use of the public telephone network which carry their data. In addition, computer network services such as CompuServ, Tymnet, & Telenet would also be charged as much as $6.00 per hour per user for use of the public telephone network. These charges would very likely be passed on to the subscribers. The money is to be collected and given to the telephone company in an effort to raise funds lost to deregulation. Jim Eason of KGO newstalk radio (San Francisco, CA) commented on the proposal during his afternoon radio program during which, he said he learned of the new regulation in an article in the New York Times. Jim took the time to gather the addresses which are given below. Here's what you should do (NOW!): 1- Pass this information on. Capture the information which contains the text you are reading now. Find other BBS's that are not carrying this information. Upload the ASCII text into a public message on the BBS, and also upload the file itself so others can easily get a copy to pass along. 2- Print out three copies of the letter which follows (or write your own) and send a signed copy to each of the following: Chairman of the FCC 1919 M Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 Chairman, Senate Communication Subcommittee SH-227 Hart Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Chairman, House Telecommunication Subcommittee B-331 Rayburn Building Here's the suggested text of the letter to send: Dear Sir, Please allow me to express my displeasure with the FCC proposal which would authorize a surcharge for the use of modems on the telephone network. This regulation is nothing less than an attempt to restrict the free exchange of information among the growing number of computer users. Calls placed using modems require no special telephone company equipment, and users of modems pay the phone company for use of the network in the form of a monthly bill. In short, a modem call is the same as a voice call and therefore should not be subject to any additional regulation. Sincerely, [your name, address and signature] It is important that you act now. The bureaucrats already have it in their heads that modem users should subsidize the phone company and are now listening to public comment. Please stand up and make it clear that we will not stand for any government restriction on the free exchange of information. ----- end offending alert ----- [Moderator's Note: To repeat, the above is bogus. When you see such a message, delete it if you have the power to do so, otherwise let others know it is false. Thanks to Mr. Truitt for updating us. PAT] ------------------------------ From: antioch@desire.wright.edu Subject: Networks/BBS's & Computers as Social Change Tools Date: 17 May 92 21:12:39 GMT Organization: Wright State University I am writing a paper on the use of Computer Bulletin Boards, USENET NEWS, the networks (INTERNET, BITNET)and the idea of FREENET (Cleveland Freenet and others) in the areas of social change. What I am looking for is examples of places, companies, people or groups that are using these resources to do something different. Anyone with examples of how computers networks are being used to help people, or to educate people in an effort to affect social change. Also do you see networks accessable to those outside the computer industry and educational institutions? How can the threshhold to enter into this information source be lowered to allow more people to access these? Do you know of any BBS's that are being used to bring communities together? To help organize a group? Do you know of any communities(cities,towns, villages, schools, groups) that use computer BBS's or networks to assist in communication? Please reply through Email since I can't get to NEWS very often. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks, Matt Baya Antioch College, Yellow Springs, OH 45387 MBAYA@ANTIOC.ANTIOCH.EDU [Moderator's Note: I had a conversation today with someone in charge of getting a new network on line later this year which will bring vendors together with purchasing agents and decision-makers from the telephone companies. More news when I have it available, but what I heard sounds exciting. I guess it will be called 'The Exchange'. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 May 92 14:10:31 PDT From: "Loren Amelang" Subject: Pacific Bell to Discontinue Data Access Lines Pacific Bell has petitioned the California Public Utilities Commission for permission to discontinue Data Access Line service. In return, they propose to "support analog data communication at up to 4800 baud" on all of their standard voice phone lines. Nine thousand DAL customers were notified of the proposed change by a letter which did not give any technical details. I am one of the four who wrote a letter of protest to the PUC before the April 30 deadline for public comment. Friday I was contacted by Mr. Bob Benjamin of the PUC San Francisco office, and found out that the tariff on DAL's specifies support for data communication only up to 4800 baud, and that this is the number Pacific Bell wants to have written into the tariff for ordinary phone lines. Of course we all know that ordinary phone lines in urban areas work at 9600 and higher rates. But on the ragged edge of the network where I live, it is often impossible to get any kind of phone line, let alone one that will work with a modem. What will happen a few years from now when the big money has switched to ISDN or Switched 56 and Pac Bell doesn't want to bother with us small fry? Mr. Benjamin agrees with me that writing "4800 baud" into the general phone tariff is not a good thing to do -- but he and his office apparently do not have the technical resources to propose a more enlightened specification. I know there are ways to specify the noise level, bandwidth, carrying capacity, and error rate of a phone line, much more objectively than saying "4800 baud", and there are instruments to measure the line quality. I'm hoping some members of this forum have the expertise to compose a meaningful specification for the quality of our phone lines, and that we could submit it as more than just personal flames. The PUC is begging for input right now, and we could influence the future in our favor! California Public Utilities Commission Chief, CACD Telecommunications Branch 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 3203 San Francisco, CA 94102 800 649 7570 or 415 703 1170 Kristine Curran Pacific Bell Manager 2600 Camino Ramon, Room 4S250P San Ramon, CA 94583 My primary mail is 70110.551@compuserve.com - Loren Amelang 707 895 3837 ------------------------------ From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) Subject: ISDN Availability - Outside Plant Limitations Organization: North Carolina State University Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 01:37:22 GMT I wonder what fraction of the outside plant connecting the home to the CO will support ISDN even if the home is within 18,000 feet (is that the magic number?) In a trial I heard of, over half of the homes to be hooked up were "rejected". Have tests been made to determine what percentage of subscribers are connected by outside plant which would allow ISDN? henry schaffer ------------------------------ From: eggert@twinsun.com (Paul Eggert) Subject: 310 Area Code Switchover Foul-ups Organization: Twin Sun, Inc Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 00:37:19 GMT A few months ago, when I tried to get the definitive list of prefixes that were migrating from the 213 to the 310 area code as a result of the area code split, I got different answers from GTE and PacBell. Their telephone directories didn't agree, their business offices gave me lists that disagreed, and so forth. I finally ended up with about ten lists, no two of which agreed. Today's {L.A. Times} ("310 Area Code Debuts Amid Glitches, Anger", by Stephen Braun, pp. B1, B3) reports that the problem wasn't just in the lists given to customers -- the two phone companies actually disagreed about some prefixes. PacBell spokesperson Kathleen Flynn said, "Apparently some GTE customers calling into the 310 area code were being told to make their calls one way and when they do that, they get a second message telling them they should make their call another way." Angry callers overloaded PacBell switchboards. GTE blamed the foul-ups on "differing conversion systems". Left unreported was the question of which prefixes actually _did_ move. Rumor has it that some cellular telephones operating out of Gardena prefixes are still valid in both 213 and 310. The phone companies' previously published lists disagree about the following Gardena prefixes: 200 213 248 400 500 505 561 700 703 706 708 709 712 718 760 810 819 899 918 999. Other troublesome prefixes include 520 554 555 853 and 976, some of which are obvious candidates for confusion. I'd appreciate it if anybody who knows the _real_ rules for area code splits in general, or this one in particular, could tell us more. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 May 92 12:35:58 MST From: Jim Washburn Subject: Telephoning From Europe via MCI/AT&T In case you might have wondered which company gives better service, I can speak from personal experience. I have "calling cards" from both MCI and AT&T. In trying to reach the States from my home in Germany, I tried both cards. I wanted to reach an 1-800 number and, since I also had the regular area code number for the company I wanted to call, I asked the operator which would be cheaper -- calling the 1-800 or the area code regular number. AT&T said the cost would be the same. The first MCI operator I talked to said that she didn't know but would connect me to somebody who did. After a long wait (close to five minutes) I got somebody who wanted to know what they could do for me. When I asked my question again -- which would be cheaper -- the person said they didn't know. I thanked them and hung up. Later, I tried MCI again. This time the operator said she didn't know but would connect me with customer service who probably could inform me. After another five-minute wait, I heard somebody say "AT&T, what can I do for you?" On the MCI line, an AT&T operator, in the States, came on line! That's a switch! The AT&T person said that all 1-800 numbers are free to the caller, that the business paid for the call. She said that I could dial the 1-800 number direct. I said that I was calling from Germany and could she dial the number for me. She said that she could not. I thanked her and hung up. Still later, I tried AT&T's USA Direct again. This time I got through to the 1-800 number and got a recording which I couldn't use since they were directing me to dial various buttons which don't exist on my German phone at home. More tries got me in touch with somebody who spoke English and knew something about computers and their peripherals. However, when the person I was talking to didn't know the difference between one computer and another, I grew suspicious and, after thanking them, hung up. I never did get my business taken care of. Total frustration set in and I decided to try another route. Maybe if I just mail my order to some company dealing with computers and their peripherals ... then again ... Jim Washburn ------------------------------ From: de@moscom.com (David Esan) Subject: Limitations on Dialed Digits Date: 16 May 92 19:53:02 GMT Organization: Moscom Corp., Pittsford, NY I am aware that the CCITT has recommended a maximum number of digits in a dialing pattern. That is the combination of the country code, city code, and telephone number should not exceed some number. Sadly, I can not remember what that number is, and there has been a request for that information. Could someone please help? Does the maximum number of digits include the international access number? Does someone have the address for the CCITT so that we could obtain documentation, or actually ask them what the limit is? I have been sent on this quest by a product manager, who is known to ask one question, and on receiving the answer, ask a non-related question and wonder why I didn't think of that. I want to give him a new place to bother. [If the limit is 11, as I suspect, wouldn't this stop those people who want to add an extra digit to the US dialling pattern?] Thanks in advance. David Esan de@moscom.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 May 92 17:55:03 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Philadelphia Scandal: 900 Calls From School District KYW news-radio in Philadelphia had an item today: some school district employees (mostly in administration) were found to have made calls to "900" numbers (wih "sex lines" being mentioned on the air). The school system has been blocking calls to "900", but when it went to a new phone system, the blocking was either omitted or turned off by mistake. The phone company will be paying for the calls; the people who made them, according to KYW, are no longer working there. Do the systems record any ATTEMPTS to reach blocked numbers? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #391 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26344; 18 May 92 1:22 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21505 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 17 May 1992 23:36:51 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13662 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 17 May 1992 23:36:40 -0500 Date: Sun, 17 May 1992 23:36:40 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199205180436.AA13662@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #392 TELECOM Digest Sun, 17 May 92 23:36:40 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 392 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson On Getting Telco to Correct Routing Errors (TELECOM Moderator) Southwestern Bell Introduces New Roamer Fees (Mark Earle) Re: Goliath and David? (Martin Harriss) Re: 800 Calls Converted to 900 by Information Provider (Dave Levenson) Re: 800 Calls Converted to 900 by Information Provider (Stan Brown) Re: 800 to 900 Calls: Isn't This Double-Billing? (John Nagle) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 17 May 1992 23:08:25 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: On Getting Telco to Correct Routing Errors This is a little story about an experience I had last week with Illinois Bell, trying to get them to correct an error in their handling of calls to an exchange near Green Bay, Wisconsin. I was trying to return a call to someone from my office who had left the number 414-592-xxxx. I got the message twice so I knew it was a good number, yet when dialing it, IBT cut me after the 414-592 part and sent me to intercept. It took me awhile to narrow it down to IBT as the offender, but much longer to convince them to fix it. Finally I had to get help from AT&T in getting the message across, but not without a couple people at AT&T bungling the matter as well. In our office, we dial 9, plus seven or eleven digits and our switch then passes the call to IBT and our default carrier which is Sprint. (Yes, I know what I have said about Sprint in the past, but politics is at play here; I did not get a choice in using them this time around. Because we have various offices in the USA, we are considered one of their 'national accounts'.) After dialing 414-592 and having it bomb out three or four times, I decided maybe it was a Sprint error, so I used a different code available to some of us in the office. I dialed 89, got an actual IBT line and tried 10288 + 1-414-592-xxxx. Boom ... that crashed also, with the same intercept recording as before. Then I tried a few other OCC codes such as 10222 with the same results. But when I dialed the call using the LD carrier's 800 number, for example 1-800-CALL-ATT or 1-800-877-8000 (Sprint) and charging it to my calling card with those companies, ** the call went through just fine **. I can also dial into 'tie-lines' in our office which give me dial tone from the PBX in our offices in Los Angeles or New Jersey. Dialing out 9 + 1 + 414 + 592 + xxxx over the tie-lines worked fine also. Now my curiosity was really piqued. It seems that when I bypassed Illinois Bell, my call completed; when I either one plussed it or zero plussed it, the call was rejected. Likewise, 10xxx + 1 + 414-592 failed, and although zero plus failed, going double zero and (by default) passing it to the Sprint operator got me through, as did 10288 + 0 through the AT&T operator. This told me that the LD carriers saw nothing wrong with 414-592, but that IBT did not have it in their tables. We know that on zero plus, one plus and 10xxx plus style calls, the local telco examines the dialed digits to see who -- if anyone -- to hand the call off to, or if they should keep it for themselves, disgarding the customer's instructions. Now the fun began: Find someone at IBT willing to listen, find the error and make the required corrections! In talking to the party at 414-592-xxxx, she commented to me that in fact she'd had a lot of trouble getting long distance calls, and that her local telco had excused it away saying that 'many small or new long distance carriers may not have it programmed yet ...', and of course no one at her local telco had bothered to pursue it further. The 414-592 exchange is relatively new, having been opened a few months ago. I wasted my time with a call to 611 and the 611 supervisor. I wasted my time on a call to the Business Office serving Chicago-Rogers Park. Having gotten in the past couple year a dozen or more mailings with gifts, special promotions and public relations chatter from something called the 'AT&T Callers Club' (with a special number to reach trained service reps and their supervisors instead of 800-222-0300), I decided to try them. After all, their letters always indicate they are on call to solve 'those special problems' of AT&T customers who (like me) are known by the Company to be Complainers (although they don't phrase it that way in their quarterly letters to me), so I figured let them try to work on this one. The woman I spoke with said this must be a local telco problem. I told her that's funny, IBT just told me it was an AT&T problem. She asked for a number to call me back, and I gave her my office number, with a simple request: Ask her supervisor to send a FAX to Illinois Bell to please get 414-592 put in the tables ... ... Instead what I got a couple hours later was a phone call back from her saying she had noted our office LD carrier was Sprint, and she had put in a call to our National Accounts Representative at Sprint so *they* could clear the problem!!! Fortunatly (for me) our rep at Sprint had 'stepped away from her desk' (aren't they always away when you try to speak with someone with brains?) and she had not gotten through ... but if *I* would call Sprint, she was sure they would be able to solve this. I told her if she was trying to cause me to have a heart attack, she was doing a damn good job ... and I patiently explained to her that I got the very same results from home, where my default carrier is AT&T and my patronage is so valued by her employer. When I finally spoke with her supervisor, the supervisor seemed to understand what I wanted and said the message could not be FAXed at her level of authority, but that she would 'definitly get the word to someone who could talk to IBT and clear it up.' Two days later, the problem still existed. Calls to 414-592 still bombed at the IBT gateway to the LD carriers, probably at the CO known as Chicago-Canal, a big switch downtown. Last resort: An appeal to the Chairman (of IBT). I find this to be an overkill most of the time, but it will yield results. I spoke with Mrs. Lofton, an assistant to the Chairman, which basically means she is a more highly placed service rep. She got the message ... at least I thought she did. Within a couple hours, I received two calls; one from a guy in the repair office at Chicago-Rogers Park and another from a fellow at AT&T. The Rogers Park guy thought I was talking about the local switch -- I assured him I was not, that I had had someone else try it who is served by the Newcastle CO and someone who is served out of the Hyde Park CO, with the same results as myself -- and he did not see the problem. He thought I was talking about LD access in general from my phone, which of course I was not. The AT&T guy was more non-committal, and said he would 'look into it and get back to me'. Nothing more happened for another day, utnil one evening last week I got a call in the late evening from a fellow at AT&T who was in Denver, Colorado of all places. He said he knew exactly what the problem was ... do tell me, I responded ... and he said the problem was IBT had never updated their tables to include the exchange. ** Finally **, someone who actually understood! So what happens from here, I asked ... he said he would take care of it, and said something to the effect that part of his job was 'going to battle with the telcos from time to time about stuff like this'. "One thing though," he noted. "IBT is famous for arguing and arguing about stuff ... they will NEVER simply listen to what is said, go and locate the problem then correct it ... I need to have a full ten digit number where you tried to make the call, and the full ten digit number you tried to reach ... IBT will insist on actually going on your line, trying to complete the call, then arguing further with me before they finally agree to fix it." He said simply telling them to fix something and telling them what needed fixing was not sufficient. They'd have to see for themselves. I told him, and he apparently told them, since the next day it was working. Not a peep from IBT about it, but the guy from Denver did call back the next night to ask if I had tried it. A day or so later I got a call from Mrs. Lofton asking if I was satisfied, and saying that the Chairman extended his apologies for the inconvenience. From start to finish: one week. No one with any technical expertise at all from Illinois Bell ever did contact me. The AT&T guy from Denver seemed to carry all the weight, or at least he was the one who finally got IBT to correct their data. I got the impression from our discussion over two days that perhaps when 414-592 opened, someone may have screwed up in the way the telcos were (not) notified to program it. So it may have not been entirely IBT's fault that several months later, calls to that exchange in Green Bay, WI were still bombing out at the CO here. You might like to see if 414-592 is working in your telco. To avoid disturbing any subscribers, try 414-592-0366 which will return a local 'not in service' message from that CO. