Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14445; 29 Jan 93 15:50 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22622 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 29 Jan 1993 12:31:34 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23022 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 29 Jan 1993 12:30:59 -0600 Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 12:30:59 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199301291830.AA23022@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #51 TELECOM Digest Fri, 29 Jan 93 12:31:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 51 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Phones in the People's Republic of China (Garnet Harris) Steve Jackson Games - Day 2 (Houston Chronicle via Paco Xander Nathan) MIB for Northern Telecom PBX (Wayne Veilleux) Telemarketing Revenge!! (Larry Rachman) Source for Bellcore TA's (Milo S. Medin) Multiport X.25 Boards For RS/6000 (Roy H. Gordon) Mac PowerBook as TDD? (Brad S. Hicks) California Cellular vs. Florida Cellular (Marshal Perlman) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 12:50 EST From: The Tibetian Traveller Subject: Phones in the People's Republic of China Having just returned from a trip to the People's Republic of China, I thought that the readers of this Digest might be interested in some of the telephone equipment that I saw there. The purpose of the trip was to install some Telephony Earth Station (TES) equipment. The purpose of this equipment is to allow distant switches to talk to each other over a satellite instead of through landlines. The voice connections are set up on an "per-call" basis with full mesh connectivity between all sites. This means that any switch in the network can talk to any other switch in the network with a single hop over the satellite. While the actual number of allowed calls depends on several factors, the final configuration would allow 600 phone connections in a single transponder. This particular network will use 32 Kbps ADPCM for all calls with the capacity to handle 10,000 call connections per hour. This particular trip was to install and test the satellite equipment. I will go back next week to finish the installation and interface to the local switches. Beijing: A DD line costs $1,000 and takes up to 6 months to get it installed. (And Hidgon thought he had troubles with his local phone company!) The two hotels that I stayed at in this city had IDD capability. The Holiday Inn also allowed you to charge the call to your AT&T credit card. (Since I do not have one, I do not know how difficult or easy the procedure was.) The cost of a call to the US ran about $4.50 per minute and the quality of the calls was fairly good. All pay phones in this city (and all of China) do not have coin slots. All have some type of readers that read the magnetic strip on cards. (Again, I have never had the occasion to use one so I could not describe the exact procedure.) None of the hotels I was in had any and the only ones that I saw on the street were outside the main phone office. These were two on a pole and they faced each other with a little yellow "dome" over the phone to reduce the street noise. (I only saw them as I drove by in a cab and never got a close look at them.) The only other public phones that I saw were located in the airport. There was one of these located between each gate for a total of ten with one out of order. All were in use and most had a second person waiting to use it next. Earth Station #6 (this is where our equipment was located was extremely interesting. This station currently carries several VSAT lines back to Beijing. However, they do not have a single line into the building. All the incoming and outgoing calls are placed on a single cellular phone that calls Earth Station #5 which is about 300 yards away. From there it is patched into a switch. When we finally got them to pull in a line for our modem, they initially hooked it to a local switch that was so bad that we could not even get 300 baud through it. They finally patched the output of our computer into a VSAT trunk, routed it to the Chinasat Beijing office, into our modem which dialed out from there. Chengdu: Again, the two hotels that I stayed at had IDD capability although neither offered the ability to charge the call to AT&T. I did not make any calls from there so I do not know the cost of long distance calls. There were no pay phones in any of the hotels. I did see three public phones on the street corner all side by side on poles. They all had a little box configuration extending from the sides to reduce noise similar to many public phones in the states. Again, no coin slots. They also had four black buttons besides the normal keypad. One was labeled "redial" and another was to make a second call on the card. I forgot what the other two were for. (I promise that I will take better notes when I go back.) I did not see any pay phones located in the airport terminal. But I did see a "telephone room" outside the terminals. This consisted of a counter with about ten phones on it. The phones looked like a standard desk phone. I have know idea how they handled the charges for the calls but again it appeared that all phones were in use. I also saw a couple people with hand held cellular phones in this city. (Also a couple in Beijing). With the cost of a hard-wire line, it did not surprise me. Lhasa, Tibet: Surprise, the Holiday Inn here actually had two pay phones in the lobby. But I understand that they did not have IDD capability. As a matter of fact, the hotel only had one IDD line which they had hooked up to a fax machine. All calls had to go through the switchboard operator who called your room back when she finally got a connection. (One took 20 minutes to get a connection while most only took three to five minutes.) Cost: $6 per minute. Quality of the call was terrible (but some of the people I called said they had good quality on their end.) As a matter of fact, room to room connections had a lot of noise on them! Most of the calls to the States were intelligible if the person talked loud enough to overcome the noise. Calls to Beijing were slightly better while calls to Chengdu were abysmal. After four attempts, I gave up. At least the earth station here had a "real" phone line. But most attempts to call the Beijing earth station met with busy signals. And most of the calls returned a busy before the entire number was dialed, meaning that the local switch had no spare capacity. Sometimes, it took over a half hour to complete the call. The local switch that interfaced to the earth station was a Belgium made ST2140. (See, I did take some notes!) Nimo, Tibet: Power in this town was so unreliable that we took our own generator to run our test equipment. The power was 110 VAC when we arrived at 2 PM. Sometime between then and 7 PM, power went out and did not come back on till 10 PM. When it did come back on, it was at 220 VAC. Normally, they run convert this into -48 Volts and have battery backup. However, I can not call this an UPS since the power was off so long the second day that we drained the batteries. As far as existing phones go, forget it! (Why do you think they bought our equipment?) Their current means of communications is telegraph twice a day. Once in the morning and once in the evening. Nierong, Tibet: Again, no existing phones in the town. And again, the local power is unreliable. Power was turned off at midnight and did not get turned back on again till sometime after the sun came up. (I was not around an light bulb so I do not know exactly when they turned it back on.) Fortunately, power for our equipment was a little more reliable. They also had a battery back up for the -48 V power supply. The power supply is normally powered by an array of solar cells outside the earth station. And they have a back up generator for cloudy days. I will be glad to hear any comments or questions about China's telecommunications; but you will have to email them to me. As I have stated previously, I am going back this Tuesday and will not have internet access while I am there. However, I will occasionally have email access. You can email me at "gharris@lando.hns.com". I will try to answer any questions; unfortunately, I can not promise to answer them in a timely fashion. Be patient and I will eventually answer them. Garnet Harris Hughes Network Systems gharris@lando.hns.com [Moderator's Note: Please provide us with another more detailed report when you return from your next visit. Better still, see if you can transmit a message to us from there; find a dialup -- if there is such a thing -- and send email to telecom@eecs.nwu.edu. PAT] ------------------------------ From: pacoid@wixer.cactus.org (Paco Xander Nathan) Subject: Steve Jackson Games - Day 2 Organization: Houston Chronicle Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 06:59:06 GMT [Moderator's Note: This is the second part in a group of messages received here discussing the trial. A third part will be published later today, and followups will appear as they are recieved. PAT] Steve Jackson Games/Secret Service Trial -- Day Two By JOE ABERNATHY Copyright 1993, Houston Chronicle AUSTIN -- A young woman read aloud a deeply personal friendship letter Wednesday in a federal civil lawsuit intended to establish the human dimension and constitutional guarantees of electronic assembly and communication. Testimony indicated that the letter read by Elizabeth Cayce-McCoy previously had been seized, printed and reviewed by the Secret Service. Her correspondence was among 162 undelivered personal letters testimony indicated were taken by the government in March 1990 during a raid on Steve JaCkson Games, which ran an electronic bulletin board system as a service to its customers. Attorneys for the Austin game publisher contend that the seizure of the bulletin board represents a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which is based on Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure. "Because you bring such joy to my friend Walter's life, and also because I liked you when I met you, though I wish I could have seen your lovely face a little more, I'll send you an autographed copy of Bestiary," said McCoy, reading in part from a letter penned by Steffan O'Sullivan, the author of the GURPS Bestiary, a fantasy treatise on mythical creatures large and small. Although the correspondence entered the public record upon McCoy's reading, the Chronicle obtained explicit permission from the principles before excerpting from it. The electronic mail was contained on the game publisher's public bulletin board system, Illuminati, which allowed game-players, authors and others to exchange public and personal documents. After agents seized the BBS during a raid staged as part of a nationwide crackdown on computer crime, Secret Service analysts reviewed, printed and deleted the 162 pieces of undelivered mail, testimony indicated. When the BBS computer was returned to its owner several months later, a computer expert was able to resurrect many of the deleted communications, including McCoy's friendship letter. "I never thought anyone would read my mail," she testified. "I was very shocked and embarrassed. "When I told my father that the Secret Service had taken the Steve Jackson bulletin board for some reason, he became very upset. He thought that I had been linked to some computer crime investigation, and that now our computers would be taken." O'Sullivan, who is a free-lance game writer employed by Steve Jackson, followed McCoy to the stand, where he testified that agents intercepted -- via the Illuminati seizure -- a critical piece of electronic mail seeking to establish when a quarterly royalty check would arrive. "That letter never arrived, and I had to borrow money to pay the rent," he said. No charges were ever filed in connection with the raid on Steve Jackson Games or the simultaneous raid of the Austin home of Jackson employee Loyd Blankenship, whose reputed membership in the Legion of Doom hackers' group triggered the raids. Plaintiffs contend that the government's search-and-seizure policies have cast a chill over a constitutionally protected form of public assembly carried out on bulletin boards, which serve as community centers often used by hundreds of people. More than 300 people were denied use of Jackson's bulletin board, called Illuminati, for several months after the raid, and documents filed with the court claim that a broader, continuing chill has been cast over the online community at large. The lawsuit against the Secret Service seeks to establish that the Electronic Communications Privacy Act guarantees the privacy of electronic mail. If U.S. District Court Judge Sam Sparks accepts this contention, it would become necessary for the government to obtain warrants for each caller to a bulletin board before seizing it. The Justice Department contends that users of electronic mail do not have a reasonable expectation to privacy, because they are voluntarily "disclosing" their mail to a third party -- the owner of the bulletin board system. "We weren't going to intercept electronic mail. We were going to access stored information," said William J. Cook, a former assistant U.S. Attorney in Chicago who wrote the affidavit for the search warrant used in the Steve Jackson raid. The Justice Department attorneys did not substantially challenge testimony by any of the several witnesses who were denied use of Illuminati. They did, however, seek to prevent those witnesses from testifying -- by conceding their interests -- after Cayce's compelling appearance led off the series of witnesses. Most of the Justice Department's energies were directed toward countering damage claims made by Steve Jackson, whose testimony opened the second day of the trial. Most of the day's testimony was devoted to a complex give-and-take on accounting issues. Some $2 million is being sought in damages. Justice sought to counter the widely repeated assertion that Steve Jackson Games was nearly put out of business by the raid by showing that the company was already struggling financially when the raid was conducted. An accountant called by the plaintiffs countered that all of Jackson's financial problems had been corrected by a reorganization in late 1989. [Moderator's Note: Another installment in this series of reports will appear in the next issue of the Digest later today. PAT] ------------------------------ From: veilleux@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Wayne Veilleux) Subject: MIB for Northern Telecom PBX Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 16:36:47 GMT Does anyone knows if it is possible to get the entreprise MIB (Management Information Base) for the Northern Telecom PBX ? Thank you for your help. Wayne Veilleux Hydro-Quebec Telecom engr Montreal, Canada (514) 286-7762 wayne@veilleux.telecom-mais.hydro.qc.ca ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jan 93 21:19:42 EST From: Larry Rachman <74066.2004@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Telemarketing Revenge!! Not too long ago, I answered my phone around dinner time and was treated to an overmodulated voice telling me I'd just won a contest, and inviting me to call a 900 number to claim my prize. Thank you just the same, I thought, as I hung up. Several hours later, I wandered into my office and glanced at my Caller-ID box. A number was posted as having arrived at about the right time so, phone phreak that I am, I gave it a call. I received, as expected, a busy signal, but after a few tries I receiced the tail end of the recording I'd heard before. This time I waited for it to end. When it did, I received several seconds of silence, followed by a burst of seven touchtone digits. Obligingly, I said 'Hello', and the recording started up again, played through, and the pattern repeated itself. I played around with the thing for about ten minutes before I got bored, but the experience got me thinking. With a Dialogic board and a few hours worth of software, it should be easy to set up a system that would just sit there, and every time it heard seven touchtone digits, it would speak 'Hello' a few times. Surely there is someone out