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 May 92 09:26:22 CDT From: mearle@pro-party.cts.com Subject: Southwestern Bell Introduces New Roamer Fees Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems is introducing a new charge for customers who roam. Effective with July billing, on top of all other roam fees, a $3.00 "roamer administration" fee will be assessed in the miscellaneous services portion of the statement. I called to inquire what this fee was being used for, and they said it was due to the increased costs involved in preventing fraudulent roaming. Although they would not confirm it directly, they inferred that it was essentially a data base access fee. Aparently, this fee had been absorbed in the past. Now it's going to be passed on. Also on roaming, an interesting note: In Texas, Houston and Austin are GTE cities, so the B band wireline carrier is GTE. Corpus (my home system for cellular service) San Antonio, and the Dallas/Ft. Worth metroplex are SWBMS. I roam in SWBMS cities for .50/min 24 hrs/day, no fee. In GTE cities in Texas, it's .39/min 24 hrs/day no fee. So it's actually cheaper by a significant margin to roam in Austin or Houston. Makes no sense, but that's the way it really is. Ah well. Probably has something to do with the same voodoo economics that allow a high cost cellular phone to be sold for 99 cents. mearle@pro-party.cts.com (Mark Earle) [WA2MCT/5] FidoNet at Opus 1:160/50.0 Bitnet adblu001@ccsu.vm1 Internet 73117.351@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: martin@bdsgate.com (Martin Harriss) Subject: Re: Goliath and David? Reply-To: bdsgate!martin@uunet.UU.NET (Martin Harriss) Organization: Beechwood Data Systems Date: Mon, 11 May 92 15:34:09 GMT In article montgomery_br@ee.port.ac.uk (eb4/91/92) writes: > The exchange was built using dismantled equipment from the former > British Telecom exchange in Locks Heath, which was modernised in 1989. > It has cost the two boys just ten pounds in spare parts. This is sounding rather familar to me ... many years ago, before I moved to the US, I owned a ex-BT (actually, still the Post Office at the time) telephone exchange. It also cost me ten pounds. This fearsome beast was in fact one module of a type UAX 12, which was a "modular" system disigned in the 1930's and intended for use in rural areas where up to 100 lines were required. My module was equipped for 25 lines. I don't think it was ever in public service anywhere -- it was, however, in service in the PO circuit labs where it was used for developing new features such as STD access and local call timing. I spent the summer between (high) school and university getting this thing going. I built a large 50 volt power supply for it, along with a ringing and tone generator. It sat in my workshop, which was an attic above the garage. I had lines going into the house with phones in various places. Since it was designed for use in unheated buildings, it had no trouble in a cold, humid environment. It worked very well, despite its ancient technology and the fact that most of the parts in it were probably 30 or 40 years old. The switch fabric consisted of four two-motion (Strowger) switches and uniselector (stepper switch) line finders. The numbering scheme was 2xx. When you dialled '2', the switch would step up two notches. When the C relay relased at the end of the first digit, a vertical marking contact detected the fact that '2' was dialled, and dropped the selector back to its home position. The following two digits then stepped the switch vertically and horizontally to the desired contact, and switched to the line at that position. If you dialled an initial digit other than 2, the switch would step up to the selected level, then cut in and search for a free trunk. An additional marking bank indicated which of the 100 outlets on the switch were allocated to trunks, and which were subscriber lines. Thus, on each level on the switch, the first few outlets could be trunks, and the remainder could be sub's lines. Sadly, the UAX had to be scrapped when my parents moved out of that house. I think I still have the schematics, and I probably have some parts somewhere. I don't think there are any UAX-12's left in public service anywhere, but maybe in some remote place up in the Highlands -- you never know. Martin Harriss uunet!bdsgate!martin ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: 800 Calls Converted to 900 by Information Provider Organization: Westmark, Inc. Date: Sun, 17 May 1992 13:13:29 GMT In article , pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard) writes: > Why not take the ANI data right off the 800 number w/o call forwarding > and report it back for billing under the 900 service? > [Moderator's Note: I may be mistaken, but I don't think the information > provider is ever in a position to 'report back for billing purposes' > the caller's phone number. I think telco has to be the one to see the > number and capture it. And this makes me then wonder how did they > accept the 800 call ... AT&T may require that ISDN be used for real-time ANI. But there are other carriers out there. Does anybody remember what carrier handled the 800 number assigned to the 'fortune tellers'? MCI delivers ANI in-band using DTMF on some of their services. 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: Sun, 17 May 92 17:43 EDT From: brown@ncoast.org (Stan Brown) Subject: Re: 800 Calls Converted to 900 by Information Provider Organization: Oak Road Systems, Cleveland Ohio USA In article , TELECOM Moderator noted in response to pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard): > [Moderator's Note: My contact at AT&T said an IP figured this out > through some experimentation, and the news spread rapidly around to > others in the industry. Apparently all you need is an 800 line with > call forwarding on it and a non-published 900 number to send it to. > The ANI generated on the 800 number is very handily given over to the > 900 side for billing purposes. No one has to twist the arm of anyone > at telco ... it just looks like any other 900 call to them. PAT] I've seen about half a dozen replies to this, and none of them mention this point: I thought when you set up call forwarding, the number originally dialed pays the freight for the forwarding. That is, if number A calls number B, and B's owner has it forwarded to C, A pays only for getting from A to B and B pays for getting from B to C. I've just spoken to an Ohio Bell operator who confirmed that that's how toll calls work here. (I didn't ask her about the specific case of forwarding from an 800 to a 900 number, just forwarding from my phone to another one that's out of my local calling area.) It's hard to imagine that things would be different in other areas of the country, though I suppose it's possible. Or are you saying, PAT, that 800 numbers are a special case? If so, I gotta believe it was a programming error. Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio, USA brown@ncoast.org ------------------------------ From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) Subject: Re: 800 to 900 Calls: Isn't This Double-Billing? Date: Sat, 16 May 92 22:12:18 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) > [Moderator's Note: What's needed is a change to prohibit forwarding > POTS/800 ==> 900. PAT] Unfortunately, the ones to blame are the LD carriers offering the 900 service, because they are the ones misbilling the transaction. (One might even argue that failure on their part to prevent such transactions consitututes participation in a fraud scheme, since the LD carrier takes a big cut of the 900 number charge.) The LD carrier, though, isn't doing the forwarding. The 800 carrier is. Question: does this "feature" occur when the 800 and 900 carriers are different? If not, it should be easy to pressure the carriers into fixing it. This is really a bug in call forwarding, but it illustrates a fundamental problem: billing number and source number can be quite different. John Nagle ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #392 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29271; 18 May 92 2:29 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08696 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 18 May 1992 00:49:56 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10102 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 18 May 1992 00:49:48 -0500 Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 00:49:48 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199205180549.AA10102@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #393 TELECOM Digest Mon, 18 May 92 00:49:49 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 393 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Frustrated Phone Owner (Weaver Hickerson) Re: Frustrated Phone Owner (Steve Forrette) Re: Crossbar or Stepper: That is the Question (Kevin W. Williams) Re: Qualcomm CDMA Specs Available for FTP (Rolf Meier) Re: The "Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991" (Ron Jarrell) Re: AT&T Offices To Be Closed (Andy Sherman) Re: 800 Fraud - Misuse of 800 Numbers (Steve Forrette) Re: 800 Calls Converted to 900 by Information Provider (Steve Forrette) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: holos0!wdh@gatech.edu (Weaver Hickerson) Subject: Re: Frustrated Phone Owner (How to Build Ultimate Call Screener) Organization: Holos Software, Inc. Date: Sun, 17 May 92 15:13:56 GMT In article mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@ mhs.attmail.com writes: > Pat, in light of the explicit .sig I think that dragging MasterCard > and its policies into this argument is flatly inappropriate. Besides, > you obviously have the same misunderstanding that most people have. I > don't work for the "MasterCard billing center", as there is no such > entity. MasterCard doesn't bill cardholders; issuing banks bill > cardholders. Nobody bothers to hack MasterCard, because there isn't > much worth hacking at a not-for-profit corporation with only around 1k > employees. I don't know. Tell us more about what you 1000 folks do, and what types of computerized accounting records are around. Are you on a hunt group? Do you use VMS systems? UNIX systems? CICS? Tell us more about all these 1000 folks and this trivial information that you have. > Actually, if our phone system supported DISA, I would expect people to > try and phreak that. But since neither or telecom manager nor our Your expectations would probably be fulfilled. Shortly, we will see that you would readily excuse the perpetrators ... > security manager are morons, we don't have a DISA number. And in my > entirely personal opinion, since it is cheap, practical, and much, > much more secure to use something like AT&T's VTNS or even hand out > calling cards than to use DISA, after all the publicity on the risks > of DISA, anybody who installs DISA on a PBX is a moron, and more or > less deserves whatever happens to them, to paraphrase "Canada Bill" Jones. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ A similar defense was used in a Florida rape case a couple of years ago, if I recall. A woman was raped, according to the rapist, because she had no panties on and was wearing a skirt. He and his defense lawyer actually used this to excuse his behaviour, the old "She asked for it" defense. I do not buy this type of defense. Blaming the victim for the crime is much more moronic than installing a DISA, in my opinion. Spleen venting is okay, but you should not purposefully insult DISA users. > (And if it's true that there are PBXs out there that come installed > with DISA turned on and standard passwords, anybody who buys one of > these should, in my opinion, sue the installer for negligence.) I don't know who Canada Bill Jones is. Would you let him use your lawnmower, freely, if you happened to leave it parked outside? Continuously, any time you were not using it? No real money changes hands, and you don't lose the use of your lawnmower since he only uses it when you don't want to. I doubt it. And should I sue Mastercard International for $50 bucks if somebody successfully uses my credit card to buy something? Would I be getting what I deserved, for not using a credit card that is made of flash paper instead of plastic? And should I sue Home Depot if they install a door for me and don't drive by every night to be sure it is locked? Wonder how much I can get? > I will not comment on the credit fraud case you mentioned or any other > specific case; it's not my department. Contact Richard Woods, > MasterCard International, 888 7th Avenue, New York, NY 10106. In > general, well, you don't have to work here to know that yes, credit > card fraud is up, and MasterCard's security department has been very > successful in helping to track down and prosecute credit card fraud > rings, world-wide. I'll comment. Using your defense above, any successful credit card fraud is simply proof that MasterCard International, what did you say "more or less deserves whatever happens ..." "If MasterCard would spend all that money they currently spend on prosecution on customer education and security, there would be no credit card fraud." Is that about right? Please keep us all posted on the success of this approach. > But given that credit card frauds are stealing real merchandise, the > comparison between phreaks and credit card fraud is inappropriate. Real merchandise? I don't know about you, but I consider phone service to be "real merchandise". It's what brought this news feed to me. It's what allows me to call Domino's when I need a pepperoni fix. By your standards, I can walk into Great Expections and force them, at gunpoint, to give me a haircut at no charge. No real merchandise? I did nothing wrong? Tell it to the judge. If the Mall Security would spend more on "customer education", there would be no hair-eakers? The comparison between phreaks and credit card fraud is right on - like comparing one sociopath to another. Both feel they are outside the rules of society, both take things that law-abiding providers work to provide and law-abiding consumers pay to use. > Steve Forrette wrote to remind me that if a Dutch phreak blue-boxes > his way into the international trunk lines and calls elsewhere, the > PTTs end up having to fork real money over to each other for trunk > time. Look, a mechanism already exists for disputing charges. When > no customer can be proved to have made the call and when the > originating PTT can't collect, the receiving PTT should waive the > charge ... and they should BOTH work on making it harder to phreak. I agree, all should work to make it harder to phreak. Likewise, the government is right on in acknowledging that phreaking is a crime and creates real problems for phone companies, major corporations, mom-and-pops, and individuals *if it happens to them*. I fail to see how you could have a problem with that side of it. The bottom line is, -- and you OBVIOUSLY disagree with this -- the fact that a crime is easy (he had DISA with a standard password) does not make it *okay* to commit. There is no quantum leap of logic needed to understand this. > If all the money that went into phreaking investigations and > prosecutions went into network security and customer education > instead, there wouldn't be phreaking. Excuse me? First of all, how much money are we talking about here? Do you know? Does anybody? regarding customer education; Customers are not the problem here. Phreaks are. Increased security will not cut down on attempts, but rather will quite probably cut down on **successful** attempts. Last time I checked, attempting unsuccessfully is a rather poor defense in court. Try it sometime. Oh, I don't know, take a shot at Bush with your BB gun, and miss on purpose. Let us know how your defense comes out. You seem content to segregate "phreaking" from all other antisocial activities, in a manner that somehow excuses it, makes it okay, perhaps encourages it as some type of intellectual pursuit. I disagree with this segregation. A crime is a crime is a crime, usually. > And finally, to that nameless person in 206: You admit yourself that > your own telecom department knew about the dangers of unprotected > DISA. And you let uneducated end-users manage their own phone > systems, knowing how dangerous it was? No wonder you asked that your > name and company be withheld. In a society free of phreakers, no problem would be posed by the above scenario. The DISA is not the problem, the phreakers are. You are wrong in blaming the victims rather than the criminals. ------------------------------ From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: Frustrated Phone Owner Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA Date: Mon, 11 May 1992 02:37:56 GMT In article mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@ mhs.attmail.com writes: > Actually, if our phone system supported DISA, I would expect people to > try and phreak that. But since neither our telecom manager nor our > security manager are morons, we don't have a DISA number. And in my > entirely personal opinion, since it is cheap, practical, and much, > much more secure to use something like AT&T's VTNS or even hand out > calling cards than to use DISA, after all the publicity on the risks > of DISA, anybody who installs DISA on a PBX is a moron, and more or > less deserves whatever happens to them, to paraphrase "Canada Bill" > Jones. If a DISA were to have a 14 digit password like most calling cards, I don't see why it would be intrinsically more dangerous than a calling card. Except, perhaps, that the calling card issuer will be on the lookout for calling patters that look fraudulent, whereas the PBX administrator would have to be on top of the SMDR output. But it would seem that DISA can be made secure if its passwords are treated the same way as calling card numbers (which in effect they are) and be a lot more appropriate than calling cards in certain situations. Comments? Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ From: williamsk@gtephx.UUCP (Kevin W. Williams) Subject: Re: Crossbar or Stepper: That is the Question Organization: gte Date: Sun, 17 May 1992 15:52:36 GMT In article , ken@Thinkage.On.CA (Ken Dykes) writes: > Talk to the transient student population and you get quite another > perspective however :-) :-) I swear that students must synchronize > their watches and have a conspiracy to go off-hook at 11pm (cheap rate > time) and try to grab long-distance/inter-office trunks; normal > sentient switch behavior returns around 11:15pm :-) I would suspect > even the most radical and generous capacity-planning couldn't > compensate for this conspiricy of the residents of Suitcase-U. They do. I worked putting in the GTD-5 in Lafayette, Indiana (home of Purdue). At 11 P.M., the building would have one resonant CLONK as every student called home, and clatter like hell for 15 minutes. Yes, we did take it into account when engineering the replacement. Kevin Wayne Williams AG Communications Systems (nee Automatic Electric) [Moderator's Note: An aquaintence working in the AT&T International Center in Pittsburgh (there, is that better, Carl?) has said to me that late Sunday evening and overnight into Monday is an absolutely hellish shift for an operator to work there. Why? Its the start of the business day 9-11 hours later in India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc ... places without the greatest phone service in the world anyway, whilst how many ever million American businessmen, bill collectors, salesmen and others dial away trying to get their mideast connection on the line first thing (mideast) Monday morning; banging their traffic through Pittsburgh IOC for directory assistance, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: meier@Software.Mitel.COM (Rolf Meier) Subject: Re: Qualcomm CDMA Specs Available for FTP Date: Sun, 17 May 1992 08:55:07 -0400 Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada. In article karn@chicago.qualcomm.com (Phil Karn) writes: > I am happy to announce that Qualcomm has released the entire text of > the CAI (Common Air Interface) for its CDMA (Code Division Multiple It is good that Qualcomm has made its spec public; however I have a problem with calling it "CAI". First of all, "CAI" is most often used in conjunction with CT2 technology. To use "CAI" with the Qualcomm technology could cause some confusion in the industry. Second, "Common" implies that the standard is used broadly by a variety of vendors such that interworking can occur with equipment from different suppliers. At present, the proposed spec is proprietery to Qualcomm. Rolf Meier Mitel Corporation ------------------------------ From: jarrell@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Ron Jarrell) Subject: Re: The "Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991" Date: 13 May 92 00:14:17 GMT Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA In reply to Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 272, Message 5 of 11: >> Public Law 102-243 was passed last year by the 102nd Congress and >> signed by President Bush on 20 December 1991. >> (B) to initiate any telephone call to any residential telephone line using >> an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the prior >> express consent of the called party, unless the call is initiated for >> emergency purposes ... Wait, does this mean that AT&T's Message Service is unlawful? Unless you request human delivery the computer calls your desired party and plays the message you recorded. Ron Jarrell Virginia Tech Computing Center jarrell@vtserf.cc.vt.edu ------------------------------ From: andys@ulysses.att.com (Andy Sherman) Subject: Re: AT&T Offices To Be Closed Date: Wed, 13 May 92 15:59:45 EDT On 10 May 92 23:43:49 GMT, Phillip.Dampier@f228.n260.z1.fidonet.org (Phillip Dampier) said: > The following AT&T offices have been scheduled to close their Operator > Services Offices because of introduction of voice recognition, > automated operators: [ List deleted ] > * - Offices closed or Previously Announced to Close. > (Source: Communications Workers of America - May 8, 1992) I question the assertion (by the CWA?) that these offices are all closing due to the deployment of voice recognition. The closing of the Howell, NJ OSC has been in the works for quite some time. As I recall, most or all of the operators at Howell are being redeployed to the other two OSCs in New Jersey (Wayne and Mercerville). 1) I could wish that the CWA would be a little more careful with facts in their press releases. 2) Although I am generally pro-union, I am uncomfortable with attempts to hold back technology for short-term job preservation. There has to be a better way to deal with the dislocation caused by new technology than banning it. Should we have outlawed DDD? Or for that matter, the dial telephone? 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: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: 800 Fraud - Misuse of 800 Numbers Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 04:49:20 GMT > [Moderator's Note: I think you are wrong, at least in the early days > of this. The pay phone number was read back, verified and you were > given your PIN number to be used when setting up an appointment. I > think after the abuse became very heavy the psychic's business office > started following it a little closer. And of course the COCOTs were > wide open all along. PAT] I don't see how the phone being an RBOC payphone vs a COCOT would make any difference. If Mystic could tell that a number was an RBOC phone, then they could tell it was a COCOT as well. In order to determine if a particular number is an RBOC payphone, they'd have to be subscribing to The Database (TM) that holds this information. The Database also knows if it is a COCOT. Have you ever tried to 10XXX+0+ a call from a COCOT and ask for call completion assistance and have the call billed to "my number?" AT&T, Sprint, MCI, and the local telco will all know that you are calling from a payhone. This is the same database that is used to verify collect and third-party billing, both to prevent billing to an RBOC payhpone or COCOT, as well as to those customers who have requested that such billing be blocked. Any "phone company" can subscribe to this database if they want to (and fork over the $$$). Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com [Moderator's Note: I doubt Mystic subscribes to any data base. I think they probably 'knew' that 'payphones always begin 9xxx' and as good little drones to always challenge those. COCOTS of course use all sorts of numbers. PAT] ------------------------------ From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: 800 Calls Converted to 900 by Information Provider Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 04:43:07 GMT In article cavallarom@cpva.saic.com writes: > I have followed this discussion for awhile. This is pretty simple to > implement. You order a regular 1mb phone line with call forwarding. > Then you call AT&T, and order an 800 number to be sent to the 1mb > line. Then you call forward the 1mb to the 900 number. To the CO, the > call came from the 800 number; that's all there is to it. Except that this will not work. When forwarding a 1mb line, the billing number of the line doing the forwarding is sent as the ANI. As a separate issue, calls arriving from an 800 number to a POTS number have no Caller ID or ANI information with them. Assuming we get to the point someday where all IXCs and LECs are interconnected with SS7 and Caller ID is universal, the 800-to-900 scenario will STILL not work, as when call forwarding in an SS7 environment, the original caller's number is passed as the Caller ID, and the forwarding line's billing number is passed as the ANI. Since all billing is based on ANI and NOT Caller ID, the line doing the forwarding gets the bill, as it should. It's still not clear how the current situation with Mystic et al is being done. But it certainly isn't being done with POTS lines. Can the Moderator elaborate on the specifics of the current situation? Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com [Moderator's Note: Sorry, I cannot. He did not elaborate. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #393 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02027; 18 May 92 3:32 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15976 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 18 May 1992 01:46:50 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28790 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 18 May 1992 01:46:40 -0500 Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 01:46:40 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199205180646.AA28790@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #394 TELECOM Digest Mon, 18 May 92 01:46:40 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 394 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: All Zeros in the Subscriber Number (Steve Forrette) Re: All Zeros in the Subscriber Number (Phil Howard) Re: LD Carrier as Local Phone Company (kiser@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil) Re: An Unwelcome Guest On My Line (Jim Redelfs) Re: Electromechanical --> Digital (Kevin W. Williams) Re: Cellular and ANI (Steve Forrette) Re: Moscow Cellular Routing Problem (Michael F. Eastman) Re: Per Call Blocking Equals Line Blocking (Stephen Wolfson) Re: Fiber in Our Streets (Jeffrey J. Carpenter) Re: AT&T TeleTicket Service (Howard Gayle) Re: HAL Catalog (Bob Yazz) Re: Device to Prevent Interference From Picked-Up Extension (Michael Rosen) Re: A Musical Telecom Reference (Michael Rosen) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: All Zeros in the Subscriber Number Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 04:53:59 GMT > [Moderator's Note: Telco test numbers may begin with zero where you > live; here they are 99xx style. 0XXX, 00XX, and 000X are valid numbers > for subscribers in Chicago. Payphones generally are 9{2-8}XX. PAT] My current home phone number ends in 99xx (in US West territory). I was quite surprised when I was assigned this number. This has caused me little grief, except for the deadbeat that USED to have the number and has bill collectors who would like to speak to him! Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com [Moderator's Note: Someone here with 95xx in their private number used to have a terrible time convincing long distance operators to allow collect calls through to them. PAT] ------------------------------ From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard) Subject: Re: All Zeroes in the Subscriber Number Date: Sun, 17 May 92 23:46:18 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) nigel.allen@canrem.com (Nigel Allen) writes: > Directory assistance is 555-1212 rather than 555-1111. I expect that > this is so people wouldn't lose track of the ones they had dialled. Back when I was in high school, long before the breakup of Ma Bell, I did lots of playing around with the phone lines (such as "WATS DX-ing"). One of the things I tried was calling various 555-xxxx numbers in different area codes. The interesting thing was no matter what xxxx was, I always got information. I believe 555-1111 was the first I tried, too. Phil Howard --- KA9WGN --- pdh@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: kiser@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil Date: May 17 19:06 EDT (May 17 23:06 ZULU) Subject: Re: LD Carrier as Local Phone Company In West Virginia, at least, 10288+local number works fine, and, as a matter of fact (and one only known to a small number of people), when the large telecom failure hit the east coast last summer rendering inter-CO calls impossible, it *WAS* possible to make them by dialing through AT&T in the manner described above. And to top it all of, AT&T forgave all charges incurred during the failure (imagine that ;^). My associates and I are active in emergency communications and were able to handle many calls that way. The county E-911 system was totally out of service during the failure and, since they don't know a CO from a VCR (or for that matter what frequency they are transmitting on at any given time) our typically uninformed emergency folks here didn't have a clue as to several tricks I could have used to get around what they wound up with: dispatching radio calls in the western part of the county by driving a truck up on top of a mountain! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 May 92 21:36:46 CST From: Jim.Redelfs@ivgate.omahug.org (Jim Redelfs) Subject: Re: An Unwelcome Guest On My Line Reply-To: jim.redelfs%macnet@ivgate.omahug.org Organization: Macnet Omaha Collin Forbes wrote: > Can someone explain to me how two people can apparently be 'sharing' > the same phone line? ...another person can pick up his phone and have > it interfere with my data phone line...he does not respond to me > asking him questions across the phone line when I encounter him...I > have checked my outside hookup...Nothing. Pat noted: > [Moderator's Note: The most likely cause of this is that somewhere in > the wire pair between yourself and the CO, a multiple was left in > place ... report it to repair ASAP. PAT] We call those "Left Ins". Although Pat's scenerio is possible (and even somewhat likely) I consider it more likely that his pair is crossed with another working pair somewhere in the loop -- a wet, buried splice is my guess. > I have not spoken to the local telco about this because the line is > being used to run a BBS. While I am almost sure that I am running a > BBS that would be considered a hobby under Idaho PUC, I don't want to > take any chances. Your concerns are unwarranted (my opinion). I *WORK* for US WEST Communications and run a (mostly) subscription, one-line BBS on a FLAT-rate RESIDENTIAL line (no employee concession) -- and I do NOT hide it from them. (I do not ADVERTISE it to them, either.) You are PAYING good money for your service -- regardless of how you use it. It should be perfect. If it is not, you should be pestering the repair service until it is fixed. Unless the trouble is INSIDE your home *AND* you INVITE the technician into your home to view your set-up, they will have NO idea that you are using the line for a BBS. Indeed, virtually ALL the techs I work with have absolutely NO idea what a BBS *IS*. If they heard "data tone" while working on the pair, it wouldn't mean a THING to them (beyond the fact that it was passing data). It CERTAINLY wouldn't arouse any suspicion. If you run a busy board, you might ask the repair service clerk to add a remark to the trouble ticket to call your VOICE line before working on the data line. When the tech calls, do him a favor and tell him that it is OK to break the connection at any time while working on it. This will surely endear you to the technician. Then, while s/he is doing the work, keep an eye on the board and tell the few, hapless users that call during the time that the line is being tested and/or repaired that their connection is likely to be broken at any time -- that downloads are NOT recommended. I do NOT recommend busying-out the line! The short on your end would confuse the technician and confound the situation. Good luck! JR Tabby 2.2 MacNet Omaha 402-289-2899 macnet.omahug.org (1:285/14) [Moderator's Note: Or he could just shut the board down for the couple hours or so repair was likely to be on the line and explain to users later why he was off part of the day. PAT] ------------------------------ From: williamsk@gtephx.UUCP (Kevin W. Williams) Subject: Re: Electromechanical --> Digital Organization: gte Date: Sun, 17 1992 15:46:59 GMT In article , nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes: > The one great thing about pure step-by-step offices is that > although they are noisy, misroute calls, take huge amounts of space, > and offer very few features, they have absolutely no single point of > failure. No component failure can take down more than one line; most > just reduce the capacity of the exchange by one call. Step-by-step > switches are true distributed systems. No component has more than a > tiny fraction of the intelligence of the system. > In the entire history of the Bell System, no electromechanical > CO was ever down for more than 30 minutes for any reason other than a > natural disaster. > And now they're gone. I could tell you the story of the 24" crescent wrench dropped across the main -48V bars, but all I will say is that it did take more than 30 minutes to saw it loose so that the generator could kick in and run the office again. The U.S. Military still runs step and crossbar in highly critical installations. The reason: any digital switch will get wiped out by the EMP resulting from a nuclear blast. They are able to shield them well enough that only memory contents are blown. The DoD commissioned a study several years ago to see if anyone could come up with a reload scheme that would reload a digital switch in 500 milliseconds. The military does some other weird things as well. The GTD-5 is the only digital switch that still supports magneto phones (per DoD requirements). Kevin Wayne Williams AG Communication Systems (nee Automatic Electric) ------------------------------ From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: Cellular and ANI Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA Date: Sun, 17 May 1992 15:48:57 GMT In article tlowe@attmail.com writes: > As I write this, I am sitting in Cheyenne, Wyoming. For kicks, I > called an 800 number I have setup that plays ANI from my cellular > phone, and, by jove, it played my actual cellular phone number > (609-290-xxxx) ... not a trunk line from the local cell switch. This > was on the US-West side of things. The Cellular-One et al side of the > house does not yet have any service in Cheyenne. I tried the same > thing in Denver, and the US-West call worked the same way, but the > Cellular One (or whatever they are out here) just played a local trunk > line. Does anyone know what interace US-West uses to send my cell > phone number to the network? This may have to do with the fact that US West Cellular offers true Equal Access for their cellular subscribers. I got the list of supported carriers from US West Cellular of Seattle, and there were a lot -- it looked like the same list that would be available from landline phones. The only way for this to work in a practical manner would be for the actual cellular number to be supplied for the ANI. Since US West is also "the fone company," they would be able to figure out how to do this I'm sure. Accurate ANI is not an issue for cellular switches that don't have Equal Access. After all, who will even notice? (or so the cellular carriers think! :-)) I'm sure the few applications for 800 and 900 ANI didn't even cross their minds. They would probably have to subscribe to that little-known option for PBX trunks that allows the "PBX" to supply the ANI for the call. I don't think this is even available in many areas any more -- after all, if the customer wants accurate ANI, they can replace their PBX with Centrex, right? Also, some cellular carriers with so-called Equal Access don't provide it in the same manner as landline Equal Access. Cellular One of the SF Bay Area comes to mind here. They provide "equal access" to all interested long distance carriers, but require that the carriers provide dedicated facilities to the cellular switch, as opposed to using the existing landine equal access facilities like US West does. In the Bay Area, for the first year or so that they had this not-so-equal access, the only choices were AT&T and MCI. Then Sprint decided to get in on the action. The lines to these carriers were provided accurate real-time ANI by the cellular switch (evidenced by the fact that my Sprint account had an option on it whereby it would prompt me for a billing code, which worked even from my cellular). However, intra-LATA calls, as well as calls to 800 numbers, went over regular lines to Pacific Bell which did NOT provide accurate ANI (I checked with one of those 800 numbers mention here last year). Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 May 92 12:00:56 EDT From: mfe@ihlpm.att.com (Michael F Eastman) Subject: Re: Moscow Cellular Routing Problem Organization: AT&T In article , arobson@nv2.uswnvg.com (Andrew Robson) writes: > The affected exchanges are: 7-096-901-xxxx, 7-096-902-xxxx, and > 7-096-903-xxxx all of which should be routed through the Moscow > gateway (M1OC) to the "transit exchange" T4-1 to reach the cellular > MTX AXE10. I'm confused. Does Moscow have more than one gateway? What portion of the number routes to the M10C gateway switch (7-096 or 7-096-90x)? Once the call has been routed to the Moscow gateway, the carrier sending the call has no control over whether the M10C switch now sends it to the transit switch, what numbers get sent to the transit switch from the M10C (unless the carrier is using compelled signaling through the gateway for the international call?), etc. So what's the problem being described? Mike Eastman att!ihlpm!mfe (708) 979-6569 AT&T Bell Laboratories Rm. 4F-328 Naperville, IL 60566 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 May 1992 10:52:20 -0700 From: Stephen Wolfson Subject: Re: Per Call Blocking Equals Line Blocking It is fairly obvious that it would be quite feasable to build in per call line blocking prefixes into phone hardware, or a device similar to call controllers for long distance to add per call blocking automatically to an entire line. The biggest problem is the seven to ten second delay. In these times of rapid dialing with tone dialers, I wonder if people would get annoyed with the delay (even if the complete sequence was being handled automatically) until hearing ring/busy and not use it. Steve Wolfson, Motorola Satellite Communications, wolfson@sat.mot.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 May 1992 09:26:22 -0400 (EDT) From: "Jeffrey J. Carpenter" Subject: Re: Fiber in Our Streets Excerpts from netnews.comp.dcom.telecom: 13-May-92 Re: Fiber in Our Streets Tom Reingold@samadams.Pr (1863) > A consumer group -- I don't remember > which -- was lobbying against it because it claimed that NJ Bell would > have all of its customers pay for it by building in the cost of the > new network into phone bills. I'm sure they can see no possible benefit to subscribers by installing a fiber network. This attitude is similiar to the steel industry's attitude concering modernization ... jeff ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 May 92 07:55:53 PDT From: howard@hal.com (Howard Gayle) Subject: Re: AT&T TeleTicket Service Reply-To: howard@hal.com In article , tlowe@attmail writes: > NEW YORK CITY -- AT&T today introduced the AT&T TeleTicket(sm) > Service, which allows visitors to the United States to pre-pay for > international news, U.S. weather reports, currency exchange > information and interpretation services, as well as telephone calls. I phoned the English language number (800-462-1818) and got this additional information. Currently, the only way to get cards is by phone or mail order, and currently they only accept VISA or checks (or presumably money orders, but I forgot to ask). They plan to add MasterCard and American Express. They also plan to install vending machines in hotels and airports; the vending machines would accept cash. The mail order address is: AT&T TeleTicket Box 44289 Jacksonville, Florida 32231 USA Cards are supposed to be supplied in five to ten days if you order with VISA, longer for checks. Comment: this would appear to be a way to make completely anonymous calls in the US, without carrying cash. ------------------------------ From: Bob Yazz Subject: Re: HAL Catalog Date: Sun, 17 May 1992 04:44:22 GMT toddi@mav.com (Todd Inch) writes: > I recently received a new catalog at work which had quite a few > interesting goodies in it. The company is Home Automation > Laboratories (HAL) and can be reached at 800 HOME-LAB (800 466-3522) > or 404 319-6000. I phoned their 800 number at night and it just didn't answer. Then I tried their 404 number and got a painfully long-winded voice mail system that -- surprise -- doesn't take messages if you don't know the extension. It did allow me to wait on musical hold for an operator, even tho it was half-past midnite Eastern Time. The ideas from the catalog sounded great. The company itself -- I was unimpressed. Bob Yazz ------------------------------ From: mrosen@isis.cs.du.edu (Michael Rosen) Subject: Re: Device to Prevent Interference From Picked-up Extension? Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci. Date: Sat, 16 May 92 04:41:13 GMT > [Moderator's Note: There are plenty of things like this. The easiest > most convenient source would probably be at your local Radio Shack > store. Price is just a few dollars. PAT] Yeah, here's something ... "The Teleprotector Voice/Data Guard." It says it "prevents interruption of fax or modem when someone picks up an extension phone." It's $7.95. Any idea how this works? I see a picture of a box with a short phone cord coming out. Where does this get plugged in? Do I plug my modem in through it? What does the person picking up the other extension hear? I would hope I wouldn't have to plug the other extensions into the box, that would mean one for each extension! Mike ------------------------------ From: mrosen@isis.cs.du.edu (Michael Rosen) Subject: Re: A Musical Telecom Reference Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci. Date: Sat, 16 May 92 05:15:42 GMT Scott Fybush writes: > British 0898 numbers, which are the premium-charge lines like US 900 > numbers. This being an American record shop, I have this weird Heh, funny, that's my phone number's last four digits here in the U.S. Mike [Moderator's Note: Just be glad your last four digits are not 0666; the crazy people would be harassing you all the time. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #394 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01185; 19 May 92 0:31 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04869 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 18 May 1992 22:42:27 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30208 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 18 May 1992 22:42:14 -0500 Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 22:42:14 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199205190342.AA30208@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #395 TELECOM Digest Mon, 18 May 92 22:42:15 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 395 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: All Zeros in the Subscriber Number (Charles E. Nove) Re: All Zeros in the Subscriber Number (Bob Clements) Re: All Zeros in the Subscriber Number (Phil Howard) Re: 700 Numbers, Calling Cards, and Carrier Access Codes (Phil Howard) Re: 700 Numbers, Calling Cards, and Carrier Access Codes (Arthur Rubin) AT&T Easyreach 700: In Service? (Douglas Scott Reuben) Re: Strange Phone Behaviour (Steve Forrette) Re: AT&T Offices To Be Closed (Phillip Dampier) Re: High Voices Take #-ing (Steve Elias) Re: High Voices Take #-ing (Patton M. Turner) Re: The Virgin Mary Speaks to America Today (Phillip Dampier) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nove@sctc.com (Charles E Nove) Subject: Re: All Zeros in the Subscriber Number Organization: SCTC Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 14:24:41 GMT GLORIA.C.VALLE@gte.sprint.com writes: > For many years the telephone companies used numbers with the last four > digits as zero's as numbers for their switch rooms. In the last few > years you have started to see more of them used in non-telephone > company numbers. I don't understand why they were let loose to be used > as it will cause problems with people getting calls meant for > telephone company business. I've never received a telephone company-intended call on my xxx-0000 number. It's always somebody trying to reach xxx-000y (or even xxx-00yy) who fat-fingers the dial pad or has a cheap phone with bouncy keys. For *months* we had some old man in a nursing home in the next state who called us two or three times a week looking for John. When we'd ask what number he was trying to dial, it was if he couldn't even hear us. Then he started leaving life-or-death messages on the answering machine giving a phone number to call back. No two call-back numbers were ever the same. Finally, one day he *could* hear us and said he was looking for his son John at xxx-0009. So we called John, left a message on his answering machine suggesting he buy dad a memory-dial phone, and soon afterwards we quit getting those calls. Of course, there are the couple of late-night calls for the Regent (Regency?) Hotel in Sydney, Australia. Seems some folks confuse +6 12 with +1 612 ... :-) Chuck ------------------------------ Subject: Re: All Zeros in the Subscriber Number Date: Mon, 18 May 92 11:00:00 EDT From: clements@BBN.COM > [Moderator's Note: I think when the very old stepping switches were in > common use, 0000 was impossible to assign due to the way the switches > worked. I notice we have a few 0000 subscribers in Chicago now. PAT] A slight slip of the tongue, Pat? You could certainly assign the number, but you couldn't make it the leader of a hunt group. In Strowger step offices, large businesses typically had phone numbers ending in xx11. Hunting on a standard Strowger works by adding dial pulses until a non-busy line is found. The so-called "level-hunting" Strowger switch (which had a LOT of extra relays in it) could hunt to the next tens-level. E.g., from xx10 to xx21. Ordinary hunting switches could only hunt on the same level, restricting the size of a hunt group to ten lines. But from xx00, there was no higher number to hunt to. Of course, that's true for _all_ xx00, not just 0000 in Strowger equipment. So the number xxx-0000 could be assigned but not hunted-from. That would make it undesirable as a business number. As a historical note, the home-built Strowger switches in the phone system at the famous MIT model railroad club had a different hunting mechanism. On those, a hunt group was assigned a number ending in zero. The switch stopped stepping BEFORE reaching the dialed number rather then stepping further AFTER the dialed number. So numbers 28, 29 and 20 might be in a hunt group, the published number would be 20, and the call would ring on the first free number in 28-29-20. I don't think any switches like this were ever used in the "real world". Bob Clements, K1BC, clements@bbn.com [An old Strowger contact burnisher.] ------------------------------ From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard) Subject: Re: All Zeros in the Subscriber Number Date: Sun, 17 May 92 23:46:18 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) nigel.allen@canrem.com (Nigel Allen) writes: > Directory assistance is 555-1212 rather than 555-1111. I expect that > this is so people wouldn't lose track of the ones they had dialled. Back when I was in high school, long before the breakup of Ma Bell, I did lots of playing around with the phone lines (such as "WATS DX-ing"). One of the things I tried was calling various 555-xxxx numbers in different area codes. The interesting thing was no matter what xxxx was, I always got information. I believe 555-1111 was the first I tried, too. Phil Howard --- KA9WGN --- pdh@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard) Subject: Re: 700 Numbers, Calling Cards, and Carrier Access Codes Date: Sun, 17 May 92 23:37:30 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) zeta@yngbld.gwinnett.COM (SYSTEM OPERATOR) writes: > From what I have been told (and I could easily have been told > incorrectly), the 700 number (555-4141) was created to take some of > the pressure off local phone companies when people called in asking > what their ld carrier was. To my knowledge, I have yet to see another > 1-700 number anywhere else (if anyone has some, i'd be interested in > seeing them). I've seen lots of 700 numbers, including at the TV station I used to work for. As far as I know all these numbers were some sort of TWX or Teletype network. I don't know if those 700 numbers are in the same addressable space as the 700 numbers AT&T's service proposes. > As to the dialing of the long distance carrier codes, I block > 10???1xxxxxxxxxx. I do that because we have a special deal with our > long distance carrier on my switch for 1+ calls. I don't want people > rerouting calls on a more expensive carrier. NOTE that > 10???0xxxxxxxxxx is not blocked and is allowed, and in fact defined in > my system for calling card calls. Unless that carrier is AT&T, or if a carrier besides AT&T gets into the 700 number business and each carrier constitutes a distinct number space, then you will probably have to: block 10xxx1xxxxxxxxxx except 102881700xxxxxx or block 10xxx1xxxxxxxxxx except 10xxx1700xxxxxx Phil Howard --- KA9WGN --- pdh@netcom.com ------------------------------ Subject: Re: 700 Numbers, Calling Cards, and Carrier Access Codes From: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin) Date: 18 May 92 16:39:49 GMT Organization: Beckman Instruments, Inc. In pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard) writes: > jshelton@ads.com (John L. Shelton) writes: >> 1. Area 700 is "special"; it's the only area code in which each LD >> provider has it's own "namespace". My phone number (700) CALL-MOM in >> AT&T land isn't the same as MCI's (700) CALL-MOM. And the cost to the >> caller could be different, too. > I dialed (from work) 9-1-700-555-4141 and got a recording indicating > AT&T. > I dialed 9-10222-1-700-555-4141 and before I could finish dialing I > got the three tone beep and a recording that said "... it is not > necessary to dial a carrier access code for the number you have > dialed. I don't have any trouble, from work or from home. (Although 9-1-700-555-4141 reports AT&T and travelling service representatives are issued Sprint cards.) Arthur L. Rubin: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (work) Beckman Instruments/Brea 216-5888@mcimail.com 70707.453@compuserve.com arthur@pnet01.cts.com (personal) My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer. ------------------------------ Date: 18-MAY-1992 03:17:29.97 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: AT&T Easyreach 700: In Service? Although you can't call Easyreach numbers yet (or so it seems) directly, you seem to be able to do so with a calling card. When I dial 1-700-CALL-257 (just randomly picked that), I get an AT&T "3T" intercept. Yet, if I dial 0+ some number, and enter my card number, and then hit "#" to sequence call to 700-CALL-257, I get an IMMEDIATE and HARSH ring, (and no "Thank you for using AT&T"/"Thank You"), and then "The AT&T Easyreach 700 number you have dialed is not assigned", and then it dumps me out of the calling card system and returns a dial-tone from the local CO ... Odd how it won't give you a "Thank You" and you get that sudden ring! Also, I am not clear on one aspect of AT&T 700 billing: Does the calling party (not me) pay $.25 day/$.15 night to reach me, and that's it, or is there also a toll charge that I pay to deliver the call from Easyreach to the PSTN number I want to call to route to? Can the AT&T Easyreach number be forwarded to an 800 number? Even a non-AT&T 800 number? Finally, as an aside, I mentioned a while ago an odd situation with interconnected Motorola EMX switches, where they will pass features, busy signals, and query phones outside of the "call delivery area" (e.g., a Boston "A" customer can go to Philly, and use call-forwarding and 3-Way, but still not get calls, and callers will get a re-order when they try to reach his Boston number). Well, I found out that Motorola has a name for this, and they call it the "Curious Call Syndrome"! This "syndrome" only seems to be a problem in Motorola EMX systems which do NOT use Autonomous Registration, that is, callers calling roamers in "syndrome"-plagued areas will cause the caller to get a re-order, while in Auton Regs areas the reorder will no occur. Features will work, though ... Any info on the AT&T Easyreach questions would be appreciated. Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet [Moderator's Note: It is not clear to me why you would forward a 700 number into an 800, thus incurring two sets of charges when you could simply give out the 800 number ... PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 May 92 17:09:07 -0700 From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: Strange Phone Behaviour Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA In article guy@library.calpoly.edu (Guy Martin) writes: > I try to call my sister in the East Bay (510) from San Luis Obispo > (805) several times. I got a busy signal the first few times, which I > didn't think was abnormal (she talks on the phone a LOT #:-)), but > then when I did get a ring, it was one ring, followed immediately by a > "static"y sound with no more ring tone ... I sat on the line, and > after about two minutes of the static, I got ring tone again, but it > just kept ringing out, until Boom!, I got fast busy (VERY LOUD I might > add) ... Another possibility is the involvement of a cellular telephone. Perhaps your sister had her home phone forwarded to her cellular. This type of behavior is not uncommon when placing calls to cellular. At least in the switches I've had service from, the transmitted audio from the cellular is superimposed on the ringing sound generated by the cellular switch. Since the mic is muted, this should normally be silence. But if there is a marginal connection, the caller can hear static along with the ringing sound. If the connection gets so bad that the switch decides to drop it before the call is answered (or the cellular phone is turned off while ringing), the cellular switch will stop the ringing sound and return a reorder. This all sounds very strange indeed to people not accustomed to the "unique features" of cellular. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ From: Phillip.Dampier@f228.n260.z1.fidonet.org (Phillip Dampier) Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 17:13:20 -0500 Subject: Re: AT&T Offices To Be Closed andys@ulysses.att.com (Andy Sherman) wrote: > I question the assertion (by the CWA?) that these offices are all > closing due to the deployment of voice recognition. All of the stuff I put up regarding the CWA comes directly from the CWA. As a side note, I am not a union representative, member, or even working in the telephony industry. I work in broadcasting. I agree a lot of the stuff CWA puts out is chest beating and scare tactics, but I think it's interesting to see what they have to say. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: High Voices Take #-ing Date: Mon, 18 May 92 13:09:26 PDT From: Steve Elias Something happened to one of our voice mail customers years ago. Our system kept hanging up whenever he left a message. After listening to the guy talk, and via testing, we discovered that his voice was so monotone and continuous that he was setting off our dial-tone detector! We upped the dial-tone time threshold and the problem went away ... So, it's not just high voices that take a #-ing. eli ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 May 92 03:56:02 CDT From: Patton M. Turner Subject: Re: High Voices Take #-ing Sean Williams writes: > [A simple solution might be to require the # tone be one full second > in length ... -Sean] I have had the same problem with a ham repeater. The solution was, as you suspected, to increase the ammount of time the tone was required to be present. I suspect this occours because to decoder looks just for energy at the right frequencies, 1477 and 941 Hz in this case. The original Bell Labs intent was a requirement that the energy be at the two frequecies, as well as for there to be little energy at other frequecies. With voice, energy would be spread over a section of the voice bandwith, thus the decoder wouldn't be spoofed. Our repeater problem occoured mostly (95%) with women members and usually resulted in *9 being processed (AU Police 911). Other codes may have been decoded, but many were invalid or the problem wasn't reported to me. As you might expect * and # use the highest of the low frequency tones for their pair. 9 uses the second highest of the low frequency tones. Pat Turner KB4GRZ pturner@eng.auburn.edu ------------------------------ From: Phillip.Dampier@f228.n260.z1.fidonet.org (Phillip Dampier) Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 17:01:23 -0500 Subject: Re: The Virgin Mary Speaks to America Today DLEIBOLD@VM1.YorkU.CA (David Leibold) wrote: > In the current issue of that mad magasine of Christendom, {The > Door}, one of their "Truth is Stranger than Fiction" items shows an ad > which claims "The Virgin Mary Speaks to America TODAY / Toll Free > Message 800-882-MARY". This is the direct line for Our Lady of the Roses Shrine, an "interesting" group of Mary worshippers who maintain constant vigil at a shrine they erected at the site of the old NY World's Fair. They are headquartered in Bayside, New York and upon leaving your name and address, you will receive an introductory booklet about their ministry, a "rose petal blessed by Mary herself," and an invitation to join in on the fun by being added to their mailing list. If you like pounds of goodies sent to your home, sign up. I did. It's all the work of one Veronica Lueken, a housewife in Bayside who believes Mary delivers important messages for earthbound folk via Ms. Lueken. For extra fun, if you let them think you are a live one, beg and plead for some of their literature and tapes. My favorites: Warnings About... Communism Cults of Satan Child Molestors of The Evil One They also offer books on flying saucers that kidnap kids for Satan, and "Heaven's Point of View," which was reviewed in one of the books I have as a "zombo-Catholic classic." I love it, and the best part of it is that most of it is free. This has become a side hobby of mine, collecting tons of free rants and goodies from hundreds and hundreds of, shall we say, "fringe" groups across the country. All things considered, these people are harmless. If you want to write, the address is: Our Lady of the Roses Shrine P.O. Box 52 Bayside, NY 11361-0052 Have fun! [Moderator's Note: You know, that list of topics, or 'warnings' sounds like good material for some Usenet news groups. I wonder if it would be possible to get Mary (via Ms. Luken of course) to enter into a dialog with netters in one of the news groups? After all, they are going to have those worthless presidential candidates participate in a forum sometime soon; maybe Mary could have one also, perhaps in the news group where all the Socially Responsible netters hang out. Maybe Mary has had a vision she could share with them about Hackers From Hell, or Communist Hackers who belong to the Cult of Satan. :) PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #395 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04726; 19 May 92 1:58 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27380 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 19 May 1992 00:00:12 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21542 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 19 May 1992 00:00:03 -0500 Date: Tue, 19 May 1992 00:00:03 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199205190500.AA21542@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #396 TELECOM Digest Tue, 19 May 92 00:00:10 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 396 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Voice Recognition in Boise (Phillip Dampier) *67 and Related Topics (Tony Harminc) 900 Blocking Not Guaranteed Effective (Jim Rees) CCITT Recommended Number Lengths (Michael Scott Baldwin) WSJ Supplement on Telecommunications (Monty Solomon) AT&T System 25 / Cellular Trunks (Jerry Bass) Florida Areas 305 and 813 (Carl Moore) ISDN Fantasy (Bob Frankston) ISDN Charging (barry@ictv.com) Georgia 404/706 Split - Prefix List (David Leibold) Anyone Try Forwarding to a 900 Number? (Phil Howard) Have I Been Slammed? (Brian Litzinger) Video Conference Information Wanted (John Pettitt) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Phillip.Dampier@f228.n260.z1.fidonet.org (Phillip Dampier) Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 17:30:18 -0500 Subject: Voice Recognition in Boise VIP RATED A SUCCESS (US West Communications) BOISE, ID -- If residential phone users here are any indication, customers may be establishing a more personal relationship with their telephones -- phones that respond to their voice commands. US West Communications and AT&T Network Systems recently worked together on a "concept" test of a voice recognition system with 192 Boiseans, and customers liked the system. The two companies today released some of the findings of the trial and announced they will conduct a second trial in Boise this fall to test whether customers would use voice recognition to "sample" phone features on a per-use basis. In the first test, the Voice Interactive Phone (VIP) System used one code (#44) and one word, such as "Messages," to activate some of the services used by current US West subscribers with two or more optional features. The objectives were to test whether the VIP System would increase use of these optional services and how customers rated the voice activated system itself. Said US West Project Manager Joni Boulware, "The first trial testing the prototype system provided us with substantial information about what these residential customers liked and didn't like about the new technology. Since the trial ended in January, we've been analyzing the data to see what the next steps should be. We're gearing up for the second phase this summer." Boulware said, "We discovered that the customers liked playing with the system, learning how to make it work best for them. Some had never used some of their features until they had VIP, and others said family members started using features they never tried before. Customers also reported that the voice recognition system worked well with cordless and wired phones, but not as well with speaker phones." The AT&T Bell Laboratories-designed prototype was rated "excellent" or "good" by three-fourths of the participants, and 82% said it met or exceeded their expectations. Even more exciting, said Boulware, is that customers felt comfortable talking to a computer, and 84% preferred VIP to the existing method for activating such telephone services as Voice Messaging, Call Forwarding, Continuous Redial, Call Rejection, and Call Waiting. "They liked not having to remember the codes for activating and deactivating programmable features and found the system easy to use. Even better, customers said the voice activated system increased the value they placed on the services, and 74% said VIP encouraged them to use the features more often," says Boulware. "For the project team, this was a great success." "The system trialed by US West and AT&T is unique in several respects," said Gene Batcha, AT&T Project Manager. "It's central-office based; it gives positive confirmation of the request; it has 'word spotting' capability that recognizes key words in a sentence and screens out backround noise; and it has a 'talk-through' function. Most telephone-based systems only recognize 'yes,' 'no,' and numbers 0 through 9." Some customers in the trial were interested in using the system on a per-activation basis on optional services to which they don't subscribe -- maybe just to sample the service before subscribing or to use a service on an occasional basis. This fall, the team will go back to different customers in Boise to test this concept. "We haven't determined what to charge on a per-activation basis," says Boulware, "but we are interested in testing this idea, based on the first trial's results." US West Communications, the largest subsidiary of US West, Inc., serves the communications needs of 25 million customers in 14 western states. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 May 92 22:05:15 EDT From: Tony Harminc Subject: *67 and Related Topics The CRTC has directed the telephone companies under its jurisdiction to file proposed tariffs by 1 June 1992 providing, as a minimum, free per call automated blocking of Call Display (Caller*ID) to replace the 75 cents/call operator assisted blocking now in place. I intend to submit comments on this to the commission, but I would like to confirm my understanding of how per call blocking works in the US today. I understand that to block Caller*ID info, *67 is prepended to the number to be dialed. I have heard, though it seems very strange, that if *per line* blocking is in effect, *67 will *unblock* for the one following call. Is this true? If so, I want to try to make sure the CRTC disallows any such idiocy here. Surely the risks of having a toggle are obvious. Also, Bell Canada has claimed that per call blocking is not possible on calls placed from 1ESS systems. I have the opposite impression -- could someone confirm or deny? Tony H. [Moderator's Note: Indeed, where 'per-line' blocking is available, *67 acts like a toggle for one call only, performing the *opposite* function of the line's default status. Really, it seems like the best possible scenario. Even the ID blockers occassionally want to make their number known. Admittedly one has to know which way the toggle will work before using it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: rees@pisa.citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Subject: 900 Blocking Not Guaranteed Effective Reply-To: Jim.Rees@umich.edu Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project Date: Mon, 18 May 92 16:46:58 GMT Allow me to throw some gasoline on the 800-as-900 fire. When I called my local Michigan Bell rep to complain about the {USA Today} scam, she claimed that 900 blocking is not guaranteed to work, it's just a hint to those 900 providers who decide to play nice. She said that Michigan Bell was not under any obligation to remove charges for 900 calls even if 900 blocking is in effect for the line. So beware! This may not apply outside of Michigan; we are one of the few states in which telephone service is not regulated by the state Public Service Commission (the state legislature removed most of the PSC's authority over telephone service early this year). [Moderator's Note: The rep is wrong. 900/976 blocking is a local thing, right there at your CO; this decision is NOT left up to Information Providers who 'decide to play nice'. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 May 92 15:13 EDT From: michael.scott.baldwin@att.com Subject: CCITT Recommended Number Lengths Answers to David Esan questions and PAT's comments regarding number length: E.163 Numbering Plan for the International Telephone Service: 2.1 -- International Number The CCITT recommended in 1964 that the number of digits to be dialed by subscribers in the automatic international service should not be more than 12 (excluding the international prefix) ... 3 -- Digit capacity of international registers ... registers dealing with international traffic should have a digit capacity, or a capacity that can be expanded, to cater for more than the maximum 12-digit international number envisaged at present ... for new applications a minimum digit capacity of 15 digits is recommended ... E.164 Numbering Plan for the ISDN Era: 3.3 -- Number length ...The maximum number length shall be 15 digits...The length does not include prefixes, language digit, address delimiters ... An ISDN number is the same as a PSTN number, except for the possible insertion of a DN (destination network) code before or after the trunk code. As far as I can tell, DN might be used like 10XXX to select the carrier. Call Global Engineering Documents at +1 800 854 7179 to order CCITT Fascicle II.2 (E.100-E.333) by American Express, Mastercard/Visa, or purchase order. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 23:08:02 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: WSJ Supplement on Telecommunications The 5/18/92 issue of the {Wall Street Journal} has a special 22 page supplement on Telecommunications which should be of interest to all readers of this Digest. Here is the table of contents: What Are You Talking About? Future Phone Classrooms Without Walls Cutting the Cord Just Like the Big Boys Smile! Talk to Me Fighting Fraud Picture This Investment Insights Bell's Baby Taking Aim Wats New? Information, Please Is This Heaven? Reprints are available by mailing a check for $2 per copy (to cover postage) to: Telecommunications Dow Jones & Company, Inc. 200 Burnett Road Chicopee, MA 01021 Checks should be made payable to Dow Jones & Company, Inc. Allow four weeks for delivery. ------------------------------ From: gbass@mitre.org (Jerry Bass) Subject: AT&T System 25 / Cellular Trunks Organization: The MITRE Corporation Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 14:26:41 GMT Please let me know if what I'm trying to do is possible. I have an AT&T System 25 PBX that is going into a prototype military mobile shelter. I would like to know (and how to) if I can connect / program my switch to get dial tone from a subscriber line of another switch. Also, I have two transportable cellular phones (Motorola) with THE Cellular Connection(TM) interface boxes which emulate a wall jack (for FAXes, etc). I would like to be able to pick up any subscriber extension on the System 25, dial an access code, and place a call over the cellular phone. The cellular interface box is such that I can plug a POTS phone into it, pick up the receiver, and dial as if the POTS phone was plugged into the wall. If this makes sense: What trunk cards would I need (I have TN760 cards, as well as ZTN78, and ZTN79 cards)? How would I program the trunks? I'd appreciate any help and I can provide additional info if necessary. Jerry Bass gbass@mitre.org The MITRE Corporation Bedford, MA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 May 92 9:00:34 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Florida Areas 305 and 813 I have received the following from David Leibold (DLEIBOLD@vm1. yorku.ca): > I noticed that 305 (Miami, Ft Lauderdale) has gone to 1 + 305 + number > dialing intra-NPA, as mentioned in the April 92 Ft Lauderdale book > (but no mention of it in Miami's book from Sept. 1991). Haven't seen if > 407 has gone the same route or not, but did see some of the 813 stuff > (813 is interchangeable NXX, or soon will be) ... The history.of.area.splits file in the archives does have a note about 813 using 1 + NPA + 7D for long distance within it. But this is new information regarding area 305, which was split four years ago (Orlando, West Palm Beach, etc., went to 407 then), and at that time WITHOUT N0X/N1X prefixes. ------------------------------ From: Bob_Frankston@frankston.com Subject: ISDN Fantasy Date: Mon 18 May 1992 11:40 -0500 Would it be nice if there were the electronic equivalent of leaving a business card? In particular, a text (ASCII?) message that I could leave in addition to or in place of voice mail. While one can implement this without ISDN, ISDN provides the appropriate mechanism for standardizing the necessary protocols. Oh well, I'll have to setting for synthesizing voice so that the receiving system can do speech to text following the precedent of Text-> Fax-> OCR-> Text. ------------------------------ Subject: ISDN Charging Date: Mon, 18 May 92 14:37:56 MDT From: barry@ictv.com One of the major drawbacks of residential ISDN service is the per minute charging on the line. In the case of PacBell, and probably the other RBOCs, ISDN has been tariffed as part of Centrex. If someone wanted to use ISDN as a lower cost internet connection, couldn't they set up a two line Centrex, one line in their house and the other at the destination? I don't believe that RBOCs charge for calls between extensions in a Centrex group. barry ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 May 92 15:55:06 EDT From: David Leibold Subject: Georgia 404/706 Split - Prefix List As of 3rd May '92, the 706 area code should be active for areas in northern Georgia outside Atlanta Metro calling area. There will be "permissive" dialing of either 404 or 706 area codes until 3rd Aug '92 at which point area 706 becomes mandatory, while 404 is only used in the Atlanta Metro calling area. A list of prefixes, plus an indication of whether or not they stay 404 or go 706 will be submitted for the Archives. dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca (and a cast of other addresses) [Moderator's Note: I have the file from Dave and it will be available in the next day or two in the archives, which is accessible using anonymous ftp at lcs.mit.edu (then 'cd telecom-archives' when on line at MIT). Use your name@site as password, please. PAT] ------------------------------ From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard) Subject: Anyone Try Forwarding to a 900 Number? Date: Mon, 18 May 92 19:46:14 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) Has anyone tried forwarding a REGULAR telephone to a 900 number? Make sure you have two phones that are separately billed (in different names would be better). Verify what features are available on both phone lines just to be sure of switch capabilities. Pick a 900 service that you know is not a scam (there really are many of them) and has a low rate or something you really want anyway (don't know how many of these there are). Line B needs call forwarding feature scubscribed to. Set the forwarding to the 900 number. Make sure neither line A or line B have 900 blocked. Call line B from line A and see if you even get to the 900 service. If you get there, do whatever is needed to acquire some service and ensure a billable charge. Now wait and see which line the charge comes in on. If the charge comes in on the bill for line A, then I see a serious problem. I don't know, but I could suspect the possibility that whatever happens could very well be different depending on the capabilities of the switches, especially where line B is. This might be tried with line A and line B on the same switch as well as on different switches. Phil Howard --- KA9WGN --- pdh@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: brian@apt.bungi.com (Brian Litzinger) Subject: Have I Been Slammed? Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 18:30:16 GMT Through a clever bit of manipulation on my part (I least I think it was clever) I was able to end up with no default long distance carrier on my home phone line. Thus I had a truly "equal access" phone system. (By the way, PacBell was dead set against my ending up with no default LD carrier, but I managed it without their help.) Now unfortunately, I seem to have been slammed. When I dial '00' I get a fast busy, but when I dial 1 700 555 4141 I get: Welcome to 1+ dialing, the carrier you have chosen has a code of 511. For further assistance please call your long distance company. I'm afraid to dial a non-prefixed long distance number for fear of astronomical charges. Who are these people and how did they steal my default long distance service? Can I get rid of them? brian@apt.bungi.com [Moderator's Note: No one stole anything from you!!!! The fact that you get a rapid re-order tone with 00 should tell you that. The fact that the message you get from 555-4141 says to 'call your long distance company' rather than naming one in particular should give you a few hints also. Try calling some long distance number with one plus. If it starts to ring (which I doubt), just hang up if you are so worried about 'astronomical charges'. In all probability you will either get re-order tone or like in Chicago, a recording saying your call cannot be completed as dialed. Then try zero plussing an LD call as well, and note the same results. Incidentally, why are you making this (no LD carrier) imposition upon yourself? PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Video Conference Information Wanted Date: Mon, 18 May 92 12:27:57 PDT From: jpp@slxinc.specialix.com (John Pettitt) I am looking for companies that can supply a videoconference link between London UK and Campbell Ca, USA. We would like to have equipment on our premises and be able to `dial' up a link on damand (some set up delay is OK). I am aware of services within the US that use switched 56 or similar and services that are based on the providor owned `studio'. I have had no luck finding a customer primises based solution that is usable on an international line. The idea is that the company saves the 8K$ a month it costs to fly me to london for one three hour meeting (not to mention the week of my time spent travelling etc). Any thoughts? John Pettitt Specialix International (jpp@specialix.com or jpp@specialix.co.uk) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #396 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05431; 19 May 92 2:14 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16508 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 19 May 1992 00:32:52 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11497 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 19 May 1992 00:32:42 -0500 Date: Tue, 19 May 1992 00:32:42 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199205190532.AA11497@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #397 TELECOM Digest Tue, 19 May 92 00:32:40 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 397 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: 800 to 900 Calls: Isn't This Double-Billing? (Alan L. Varney) Re: Pac$Bell Gets Tricky (Sharon Crichton) Re: Wiring Question in Old Telephone (Jim Rees) Re: Polarity: Red = Negative? (Randy Gellens) Re: What Telcos REALLY Want (Chet Wood) Re: PacBell ISDN (was What Telcos REALLY Want) (Steve Forrette) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 18 May 92 14:55:55 CDT From: varney@ihlpf.att.com (Alan L Varney) Subject: Re: 800 to 900 Calls: Isn't This Double-Billing? Organization: AT&T Network Systems Let's stop at least some of the confusion on call forwarding before we get someone rushing out a new set of requirements we don't need. For example, in message , deej@ cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) writes: > In article Bob_Frankston@frankston.com > writes: >> I presume the ability to forward the 800 => 900 will be viewed as an >> "oops" and will be blocked in short order. But that does raise >> interesting questions about the propagation of ANI and CID information >> through forwarding. What are the technical rules? > There are no "technical rules" (standards or Bellcore specifications) > regarding the propagation of ANI (Billing Number) on forwarded calls. > ANI is only specified (in T1.104 and a Bellcore FSD) across an > Exchange Carrier / Interexchange Carrier interface. Forwarding is > outside the scope of these specifications. To reword David's statement somewhat, there is no requirement to "propagate" ANI beyond it's two intended uses. These are: 1) ANI from non-AMA offices so that billing can be done at a CAMA (Centralized AMA) office. This is in the LSSGR, FSD 20-20-0000 (part of TR-TSY-000520). The billing stuff is in the AMA part (Section 8.1, TR-TSY-000508). 2) ANI is sent from CO to IXC/INC on Equal Access (FG-D) calls, and it happens to be sent THROUGH an Access Tandem (AT), if one is involved in the originating LATA portion of the call. (That is, the AT doesn't see or repeat the ANI digits -- it's already cut through to the IXC.) The "interim" FG-B capability allowed IXCs to receive ANI for calls originating on the CO , but relied on the existing ANI capabilities of 1) above. An AT was not required to repeat ANI on indirect IXC access in this case. Note that there is no way to take either of these requirements and arrive at a capability for "forwarding" ANI. Some vendors have implemented such capabilities in order to implement various Operator and other "private" network capabilities, but these are not using "Call Forwarding" to cause this "forwarding" of ANI. The above referenced AMA specification has a paragraph 8.1.1.8, "Vertical Services - Call Forwarding" that states: "For AMA purposes, a forwarded call is treated ... as if the remote station [the 'forward-to' destination] were dialed by the base station [the 'forwarding' telephone]." That is, the original caller is NEVER charged for the forwarding leg of the call. And for the AMA stuff to work properly, ANI cannot be forwarded from the caller to the remote station. Regardless of hearsay, the standard Call Forwarding feature wouldn't forward ANI for incoming 800 to outgoing 900 calls, or for any other calls. > For Caller ID, the feature interactions specified in the Bellcore TRs > require the original calling party number to be delivered to the > forwarded-to address, if the forwarded-to address subscribes to CID. True, and one -- of many -- reasons why ANI and Caller ID are not the same, and cannot be used to replace each other. > Note that in a SS7 Network Interconnect environment, this could lead > to both the original calling party number and the forwarding number to > be sent to an IXC; the original CPN in the Calling Party Number > parameter, and the forwarding number in the Charge Number parameter > (since the forwarding is billed to the forwarding party). Actually, the forwarding number is in the Original Called Number parameter. There may be a 'Billing Number' associated with the forwarding number, and the Charge Number would not reflect the number actually doing the forwarding. In fact, Charge Number may not even be a valid number -- it's only REQUIRED use is in billing. >> More interesting, what are the ISDN protocols for dealing with >> forwarded calls. Can the caller find out that the call was forwarded >> and via what forwarding path? > Draft proposed American National Standards for Calling Line > Identification Presentation and Call Forwarding call for the original > calling party number to be carried in the Calling Party Number > parameter (in SS7) or CPN IE (in DSS1 - ISDN access signaling) and up > to two forwarding numbers (first and last) to be carried in the > Redirecting Number parameters (SS7) or IEs (DSS1). The Redirecting > Number IE also has a "Reason for redirection" field, which would > presumably be set to "Call Forwarding Unconditional" or whatever the > case is. The "reason for redirection" is in the SS7 Redirection Information parameter (separate from the Original Called Number and Redirecting Number [last forwarding number]). There are fields indicating the reason for forwarding at both numbers, as well as a count of the total number of forwardings encountered (limit is around ten). >> I presume it would be too much to expect that the called party would >> be able to use the back channel to interrogate the links (subject to >> access control and privacy considerations). There are a number of >> attributes that would be of interest including the ability to ask the >> caller for authorization for certain kinds of services and billing. That sounds like User-to-User information to me -- David's more of an expert there. But all the Numbers mentioned above are available to ISDN switches -- but most users are set up to receive only one or the other (depends on the 'service' being offered). When we start to interwork with Cellular, it'll be a mess, cause many of the services depend on inter-switch calls "dropping" the forwarding information. Perhaps "depend" is not correct -- but Users that have experimented with forwarding and Voice Mail will complain when the SS7 "improvements" come along, and change their "world view". Note that CCITT has defined a Redirection Number (not 'Redirecting') that is sent in the backward direction (to the caller) to inform them of the 'forwarded-to' number. Fortunately, ANSI hasn't specified when to use this one, or what to do with it if received. In message , Jack@myamiga.mixcom.com (Jack Decker) writes: > In message , Pat (the Moderator) > notes: >> [ ..... Incidentally, we've now discovered *how* the 800 <==> 900 >> scam works, .... Incoming calls are *forwarded* to an unmentioned >> 900 number, and ... the ANI the 900 number sees is not that of the >> phone doing the forwarding to it, but that of the original caller. > Apparently, what this means is that when call-forwarding is in effect, > the ANI of the caller is also forwarded. Not with any standard Call Forwarding. Anyone that can "send" ANI not representing a number on the "forwarding" switch could send any number they want for ANI on ordinary outgoing calls. Very much non-standard. > What I'm wondering is, couldn't the central office switch designers > offer an option to block forwarding of the original caller's ANI *if* > the call is forwarded to a 900, 700, or 976 type number? In such a > case it could substitute the number of the phone actually doing the > forwarding. But that's what real Call Forwarding does anyway. Now, that's not to say that "programmable" 800 numbers might not work by playing games with ANI, but that's NOT Call Forwarding. And since the BOCs and IXCs control (or soon will) their 800 number routing, there may be all sorts of unusual interactions to be worked out. Al Varney - the above is not an official opinion of AT&T. ------------------------------ From: sharonc@meaddata.com (Sharon Crichton) Subject: Re: Pac$Bell Gets Tricky Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 14:29:17 GMT Reply-To: sharonc@meaddata.com In article , mrapple@quack.sac.ca.us (Nick Sayer) writes: > I just got a tricky piece of literature from Pac$Bell. Ostensibly it > is an offer for some service that purports to help those who work at > home, and includes a card which you mail back to make an appointment > for a sales drone to call you, etc, etc. > Perhaps I'm paranoid, but it seems to me that Pac$Bell used calling > patern data to pick out those customers who seem to use their > residential lines for business purposes with the intention of using a > response to this "offer" as ammunition to get them switched to > business rates. > Did anyone else get this mailer? Am I just paranoid, or is Pac$Bell > trying to be tricky? Ohio Bell sent a similar mailer to me -- but I've never used my residential line for anything but residential purposes. Ohio Bell's offer was for three different pamphlets that you could order by calling a special number, all dealing with working from your home and how Ohio Bell can (supposedly) help you. It would seem that this is a standard mailer that goes to everyone or a randomly selected group of people. Sharon Crichton Mead Data Central sharonc@meaddata.com P.O. Box 933 uunet!meaddata!sharonc Dayton, OH 45401 FAX: (513) 865-1655 ------------------------------ From: rees@dabo.citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Subject: Re: Wiring Question in Old Telephone Reply-To: Jim.Rees@umich.edu Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project Date: Mon, 18 May 92 16:11:42 GMT In article , John_David_Galt@cup.portal. com writes: > I just got hold of a Princess phone myself, and have a different question. > Does anyone out there know where I can get the transformer you need to power > the lighted dial? I often see the WE transformers at garage sales and thrift shops for about a dollar. The part number is WE 2012A. They are labelled "6-8 vac" but mine puts out 14 volts no-load, 10 volts into a single 1A key set lamp, or 8 volts into a Princess or Trimline dial light. You don't really need the official Western Electric transformer. Any source of about 8-10 volts will do it. I use 5 2v gel cells (scavenged from old Mac Portable battery packs) trickle charged from a WE transformer. That way, when the power goes out, my Princess and Trimline phone lights still work. The same battery also supplies the lights on my multi-line 1A key sets, and loop current for my intercom line (the last button on each multi-line phone). Speaking of 1A sets, I use these without the closet full of electromechanical gizmos and the thick-as-your-wrist 25 pair cable. I re-wire them so that when you push a button and lift the handset, the light comes on and the phone connects to the corresponding line. The hold button doesn't work, of course. I use four-pair black station cable and a RJ-45 connector (is that the right number? It's a four-pair RJ-11). That gives me three lines plus power for the lights. When people come to my house and ask to use the phone, I point to one of the three phones in the living room and say, "use line two." ------------------------------ From: MPA15AB!RANDY@TRENGA.tredydev.unisys.com Date: 18 MAY 92 19:44 Subject: Re: Polarity: Red = Negative? In TELECOM Digest V12 #373, Michael A. Covington asks if polarity still matters, and notes that his polarity was reversed after recent repair work. I moved into a new apartment last month, and had problems getting my second line installed. The manager of repair came out with a repairman, and got it all hooked up (not even the drop had been done originally). While he was there, I asked him a few questions, including if polarity still mattered. He told me that they (GTE) don't worry about polarity any more, that most phones (except some WE equipment) can handle it either way. Others have said that digital switches adjust polarity to match your phone when you go off-hook. Randy Gellens randy%mpa15ab@trenga.tredydev.unisys.com If mail bounces, forward to postmaster@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak only for myself ------------------------------ From: arc!chet@apple.com (chet wood) Subject: Re: What Telcos REALLY Want Organization: Advansoft Research Corp, Santa Clara, CA Date: 12 May 92 13:26:31 On 2 May 92 20:34:00 GMT, john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) said: > A recent story on the front page of the {San Francisco > Chronicle} is a great indicator of the future of telephony as > seen from the eyes of an LEC. "Pac*Bell to Unveil 'Dial-a-Movie' > Plan" describes a system that would allow movies to be > distributed to theaters and others digitally via fiber optic > lines. It would take three minutes to transmit the > highly-compressed data that represents a two-hour movie. > There you have it, folks. Message to the EFF: Pac*Bell has not > the slightest interest in offering ISDN to the masses. ISDN > would only fulfill the public's basic communications > requirements. It would not fill Pac*Bell's cash registers the > way something as exciting as Dial-a-Movie would. So what is > Pac*Bell doing to move ISDN along? Probably nothing. May I suggest another motive? One that John might sympathize with? Perhaps Pac*Bell is pushing the movie idea as a way to get the PUC to start allowing fiber in the local loop. They can tell the PUC, "look, there _is_ a use for this technology." Then they can cook some books and allege that the ratepayer will ultimately benefit. Just a thought. (My own -- not my company's!) Chet Wood chet@advansoft.com (408)727-3357 X269 Advansoft Research Corporation 4301 Great America Parkway, Suite 600 Santa Clara, CA 95054, USA ------------------------------ From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: PacBell ISDN (was What Telcos REALLY Want) Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 05:18:07 GMT Pacific Bell ISDN is not available solely in "downtown business districts." It is available in the CO "I grew up in," so to speak, in Fair Oaks, CA. There are no major businesses, big plants, etc., served from this CO. It is in suburban Sacramento, definately not rural, but not downtown, either. I think that one of the big issues right now is that ISDN is possibly offered by Pacific Bell only from DMS-100's. Most of Pacific Bell's switches are 1AESS or 5ESS at this point. Although I'm no big fan of Pacific Bell in general, there are some points of their ISDN offering that they are doing RIGHT: 1. Charging data calls in exactly the same manner as voice calls, which means standard message units for local calls, and regular toll rates for intra-LATA long distance. Also, they support inter-LATA data calls withing California in conjunction with several IXCs, at least one of which charges the same as voice calls. (Compare this with what other RBOCs have done with ISDN -- charge large premiums for "data" calls, which of course use the same 56/64Kbps channels that voice calls do) 2. Offering 2B+D as the standard BRI. Isn't some RBOC back east offering an ultra-lame 1B+D as their base offering? 3. Supporting packet data on the D channel between subscribers. 4. Making it available in dozens of COs in their territory. Although universal availability on all digital switches would be nice, the current state of affairs is a lot better than many states. I asked US West what they're doing with ISDN in Washington State, and all they have going is a trial in one CO in Olympia that supports intra-CO calls only. Oh, by the way, they HAVE recently announced a service that allows FAX store-and-foward, as well as FAX overflow, which is something that any company could provide. They put their resources toward something that anyone can do, while ignoring things like ISDN that only TPC can do. What they're doing WRONG, IMHO: 1. Bundling with Centrex. 2. No residential ISDN tariff, although you can have the business version installed in a residence if you like. 3. Not deploying it on the 5ESS switches. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #397 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07536; 19 May 92 3:06 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29987 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 19 May 1992 01:15:41 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19723 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 19 May 1992 01:15:31 -0500 Date: Tue, 19 May 1992 01:15:31 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199205190615.AA19723@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #398 TELECOM Digest Tue, 19 May 92 01:15:26 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 398 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: On Getting Telco to Correct Routing Errors (Phil Howard) Re: On Getting Telco to Correct Routing Errors (Henry E. Schaffer) Re: On Getting Telco to Correct Routing Errors (Carl Moore) Re: Voice Mail Hanging up on Women (David Lemson) Re: Voice Mail Hanging up on Women (Mark Cavallaro) Re: Area Code Discussion From RelayNet (David Kuder) Re: Area Code Discussion From RelayNet (David B. Whiteman) Re: The "Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991" (Dave Strieter) Re: The "Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991" (Sean E. Williams) Re: Televised Weather Coverage Using Cellular Phone (Thomas Lapp) Re: 911 for Seagoing Cellular Users? (Patton M. Turner) Re: Limitations on Dialed Digits (Alan L. Varney) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard) Subject: Re: On Getting Telco to Correct Routing Errors Date: Mon, 18 May 92 21:27:44 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) In comp.dcom.telecom TELECOM Moderator writes: > This is a little story about an experience I had last week with > Illinois Bell, trying to get them to correct an error in their > handling of calls to an exchange near Green Bay, Wisconsin. [long story not included] This sounds like the problem I had with IBT calling Springfield which is outside of my Market Service Area. Calls via a LD carrier were all being intercepted saying I did not need to dial a carrier access code for the number (as if it were in my Market Service Area). Dialing with no access code (my default carrier is "none") yielded the expected intercept. The AT&T operator (10288-0) was able to put the call through. They were able to get through for themselves at 611 but said they would get the problem fixed. Two days later it was fixed. But why does it take two days? Would it have been possible, had I or someone talked to the appropriate technical person, to have it added to the table right on the spot (or delete from the wrong table depending on the real cause of the problem). I also had the reverse problem once calling within the MSA (to Paxton). That problem was intermittent (sometimes it would go through and sometimes not but when not, I recall the intercept recording suggesting I needed to use a LD carrier, wrong). I don't know if it was ever fixed. > You might like to see if 414-592 is working in your telco. To avoid > disturbing any subscribers, try 414-592-0366 which will return a local > 'not in service' message from that CO. I called from within U of I in Urbana (217-244) and I got the "not in service" message so it seems to be working from here. It might be nice if there was a standardized four digit suffix that was usable to verify access to a specific exchange ... it should state the number and location (city,state) of the exchange. But I suspect that it is now too late to have one single suffix for all exchanges to do it. Phil Howard --- KA9WGN --- pdh@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) Subject: Re: On Getting Telco to Correct Routing Errors Organization: North Carolina State University Computing Center Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 13:33:32 GMT In article TELECOM Moderator writes: > You might like to see if 414-592 is working in your telco. To avoid > disturbing any subscribers, try 414-592-0366 which will return a local > 'not in service' message from that CO. I tried it both with Southern Bell/AT&T and also with our State network which is part of MCI's VNET. In both cases I got the SIT/'not in service' message. henry schaffer n c state univ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 May 92 12:01:00 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: On Getting Telco to Correct Routing Errors In response just now: I got through to "not in service" for 414-592-0366. I used 9+ 0 + NPA + 7D from my office phone, then charged to my AT&T card number (the carrier defaulted to AT&T). (I am in area code 410 in Maryland.) ------------------------------ From: lemson@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (David Lemson) Subject: Re: Voice Mail Hanging up on Women Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 03:09:25 GMT /PN=Thomas.K.Hinders/OU=CCMAIL/O=CHAN.IS/PRMD=MMC/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/@ sprint.com writes: > Women with high voices are the victims of a strange new technology > problem. Voice mail, the computerized telephone answering system, > sometimes hangs up on them or loses their messages because the > computer hears their voices as a command. That's the complaint of This was reported late last week (maybe Friday?) in {USA Today} that the major problem was on Rolm systems, where the # (hash or pound) key means 'abort this message I'm recording'. It seems that some female voices are too close to the # for the Rolm systems (which is pretty amazing to me, doing DTMF with one set of vocal chords). I guess the ROLM's are just pretty sensitive. David Lemson (217) 244-1205 University of Illinois NeXT Campus Consultant / CCSO NeXT Lab System Admin Internet : lemson@uiuc.edu UUCP :...!uiucuxc!uiucux1!lemson NeXTMail accepted BITNET : LEMSON@UIUCVMD [Moderator's Note: Actually, the correct name for the '#' key on the phone is 'octothorpe', as we discussed in great detail in a special issue of the Digest back in 1989. PAT] ------------------------------ From: cavallarom@cpva.saic.com Subject: Re: Voice Mail Hanging up on Women Date: 18 May 92 08:32:06 PST Organization: Science Applications Int'l Corp./San Diego In article , /PN=Thomas.K.Hinders/ OU=CCMAIL/O=CHAN.IS/PRMD=MMC/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/@sprint.com writes: > Women with high voices are the victims of a strange new technology > problem. Voice mail, the computerized telephone answering system, > sometimes hangs up on them or loses their messages because the > computer hears their voices as a command. That's the complaint of > several big users of voice mail, which lets callers leave messages for > office workers. This is not a new problem. In the early '80s when DTMF was first being used in Com Lines in 1A2 systems, I found that we had similar problems with high pitched voices. In that case, the voice caused additional stations to be buzzed. We had to wait for the manaufacturers to catch on and design proper filters into the system. From the reports you have, any particular system or brand name having this problem? Regards, Mark Cavallaro [Moderator's Note: Per the {USA Today} article and the earlier message here today, Rolm seems to be the culprit right now. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 May 92 22:46 PDT From: david@indetech.com (David Kuder) Subject: Re: Area Code Discussion From RelayNet Organization: Independence Technologies, Inc. Fremont, CA In article Nigel Allen writes: > When you say "the city" do you mean the metro area or the actual > city? This is very confusing to folks in many places because cities > like L.A. and Atlanta include the whole county and even other cities > (like Hollywood, Burbank, Beverly Hills, etc.) in their census. Just a quibble: The county of Lost Angels (aka Los Angeles) has several dozen cities. The city of LA has many neighborhoods. Burbank is a city with its own government. As is Beverly Hills. Hollywood is just a neighborhood in LA. There exists considerable confusion between which is a city and which is a neighborhood. The US Postal Service doesn't believe that Van Nuys is a part of the city of Los Angeles and insists that mail be addressed to Van Nuys. Game shows try to make it seem like everyone isn't from LA by making folks come from Encino or North Hollywood. Also WEST Hollywood is a city, while Hollywood isn't. Universal City isn't a city or a neighborhood but an unincorporated chunk of the county. David A. Kuder 510 438-2003 david@indetech.com {uunet,sun,sharkey,pacbell}!indetech!david ------------------------------ From: dbw@crash.cts.com Date: Mon May 18 02:22:12 1992 From: dbw@crash.cts.com (David B. Whiteman) Subject: Re: Area Code Discussion From RelayNet Organization: Crash TimeSharing, El Cajon, CA Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 09:22:09 GMT In nigel.allen@canrem.com (Nigel Allen) writes: MB> Los Angeles has 3 NPA's!!!! (213/818/310) That's just the city! If you want to be a real trivia buff and nit picker according to the city limits as defined in the charter of the City of Los Angeles there are portions of Los Angeles in the following area codes: 213, 310, 818, 714, 619, 805 and maybe 209. The trick is that the city owns water and power facilities all over the state, and because the city was chartered under some section of the state consitution as opposed to most of the other California cities these facilites owned by the city are considered to be legally in the city of Los Angeles. Ignoring this loophole only, the LA consists of the area codes 213, 310, and 818. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 May 92 12:19:18 MST From: asuvax!gtephx!strieterd@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Dave Strieter) From: strieterd@gtephx.UUCP (Dave Strieter) Subject: Re: The "Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991" Organization: AG Communication Systems, Phoenix, Arizona Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 19:18:57 GMT In article , jarrell@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Ron Jarrell) writes: >> (B) to initiate any telephone call to any residential telephone line using >> an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the prior >> express consent of the called party, unless the call is initiated for >> emergency purposes ... > Wait, does this mean that AT&T's Message Service is unlawful? Unless > you request human delivery the computer calls your desired party and > plays the message you recorded. I suppose one could make a case that the call was "initiated" by the person who originally left the message, and that the service is merely forwarding it. Dave Strieter, AG Communication Systems, Phoenix AZ 85072-2179 *** These are not my employer's positions...just my ramblings. *** UUCP: ...!{ncar!noao!asuvax | att}!gtephx!strieterd (AG = AT&T + GTE) Internet: gtephx!strieterd@asuvax.eas.asu.edu Voice: +1 602 582 7477 ------------------------------ Date: 18 May 1992 20:16:49 -0400 (EDT) From: "Sean E. Williams" Subject: Re: The "Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991" jarrell@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Ron Jarrell) writes: > Wait, does this mean that AT&T's Message Service is unlawful? Unless > you request human delivery the computer calls your desired party and > plays the message you recorded. I'm not sure of the answer to your question, but I do know that AT&T's Message Service does honor the laws of individual states regarding automated message delivery. The last time I tried delivering a message within New York it told me that to comply with state laws the message was required to be introduced by an operator. I can't recall if there was an extra charge, however. Sean E. Williams, Student (sew7490@ritvax.isc.rit.edu) Rochester Institute of Technology, School of Photographic Arts & Sciences Department of Imaging and Photographic Technology Rochester, New York 14623-5689 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 May 92 12:28:50 EDT From: Thomas Lapp Subject: Re: Televised Weather Coverage Using Cellular Phone Reply-To: thomas%mvac23@udel.edu If people on this list are more interested in followup on this topic (and weather in general), a number of LISTSERV lists exist at UIUCVMD (BITNET) or vmd.cso.uiuc.edu (internet) to provide weather information and discussion. A good start is to get on WX-TALK, the general discussion list. Since it is a LISTSERV, you send a mail message with the single line: SUBSCRIBE WX-TALK to the address LISTSERV AT UIUCVMD (BITNET) or LISTSERV@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu (internet) to get on the list. internet mvac23!thomas@udel.edu or thomas%mvac23@udel.edu (home) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 May 92 03:30:00 CDT From: Patton M. Turner Subject: Re: 911 for Seagoing Cellular Users? Rob Schultz writes: > A bag phone might work somewhat better, but we have > also considered installing a car phone in the boat with the antenna at > the top of the mast. Does anyone have any experience with this? > Would a normal car antenna work? This should give us much broader > coverage due to the increased power and the higher mount of the > antenna. Shakespeare makes a 2' and 4' fiberglass cellular antenna for boats. They use the standard 1" ratchet mount. Cost is about $50 for the 2' and $100 for the 4' w/o mount. There are well made and include RG-8X coax rather than RG-58. I suspect you will experience quit a difference in range compaired to the handheld as you will get a 7 dB in power from the 3 W portable, and you should gain at least 10 dB by replacing the rubber duckie with a ressonant high gain antenna. Antennas make a big difference in rural AL, Pat says in Chicago, anything will get the job done. You probally know of a better source for the antennas that I do, but if you can't find the let me know, and I will look up where I bought one from. Pat Turner KB4GRZ pturner@eng.auburn.edu ------------------------------ From: varney@ihlpf.att.com (Alan L Varney) Subject: Re: Limitations on Dialed Digits Organization: AT&T Network Systems Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 00:00:00 GMT In article de@moscom.com (David Esan) writes: > I am aware that the CCITT has recommended a maximum number of digits > in a dialing pattern. That is the combination of the country code, > city code, and telephone number should not exceed some number. Sadly, > I can not remember what that number is, and there has been a request > for that information. CCITT Recommendation E.163 identifies World Zones and the various country codes, and may also identify the 'authority' responsible for administering the codes within zones/countries. Recommendation E.164 specifies other details of numbering plans, including the 12 digit current limit. E.165 discusses the conversion from the 12 digit to 15 digit plan. At time "T" (one minute before 1997), CCITT will allow international numbers to expand to 15 digits, and suggests up to six digits may be needed in routing international calls. Unfortunately, I don't remember any maximum number of digits in a dialing pattern -- E.165 says 12 (15 soon) digits in the actual full telephone number. But when you start adding prefix codes, you can have all sorts of digits involved. I think each administration sets the "prefix" rules, including the digit prefix called the "interna- tional number prefix". If you are planning on building memory dialers for telephones (for example), you'd better start allowing ten prefix digits plus the 15 number digits in order to handle international calls. (101XXXX + Intl. Prefix + Intl. Number). Even more, if you want to allow *70 to keep call waiting off the call, etc. > Does the maximum number of digits include the international access > number? Does someone have the address for the CCITT so that we could > obtain documentation, or actually ask them what the limit is? Nope, international access prefix is not CCITT's responsibility. They recommend '00', but countries/authorities are free to choose. World Zone 1 mostly uses '01' for operator and '011' for direct dial. The E.160, 163, 164 and 165 documents are also published as Recommentations Q.10, Q.11, Q.11bis and Q.11ter, so save yourself some money if you don't need the E-series for anything else. The E.16x series is in Volume II, Fascicle II.2. CCITT published Recommendations are available from: OMNICOM 115 Park St., S.E., +1 (703) 281-1135 FAX:+1 (703) 281-1505 Vienna, VA 22180 TELEX 279678 OMNI UR > [If the limit is 11, as I suspect, wouldn't this stop those people who > want to add an extra digit to the US dialing pattern?] The limit is currently 12 -- World Zone 1 has agreed on ten digits for the national (significant) number, and the Country Code (1) is pre-pended to make a total of 11 digits. As I mentioned in a previous article, the "North American Numbering Plan Administrator's Proposal On The Future of Numbering In World Zone 1", published as an Information Letter from Bellcore, Jan. 6, 1992, states there is no reason for going beyond ten digits in the next 30 years or more. There are 80 NPAs reserved for eventual expansion (and some games could be played with the 'N' digit of 'NXX' office codes. I agree with the premise that seven billion numbers are unlikely to be exhausted by then -- I never understood the rationale for wanting to go to 11 (national) digits. By mid-21st century, numbers will probably not be "dialed", and it makes sense to go to 12+ digits when the time comes. The Bellcore document is IL-92/01-013, but it was a request for comments by 4/30/92. Further queries should be directed to Fred Gaechter at: NANP Administration Bellcore - Room 1B234 290 West Mt. Pleasant Avenue Livingston, NJ 07039 Al Varney - this is not an Official view or opinion of AT&T. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #398 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09428; 19 May 92 3:51 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06366 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 19 May 1992 01:58:21 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06890 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 19 May 1992 01:58:12 -0500 Date: Tue, 19 May 1992 01:58:12 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199205190658.AA06890@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #399 TELECOM Digest Tue, 19 May 92 01:58:12 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 399 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: LD Carrier as Local Phone Company? (Charlie Mingo) Re: LD Carrier as Local Phone Company? (Kath Mullholand) Re: ISDN Availability - Outside Plant Limitations (Patton M. Turner) Re: Pacific Bell to Discontinue Data Access Lines (Chuck Forsberg) Re: Pacific Bell to Discontinue Data Access Lines (Andy Sherman) Re: CLID Displays Out of Area Number (Mark D. Wuest) Re: AT&T Fraud Prevention Announcement (Kath Mullholand) Re: Integretel Past Due (Kath Mullholand) Re: A Musical Telecom Reference (Charles Stephens) Re: AT&T Ship Sets Trans-Oceanic Cable Installation Record (Peter Simpson) Re: 800 Fraud - Misuse of 800 Numbers (Sean E. Williams) Re: Qualcomm CDMA Specs Available for FTP (Ron Dippold) Re: Area Code Discussion from RelayNet (Mark Rudholm) What Ever Happened to Randy Borow? (Alan J. Brumbaugh) Area 917 Not Working From Canada? (Carl Moore) Last Laugh! Elephants (Nigel Allen) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charlie.Mingo@p4218.f70.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Charlie Mingo) Date: Sun, 17 May 1992 23:55:32 -0500 Subject: Re: LD Carrier as Local Phone Company? zippy@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Patrick Tufts) writes: > Has anyone tried using a LD carrier for local calls? Since you'd have > to use the (800) number to dial locally (10xxx being blocked for this > sort of thing), would you get calling card rates or LD rates if you > made the call from your home phone? Who says 10xxx is blocked for local calls? Last June, C&P's Switching system for local calls went down in Washington, DC, and seven digit calls would not go through. I merely prefixed my calls with 10xxx + 1 + areacode and number. Worked every time. (MCI charged me $.80 a call, so I wouldn't recommend doing this instead of using C&P ...) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 9:57:27 -0400 (EDT) From: K_MULLHOLAND@UNHH.UNH.EDU (Kath Mullholand) Subject: Re: LD Carrier as Local Phone Company? > Has anyone tried using a LD carrier for local calls? Since you'd have > to use the (800) number to dial locally (10xxx being blocked for this > sort of thing), would you get calling card rates or LD rates if you > made the call from your home phone? I subscribe to Long Distance North for my home long distance sevice. When I signed up they provided stickers that said: "Dial 1 700 for savings Remember, for instate long distance calls dial 1-700 plus the 7-digit number." I thought this was pretty cool. Apparently when my call gets to their switch, their switch strips the 700 and translates it to 603. kath mullholand university of new hampshire durham, nh [Moderator's Note: I wonder how that will work out when the new 700 service from AT&T gets started ... in fact I wonder how many of the various special schemes going on in the 700 range will be forced into prepending 10xxx to avoid conflict with the new bunch of numbers? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 May 92 02:57:22 CDT From: Patton M. Turner Subject: Re: ISDN Availability - Outside Plant Limitations henry schaffer writes: > I wonder what fraction of the outside plant connecting the home to the > CO will support ISDN even if the home is within 18,000 feet (is that > the magic number?) In a trial I heard of, over half of the homes to > be hooked up were "rejected". > Have tests been made to determine what percentage of subscribers are > connected by outside plant which would allow ISDN? Bell Labs released a nationwide survey of loops in 1982. In 1987, Bellcore updated this study and interpreted it with respect to ISDN. There findings were that something like 34% of the several thousand loops examined were unsuitable for ISDN due to bridge taps, load coils, loop lengths, etc. Loops that fail the length spec can have a ISDN repeater installed, or prehaps the customer could be served off a BRITE card in a SLC-96, though this will require three slots in the D4 shelf vs. one for a POTS line. Loading coils and bridge taps can also be dyked out of the loop, the former is often removed to improve modem or FAX preformance. Pat Turner KB4GRZ pturner@eng.auburn.edu ------------------------------ From: caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) Subject: Re: Pacific Bell to Discontinue Data Access Lines Organization: Omen Technology INC, Portland Rain Forest Date: Mon, 18 May GMT 10:38:04 GMT In article XB.G20@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU (Loren Amelang) writes: > Mr. Benjamin agrees with me that writing "4800 baud" into the general > phone tariff is not a good thing to do -- but he and his office 4800 baud should be plenty! Just make sure they use the correct definition for BAUD. Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX ...!tektronix!reed!omen!caf Author of YMODEM, ZMODEM, Professional-YAM, ZCOMM, and DSZ Omen Technology Inc "The High Reliability Software" 17505-V NW Sauvie IS RD Portland OR 97231 503-621-3406 ------------------------------ From: andys@ulysses.att.com (Andy Sherman) Subject: Re: Pacific Bell to Discontinue Data Access Lines Date: Mon, 18 May 92 09:03:08 EDT On 17 May 92 21:10:31 GMT, XB.G20@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU (Loren Amelang) said: > Pacific Bell has petitioned the California Public Utilities > Commission for permission to discontinue Data Access Line > service. In return, they propose to "support analog data > communication at up to 4800 baud" on all of their standard > voice phone lines. > Of course we all know that ordinary phone lines in urban areas > work at 9600 and higher rates. But on the ragged edge of the > network where I live, it is often impossible to get any kind of > phone line, let alone one that will work with a modem. What > will happen a few years from now when the big money has > switched to ISDN or Switched 56 and Pac Bell doesn't want to > bother with us small fry? Careful here with terminology. PacBell could get hoist on their own petard with this one. Everybody should please remember that baud is not a synonym for bits per second. The baud rate has to do with carrier transitions. If you put across more than one bit per transition, then your data rate (in bits per second) will be some integer multiple of the baud rate. I am fairly certain that the high speed modems operating at 9600 bps (and higher) do so at 2400 or 4800 baud, using a combination of multi-bit transmission and data compression. A tariff that specified only the baud rate and not the data rate could leave you a loophole big enough to drive at least a V.32 through. I wonder if the regulatory dweebs at PacBell realize that? 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: mdw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (mark.d.wuest) Subject: Re: CLID Displays Out of Area Number Organization: AT&T Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 12:37:24 GMT In article albert@INSL.McGill.CA (Albert Pang) writes: > I have noticed today when I received a long distance call from Ottawa > that my caller ID display device shows the number (out of area code) > that called me including the area code. > I believe this is the first in North America (please correct me if I > am wrong). I think this only works for certain switches operated by > Bell Canada within Quebec and Ontario. Pardon my ignorance, but isn't Bell Canada a regulated monopoly like AT&T used to be here in the US? If so, then you have the same situation as when I call home (201 area code) from my office (908 area code). This is all carried by NJ Bell (they only split the 201 area recently, though the grace period is long gone) and my Caller ID displays all calls from the 908 area code, but not calls from across the river in 212 land. Mark Wuest mark.wuest@att.com mdw@corona.att.com (NeXT Mail Welcome!) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 8:54:21 -0400 (EDT) From: K_MULLHOLAND@UNHH.UNH.EDU (Kath Mullholand) Subject: Re: AT&T Fraud Prevention Announcement So, let me get this straight. AT&T, the company that developed long distance calling, and the company that pressured the FCC into setting guidelines that make unsuspecting customers responsible for fraud even though their switches are purchased and installed by AT&T with fraud magnets in place (unprotected DISA ports, for instance), will now "save" us from fraud (for a price). kath mullholand university of new hampshire durham, nh ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 10:07:28 -0400 (EDT) From: K_MULLHOLAND@UNHH.UNH.EDU (Kath Mullholand) Subject: Re: Integretel Past Due Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) writes: > The $4.69 which I withheld because of the duplicate Integretel billing > has shown up as past-due on my latest phone bill, which arrived > yesterday. This should be considered to be in dispute, with the rest > of last month's phone bill having been paid. Don't forget that even after the charge is removed from your local phone bill, you will then receive a bill from "VRS Billing Systems". Funny thing about the VRS bill is it says in a nice black box at the top "These calls were charged to your telephone number and have *not been billed* by your local telephone company. *Payment is due upon receipt to ensure continued access to services.*" (Italics *...* mine.) Note that it says the calls have not been billed, when in fact every VRS bill I have received has been a rebill of disputed calls. And since it implies that if you don't pay there is no assurance of continued access to services, I assumed if I didn't pay it they would block those services #8-). With that in mind, I called and asked them to block Integretel services from all of UNH's lines. They said it just couldn't be done #8-(. After some discussion I said, "well, we won't be paying this bill," and their rep said "OK". I like billing services that give me permission to ignore their bills #8-). The ones I have are all from 1991, and not a single word has been heard since. kath [Moderator's Note: Are they still billing you for the calls? PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: A Musical Telecom Reference From: cfs@cowpas.waffle.atl.ga.us (Charles Stephens) Date: Mon, 18 May 92 13:27:35 EDT Organization: COW Pastures mrosen@isis.cs.du.edu (Michael Rosen) writes: > [Moderator's Note: Just be glad your last four digits are not 0666; > the crazy people would be harassing you all the time. PAT] You know, here in the 404 area code/dialing exchange you can dial 666-6666 and get a great song from Ole Scratch himself! Charles Stephens, SysOp, COW Pastures BBS, Kennesaw, GA +1 404 421 0764 Internet: cfs@cowpas.waffle.atl.ga.us Compuserve: >INTERNET: cfs@cowpas.waffle.atl.ga.us Prodigy: NOT! IVCNTWPAHR: +1 404 425 7599 ICBM: ------------------------------ From: pzs@ficus.webo.dg.com (Peter Z. Simpson) Subject: Re: AT&T Ship Sets Trans-Oceanic Cable Installation Record Date: 18 May 92 13:14:04 Organization: Data General Corp., Westboro, MA Friend of mine once worked as an (engine room) engineer on the "Long Lines." He (and others) told me about the amplifiers having hydrophones in them for the benefit of the U.S. Navy. Seems transatlantic cables are also handy for listening for submarines. Peter Simpson, KA1AXY voice: (508) 870-9837 Data General Corp. fax: (508) 898-4212 4400 Computer Dr. E236 INTERNET: pzs@ficus.webo.dg.com [128.221.228.82] Westboro, MA 01580 #include ------------------------------ Date: 18 May 1992 20:24:30 -0400 (EDT) From: "Sean E. Williams" Subject: Re: 800 Fraud - Misuse of 800 Numbers Pat notes: > [Moderator's Note: I doubt Mystic subscribes to any data base. I think > they probably 'knew' that 'payphones always begin 9xxx' and as good > little drones to always challenge those. COCOTS of course use all > sorts of numbers. PAT] This is a very poor rule-of-thumb to use. For the last few years United Telephone, in central Pennsylvania at least, has been handing out 9000 series numbers to all new subscribers. Payphones are usually issued numbers in the 99xx range. I'm sure that this is not the only occurrence. Who was it that said "A little knowledge is dangerous ..."? Sean E. Williams, Student (sew7490@ritvax.isc.rit.edu) Rochester Institute of Technology, School of Photographic Arts & Sciences Department of Imaging and Photographic Technology Rochester, New York 14623-5689 ------------------------------ From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) Subject: Re: Qualcomm CDMA Specs Available for FTP Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA Date: Tue, 19 May 1992 00:57:16 GMT meier@Software.Mitel.COM (Rolf Meier) writes: > First of all, "CAI" is most often used in conjunction with CT2 > technology. To use "CAI" with the Qualcomm technology could cause > some confusion in the industry. You might do as we do, and whenever there is room for confusion call it the CDMA CAI, or TR45-5. Quite reasonable. > Second, "Common" implies that the standard is used broadly by a > variety of vendors such that interworking can occur with equipment > from different suppliers. At present, the proposed spec is > proprietery to Qualcomm. At present, the proposed spec is under the auspices of the TR45-5 subcomittee, which is indeed composed of a variety of vendors and manufacturers. Indeed, nor is Qualcomm the only company presently implementing the CAI. Having said that, "Common" only implies that this will be a common air interface standard for CDMA phones, not that it is currently widespread. We might also note that Qualcomm CDMA also uses some frequency division at a gross level, so that "CD" (Code Division) isn't completely 100% accurate either if we want to make every word in every ancronym pass a committee review. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 May 92 15:24:32 PDT From: aimla!ruby!rudholm@uunet.UU.NET (Mark Rudholm) Subject: Re: Area Code Discussion from RelayNet In Volume 12 : Issue 390 Nigel Allen writes: > MB> Los Angeles has 3 NPA's!!!! (213/818/310) That's just the city! > When you say "the city" do you mean the metro area or the actual > city? This is very confusing to folks in many places because cities > like L.A. and Atlanta include the whole county and even other cities > (like Hollywood, Burbank, Beverly Hills, etc.) in their census. This is incorrect. First of all, the corporate limits of the city of Los Angeles includes almost all of the San Fernando Valley, most of the Los Angeles basin, and all of the Santa Monica mountain area that is between the two. The census information for the city of Los Angeles (3,441,449 -1990 unadjusted for underenumeration) includes all area that is part of the _city_ such as Hollywood, Westwood, Canoga Park, Sherman Oaks, or Bel-Air. These are all districts (or "neighborhoods," if you prefer) of the city of L.A. The census does not include "the whole county" or any area that is not within the corporate limits of the city of Los Angeles, even if it is totally surrounded by L.A., for example, Beverly Hills and West Hollywood (these are independent cities with their own census data). So that established, there are three area codes within the city of L.A., 213 -roughly downtown and Hollywood, 310 -roughly the westside and the south bay, and 818 -the San Fernando and San Gabriel Valleys. If you consider the entire Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, (8,587,800 est. 1988) you are up to five codes; 213, 310, 818, 714, and 805. On another note, L.A. Cellular is still allowing 213/310 permissive dialing. This doesn't surprise me, they usually seem to take a while to get their act together. Mark D. Rudholm rudholm@aimla.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 May 92 14:24:19 CDT From: brumba@maize.rtsg.mot.com (Alan J. Brumbaugh) Subject: What Ever Happened to Randy Borow? Pat, Was there anything ever posted telling what happened after Randy appealed his termination? I didn't see it if there was. Alan [Moderator's Note: I haven't heard from Randy in several months. The last I heard he was in the final appeals stage. Anyone from AT&T heard from/about him? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 May 92 9:14:07 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Area 917 Not Working From Canada? This also came from David Leibold: While 917 was supposedly given to some NYC numbers already, I couldn't raise up a directory assistance number for it last night, and all call attempts to 917 from Toronto actually terminate after 1 + first seven digits on some exchanges, indicating that Bell Canada has not activated 917 yet. ------------------------------ From: Nigel Allen Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 20:00:00 -0400 Subject: Last Laugh! Elephants Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto Brian Lingard of Toronto posted the following question in RelayNet's PHONES conference: How do you protect yourself from a herd of stampeding elephants on downtown London, England with only a telephone to protect you? Place a trunk call and reverse the charge. Nigel Allen nigel.allen@canrem.com Canada Remote Systems - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #399 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04173; 20 May 92 2:07 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22050 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 20 May 1992 00:09:12 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28979 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 20 May 1992 00:09:03 -0500 Date: Wed, 20 May 1992 00:09:03 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199205200509.AA28979@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #400 TELECOM Digest Wed, 20 May 92 00:08:56 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 400 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Toll Fraud vs Credit Card Fraud (Brad Hicks) Modems Around the World (Jack Decker) Ordering Voice Service on T1 Using E&M Emulation (David Clapp) Cordless Phone Recommendations Wanted (Seng Gan) 1ESS and *67 (Arnette Schultz Baker) Local Calling Charges (Lizanne Hurst) System 7 Signaling in IEEE Proceedings (malcolm@apple.com) 950 Sprint Access (Robert M. Hamer) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@mhs.attmail.com Date: Tue May 19 09:39:35 -0400 1992 Subject: Toll Fraud vs Credit Card Fraud CLARIFICATION: Nowhere in any of my messages on this topic have I denied that phreaking is a crime, nor did I intend to say or imply that it shouldn't be a crime. I am arguing for what used to be called "decriminalization", or treating it as a crime on a par with illegal parking or littering, because the social and financial costs of wholesale investigation and prosecution exceed the social and financial costs of ignoring all but the most egregious cases and using the rest of that money to tighten up the network. I hope that most people had enough common sense to know that stealing a haircut at gunpoint differs from phreaking in several important ways. First of all, there is the obvious threat of violence. More relevant, though, is the fact that a haircut requires actual dedicated resources and the full-time attention of at least one employee. If every phone call required the full-time supervision of one or more phone company employees, this would be a valid metaphor. It has a been a LONG time since this was true. NOW, to the point at hand. Let's compare hacking a DISA to make "free" long-distance phone calls to using a stolen credit card number to obtain merchandise. (Let me preface this: I know no more about the subject than can be learned from any first-year college course on the subject or than any credit-card accepting merchant gets told; it's not my department. I work in tech services, not rules and procedures.) By now, y'all know what happens when somebody hacks a DISA. They call in to the company on the company's 800 number (which costs the company), then they use the DISA to call Pakistan, or wherever, again, on the company's phone bill. In just about every case, the company proves that they didn't make these calls, and gets one or both items taken off their bill; it costs them only the minor administrative headache of dealing with an RBOC's billing department, which seems to me to be a fair price for practically leaving money laying on the doorstep. So, what got stolen and whom did it get stolen from? Well, there were trunk lines and so forth in use, both here and in Pakistan (or wherever). But since the exchanges are pretty well all non-blocking and the capacity sufficient to handle peak loads, nobody was denied use of it. The company's LD carrier got stuck paying the foreign-PTT interchange charge. I certainly =hope= that there's a charge-back procedure for errors in billing; I should think that it could be used in these circumstances. (If not, then what, is the Dutch PTT eating the costs? If so, then they obviously figure they can afford it; it's probably less than the cost of enforcement.) The money they would have otherwise paid for a call to Pakistan? Do you really think that most phreakers could afford that call? So nobody's actually missing any money or service, just some administrative time cleaning up the billing and not much of that. Now, let's compare this with the stolen credit card number. There are some similarities. The thief makes a phone call to a mail order place on their 800 number; they pay that. He or she orders the merchandise and if the merchant fails to make precautions like checking the lost/stolen card list (mandatory) or address confirmation (a service widely available but that some marginal operations refuse to pay for), they ship a diamond bracelet or whatever to the thief. They then bill their bank for the transaction, and it bills the cardholder's bank, and the cardholder's bank bills the cardholder. (Notice, by the way, that MasterCard, the corporation, doesn't enter into this transaction in any way.) Cardholder says he or she never made that purchase, and calls his or her bank, and the bank initiates a chargeback. The merchant's bank charges back the mail order house, who admits they didn't do address validation or whatever. Sometimes it goes into dispute (and that's where MasterCard, the corporation, gets involved, as a "court" for such disputes between member banks), but it's a near certainty that the cardholder isn't the one left holding the bag. So either the mail order vendor is out one diamond bracelet unpaid-for, or one of the banks is out of the cash that should have paid for that diamond bracelet. In either case, either real money or real property is missing. In both cases, the person whose service (DISA, MasterCard) was used is out nothing but the hassle of initiating a chargeback. But in one case, the service "stolen" was a tiny slice of bandwidth that impacted nobody, and imposed no costs on anybody, and in the other, real merchandise was stolen. NOW do you see the difference? Hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of merchandise is being stolen with stolen credit card numbers and forged cards. Obviously, this merits investigation and prosecution. Tiny slices of network bandwidth are being stolen by phone phreaks. Does this cost-justify the same level of effort? And don't forget those social costs! Retired phone phreaks practically invented the personal computer industry. If they had been caught early and prosecuted and blacklisted, which some of you seem to be calling for, America would be out one more industry. What, if anything, of value have credit-card thieves contributed to society? By the way, I believe that the vast majority of what MasterCard spends on credit card fraud DOES go into prevention and education; I know that the part of member services that gives fraud-reduction seminars and the part of the security department that helps merchants and banks protect their transactions are much, much larger than the part of the security department that investigates fraud after the fact. OK, the PBX vendors have put some effort into warning people to properly secure their DISA lines; that's why the person who wrote in was embarrassed enough to hide his name. He'd been warned that if he didn't secure that feature, he'd get ripped off; he didn't, and he was. And MasterCard's member banks warn their merchants that if they don't handle authorizations according to the rules, they'll get ripped off. Sometimes when they don't (most often, failing to check if the card is stolen or to check the signature panel), they get ripped off, too. And guess what? They were warned, so nobody feels any sympathy. The theft was still a crime, and if the crook who was using the stolen card gets caught, he'll be prosecuted -- but nobody should waste tears on the victim. J. Brad Hicks Internet: mhs!mc!Brad_Hicks@attmail.com X.400: c=US admd=ATTmail prmd=MasterCard sn=Hicks gn=Brad I am not an official MasterCard spokesperson, and the message above does not contain official MasterCard statements or policies. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 May 92 16:13:12 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: Modems Around the World This message was seen in the Fidonet FCC echomail conference: * From : Don Kimberlin, 1:379/37 (10 May 92 20:05) * To : Michael Shirley * Subj : Re: Modems Around the World (speaking of registering modems in the new Russia): MS> Yup! During the coup attempt modems and fax machines are what the MS> resistance communicated with. I'm willing to be that in the case of MS> the former, somebody encrypted so that the KGB didn't quite know what MS> was going on. Odds are that they are worried about it and want to get MS> a handle on it. What I can't figure is why worry when all that they MS> really needed to do was to shut the phone exchange down. This may be difficult for you to believe, so please take my word for it, as I did 20 years-plus in travel to work _inside_ the "public communications" of more than 70 countries on five continents. The real truth is, they are not equipped to do things like you might think. I got an insider`s story on the Russian coup that was really a typical sort of thing. It was that the beaurocrats in the USSR government-run telephone system were so rigidly unthinking that it was _nobody's_ job to send the written order to busy out the dial trunks to the US. (You may or may not have heard that the grand sum of them was 93 in total, BTW!) The result was that telephone dial service to the outside world was never shut down, and some people from Yeltsin's crowd with fax machines got messages out to Washington that got read in the right places. Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction! It's true: The Russians never had a commissar sitting with a finger on the switch! WM v1.01 [Unregistered] Origin: BORDERLINE!BBS Kannapolis,N.C. (704)938-6207 (1:379/37) --------- Jack Decker jack@myamiga.mixcom.com FidoNet 1:154/8 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 May 92 20:51:45 PDT From: David Clapp Subject: Ordering Voice Service on T1 Using E&M Emulation I'm currently trying to get some T1 circuits from PacBell that are configured the way we'd like, but trying to find out just what is possible seems to entail long delays. Perhaps a Telecom reader might help? Basically, we'd like a T1 cicuit that carries 12 DID lines and 12 outgoing lines. To get the supervision we need and to simplify the interface to our equipment we'd like to use E&M emulation with wink-start. Our first attempt yielded 12 DID lines and 12 outgoing lines that were configured as loop-start emulation. This does not provide any supervision, so we called back and asked about E&M. At first we were told "can't do it". A more knowledgeable colleague suggested I ask about tie lines. The repsonse was immediate. Tie lines were no problem to configure as E&M. Of course, tie lines go premise-to-premise and not premise-to-CO. However, if we really want premise-to-CO functionality and maintain E&M signalling -- why not use Centrex? They can easily provide ground-start emulation on the T1, but to get E&M emulation we end up buying extra services that we don't need. I keep having the feeling that if I knew the proper jargon to invoke, I could get what I'm after. Thanks to anyone who can either tell me what to ask for or can definitely explain why this can't or shouldn't be done. David Clapp dclapp@qualcomm.com ------------------------------ Subject: Cordless Phone Recommendations Wanted Organization: Houston Unix Users Group Date: 18 May 92 10:56:45 CDT (Mon) From: sgan@hounix.org (Seng Gan) Could someone recommend any cordless phone between US $50 to $100? I had used three cobra phones, they are unreliable. Please e-mail me a recommendation. Thanks in advance, Seng C. Gan sgan@hounix.org ------------------------------ From: kityss@ihlpf.att.com Date: Tue, 19 May 92 09:49 CDT Subject: 1ESS and *67 I deleted the original message, but it was regarding the Canadian Regulatory Ruling to require the Per-Call Privacy (Blocking) option (*67) be made available. The poster asked if it was "true" that *67 could not be used from a 1ESS. The short answer is "yes, it is true." The reason is that Caller-ID is NEVER delivered from a Caller (DN) on a 1ESS. The 1ESS, dependable though it is, did not have the capacity to support the SS7 or LASS software. Without SS7, Caller-ID is never delivered outside of the switch, and without LASS no one on a 1ESS can subscribe to Caller-ID Delivery. A Caller-ID subscriber will see "Unavailable", "Out of Area", or some such designation on their "Box" for calls that originate from a 1ESS, or other mechanical non-SS7 capable switch (e.g. step-by-step, or crossbar). Please note that the 1ESS is different from the 1A ESS. The 1A ESS does have full LASS, SS7, and Privacy Blocking Capability (with the appropriate software). The poster of the original article also expressed dismay at the fact that *67 is a "Per-call Privacy Toggle". Yes it is, now. Once upon a time there were two access codes, one for "force privacy" and one for "force public" -- human factors studies and market trials of the CLASS features brought in requirements for only one "toggle". It seems that there is still much debate on which way is "best" and I don't think this has been totally settled yet. However, for now there is no way for your Telco to "allow *67 to block" but "disallow *67 to unblock" and that is for ALL switches that offer per-call privacy toggle. It would take software changes in the switch, it is not something that can be optioned. Stay Tuned, next month's answer may be different! :) [1A ESS and 1ESS are registered Trade Marks of AT&T.] Arnette Schultz Baker kityss@ihlpf.att.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 May 92 11:16:00 EDT From: lh00@Lehigh.EDU (Lizanne Hurst) Subject: Local Calling Charges I'd appreciate hearing from any colleges or universities who resell service to students. Here at Lehigh we have approximately 2000 student users who place the majority of their calls through our campus switch, an InteCom IBX S/80. Users are billed via an on-campus billing system we developed several years ago, which uses IBX call detail records to generate monthly bills. Currently we charge only for long distance calls; dial tone and local calling are free. We're considering changing our billing structure so that it more closely resembles residential LEC billing. This means we'll have to think about how to charge for local calls. We're now trying to choose the best option: a flat local calling/access charge, graduated local calling packages, or a per-call charge. Our billing system is quite flexible, so all these options are feasible from that standpoint. How are other colleges and universities billing their students for local calls? Please reply directly to me and I'll summarize for comp.dcom.telecom if there's any interest. Thanks! Lizanne Hurst Lehigh University lh00@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu Office of Telecommunications (215) 758-5014 Bethlehem, PA 18015 Me, speak for Lehigh? I can just about manage to speak for myself! ------------------------------ Subject: System 7 Signaling in IEEE Proceedings Date: Tue, 19 May 92 08:22:21 -0700 From: malcolm@apple.com I don't think this has been mentioned yet in the Digest. The April, 1992 issue of {IEEE Proceedings} has six papers on Signal System 7. The first three articles describe the nuts and bolts of Signaling System 7 while the last three articles describe PacBell's, Sprint's, and Motorola Cellular's approaches to the technology. In detail and information, these papers are halfway in between the pulp trade rags and the standards. Check them out. Most engineering libaries should have IEEE Proceedings. Malcolm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 May 1992 11:19 EDT From: "Robert M. Hamer" Subject: 950 Sprint Access My Sprint FON card gives 800-877-8000 as the number to which one calls to access its long distance services. There exists a 950 number, 950-1033, which also accesses the network. However, it seems not to accept my FON card number. I remember historically, before equal access, and before FON cards, I dialed a local number, entered my code or PIN (I don't remember what they called it in those days), then the number I was calling, etc. I also remember that at some point they changed the local number to a 950 number. At some point, they sent me a FON card, and whatever code I had been using on the 950 number no longer worked. Does anyone know what 950-1033 is for, and how to use it? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #400 ******************************