there who would be willing to donate a PC and (hopefully flat-rate) phone line as a community service. Maybe we can get some public-service organization to fund it. Any volunteers?? Larry Rachman, WA2BUX 74066.2004@compuserve.com 516-427-0656 (fax) [Moderator's Note: Are you willing to have your phone line tied up on a continual, never-ending call to the number the machine is dialing out on? Are there message units or other charges for making the call to the machine? PAT] ------------------------------ From: medin@cincsac.arc.nasa.gov (Milo S. Medin) Subject: Source for Bellcore TA's Organization: NASA Science Internet Project Office Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 00:08:19 GMT Folks, does anyone know where I can get a catalog of TA's available from Bellcore and directions for ordering them? Thanks, Milo [Moderator's Note: We print this question all the time, it seems (only the name of the submitter changes). Perhaps someone will write Milo direct with the information. PAT] ------------------------------ From: royg@netcom.com (Roy H. Gordon) Subject: Multiport X.25 Boards for RS/6000 Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 00:59:28 GMT We're looking for multiport X.25 boards for the RS/6000. Does anyone know of or have experience with any? We used the HBX pad. Thanks. Roy ------------------------------ From: mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@mhs.attmail.com Date: 29 Jan 93 13:10:50 GMT Subject: Mac PowerBook as TDD? We've got a Macintosh PowerBook user in our Latin America regional office who would like to know if there is any combination of hardware and/or software that would let him use a Macintosh PowerBook as a Telephone Device for the Deaf (TDD). Internal hardware would be preferred; I gather the idea is so that he'll be able to send and receive TDD calls forwarded to him no matter where he goes. (What he actually asked was if his standard built-in Apple fax/data modem could be used as a TDD, so a device that could also handle regular modem duties up to at least 2400 bps would probably also be desirable.) As usual when somebody asks for specific hardware recommendations, you should reply via e-mail to the address below and I'll summarize the replies for the Digest. Many thanks! J. Brad Hicks Internet: mc!Brad_Hicks@mhs.attmail.com X.400: c=US admd=ATTMail prmd=MasterCard sn=Hicks gn=Brad ------------------------------ From: mperlman@nyx.cs.du.edu (Marshal "Airborne" Perlman) Subject: California Cellular vs. Florida Cellular Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci. Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 15:52:49 GMT Hmmmm, back at home, cell phones go for about $200+ ... and when you buy it, the dealer gets about $200 or so from Pac-Tel or LA Cellular, but the user only has to pay his $200 for the phone, and the end user pays $50 for the first month fee, and then on top of that, $45 a month for basic service plus calls. Where I live now, in Florida, I see at Circuit City that they sell phones for $29, $79, and on and on ... which require activation from the store. How much more does this work out to and how much does the store get? How do the charges work? etc etc etc... I asked the guy at the store (I was there to get a microwave last night), and he really didn't have any idea what I was talking about. If you have any answers for me, please get back to me via **EMAIL**. Thanks, Marshal P.S. Which model causes the least cancer (heh, just a cell joke). Marshal Perlman Internet: perlman@cs.fit.edu Florida Institute of Technology IRC: Squawk Melbourne, Florida Private Pilot, ASEL 407/768-8000 x8435 Goodyear Blimp Club Member ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #51 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16244; 29 Jan 93 16:40 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31224 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 29 Jan 1993 13:47:03 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27530 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 29 Jan 1993 13:46:30 -0600 Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 13:46:30 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199301291946.AA27530@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #52 TELECOM Digest Fri, 29 Jan 93 13:46:30 CST Volume 13 : Issue 52 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Steve Jackson Games - Day 3 (Houston Chronicle via Paco Xander Nathan) Cellular Phones Are Carcinogens? (Joel M. Hoffman) Telephone Company Rates (Frank Merrow) Where is a Source For CFRs? (Mike Gordon) Can Phones be Restricted to 911 Only? (Dave Leibold) Utility Reputations (Randy Gellens) Source For Telephone Headsets? (Daniel M. Rosenberg) AppleTalk Docs Wanted (Rob Bailey) Information Request: DECT (Euee S. Jang) Charge Those 900 Calls (John R. Levine) Multiplexing Voice Over Fibre Cheaply (Michael Hrybyk) Telecom Books (Capacity Planning)? (Jeff Wasilko) Voice Paging Services (Paul Migliorelli) Novatel Help Needed (Joe Smooth) Last Laugh! A Look at ATM History (Ed Greenberg) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pacoid@wixer.cactus.org (Paco Xander Nathan) Subject: Steve Jackson Games - Day 3 Organization: Houston Chronicle Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 07:07:50 GMT [Moderator's Note: This is the third part of three items received here today. As more news comes in regarding the trial, the articles will be published in the next available Digest following their arrival. PAT] Steve Jackson Games/Secret Service Wrapup By JOE ABERNATHY Copyright 1993, Houston Chronicle AUSTIN -- An electronic civil rights case against the Secret Service closed Thursday with a clear statement by federal District Judge Sam Sparks that the Service failed to conduct a proper investigation in a notorious computer crime crackdown, and went too far in retaining custody of seized equipment. The judge's formal findings in the complex case, which will likely set new legal precedents, won't be returned until later. A packed courtroom sat on the edge of the seat Thursday morning as Sparks subjected the Secret Service agent in charge of the investigation to a grueling dressing-down. The judge's rebuke apparently convinced the Department of Justice to close its defense after calling only that one of the several government witnesses on hand. Attorney Mark Battan entered subdued testimony seeking to limit the award of monetary damages. Secret Service Special Agent Timothy Foley of Chicago, who was in charge of three Austin computer search-and-seizures on March 1, 1990, that led to the lawsuit, stoically endured Spark's rebuke over the Service's poor investigation and abusive computer seizure policies. While the Service has seized dozens of computers since the crackdown began in 1990, this is the first case to challenge the practice. "The Secret Service didn't do a good job in this case. We know no investigation took place. Nobody ever gave any concern as to whether (legal) statutes were involved. We know there was damage," Sparks said in weighing damages. The lawsuit, brought by Steve Jackson Games of Austin, said that the seizure of three computers violated the Privacy Protection Act, which provides First Amendment protections against seizing a publisher's works in progress. The lawsuit further said that since one of the computers was being used to run a bulletin board system containing private electronic mail, the seizure violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act in regards to the 388 callers of the Illuminati BBS. Sparks grew visibly angry when it was established that the Austin science fiction magazine and game book publisher was never suspected of a crime, and that agents did not do even marginal research to establish a criminal connection between the firm and the suspected illegal activities of an employee, or to determine that the company was a publisher. Indeed, agents testified that they were not even trained in the Privacy Protection Act at the special Secret Service school on computer crime. "How long would it have taken you, Mr. Foley, to find out what Steve Jackson Games did, what it was?" asked Sparks. "An hour? "Was there any reason why, on March 2, you could not return to Steve Jackson Games a copy, in floppy disk form, of everything taken? "Did you read the article in {Business Week} magazine where it had a picture of Steve Jackson -- a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen -- saying he was a computer crime suspect? "Did it ever occur to you, Mr. Foley, that seizing this material could harm Steve Jackson economically?" Foley replied, "No, sir," but the judge offered his own answer. "You actually did, you just had no idea anybody would actually go out and hire a lawyer and sue you." More than $200,000 has been spent by the Electronic Frontier Foundation in bringing the case to trial. The EFF was founded by Mitchell Kapor amid a civil liberties movement sparked in large part by the Secret Service computer crime crackdown. "The dressing-down of the Secret Service for their behavior is a major vindication of what we've been saying all along, which is that there were outrageous actions taken against Steve Jackson that hurt his business and sent a chilling effect to everyone using bulletin boards, and that there were larger principles at stake," said Kapor, contacted at his Cambridge, Mass., office. "We're very happy with the way the case came out," said Shari Steele, who attended the case as counsel for the EFF. "That session with the judge and Tim Foley is what a lawyer dreams about." That session seemed triggered by a riveting cross-examination of Foley by Pete Kennedy, Jackson's attorney. Kennedy forced Foley to admit that the search warrant did not meet even the Service's own standards for a search-and-seizure, and did not establish that Jackson Games was suspected of being involved in any illegal activity. "Agent Foley, it's been almost three years. Has Chris Goggans been indicted? Has Loyd Blankenship been indicted? Has Loyd Blankenship's computer been returned to him?" The purported membership of Jackson Games employee Blankenship in the Legion of Doom hacker's group triggered the raids that day on Jackson Games, Blankenship's home, and that of Goggans, a Houstonian who at the time was a University of Texas student. No charges have been filed, although the computer seized from Blankenship's home -- containing his wife's dissertation -- never has been returned. After the cross-examination, Sparks questioned Foley on a number of key details before and after the raid, focusing on the holes in the search warrant, why Jackson was not allowed to copy his work in progress after it was seized, and why his computers were not returned after the Secret Service analyzed them, a process completed before the end of March. "The examination took seven days, but you didn't give Steve Jackson's computers back for three months. Why?" asked an incredulous Sparks. "So here you are, with three computers, 300 floppy disks, an owner who was asking for it back, his attorney calling you, and what I want to know is why copies of everything couldn't be given back in days. Not months. Days. "That's what makes you mad about this case." The Justice Department contended that Jackson Games is a manufacturer, and that only journalistic organizations can call upon the Privacy Protection Act. It contended that the ECPA was not violated because electronic mail is not "intercepted" when a BBS is seized. This argument rests on a narrow definition of interception. ------------------------------ From: joel@wam.umd.edu (Joel M. Hoffman) Subject: Cellular Phones Are Carcinogens? Organization: University of Maryland, College Park Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 15:02:35 GMT A friend of mine recently called to tell me about a news report that cellular phones are carcinogens, and to ask what I knew about that. I've never heard anything of the sort. Can anyone explain where the report might have come from, and what it meant? Many thanks. Joel (joel@wam.umd.edu) [Moderator's Note: It is believed by some people that the amount of radiation emitted from a cellular phone antenna can cause cancer. This has made the rounds since about a month after cell phones started back in the early 1980's. This is one reason frequently given as to why handheld phones are limited to 600 milliwatts while the phones which are installed in cars can have three watts power. It is believed that with handhelds, the antenna is too close to the brain of the user, and thus, may fry the user's brain, if not at 600 milliwatts of radiation, then certainly at three watts' worth. True or false? Fact or fiction? It depends on who you ask, and there seem to be knowledgeable people on both sides of the issue. PAT] ------------------------------ From: odetics!frank@uunet.UU.NET (Frank Merrow) Subject: Telephone Company Rates Organization: Odetics, Inc., Anaheim, CA Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 01:56:07 GMT Hi, I am interested in information on how utilities set their customer rates AND what their current rates are. A friend on the net is starting a business associated with auditing utility bills or some such. Is such information available on the net? Either as a mailing list, newsgroup for even FTP site? Frank Merrow (Home) (714) 455-3096 Odetics Inc, Broadcast Division (Work) (714) 772-1000 Ext 3860 1515 S. Manchester Avenue (Fax) (714) 535-8532 Anaheim, CA 92802 (Net) frank@odetics.com ------------------------------ From: mwgordon@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mike Gordon) Subject: Where is a Source For CFRs? Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept. Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 02:50:44 GMT Since these are federal documents, I'd think they're somewhere. I'm particularly interested in certain FCC and OSHA regs. Where are they? Mike Gordon N9LOI 99681084@uwwvax.uww.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 04:16:20 -0500 From: Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Dave Leibold) Subject: Can Phones be Restricted to 911 Only? {The Toronto Sun} on 22nd January 1993 had a letter from Linton Graham of Weston, Ontario regarding Bell Canada phone disconnection policies. The writer wondered if phone service had to be shut off, then why not continue to at least allow access to 911 for emergencies. The writer didn't mention specific types of situations, though phone shut-offs due to failure to pay the bill come to mind. This letter may be inspired by a near-tragedy in the Toronto area. A family's electricity was totally shut off due to unpaid bills; the indoor household heat was then provided by a barbeque. The dangers of carbon monoxide and fire from such a practice are evident. The {Sun} always tacks on a terse response after each letter, and the one-liner response to the suggestion of 911-only phone service was "(A practical impossibility)". Yet, with the sort of technology responsible for Caller ID, call waiting, payphone service class, distinctive ringing, etc., 911-only service can be set up through switch software. Are there jurisdictions where 911-only phone service can be set up rather than an outright shut-off of phone service? Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:250/98 INTERNET: Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ From: MPA15AB!RANDY@TRENGA.tredydev.unisys.com Date: 29 JAN 93 20:48 Subject: Utility Reputations {Fortune} magazine had a recent cover story on "Corporate Reputations" and I thought readers might be interested in their list of the top ten utilities: Rank Company Score Rank Company Score 1 BellSouth 7.44 6 Pacific Telesis Group 6.94 2 Southwestern Bell 7.15 7 GTE 6.76 3 Bell Atlantic 7.09 8 US West 6.64 4 Pacific Gas & Electric 7.00 9 Southern 6.44 5 Ameritech 6.95 10 Nynex 6.12 Randy Gellens randy%mpa15ab@trenga.tredydev.unisys.com A Series System Software if mail bounces, forward to Unisys Mission Viejo, CA rgellens@mcimail.com Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak only for myself ------------------------------ From: dmr@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Daniel M. Rosenberg) Subject: Source For Telephone Headsets Wanted Organization: The Very Large Software Company of America Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 02:13:50 GMT Hello folks -- Does anyone know where I could procure a reasonably priced (< $100) telephone headset? It'd be for a plain old telephone, not a key system. Places like Hello Direct sell these things for way too much -- like $200. I know AT&T and Panasonic make these things in my price range, but the local Nerd Mart (Fry's, Northern CA) can't seem to lay their hands on any. I'm sure Plantronics makes these too, but I don't know where to find them! Any hints appreciated, Daniel M. Rosenberg Stanford Univ CSLI Opinions here are my own dmr@csli.stanford.edu {apple,ucbvax}!labrea!csli!dmr BIT:dmr%csli@stanford ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jan 93 23:23:16 EST From: Rob Bailey <74007.303@CompuServe.COM> Subject: AppleTalk Docs Wanted Can anyone point me to a good source (preferably on-line!) describing Appletalk (and Localtalk?) in detail? The Apple doc's aren't going to be available for a while, and I'd like to know as much about it as possible. I'm looking for a pretty complete description, including as many of the OSI-like layers as possible (i.e., I want to know both about the voltages and such as well as the bit, byte, and packetizing protocols). Thanks... ...Rob Bailey 74007.303@compuserve.com (304) 925-2721 ------------------------------ From: jang@acsu.buffalo.edu (Euee S. Jang) Subject: Information Request: DECT Organization: UB Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 12:32:14 GMT DECT (Digital European Cordless Telecommunications) information needed: I am considering the DECT for the environment for my experiment. Right now, I am having difficulties in finding out the details in DECT. I got some articles but it is just an introduction. Does someone have any kind of detail in DECT? Erik ------------------------------ Subject: Charge Those 900 Calls Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 07:09:04 EST From: John R. Levine In the January edition of the Pocket OAG, there is a large ad encouraging you to dial 0 900 339 3000 and charge the call to your AT&T calling card. This particular number is "OAG Flight Call", a service which gives frequently updated airline flight status for 17 major airports. It costs 95 cents per minute. I dialed 0 900 339 3000, and got the AT&T tinkle even though my dial-1 carrier is Sprint, because 900 numbers aren't routed by dial-1 carrier. I dialed 0 to ask the operator how much the call would cost -- she couldn't tell. She bounced me to a supervisor, he couldn't tell, either, so he passed me to business customer service. The person there said that it is indeed 95 cents/minute and he thought that the usual calling card surcharge would apply, but wasn't sure. Small print in the ad said "Trial offer where billing is available 12/1/92 - 1/31/93." When I tried calling with my AT&T card, the call went through. I hung up when the greeting said if I hung up now there'd be no charge. We'll see. Attempts to use my local telco calling card got a recording saying that this card is not valid for this service. For variety, I tried 0 900 555 5555, the USA Today info line which gained considerably notoriety as 800 555 5555, again found the local telco card didn't work. My AT&T card got a "thank you", it rang for a while, and I ended up talking to an AT&T operator who had no idea how I'd arrived there. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ From: hrybyk@netcom.ubc.ca (Michael Hrybyk) Subject: Multiplexing Voice Over Fibre Cheaply Date: 28 Jan 1993 00:54:50 GMT Organization: Univ. of British Columbia - Central Networking Reply-To: hrybyk@netcom.ubc.ca We have SL-1 switches here on campus, and have increasing amounts of fibre connecting the buildings. Our telco staff keeps arguing for running more copper pairs between buildings to the switch, noting that the cost is prohibitive to put in fibre gear. Does anyone know of cheap fibre muxes for voice? Gandalf sells one, but it is reputed to be $1k per port. Thanks in advance. Mike ------------------------------ From: Jeff@digtype.airage.com (Jeff Wasilko) Subject: Telecom Books (Capacity Planning)? Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 10:42:53 EST Organization: Univ of Fnord; Roslyn's Cafe Div. Reply-To: jeff@digtype.airage.com Following John Higdon's comments on intra-state calls (bypass), I'd like to get a feel for how many decicated Long-distance circuits we'd need to cover our needs. Where can I find books on capacity planning (Erlangs and all that)? SNET wants to raise intrastate LD rates to a flat 25 cents per minute! My AT&T rep also tells me that the LD companies are trying (without much success) to get the state split into multiple LATAs so that there can be competition for inter-LATA calls ... Jeff Jeff's Oasis at Home. Jeff can also be reached at work at: jwasilko@airage.com ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jan 93 13:15:45 EST From: PAUL MIGLIORELLI <71715.1703@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Voice Paging Services Does anyone know if there are any firms in New York City that offer any type of voice paging services to the general public? Or is this type of service only available on an in-house basis within companies? Thanks. Paul Migliorelli 718-353-2865 ------------------------------ From: Joe Smooth Subject: Novatel Help Needed Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 13:19:43 GMT Does anybody out there have a service manual for the Novatel 8320 or 8305 transportable cellular phone? If so, please e-mail me! Thanks a lot! ------------------------------ From: edg@netcom.com (Ed Greenberg) Subject: Last Laugh! ATM History Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 11:27:32 GMT In the dark ages of ATM History, Chemical Bank had Chemical Cash Machines in various locations around New York City. Do you remember a spoof ad in, I believe, {Screw} Magazine? The picture showed a "lady of the evening" standing at a Chemical Cash Machine. The copy went something like: When your needs are Chemical, Her reaction is financial. She may not offer much interest in your deposit, but her vault will open when you flash your long green. Bank on it! Edward W. Greenberg | Home: +1 408 283 0511 | edg@netcom.com 1600 Stokes St. #24 | Work: +1 408 764 5305 | DoD#: 0357 San Jose, CA 95126 | Fax: +1 408 764 5003 | KM6CG (ex WB2GOH) [Moderator's Note: Times change with the technology, don't they ... while "ladies of the evening' (or people of the evening, if we wish tobe non-sexist about it) are in abundance in most places, more and more purveyors in the oldest profession are working in the phone rooms instead; the income is probably as good and certainly the risks which accompany direct meetings of this sort are eliminated. An old, old line of work uses all the new technology! PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #52 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28119; 31 Jan 93 13:11 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17747 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 31 Jan 1993 11:03:35 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26441 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 31 Jan 1993 11:03:03 -0600 Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1993 11:03:03 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199301311703.AA26441@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #53 TELECOM Digest Sun, 31 Jan 93 11:03:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 53 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Clinton Speaks; White House Phones Go Haywire (TELECOM Moderator) New Country Codes Assigned to Some CIS Nations (David Leibold) New "Electronic Highway" for Canada (Tyson MacAulay) Need Information on EM Radiation For Mobile Phones (Steven P. Mazurek) I Want to Pay For a Local Call (Paulo Santos) Modems For LEGAL Use in Germany (James R. Perry III) Australian Phone Test Numbers (u1066579@csdvax.csd.unsw.edu.au) NET "Infopath" (Dale R. Worley) Norway D.A. (was Overseas Directory Assistance) (Carl Moore) Novatel PTR825 Wiring and Programming (Jack Lowry) Why Did ATT Do This? (Paul M. Wexelblat) Distinctive Ringing - How Widespread? (James H. Thompson) More Questions About Distinctive Ringing (Paul M. Wexelblat) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1993 16:36:11 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Clinton Speaks; White House Phones Go Haywire On Friday, January 29 at about 12:40 PM Central Standard Time, President Clinton made his expected announcement regarding gay people and the United States Armed Forces. Phone traffic to 202-456-1414 (White House main switchboard number) and 202-456-1111 (President Clinton's telephone representatives -- people employed to respond in the name of the president to the thous- ands of daily callers who wish to speak with him from around the United States and the world) had been at record levels for several days. One problem was that the several hundred new employees starting with Clinton (as opposed to the several hundred others there all the time regardless of who is president) had not been given their direct-dial extension numbers, and they were forced to call through the 456-1414 number until they could learn their own extension number. Many of the extension numbers were in flux; phones were being moved around and re-assigned, etc ... Add to that the fact that our new president is, depending on who you ask, either very popular or very disliked -- but all agree he has said and done some things certain to generate much controversy, the most recent example of which was the 'gays and the military' announcement on Friday afternoon which followed several weeks of wondering if he would actually keep that promise. Numerous magazines and newspapers for the gay community in recent issues have run blurbs in prominent places similar to this: "Gays and the Military? What do you think? Tell President Clinton your opinion: 1-202-456-1111" So ... the normal increase in phone traffic due to a government in transition accompanied by an aroused citizenry more willing than ever to use the telephone to give our president a piece of their mind pro and con -- mostly con, I might add :( based on reports from telecom management at the White House -- finally brought the system to a screaming halt on Thursday and again on Friday for awhile. The switch serving the White House simply crashed from the volume of traffic. They'd reboot it, it would run awhile and crash again. Finally it looked like everything was restored, then came the Friday afternoon announcement making it official .... boom! All afternoon and evening Friday, getting calls into or out of the White House was difficult at best, with several hundred thousand calls in a four hour period on Friday afternoon getting deliberatly blocked ('all circuits are busy, try your call again later please') by C&P Telephone and bounced back to wherever they came from. As of Saturday afternoon as I write this, calls to 202-456-1111 are sometimes getting through (I dialed eight times; got ringing signal twice; busy three times and re-order signal three times, but no deliberate turn-aways by C&P). As a closing note, employees in the 'White House Comments Office' (the official name for the people who take telephone calls for the president) are greatly dismayed by the nature of the calls they have recieved. The job requires thick skin to begin with, but the 'gays and the military' thing has apparently produced some of the most hateful and obscene calls those poor folks have ever had to endure, and some of them have been there for years, responding to telephone calls on behalf of the resident president then in office. Intelligent, and very well-reasoned comments on both sides of the issue are a rarity, it seems, with hatred and bigotry spilling out of the telephone receiver the norm. How many times per hour would *you* be willing to answer a phone call which featured such comments as "Those fu----- fags! They're going to try to ##$$$ all our #$$## soldiers!" ... "Those queers can (fill in the phrase)" ... etc ad nauseum. A couple staffers left in tears Friday afternoon -- some of the calls were so vicious. Quite a few callers even complained that 'All My Children' had been pre-empted. Emergency White House communications were not affected by the fiasco on the public network Thursday and Friday; President Clinton's ability to communicate with world leaders and the military was unimpeded since that is a different system entirely. Patrick Townson (My .signature for this article comes courtesy of a C&P employee who reads the Digest and was in on the action Friday afternoon. He noted sadly, "those traditional family values: hatred, viciousness and bigotry ... alive and well despite the transition." Yeah ... :( PAT ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 Jan 93 23:15:22 EST From: David Leibold Subject: New Country Codes Assigned to Some CIS Nations The {Bell News} (Bell Canada, Bell Ontario division) of 25 January '93 has the following report on some new country code assignments: ---- Four more countries shed USSR country dialing codes: Four of the countries once included in the USSR, now have their own country dialing codes for long distance calls. The codes, recently assigned by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), are: * Lithuania 370 * Latvia 371 * Estonia 372 * Moldova 373 Anyone calling these countries should use these country codes. Telephone bills will show that calls were made to those specific countries rather than to the USSR or to the interim name, CIS (the Commonwealth of Independent States). Before the ITU could assign country dialing codes, a number of issues, including boundaries and country names, had to be resolved through the United Nations. The four countries have negotiated and signed agreements with Teleglobe for billing of international calls and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission has given its approval. (end of article) ----- (Notes: 37 was the country code used for East Germany before German reunification; 37 is now out of service and country code 49 now covers all of Germany. Thus, new three-digit country codes of the form 37x are available for assignment). dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca dleibold1@attmail.com ... or 1:250/730 Fidonet ------------------------------ From: tmacaula@ccs.carleton.ca (Tyson MacAulay) Subject: New "Electronic Highway" For Canada Date: Sun, 31 Jan 93 07:59:39 EST From {The Financial Post}, Jan 21, 1993 Canada will have a super-speed "electronic highway" in five years if a $585 million plan unveiled yesterday by a consortium of Canadian technology and research leaders goes ahead. The Canadian Netwrok for the Advancement of Research, Industry and Education - known as CANARIE - said the first phase of the network will cost $115 million by 1994, with the second phase costing a further $470 million in total direct and indirect investment. A third phase would involve a further $600 million in direct and indirect investment between 1997 and 1999. The so-called highway will electronically link the myriad individual research groups across Canada, to permit a rapid exchange of information and technology. Proponents of the new high-speed network said it is necessary to keep Canada competitive. The US network, called NSFnet, can transmit 1.5 million bits per second. In cotrast, CA*net only sends 56,000 bits per second. CANARIE will also set up an experiemental test network by the end of 1994. The lines for this network will be jointly provided by Stentor, a group of Canada's major telephone companies, and competitor Unitel Communications. --------- Now ... I have a question for the telecom-gods in the States: Could someone tell me how old NSFnet is? And who might be the owners/operators of NSFnet? Any other details about NSFnet would be greatly appreciated. Please excuse my ignorance. Tyson Macaulay Carleton University Ottawa, Ontario Canada (where else?) ------------------------------ From: smazu@ameris.ameritech.com (Steven P. Mazurek) Subject: Need Information on EM Radiation For Mobile Phones Organization: Ameritech, Hoffman Estates, IL Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1993 15:32:07 GMT The following post is for another group. I will take direct emails on their behalf; unfortunately, I won't be able to monitor for follow up posts. Please respond directly to the author, if possible. Thanks... ---------------------- 8< snip! ------------------------ I am seeking individuals performing research on the effects of electro-magnetic radiation on the human physiology. Given recent press about the health hazards of portable mobile phones, my company, is seeking information that supports or counters the view that EM radiation in the 800-900 MHz portion of the radio spectrum is harmful. Any help you can provide is greatly appreciated. Mark Beckner Ameritech Mobile Communications 708 765 5880 708 765 3709 fax markbeck@aol.com ----------------------- 8< snip! ------------------------ Steven P. Mazurek | Email : {...,uunet,bcr,ohumc}!ameris!smazu Ameritech Services | smazu@ameris.center.il.ameritech.com Hoffman Estates, IL USA 60196 | Phone : (708) 248-5075 ------------------------------ From: pas@cc.gatech.edu (Paulo Santos) Subject: I Want to Pay For a Local Call Organization: College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1993 22:12:30 GMT In general, I like the idea of a flat rate for local telephone service, with no per call charges. I also like itemized billing to have a record of some calls. I don't send certified letters any more. If I want a receipt of delivery of a written message to an addressee, I just fax the message. The long distance charge on my bill will be evidence that I sent something to the other party's fax. Much cheaper, much faster. But I can't do this for local calls. Local calls are not itemized. I have resorted to dialing local calls with my calling card just to get an itemized entry, but I don't like it. It is an expensive solution and I can't autodial from the fax machine. So here is an idea for the local companies. How about a *nn service to provide call detail on certain calls, at a reasonable cost (say, 10c to 25c per call). I would dial *nn nnn-nnnn, and the call would go through as ususal as an untimed local call. The call would appear itemized and charged accordingly on my local phone bill. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Jan 93 04:15 PST From: alizard@gentoo.com (James R. Perry III) Subject: Modems For LEGAL Use in Germany I'm looking for a AT-bus compatible 1/2 card modem that can be legally used in Germany (modems that do NOT pass German telecomm regulations result in VERY high fines)... as in manufactured in the US, Taiwan, South Korea, etc. ... CCITT, not Bell standard, anything from 2400 baud upwards. It is my understanding that CHEAP modems available in Germany start at $300 and upwards. This is for a friend of mine who lives there and has to live with German regulatory standards. Please E-mail replies to me, as I usually don't follow this newsgroup. Replies from vendors especially welcome. Thanks, A.Lizard alizard@gentoo.com ------------------------------ From: U1066579@csdvax.csd.unsw.EDU.AU Subject: Australian Phone Test Numbers Date: 30 Jan 1993 21:11:39 -0600 Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway Here are some Australian test numbers. These numbers will read the telephone number back to you using a computer generated voice, the numbers are: 19123 (Most widely used, most states) 1231 (Works in Adelaide) 1111 11544 (03) 552-4100 (Toll free number, has very poor comp generated voice!) In my experience none of these numbers will work from a public telephone. Instead you will hear "no information to identify telephone number". In most Australian states the ringback number is 199. In some areas though the ringback number is 199XX (Where XX is the last two digits of your town/suburb code transposed). For example if your number is 417 2960 the ringback number will be 19971. Another interesting "code" is *0000 which when entered on a CREDITPHONE (the public telephones that take credit cards) will display statistics on the number of calls made from the phone and the number of metering pulses. If you have any other test numbers etc please send them to me at: u1066579@csdvax.csd.unsw.edu.au Best Wishes, Henry ------------------------------ From: drw@nevanlinna.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley) Subject: NET "Infopath" Date: 30 Jan 93 16:55:27 Organization: MIT Dept. of Tetrapilotomy, Cambridge, MA, USA New England Telephone has some sort of data communications service called "Infopath". Does anybody know what it is and how it is organized? Thanks, Dale Worley Dept. of Math., MIT drw@math.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 Jan 93 19:00:01 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Norway D.A. (was Overseas Directory Assistance) It was written that 011-47-0180 "worked just fine" to get Norway directory assistance from the U.S. Are you saying 0180 is the number you dial within Norway to get directory assistance? I am reading from a British Telecom guide to foreign city codes and it says that when calling from outside Norway, omit leading zero from the area (i.e., city) code. I don't know how directory assistance fits in or does not fit in with this rule about the leading zero. ------------------------------ From: jackl@pribal.uucp (jack lowry) Subject: Novatel PTR825 Wiring and Programming Organization: Prism Medical Systems Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1993 21:51:33 GMT I have a NOVATEL PTR825 handheld cellular phone, one of it's features is the ability to be connected up to do hand free operation. I note that there are two small earphone type jacks on the bottom of the phone, in addition to the external antenna connetion. Can anyone give me the specifics on what connects to each jack, ie speaker 8 ohm etc. Also, I'd like to know how to change the security codes on the phone. Thanks, Jack wb3ffv!pribal!jackl ------------------------------ From: wex@cs.ulowell.edu (Paul M. Wexelblat) Subject: Why Did ATT Do This? Reply-To: wex@cs.ulowell.edu Organization: Univ. of Lowell CS Dept. Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1993 20:36:17 GMT After reading here a couple of tales about the superiority of an ATT calling card over a local phone co card (NYNEX for me), I called ATT today to ask for one, they told me that there was no reason to have both, and talked me out of it. Of course I can no longer remember any of the arguements for the ATT card, can you? Thanks, Wex [Moderator's Note: AT&T cards now use numbers which are unbillable by other long distance companies and AOS outfits. This means you can't be accidentally tricked into making a call from a COCOT and later getting billed your life savings when you thought you were calling via AT&T. The local telco cards are still using numbers the 'others' can bill to. That would be the primary difference. PAT] ------------------------------ From: James H. Thompson Subject: Distinctive Ringing - How Widespread? Organization: VeriFone Date: 31 Jan 93 00:11:19 -1000 I'm looking for information how widespread the availability of distinctive ringing services are. Would appreciate any suggestions on where to find this data. Thanks, James H. Thompson jimmy_t@verifone.com (Internet) VeriFone Inc. uunet!verifone!jimmy_t (UUCP) 100 Kahelu Avenue 808-623-2911 (Phone) Mililani, HI 96789 808-625-3201 (FAX) [Moderator's Note: I think almost all the Bell companies have this feature available on their newer switches. Anyone have precise data on this and the other recent additions like screening, etc? PAT] ------------------------------ From: wex@cs.ulowell.edu (Paul M. Wexelblat) Subject: More Questions on Distinctive Ringing Reply-To: wex@cs.ulowell.edu Organization: Univ. of Lowell CS Dept. Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1993 20:05:34 GMT I noted (in another posting here?) that some telcos offer a selective ring service (two numbers that ring differently on the same line. Q1: Is this basically a two part line with both parties on the same drop? Q2: Does anyone make an answering machine that detecte selective rings? This would be a great hack for folks cheaply to have "two lines" one of which had an answering machine on it. Your friends could choose which line to call on depending... Q3: What is the incremental cost for this service? Another question: Does anyone have a feeling for the number of phone numbers per person in the US these days of running out of numbers And an observation ... While looking for info on the selective ring option, I picked up my local (at the University in Lowell MA) NYNEX directory. I was surprised to see that it covered some areas in NH (The front info pages 58 of them cover info for both MA and NH -- mostly integrated as opposed to two separate sections.) Is this unique (multiple states in one directory)? (N.B. listings for NH include area code, local MA listings do not; 95% of the listings are MA.) Wex [Moderator's Note: It works much like a party line, with a different ringing cadence for each number. Most such arrangements will handle up to three numbers on one line (regular ring, short double ring) (long double ring). There are devices available which will route calls to answering machine, fax, modem or voice depending on the way the ringing is done. IBT charges $4.50 for the first additional number attached to the main line and I think $3.50 for additional numbers. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #53 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14393; 31 Jan 93 20:08 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14758 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 31 Jan 1993 18:06:11 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26009 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 31 Jan 1993 18:05:39 -0600 Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1993 18:05:39 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302010005.AA26009@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #54 TELECOM Digest Sun, 31 Jan 93 18:05:40 CST Volume 13 : Issue 54 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: AppleTalk Docs Wanted (Andrew Klossner) Re: AppleTalk Docs Wanted (Brad S. Hicks) Re: "Advanced Switching" at SWBT (Andy Sherman) Re: "Advanced Switching" at SWBT (John Higdon) Re: Overseas Directory Assistance (sic) Harminc Re: Overseas Directory Assistance (sic) (Mike Gambill) Re: Overseas Directory Assistance (sic) (Spyros Bartsocas) Re: Sears Kills Catalog After 95 Years (Ron Dippold) Re: Sears Kills Catalog After 95 Years (Joe Bergstein) Re: DMS-100 Bug? (Hans Lachman) Re: DMS-100 Bug? (Brent Capps) Re: 313 Split Not Being Well Publicized (David Lesher) Re: 313 Split Not Being Well Publicized (John Higdon) Re: 313 Split Not Being Well Publicized (Lorne Schachter) Re: 313 Split Not Being Well Publicized (Carl Moore) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 93 13:00:41 PST Subject: Re: AppleTalk Docs Wanted Reply-To: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com Organization: Tektronix Color Printers, Wilsonville, Oregon > "Can anyone point me to a good source (preferably on-line!) > describing Appletalk (and Localtalk?) in detail? The Apple > doc's aren't going to be available for a while ..." The definitive reference is the book "Inside AppleTalk, Second Edition" by Sidhu et al, published by Addison Wesley. It's been in stock at technical bookstores for years. Everything you asked for is in this book. Be sure not to get the "first edition" which is obsolete. I don't know of any on-line documents. I don't know of any "Apple docs which aren't going to be available for a while." Andrew Klossner (andrew@frip.wv.tek.com) ------------------------------ From: mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@mhs.attmail.com Date: 31 Jan 93 20:33:13 GMT Subject: Re: AppleTalk Docs Wanted > Can anyone point me to a good source (preferably on-line!) describing > Appletalk (and Localtalk?) in detail? ... I know of no on-line source. But for the level of detail you asked for, there IS only one source: Gursharan Sidhu et al, {Inside AppleTalk, Second Edition} (Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley, 1990). Hardcover, $34.95. "We loved it. It was much better than Cats. We will see it again and again." ANYBODY is responsible for Macintosh networks should have (and if possible, read) a copy of this book, and yes, it does answer all of the specific questions you asked. There is an OK chapter on AppleTalk networking in Mark Miller, {Troubleshooting Internetworks} (San Mateo, Calif: M&T Books, 1991). Trade paperback, $34.95. Its strength is that it gives practical examples of using a NGC Sniffer and its packet traces to isolate particular problems on AppleTalk networks, both on LocalTalk and on ethernet. These are the two books that I depend on, day-to-day. J. Brad Hicks Internet: mc!Brad_Hicks@mhs.attmail.com X.400: c=US admd=ATTMail prmd=MasterCard sn=Hicks gn=Brad ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Jan 93 16:35:14 EST Subject: Re: "Advanced Switching" at SWBT From: andys@internet.sbi.com (Andy Sherman) On 26 Jan 93 19:37:21 GMT, petrilli@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Chris Petrilli) said: > I was also SHOCKED at the cost of running a T1 line from the 83X > exchange (North Austin) to the AT&T POP (downtown) which is roughly > 15 miles. The cost was MORE than the cost from AT&T for a T1 line > from their Austin POP to Dallas. Somehow I don't think this is > reasonable. Disgusting though it may be, shocking it is not. Back in my days with AT&T Medical Diagnostic Systems, I worked on a proposal for a nationwide network which started out as T1's going from 93 sites into five regional hubs. Over 40% of the estimated monthly charge was local loops from the customer to the AT&T POP (which is money being billed by AT&T on behalf of the LEC), although loops where nowhere near 40% of the line mileage. The next iteration was a SKYNET(R) proposal, with a Ku-band dish at each site. *MUCH* cheaper. (Unfortunately, the customer never got the money for the project...) Andy Sherman Salomon Inc - Unix Systems Support - Rutherford, NJ (201) 896-7018 - andys@sbi.com or asherman@sbi.com "These opinions are mine, all *MINE*. My employer can't have them." ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Jan 93 09:41 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: "Advanced Switching" at SWBT petrilli@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Chris Petrilli) writes: > 1) She had no clue what T3/DS3 service was, and said that SWBT > didn't provide it and she had no way of pricing it. > 2) Told me that I was "very lucky" that I was in the 83X > using a ESS1A". > I don't know about everyone else, but while the 1A is a nice switch > and all, it doesn't quite qualified for "most advanced switch" even > with 100 adjuct boxes on it. > I was also SHOCKED at the cost of running a T1 line from the 83X At the risk of sounding like a Pac*Bell shill, a few comments are in order. Over the years I have accused Pac*Bell (and its pre-divestiture incarnation, Pacific Telephone) of being the most backward LEC in the country. It seemed as though about five to seven years after something was commonplace in other parts of the country, Pac*Bell finally got around to offering it. No more is this the case. In fact, in yesterday's {Chronicle}, there was an article wherein Pac*Bell acknowledged the past and spoke of its goal to become the nation's most advanced LEC in short order. This will be accomplished by the rapid upgrading of every single switch to digital, replacing the 1/1AESS equipment still in service on an accelerated basis. As to digital circuits, Pac*Bell now almost begs customers to take POTS on T1. There is no extra charge. Already reasonably priced, point to point hi-cap will have the bottom dropped out of the pricing structure in August. And at no time do you ever get a rep (at least I don't) that says something stupid such as "We don't offer that service ...", unless, of course, the company really does not (such as Caller-ID). Add to that the lack of silly restrictions such as limiting the number of residence lines that can be installed and the lack of screwy definitions as to what constitutes residence service, and you have (already) a progressive LEC. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Jan 93 00:46:41 EST From: Tony Harminc Subject: Re: Overseas Directory Assistance (sic) amunn@gibbs.oit.unc.edu (Alan Munn) wrote: > Is it possible to connect directly to directory assistance in other > countries? [Calling Brazil DA via MCI] > When I asked to speak directly to the Brazilian operator she > refused. I then talked to an MCI supervisor who said we couldn't > speak directly to the operator, > Why wouldn't MCI (although I assume this is common practice) let us > talk directly to the operator? The usual reason given is that in some countries DA operators are not distinguished from inward operators, and therefore if the local telco let you speak directly, particularly in a language the local operator did not understand, you might ask the distant operator to connect you to your party rather than just for the number. Of course the local operator would get suspicious after a while, but with the amount of time it takes overseas DA to get the number in many cases, a five or ten minute call might take place before anyone noticed. Tony Harminc [Moderator's Note: It is interesting you mention this. Quite some time ago when the USA was only about 80 percent direct-dialable with the other twenty percent either on manual exchanges (or possibly on a dial exchange but not yet in the overall network) there were instances when in calling Directory Assistance somewhere the answering operator would have to connect the call to the local telco in the town where directory was desired. Now if it was a manual exchange, the answering operator was supposed to inform the caller that to get information for that place they should call their long distance operator and ask *her* to get it for them. But sometimes instead they would ring the manual exchange, and when the operator there answered, the operator who picked up the directory call in the first place would hasten to tell the other end 'operator, this call is for directory only, do not ring or connect the party ...' but still, in some of those little backward places, the local operator would look up the number (if she did not know it by heart) and invariably ask the caller, 'should I ring it for you?' ... and of course the caller would say okay, and his call would be for free over 555-1212. There are still instances where the answer- operator at 555-1212 has to connect the inquiry to some local telco which does not share its listings with the (typically a Bell) company which maintains the 555-1212 listings for the area (generally because they do not want to pay Bell to do it and feel they can do it cheaper) but the manuals are all gone. I notice in the case of directory calls to 809 the operators in South Carolina (where 809-555-1212 is first picked up) still advise the operator on some of the little islands that 'this is a directory call only ... do not connect the party.' PAT] ------------------------------ From: mgambil@uswnvg.com (Mike Gambill) Subject: Re: Overseas Directory Assistance (sic) Date: 31 Jan 93 02:53:46 GMT Organization: U S WEST NewVector Group, Inc. In response to the post I would like to clarify the use of the IOC ... as a recent escapee of AT&T I feel obligated to clear up the belief that the IOC is an inefficient office. First, Pittsburgh is hardly the place to be productive. Second, the IOC is *EXTREMELY* understaffed for the inbound call volume. Third, the IOC still must use cord boards to reach some third world countries ... not all cord board facilities allow the operator to camp the caller on the line with the distant party, thus the "dead air" while the operator checks with the distant telco for the requested number. I admit that sitting on a dead line is somewhat unnerving, but is sometimes a necessity. Please be patient with the operators ... they may seem messed up, but are really a GREAT group of dedicated people who put up with a lot of crap! Sidenote: AT&T also operates the most comprehensive overseas DA service in existence today ... there have been times the "other" long distance companies have referred customers to IOC DA for their international calling needs! :) [Moderator's Note: Oh indeed, the IOC is a busy place and needs more help at times, I am sure. Late Sunday nights trying to call places in the mideast (where Monday morning and a new work week has begun) come to mind -- the delays out of Pittsburgh IOC can be horrendous, and it is not their fault New Delhi won't respond in a timely way. Regards cord boards and the splitting of connections however, I also know quite well how cord boards work, and the key can be left open; she does not have to close the key and use another pair. Some split the connection, I suspect, just to show who is boss. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Jan 93 09:22:07 +0200 From: spyros@isoft.intranet.gr (Spyros Bartsocas) Subject: Re: Overseas Directory Assistance (sic) > [Moderator's Note: Yes and no. No, you are not supposed to dial > international DA direct (no, people in other countries cannot dial > 555-1212 in this country -- I don't think), and yes, it can be done in Until two or three years ago, it was possible to call US directory assistnce by calling +1-xxx-555-1212. What I have done since it stopped working is call the AT&T direct line, and ask the operator to connect me with DA for a particular area. They always do. Spyros Bartsocas ------------------------------ From: rdippold@qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) Subject: Re: Sears Kills Catalog After 95 Years Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1993 18:20:01 GMT FZC@CU.NIH.GOV (Paul Robinson) writes: > Sears Roebuck & Company's Mail Order Catalog Division is closing after > more than 95 years. It was the use of telecommunications that built > the business and it was the failure to use telecommunications that > killed it. I wonder if AT&T is going to yank that commercial - the one about how they managed to reroute Sears's calls when one of their phone centers was unable to function during the Christmas season ... I'm pretty sure that was Sears. They probably figured they'd get a bit more mileage out of that one. ------------------------------ From: Joe.Bergstein@p501.f544.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Joe Bergstein) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1993 09:28:38 -0500 Subject: Re: Sears Kills Catalog After 95 Years > Sears Roebuck & Company's Mail Order Catalog Division is closing > after more than 95 years. > Until last year, incredibly enough, SEARS CATALOG DID NOT HAVE > AN 800 NUMBER. Aside from the Donnelly company which printed the Sears catalogs, another big telecommunications loser will be SPRINT, which has had the privilege of handling the hundreds of thousands of calls to 1-800-366-3000 for SEARS catalog sales. Sears' Sprint account rep better get hustling on new business! BTW, you can still order from Sears catalog until all their merchan- dise is exhausted. I guess that Sears will sell its mailing list to raise cash, and those of us who've ever ordered from the Sears catalog will now be bombarded with calls, letters, and catalogs from other mail order houses! ------------------------------ From: lachman@netcom.com (Hans Lachman) Subject: Re: DMS-100 Bug? Organization: Netcom Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1993 10:03:29 GMT In article lachman@netcom.com (Hans Lachman) writes: > My home phone line is acting funny, and I was wondering if any of you > CO experts might know what the problem is. It acts exactly as if I > had three-way calling (which I don't), but no matter what number I > dial (on the secondary dial tone), I always get a fast-busy tone > instead of having my call put through. Thanks to all who responded. Several respondents explained that the above scenario might occur for someone who has Call Waiting and not Three Way Calling. In that case, the secondary dial tone will accept the Cancel Call Waiting feature code, but not other numbers. Thus, the most likely explanation is that my line was accidentally assigned the Cancel Call Waiting feature. Pacific Bell has already fixed my line -- so I can't test whether I actually had Call Waiting for free for two weeks. I don't know why the behavior changed two weeks ago since there were no legitimate changes in my service at that time. Perhaps the janitor in the switchroom bumped something. :-) At any rate, I'm glad it now works as before, because I prefer the notion that hanging up, even if for one second, really means hanging up (I am not a fan of the "flash" interpretation). Hans Lachman lachman@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: bcapps@atlastele.com (Brent Capps) Subject: Re: DMS-100 Bug? Organization: Atlas Telecom Inc. Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1993 19:43:42 GMT In article lachman@netcom.com (Hans Lachman) writes: > In other words, if I am on one call, and I hang up for one or two > seconds, I get a dial tone as three short bursts initially, then > continuous. Then I dial any number, and always get fast-busy. Then, > I hang up for another one or two seconds and find that the first call > is still there (i.e., as if it were on hold). This is odd since I do > not have a second line, three-way calling, or any kind of "hold" > service. It only started doing this two weeks ago. For some reason you're getting special dial tone for some reason. There are literally hundreds of features that use SDT, not just 3WC. I'd have your BOC check to see if you're line's been accidentally programmed with the wrong feature -- say you've been hotlined to a particular feature access code, or an extra feature assigned to your line like cut-through dialing. Back when I worked on DMS-100 Centrex, we discovered a wierd feature interaction bug between 3WC and call waiting such that an incoming call would take down any existing conversation and immediately connect the new caller to the originator of the previously existing call without any notification of any kind. You'd be talking to one person then suddenly you'd be talking to someone entirely different. It was like something out of the Twilight Zone. We called it "Call Snatch". Brent Capps bcapps@agora.rain.com (gay stuff) bcapps@atlastele.com (telecom stuff) ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Re: 313 Split Not Being Well Publicized Date: Sun, 31 Jan 93 19:10:47 EST Reply-To: wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu (David Lesher) Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex JH said: > But here is the best part. It was possible to omit the area code if > you happened to be calling within the metro Bay Area, even if your > call crossed area code boundaries until 1982. Well DC/MD/VA local calls were "area code free" for decades, too, but I'm not sure if that's comparing apples and oranges ;-} MD split Blatimore off of 301 last year. Of course, there's been a big PR campaign, with ads, notices in the phone book, etc, etc. Permissive dialing ended in November. As part of my current dispute with See and Pee, I just got a letter from a Very Senior Person in their Baltimore office. Any CDT'ers care to guess the area code listed on the letterhead ;-? Oh well, that's better then the letter from the President's droid -- it does not HAVE a number on it. wb8foz ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Jan 93 07:58 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: 313 Split Not Being Well Publicized On Jan 27 at 19:10, David Lesher writes: > Well DC/MD/VA local calls were "area code free" for decades, too, but > I'm not sure if that's comparing apples & oranges ;-} That is true. And I remember when I was there about eleven years ago, you could reach most areas in the "metro" using 202, whether that was the "official" area code or not. A friend in Vienna, VA could be reached with 202, but the actual area code was 703. But in the case of 415/408, these were two separate areas (no central core involved) whose codes could not be interchanged when called from the outside world. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: lhsux@swingset.bae.bellcore.com (Lorne Schachter) Subject: Re: 313 Split Not Being Well Publicized Organization: Bell Communications Research Date: Sun, 31 Jan 93 12:59:58 GMT In article , john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > But here is the best part. It was possible to omit the area code if > you happened to be calling within the metro Bay Area, even if your > call crossed area code boundaries until 1982. In other words, up until > eleven years ago, San Francisco was a seven digit call from San > Jose -- even though the NPA had been split more than TWENTY YEARS > previously! I remember doing that while I was a student at Berkeley in the mid 70's. The real problem came in when you had to use the correct area code in the 80's and I would always forget which one I had to use depending on where I called. Lorne Schachter ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Jan 93 13:16:55 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: 313 Split Not Being Well Publicized 410 in Maryland is now fully cut over after being split from 301. The permissive dialing lasted ONE YEAR, from Nov. 1991 to Nov. 1992. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #54 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16742; 31 Jan 93 21:22 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08821 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 31 Jan 1993 19:19:33 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25682 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 31 Jan 1993 19:19:02 -0600 Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1993 19:19:02 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302010119.AA25682@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #55 TELECOM Digest Sun, 31 Jan 93 19:19:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 55 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: How To Fix Genuine 900 Errors? (Matt Healy) Re: How To Fix Genuine 900 Errors? (Larry Cipriani) Re: It's Not a Bug, It's a Feature ... (Gary L. Russell) Re: It's Not a Bug, It's a Feature ... (Martin McCormick) Re: Telecom Management Degrees (David Kilcy) Re: Telecom Management Degrees (Timothy C. Wilson) AT&T Public Phone 2000 Bills, Five Months Later (John Nagle) Re: AT&T Public Phone 2000 Credit Card Bug (Jordan Hayes) Re: "Secret" Phone Codes (Jeff Groves) Re: "Secret" Phone Codes (Mark Bergman) Re: "Secret" Phone Codes (Mark Bacchus) Re: "Secret" Phone Codes (Will Middelaer) Re: "Secret" Phone Codes (Carl Moore) Re: Call Forwarding From One Line (Dave Levenson) Re: Call Forwarding From One Line (Steve Forrette) Re: Holiday Overseas Callbacks From Bell Canada Operators (Ken Weaverling) Re: Holiday Overseas Callbacks From Bell Canada Operators (Carl Moore) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: matt@wardsgi.med.yale.edu (Matt Healy) Subject: Re: How To Fix Genuine 900 Errors? Organization: Yale U. - Genetics Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1993 00:27:01 GMT Under the Fair Credit Act, if your friend is ever denied credit based on this case then she can insist on seeing a copy of the credit report that caused the denial of credit and place a statement in her file which they *must* report. She should also complain to state and local officials, such as the Public Utilities Commission. Perhaps she should also notify Florida officials. If she can find a listing for this outfit in Miami, perhaps she can attempt a collect call to *them* although I imagine they will refuse it. Maybe she can manage a way of calling them from a coin-operated phone and work it so they get billed back? Matt Healy matt@wardsgi.med.yale.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Jan 93 09:14:09 EST From: lvc@cbvox1.att.com Subject: Re: How To Fix Genuine 900 Errors? Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc. In article is written: > She only moved to St. Louis last July and has only had this phone > number since then. Unfortunately, she did not keep her phone bills, > but she is 100% certain that she has seen them all, none of them had a > bill for this number on them, and she has never called SWBT to demand > the removal of a charge. She should ask copies of her past phone bills; telcos keep these records for a while. If SWBT won't do it voluntarily they will cough them up if presented a subpoena, maybe she can get an inexpensive legal service to work the releavant paperwork. Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jan 1993 23:39:00 -0500 (EST) From: GARRUS@delphi.com Subject: Re: It's Not a Bug, It's a Feature ... In article chuckm@canada.hp.com (Chuck Munro) writes: > Well, as a matter of fact ..... > When I was a customer of H-P (*many* years ago) I had a program on my > HP1000 that would rapidly move the brake solenoid up and down on the > paper tape reader. This would result in music (quite loud if you > placed an IBM punch card in the reader) which you could play from the > console keyboard. This was my first experience with a pre-MIDI > computer music system. The first computer I worked on in about 1964-1965 was a UNIVAC II and it had a speaker wired directly to the bus with a volume control on the console. When the engineer turned the system on in the mornings and ran the diagnostic routines he would turn the speaker up full and leave the machine running. No matter where he was in the computer room he could tell if there was a problem by the sound. Each diagnostic routine had a distinctive sound or rhythm. There was also a Music Maker program that we sometimes ran on the holidays and played Christmas carols. Another early system I worked on, an IBM 1401, would play music on a small transistor radio that was tuned between stations. The radio was placed on top of the CPU. The one song I remember was "Coming 'Round the Mountain" which also used the 1403 printer as a rhythm section. Gary L. Russell Internet: garrus@delphi.com or gary.l.russell@gte.sprint.com ------------------------------ Subject: Re: It's Not a Bug, It's a Feature ... Date: Sun, 31 Jan 93 15:27:38 -0600 From: martin@datacomm.ucc.okstate.edu TELECOM Moderator noted: > The Apple had a cassette jack on the back to load programs from > tape. By making use of the little two (or maybe four) byte A/D > converter inside, I found I could digitize my voice using a microphone > plugged into the cassette jack then save the resulting binary on a > floppy disk and play it back through the speaker on the Apple. It's even more remarkable than that. There is no A/D or D/A converter, at all, in the Apple II's audio input or output. The tape input jack feeds a common 741-style operational amplifier wired with positive feedback to act as a Schmidt trigger. The output of the op-amp is either at one extreme or the other. Sine waves fed to the input emerge as very clean square waves. Voices and music are converted into machine-gun bursts of variable-width pulses, a crude version of the kind of signal found at the output of the one-bit D/A converters in modern compact disk players. While the CD players and other devices designed to emit good sound have low-pass filtering on the pulse-width output circuit, it isn't totally necessary to work. The Apple II speaker and our ears provide some mechanical low-pass filtering and our brains are good enough at recognizing speech that we can usually understand what is said even if it isn't exactly highfi. Back when my primary computer was an Apple II, I played with that feature quite a lot. The speaker and tape out connections were both fed with D-type flipflops and it was possible to produce the same effect on the tape output jack as was heard on the speaker just by changing an address. Each sample of digital sound required just one bit. The playback routine just stepped through memory, looking at each bit and determining whether it represented a change or was just more of the same. When change was in order, the program would access the address of either the speaker or the tape output to toggle the flipflop. IBM PC's and their cloanly cousins can produce exactly the same type of sounds, but the strategy is a little different. Look at a hardware manual for details. Martin McCormick WB5AGZ Stillwater, OK O.S.U. Computer Center Data Communications Group ------------------------------ From: udjk@sunyit.sunyit.edu (David Kilcy) Subject: Re: Telecom Management Degrees Organization: State University of New York -- Institute of Technology Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1993 19:50:40 GMT This is in reply to someones message who was looking for a college that has a telecommunications management program ... The State University of New York Institute of Technology at Utica, NY has an excellent telecommunications program, in both management and technical although I tend to feel its balanced more towards management. Its a upper-division transfer school that accepts people with I think at least 60 credit hours. The admissions office is: SUNY Institute of Technology at Utica/Rome PO Box 3050 Utica, NY 13504-3050 or phone 315-792-7208 We have extensive equipment for our program including a full-blown Northern Telecom DMS-10 central office, a Redcom CO, a NT Meridian 1 and tons of other equipment. David Kilcy Internet: udjk@sunyit.edu SUNY Institute of Technology ------------------------------ Date: 31 Jan 1993 10:16:26 -0400 (EDT) From: TIMOTHY C. WILSON Subject: Re: Telecom Management Degrees In reference to the inquiry of Micheal Hauben, a student at Columbia University, in the January 12 issue of TELECOM Digest, I am currently a third year student in a new program at Rochester Institute of Technology (Rochester, NY). The program title is Telecommunications Technology, and I am in the Management option. There is also a technical option. The program is offered through the College ofof Applied Science and Technolo Currently the degree encompasses about half off of the courses in Electronics Technology, one quarter in Computer Technology, and one quarter in business courses (in the management option). My background is in broadcasting (specifically television), with prior courses in computers, electronics and business, so this fit perfectly with my coursework up to this point. The person to contactat RIT is Carolarol Richardson at CARITE@RITVAX.ISC.RIT.EDU , she can give you a more detailed look at the program. As far as I know RIT is the only university that offers such a program, plus there is one of the largest cooperative education programs in the world here. The telecom program is small but growing. If you have any other questions from a student standpoint contact me at TCW5443@RITVAX.ISC.RIT.EDU Good luck, Tim Wilson ------------------------------ From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) Subject: AT&T Public Phone 2000 Bills, Five Months Later Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1993 06:58:48 GMT I used an AT&T 2000 Public Phone at the LA Airport back in August of 1992, and today, the bill came. This is the phone with a keyboard and screen, and I'd used it to call a dial-in port in LA, paying for the call with a PacTel calling card. I assumed that the call would be charged to the PacTel card, and would appear on my PacTel phone bill. But that's not what happens. AT&T Services sent me a separate bill for $3.55. $0.71 is for the call, and $2.50 is for "keyboard usage" (one minute at $2.50, zero additional 10 minutes at $1.00). $.09 federal tax and $0.25 state and local tax. Interestingly, the "keyboard usage" is listed as being at Los Angeles CA, while the call is listed as being from Inglewood to Culver City. Is this phone, perhaps, tied directly to AT&T's network, bypassing PacTel? Certainly there's enough long distance traffic out of LAX to justify bypass. Since I was making a LOCAL call, the call may have been routed through AT&T to the nearest gateway to PacTel, then via PacTel to the destination. Is this the explaination for the strange billing? John Nagle ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Jan 93 15:20:49 EST From: jordan@imsi.com (Jordan Hayes) Subject: Re: AT&T Public Phone 2000 Credit Card Bug Organization: Investment Management Services Inc., NYC Jim Knight writes: > The terminals seem to work fine at 2400 bps with a decent but > not great vt100 emulation. I've found that using the termcap entry: d1|vt100-nam|vt100nam helps quite a bit. jordan ------------------------------ Subject: Re: "Secret" Phone Codes From: gatech!groves!groves@ico.isc.com Date: Sun, 31 Jan 93 20:49:30 EST Organization: Groves BBS ccoprfm@prism.gatech.edu (Monte Freeman) writes: > tompkins@tti.com (Tompkins) writes: >> In one of those discussions, about a year ago, a number was posted >> that purported to work nationally: 10732-1-404-988-9664. > Well, it doesn't work from 404. Here's the results of my poking around: From my house here in Marietta, GA (in the Atlanta Georgia LATA and in the 404 area code) I dialed 10732-988-9664, and it read out my ANI correctly plus and additional "8" appended to the number. In addition, after a few seconds the automated voice read off a long string of "0"s and one "2". It would appear that the 404 in number above designates the 404 area code (the area code for Atlanta). As a result, all that is necessary is to dial the access code 10732 and the telephone number 988-9664. It does not seem to matter which long distance company the phone is picked for either. I'm picked for MCI. Jeff Groves ------------------------------ From: bergman@Panix.Com (Mark Bergman) Subject: Re: "Secret" Phone Codes Organization: Panix Public Access Internet & Unix, NYC Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1993 08:02:58 GMT In article timhu@ico.isc.com (Timothy Hu) writes: > In article tompkins@tti.com (Tompkins) > writes: >> that purported to work nationally: 10732-1-404-988-9664. 10732 is a >> private ATT network. I know that this number does return your area >> code and number verbally from 213, 310 and 818 area codes, and I have >> read reports from others that it works elsewhere. It does add an >> "eight" to the end of any number I've ever called it from. > I tried it here in Boulder. It works! This code works in NYC from my home phone (ATT service), but not from the phone/PBX at work, with unknown LD service. Mark Bergman (Biker, Stagehand, (former) Unix user support grunt) 718-855-xxxx bergman@panix.com {cmcl2,uunet}!panix!bergman ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1993 09:02:00 +0000 From: Mark Bacchus Subject: Re: "Secret" Phone Codes > In one of those discussions, about a year ago, a number was posted > that purported to work nationally: 10732-1-404-988-9664. 10732 is a > private ATT network. I know that this number does return your area > code and number verbally from 213, 310 and 818 area codes, and I have > read reports from others that it works elsewhere. It does add an > "eight" to the end of any number I've ever called it from. This number immediately caught my eye, because my home phone number is 404-988-xxxx. Dialing 10732-1-404-988-9664 from my house results in the message "It is not necessary to dial a 1 or an area code for this number". So I tried 10732-988-9664. This time it returned my area code and phone number (with the "8" tacked on to the end). I've never heard of a case where you could dial a LD carrier access code followed by a seven digit number. I guess you learn something new every day. Still waiting to see how this call will be billed! Mark Bacchus bacchus@bnr.ca ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Jan 93 16:59:16 EST Subject: Re: "Secret" Phone Codes Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY From: wsmiddevl@mailbox.syr.edu () Well, it works from 315 also, and it has the 8 at the end. Will Middelaer N2KNU 1L at SU Law ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Jan 93 17:39:06 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: "Secret" Phone Codes I finally tried 10732-1-404-988-9664 out exactly like that, and: 1. it worked from area 302 in Delaware; 2. it gave me an 8 at the end of the phone number I was calling from; 3. it then went on to recite a ten-digit string: all zeros except for a 2 at the end. ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: Call Forwarding From One Line Organization: Westmark, Inc. Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1993 14:44:22 GMT In article , TAMIL@QUCDN.QueensU.CA writes: > After talking on my home phone I would like to transfer that call to > another phone number. Is there any way I can do this, other then > buying a PBX and getting a second line. I routinely use my key telephone system to accomplish what you want. I answer an inbound call, decide to `transfer' it to another off-premises party, flash the switchhook to invoke three-way calling, add the outside party to the conversation, and then press the HOLD button. My holding circuit remains a party to the conversation, but it is a very silent party, and it knows when to disconnect. Note that you don't need a key system to do this, only three-way calling and a HOLD button. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: Call Forwarding From One Line Date: 31 Jan 1993 00:24:54 GMT Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA In article TAMIL@QUCDN.QueensU.CA writes: > After talking on my home phone I would like to transfer that call to > another phone number. Is there any way I can do this, other then > buying a PBX and getting a second line. > [Moderator's Note: If you intend to stay on the line with the third > party, just use three-way callling. If not, you might try using a > service like 'Starline' (IBT's name for it), a sort of 'home centrex' > type service which allows calls to be transferred to another phone > outside your premises and you to disconnect. PAT] This may not work in all areas. I know that at the time I had Pacific Bell's 'home centrex' offering, it would NOT allow you to transfer a call outside of your centrex group, leave the line, and still have the other two parties connected. The low-end business version of Centrex that was for groups of only a handful of lines didn't support this, either. It may have changed since then, but you would be wise to not assume that all telcos have enabled this option for all flavors of Centrex. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ From: Ken Weaverling Subject: Re: Holiday Overseas Callbacks From Bell Canada Operators Date: 31 Jan 1993 07:32:22 -0500 Organization: Delaware Technical & Community College In article The Moderator writes: > *That* was an international call years ago. PAT] I've heard many stories about how long distance worked years ago with great fascination (I grew up with direct dial). But my question is, "What did this all cost?" Must have been a small fortune! Ken Weaverling, Sys Admin/Faith Healer, Delaware Tech College weave@dtcc.edu [Moderator's Note: International calls 35 years ago tended to run about $12-15 for three minutes; that was 1950-60's money, of course. Person to person calls were the norm; no one wanted to make a station call overseas and waste the money if they did not reach their party. Station calls were a little less, about $10-12 for three minutes. There were no one minute rates and no day/night rates on international calls. On domestic calls there were day/night rates in increments of three minutes. Domestic long distance calls fifty years ago cost about two dollars a minute on person to person calls; a half century ago those were the norm rather than station calls. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Jan 93 18:21:05 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Holiday Overseas Callbacks From Bell Canada Operators Moderator's note mentioned Miquelon. That is a French possession next to Newfoundland, Canada. There was a little blurb in the digest earlier about how is it reached from, say, Newfoundland. [Moderator's Note: Ah, but you are referring to the islands known as St. Pierre and Miquelon -- French possessions -- located near the coast of Newfoundland. I was referring to a tiny little town named Miquelon in far northern Quebec. If you find Val-D'or, then look a few hundred miles almost straight north. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #55 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18553; 31 Jan 93 22:12 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18892 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 31 Jan 1993 20:11:59 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23998 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 31 Jan 1993 20:11:30 -0600 Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1993 20:11:30 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302010211.AA23998@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #56 TELECOM Digest Sun, 31 Jan 93 20:11:30 CST Volume 13 : Issue 56 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Telephone Line Bridge Info Needed (Jack Decker) Re: Cellular One/NY Re-bills Roaming Charges (Steve Forrette) Re: Freeway Call Boxes and CA Rain (Todd Inch) Re: Do Telcos Record the Numbers of Local Calls? (Carl Moore) Re: Wiring For Multi-Lines on One Jack (Pat Turner) Re: Differences Between ANI and Caller-ID (Brent Capps) Re: Alteration of Ring Cadence (Dave Levenson) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 31 Jan 93 12:59:42 EST From: jack.decker@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org (Jack Decker) Subject: Re: Telephone Line Bridge Info Needed In message , rossix!amber.dnet!dan@ fernwood.mpk.ca.us (Dan Cook, Ross Escondido) writes: > I recently created a small electronic circuit which allows me to use a > pair of telephone lines to 'forward calls.' What I do is call the > first line, get bridged to the second, then dialout from there. > (Dialtone on the second line is not accessable until the correct four > digit DTMF password has been entered. I also put a toll restrictor on > the line -- just in case.) [stuff deleted] If you manage to do this at a reasonable cost, it would probably help a *lot* of TELECOM Digest readers if you would publish the schematics for your device. In any case, here some things to consider. If the line you are calling is equipped with either call forwarding or three-way dialing (or could be), you could probably get a clearer connection, and at far less than the cost of two lines. The best way would depend on the CO equipment, and how calls (and custom calling features) are billed in your area. Let's discuss each in turn: 1) Call forwarding: Harder to implement, more costly if local calls are metered, but generally a far superior connection (less loss) and security is greater, and it does not prevent the phone from being used for outgoing calls when a forwarded call is in progress. The way it would work is, you'd dial the line and a computer-controlled device (a PC and perhaps a super-modem ... I think a better-grade Zyxel could handle this) would answer and collect digits that you have tone-dialed. Then it would go on hook, wait a few seconds, and then pick up the line and dial the appropriate codes to forward the call to the desired number. Of course, the software could verify numbers to any degree you desire, and simply refuse to forward calls to numbers that don't meet the proper criteria (e.g. toll calls). After a couple of minutes, or after receiving a single ring on exchanges where the phone rings once when a call has been forwarded, it would again pick up the line and dial the code to cancel the call forwarding (of course, this would not affect any forwarded call alraed in progress). So, for each call you made, you'd really have to make TWO calls... one to the call forwarding device and then a second call, to the same number but a few seconds later, to actually complete the call. One final problem with this scheme is that in many areas call forwarding is not actually set up unless the called party answers, or you dial the call forwarding code and number twice. Either way, your called party is going to be disturbed (either by a call with "no one on the line", or by a single ring) prior to you placing the actual call to them. It can be done, but it's real tricky to get it right. Note, however, that if you have "selective ringing" on the line, and have your device answer only on a particular ring code, you can essentially make a phone line do double duty ... you won't be able to initiate a new call when the phone is in use (you'd get a busy signal), but once you have placed a call and your connection has been establi- shed, and your device has cancelled the call forwarding, someone else could use that phone for either incoming or outgoing calls. In some areas you can specify that calls to only ONE of the distinctive ringing numbers are to be affected by call forwarding, so you could hang your device on that number and let someone else use the other number for their personal calls. There are a lot pof possibilities under this scheme, that will vary somewhat depending on the equipment used in the serving telephone central office. 2) Three-way calling: Easier to set up, less costly, connection not as good in some switches, and you tie up the phone line for the duration of the call (except in some areas; see below). Also, the security risk might be a bit greater. Again, in this scheme you hang a computerized device off the phone line, and dial into it and let it collect your touch-toned digits. Once it has analyzed them, it flashes the line to get a three-way dial tone, dials the number you wish to call, then flashes the line again to connect you and the called party together. Disconnect may be a bit of a problem; you'll have to determine how best to determine when the call is actually over and drop the connection (suggestions: listen for dial tone; monitor line voltage for CPC disconnect [momentary period of zero voltage on line], listen for "phone off hook" signal [is there any standard for that raucous thing?!?], listen for extended period of dead silence [risky, but may be the only thing that will work on some systems], use a call timeout [perhaps with an override, e.g. by pusing the "*" key you reset the timer]). To some extent how you do this might depend on the intended application; it might be quite appropriate to disconnect after a few seconds of silence if you only intend to send data or FAX calls over the device. Note that in this scheme, call setup is much faster and easier, and you still have a fair amount of security (no caller can get dialtone direct from your "other line"; they'd have to fool your device into outdailing the call for them). You get an almost immediate response for busy and no-answer conditions. In a few areas, you can get a variation of three-way calling, sometimes called "call transfer". This is like a cross between three-way calling and call forwarding, and IMHO is the best of all possible worlds. What it allows you to do is to set up a three-way call, but then the person in the middle of the converstaion can actually hang up while the parties on either leg of the three-way call continue to converse ... from that point on it's as if the call has been forwarded. Some telcos don't advertise this as a separate service; it's just how their version of three-way calling works. In a way I'm surprised more telcos don't offer call transfer, since it would probably enhance their revenues. Consider the following scenario: A person calls the home of a business associate. The spouse answers but since s/he knows where the other spouse is (perhaps in a city 20 or 30 miles away), s/he places a three-way TOLL call to the spouse, then drops off the line once the connection is established. The caller isn't paying the toll, so he feels free to talk, and the recipient knows his spouse isn't listening in (in order to know when to hang up the phone), so s/he feels freer to converse. It just occurs to me that a lot more short-distance toll calls might get placed if this service were more widely available ... of course, it could also be used for toll avoidance in some cases, but as I've noted you can already use call forwarding, or regular three-way calling for that purpose. If call transfer is NOT offered, then the three-way calling scheme may suffer from noise introduced at the center point of the connection, and in some exchanges there is still a serious degradation of volume between the two "legs" of the call (that is, on a voice call both end points can hear the person in the center of the connection quite well, but neither endpoint can hear the other well). 3) Bridging two separate lines together: Allows you to connect to lines with a dissimilar class of service (e.g. company WATS lines, FX lines, etc.) or to forward calls in areas where custom calling features aren't available. Other valid reasons for using this might be if two separate lines are already available at your desired location, or if you need to introduce amplification into the loop (but that can get REAL tricky). The biggest problem, as you have discovered, is signal loss. You can add bidirectional amplification (indeed, commercial units are available to do just that) but whether your modem will be happy about it is another matter. Remember that an amplifier might do a fine job on voice (to the untrained ear, anyway) but really grunge up a data line. If you do get an amp, try to get one that has adjustable signal gain ... you may need to tweak it a few times before you modem is happy. If you are ONLY using this scheme to move data, I'd suggest first trying better modems that are more comfortable with low signal conditions (unless you have no control over the modem(s) you are trying to reach). The two other biggest disadvantages of bridging are the increased cost of having to have a second phone line, and the potential for abuse. Remember, any time you bridge two separate lines together, you run the risk of someone else hacking your system, getting dialtone from the other end, and placing calls that you'll be billed for. If you do use this scheme, see if you can get toll call blocking and/or billed-number screening (preferably both) from your telco. In this day and age, I simply would not trust a toll restrictor to keep bogus charges off my bill, especially when anyone could dial in and grab your second line. There are too many ways to have bogus toll charges show up on your bill these days. In any case, I'd certainly be interested in knowing what your final solution is. I see this problem all the time (especially in Michigan, where the telcos were pretty stingy about implementing Extended Area Service) and I'm sure a lot of folks could learn something from your experience. Jack Decker | Internet: jack.decker@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org | Fidonet: 1:154/8 ------------------------------ From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: Cellular One/NY Re-bills Roaming Charges Date: 31 Jan 1993 16:35:02 GMT Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA In article mike@camphq.FIDONET.ORG (Mike Bray) writes: > But when we got our phone bills from Cellular One/NY, we find that the > roaming charges are NOT what the carriers themselves say they are! It > seems that for certain NACN systems, but not all of them, Cellular > One/NY re-bills the other systems' $2.00/day + .50/minute as > nothing/day + .99/minute! > When I called Cellular One/NY to complain about this, they just say > "this is the way we do it" and that's all I can get them to say. I > can't find anything about this practice in any of Cellular One/NY's > paperwork and they can't seem to explain it either. This is a new program that some of the carriers are trying to implement. Customers have long been confused about roaming rates, especially when they get something in writing and use it as a reference, and the rates change after the date of publication. Also, the "daily fees" get people angry. So, some carriers are implementing a plan where they offer a fixed charge for roaming, that applies to roaming on ANY system. It's usually $.99/min, with no daily fee. They implement this rate themselves, and behind the scenes they pay the other carriers the actual charge. It's supposed to be a "revenue neutral" change, so the carrier is not supposed to make more money off of the deal. So, the "average" customer will not pay more overall for roaming, so the theory goes, and will always know exactly what they will be charged for roaming. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ From: toddi@mav.com (Todd Inch) Subject: Re: Freeway Call Boxes and CA Rain Organization: Maverick International Inc. Date: Sun, 31 Jan 93 21:36:32 GMT In article MPA15AB!RANDY@TRENGA. tredydev.unisys.com writes: > I've heard (but don't know if it is true) that the prolonged rain > we've experienced here in Southern California has caused some of the > freeway call boxes to run low on power (they are solar powered). I hope not since we're supposed to get solar cellphones mounted on our I-90 bridge across Lake Washington (a major commuter nightmare) here in Seattle soon. The newspeople keep joking about our weather, doubting it will ever work. Seriously, indirect sunlight during overcastiness and rain should still be good enough if they're designed properly, I would think. Now it might be a problem near the North/South Poles where there are loooong nights. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Jan 93 17:48:08 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Do Telcos Record the Numbers of Local Calls? A few years ago, there was a case of a couple being murdered and their baby kidnapped, in Kent County, Delaware. (I am working only from what was available in a newspaper at the time.) Police work on this case included looking through long distance phone logs, and when they widened the case to include calls to/from other relatives of the couple, they discovered a call from 302-398 (Harrington prefix, from a location in Houston, Delaware) to 302-492 (Hartly prefix). Although 398 and 492 are in Kent County, a call from one to the other was toll at the time (I believe it became local as a result of the countywide calling plan imposed later). The newspaper ({News-Journal} in Wilmington) reported that if that had been a local call, it probably could not have been traced. As it happened, it was traced, and one detective said to another "Hey, it looks like we're going to Houston", and it turns out they found the baby and made arrests there. ------------------------------ From: turner@Dixie.Com Date: Sun, 31 Jan 93 17:47 EST From: rsiatl!turner@rsiatl.UUCP Reply-To: turner@dixie.com Subject: Re: Wiring For Multi-Lines on One Jack John R. Levine writes a good summary of how multiple pairs are placed on a single six position "RJ-11" type jack. I believe the original question referred to an eight position jack. Pairs on an eight position jack can be assigned four ways that I know of: 1) USOC: Pairs One to three are assigned as John said; the forth pair is the outermost pins. This insures full compatibility with USOC specs for one to three pairs on a six position connector. Be warned that some combinations of eight position jacks and six position plugs will damage the outermost pins of the jack. 2) EIA/TIA 568A Pairs 1&2 are in center as for USOC, Pins 1 & 2* are pair three, pins 7 & 8 are pair four. This gives greater noise immunity than with the conductors for some pairs far apart as in the USOC spec. 3) AT&T 258A (aka EIA/TIA 568B) AT&T had to be different. Pair one is in the center. Pins on left and right of center pair (where pair two would be) are pair three. Pins 1 & 2 are pair two, pins 7 & 8 pair four. 4) Any damn way the installer wants it. :-) Listed above are two ways of pairing pins. With four pins there are 4! or 24 different ways to number the pairs, resulting in 48 different combinations. I have only seen four voice lines on one jack once: When I was in college AU got a new phone switch (a DMS-100) to replace lots of key systems behind Centrex. The whole campus had new wiring added for the system, conforming to AT&T's PDS standard. Generally it was well done, an exception was a mechanical room in Haley Center. This room housed three repeaters and a 3KW FM transmitter. One voice jack had been installed. The eventual outcome was three repeater remotes and a POTS line on one jack and a piece of quad wire carrying two other remotes and a four pair cable with three dry pairs (two TX audio and a Marti receive line for the Xmitter). The two cables disappeared in some HVAC equipment only to reemerge at an IDF on the floor below. A series of splitters and splices sent the lines to their desitination. In doing all of this the modular jack was left hanging by it's four pair cable. Since the room was a favorite for naps for the physical plant employees, an accident was bound to happen. Sometime between quarters, that jack got yanked from the wall, wiping out all four circuits, two of which were never missed. Anyway it took the campus telco tech a while to get it all sorted out. It was a lot better when he left: the Xmitter and POTS lines were punched down on a 66 block and the repeater remotes were routed over a single cable per repeater. Luckily this was caught when the radio station tried to go on the air, as the POTS line controlled the Xmitter. Had this happened while they were on the air, they would have been in violation of FCC regs. Summary: Scheme Pair 1 Pair 2 Pair 3 Pair 4 USOC 4&5 3&6 2&7 1&8 AT&T 4&5 1&2 3&6 7&8 T568A 4&5 3&6 1&2 7&8 * Looking at the JACK, with the "spring" tab recess facing down, pins are numbered 1-8 from left to right. A six position plug would contact pins 2-7. Pat Turner KB4GRZ turner@dixie.com ------------------------------ From: bcapps@atlastele.com (Brent Capps) Subject: Re: Differences Between ANI and Caller-ID Organization: Atlas Telecom Inc. Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1993 00:28:55 GMT In article Marcus D Leech writes: > Just to add to the confusion, there's also an emerging ANSI standard > called SCAI, or Switch-Computer Applications Interface. SCAI gives > you what Caller-ID gives you plus A WHOLE LOT MORE. The only > implementation that I'm aware of is on NTs large switches, and > marketted as "CompuCall". > The delivery vehicle for this service is typically X.25. > Anybody know of any other implementations of SCAI? CompuCall has a long and checkered history within BNR. It's actually a throwback to the mid '80s when BNR was developing a CO/PBX LAN server whatchamacallit called the PTE; this box communicated with an SL1 over a proprietary out-of-band signaling protocol that shared some similarities with the not-yet-standardized CCS7. Well, after wasting millions of dollars on this turkey, NT finally pulled the plug; but in the quest to salvage something from the wreckage a certain manager (now a senior exec at NT) hit upon the idea of taking this old proprietary protocol, dusting it off, and changing its name to the ISDN/AP. This is a typical evil marketeers trick, the names have been changed to fool the innocent. This protocol had almost nothing in common with ISDN other than the fact that both of them are out-of-band. ISDN/AP was eventually marketed as "CompuCall" at a licensing fee of $50G. And that, dear friends, is how to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Brent Capps bcapps@agora.rain.com (gay stuff) bcapps@atlastele.com (telecom stuff) ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: Alteration of Ring Cadence Organization: Westmark, Inc. Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1993 02:23:40 GMT Pat writes (regarding creating different ringer sounds): > [Moderator's Note: A hacksaw is a bit of an overkill. All you need to > do is adjust the clapper inside by bending it just a tiny bit, or > turning the bell parts slightly to create a sort of dull ring on the > one phone, and a more shrill ring on the other. PAT] A 2500 telephone set has two gongs that produce slightly different notes. The ring is the harmony that results from the two notes sounded together. If you swap the left gong in one set with the right gong in another, you'll get two sets that produce single-note rings, and they'll be different. Can you hear the difference? That may take some practice! 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 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #56 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21979; 31 Jan 93 23:48 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19662 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 31 Jan 1993 21:40:13 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25375 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 31 Jan 1993 21:39:42 -0600 Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1993 21:39:42 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302010339.AA25375@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #57 TELECOM Digest Sun, 31 Jan 93 21:39:40 CST Volume 13 : Issue 57 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: N.E. Telephone Admits Ripoff - Refuses Restitution (Mitch Wagner) Re: N.E. Telephone Admits Ripoff - Refuses Restitution (Maxime Taksar) Re: You Didn't Accept a Collect Call, You'll be Billed Anyway? (G. Burditt) Re: Utility Reputations (Dave Niebuhr) Re: Cellular Phones Are Carcinogens? (Andrew Klossner) Re: Cellular Roaming Handbook (reb@ingres.com) Re: Charge Those 900 Calls (Steve Forrette) Re: AT&T Reaches Out to the Arts (Dave Levenson) Re: Phone Translation Experiment (Georg Schwarz) Re: 1-800-CALL-ATT vs. LEC Intra-LATA LD (John Adams) Re: Telecom Books (Capacity Planning)? (Fred R. Goldstein) Re: Can Phones be Restricted to 911 Only? (burchell@ucscb.UCSC.EDU) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wagner@utoday.com (Mitch Wagner) Subject: Re: N.E. Telephone Admits Ripoff - Refuses Restitution Organization: Open Systems Today Date: Sun, 31 Jan 93 19:00:46 GMT Yeah, New England Telephone is pretty awful, all right -- it's in the same league as some third-world countries you hear about. In May, I moved up here to take a job telecommuting out of my home, and tried to get them to install four phone lines for a business in my apartment, in addition to one personal line. Whooee, this taxed their tiny little brains beyond the limit. First I couldn't get a straight answer out of them whether this was possible given existing wiring in the building. When it proved impossible, I couldn't get a straight answer out of them about whether I could hire an outside contractor to rewire or whether their own technicians had to do it. After the outsiden contractor did the job, I couldn't get them to switch on the lines correctly. They had the wrong lines installed, the right numbers coming out of the wrong wall jacks. Took three tries over the course of two weeks on that one. By the end of June all this was straightened out -- except twice, since then, I've had some wires crossed somewhere and gotten my phone lines connected with someone else. I'm not talking "voices on the line here," an faint buzzing or whispering. I'm talking the equivalent of a party line -- once I heard the phone ring and picked up in time to hear a sweet old lady say, "No, I'm sorry there's no Mitch Wagner here .. sorry, we don't know ANYTHING about computers," and another guy who had dialed my number correctly and who wanted to speak with me, responding, "Okay, sorry to bother you then, ma'am, I must have dialed a wrong number" ... ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Jan 93 13:19:27 -0800 From: mmt@RedBrick.COM (Maxime Taksar KC6ZPS) Subject: Re: N.E. Telephone Admits Ripoff - Refuses Restitution In article , PAT writes: > [Moderator's Note: I had a phone turned on about twenty years ago at a > place where I stayed occassionally and although the service got turned > on, the paperwork never made it to accounting for the purpose of > setting up a billing account. Since the line had unmeasured metro > service (a type of service we had back then) there were never any > extra units generated and no reason to ever issue a bill. It went on > like that for a year. I was careful to never make any long distance > calls from that line or do anything which would start paperwork going. > Then one day, some $$#%&# phreak billed a third number phraud call to > that line. [How PAT finally gets billed for the line deleted] I'm sorry, Pat, but this was a little too much, even for you. Have you lost your devotion to the concept of "paying for what you use"? Perhaps this devotion is only recent? In any case, you seem to have changed your tone from a few volumes ago when you re-started the debate on wether measured service is a Good Thing or not. I don't mind your sharing your opinions with us, but it would be nice if you didn't expose us to this sort of hypocrisy. Maxime Taksar KC6ZPS mmt@RedBrick.COM [Moderatpr's Note: Hey, twenty plus years ago I had different ideas than I do now. Have you held the same attitudes and opinions all your life without ever changing or modifying them? Have you never read my articles here about things I did 30-35 years ago with the phone? My very first employer -- a part time job when I was in high school in the late 1950's -- was the University of Chicago in the phone room where I diligently worked myself into a position of trust as the sole person in the phone room overnight after I graduated from high school only to get fired for phreaking on international calls with make-believe calling card numbers. Does that make me a hypocrite now, 32 years later? In junior-high, I taught the other kids how to supply ground to ground-start payphones and how to use a bent coat hanger up the coin return slot to get their nickle back before the operator could tip the collection table in her favor. (Yes, payphone calls cost five cents and there was no trap door on the coin return slot.) We used to think it great sport to listen on the VHF radio to the Illinois Bell Marine Operator servicing boats in Lake Michigan and beat her to the punch at dialing whatever number was passed to her by the boater so she would always get a busy signal, and later (when we finally let the call go through) the boater would have an argument with his wife about 'who was she talking to for an hour?' Our other favorite joke involved a man listed in the phone directory by the name of Robert Fuchew. We'd call '2080' (the forerunner to the present day 312-796-9600 name and address service) and pass his number to the operator who would look it up and say 'Robert ...' then she would pause to think about it, and say, " ... I will spell the last name, it is F-U-C-H-E-W." "But operator," we would say, "how do you pronounce it? ... " and our laughs would give us away as 12 year old brat-children. (To the curious: *he* pronounced it 'foo-chew'.) PAT] ------------------------------ From: gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt) Subject: Re: You Didn't Accept a Collect Call, But You'll be Billed Anyway? Organization: Gordon Burditt Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1993 09:24:47 GMT > The moral to this story is, if you ever contact a long distance > carrier on behalf of a friend or client, use their name, not yours, or > at least let it be known that you're just making contact on behalf of > the other person and are not assuming any responsibility for their > bills! I think there are a number of situations where you can save yourself a lot of trouble by not giving your own name, or giving a blatant false name. Disclaimers of relationship just don't cut it. One of these is posing hypothetical tax questions to the IRS (remember *67!) Another is taking a patient to a hospital. I once drove a very pregnant woman to the hospital as a favor to a friend. He was "backup driver", but his car was in the shop. Because I brought her in, I got asked lots of questions. I only knew her as "Ms. Ashford" (*) and that she worked where I did, and I probably wouldn't recognize her more than one out of three times. First name? Address? My name? My SSN? Most of my answers were something like "I dunno, I'm just the chauffer". She worked where I did, so I could answer vague questions about insurance. I suspected she was using her maiden name for work, and suspected she was married, but I wouldn't give guesses as answers. I never did find out. When they absolutely insisted on my SSN, I pulled out one of my photo-ID SSN cards titled "Federal Reserve Note" and let them copy down my SSN, just above the signature of the Treasurer of the United States. The letters in the SSN and the wrong number of digits didn't bother them at all. She later told me that the paperwork had gotten all screwed up. She was listed as "I. Donna Ashford", and the father was "Chou Fur" on the birth certificate. Both wrong. "I dunno, I'm just the chauffer" seems to have gotten into the records. My "SSN" had become a phone number. I'm glad I didn't give my real name, or I might have been listed as the father, and/or gotten the bill! It's probably a good idea not to identify yourself if you bring someone unrelated to the hospital, and if you must, use a name like "T. Axi Driver" or, as I did once "Zulu Able Victor Seven Four Eight" (my license plate number at the time, but I told them it was a federal crime to spell it). (*) Name changed to protect the innocent, besides, I can't remember the real one. When I was in college in the early 70's, I called the phone company (no campus PBX here -- you want a phone, talk to New York Telephone yourself) to have the phone owned by the "phone consortium" (a bunch of guys who chipped in to get one phone) put in my name, because the guy whose name it was in had graduated. I accepted responsibility for calls previously made on the line. I was taking a risk on the other guys running up a large bill and refusing to pay, but I trusted them, and I wasn't disappointed. BUT, the phone company noticed my name, "Burditt", and suddenly started trying to stick me with all the back bills for people in "Burdette Avenue Residence Hall". Or maybe anyone on Burdette Avenue. I did not live there, and I don't think I have ever set foot in the place. I asked for, and got, copies of the bills in question, complete with names, addresses, and itemized calls. A collection agency kept calling, but made the mistake of letting me get THEIR number. I had a fairly strong defense: - One of the bills extended to before I was born. - All of the bills extended to before I had been accepted at college. - I knew from a previous nuisance-call incident that phone company records indicated that there was an enormous pile of phones at "110 Eighth Street", including all university phones, dorm pay phones, and probably all phones in dorms. "Same address" arguments didn't work here. The entire campus had one address, by phone records. - The bills indicated I had 27 lines at one point, with a strange variety of billing names and addresses. I could prove at least four lines were in use simultaneously. - None of the names or addresses were even close to mine. - Some of the bills extended to before "Burdette Avenue Residence Hall" had been constructed. - The one line I admitted responsibility for was paid on time and not in dispute. A friend with the campus newspaper said a lawsuit for this would make a great story. He even offered to finance some of it. So I called up the collection agency and DARED them to sue. I called them several times a week and ORDERED them to sue. I even offered to walk down to their office and pick up a subpoena. They quit calling. Meanwhile, I had told the phone company that the lines weren't mine, but as far as I was concerned, they could be disconnected. They had all been disconnected a year ago or more, anyway. But some of the numbers had been reassigned, and I heard rumors from one telephone company representative, who was apologetic but couldn't do anything about the problem, that someone disconnected those lines, and that someone had gotten fired for it, because they disconnected someone very VIP. (The mayor? City hall? The manager of the central office's home? The chief of police? The police emergency line?) Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Jan 93 16:05:45 EST From: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr) Subject: Re: Utility Reputations In TELECOM Digest V13 #52 MPA15AB!RANDY@TRENGA.tredydev.unisys.co Randy Gellens write: > {Fortune} magazine had a recent cover story on "Corporate Reputations" > and I thought readers might be interested in their list of the top ten > utilities: > Rank Company Score Rank Company Score > 5 Ameritech 6.95 10 Nynex 6.12 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ That's a joke. NYNEX is the parent of NYTel and it is one useless telphone company. Granted, NYTel makes up its own rules and regs and gets the NY PSC to rubberstamp them, but NYNEX never seems to put the brakes on it's errant child, one that can't even keep it's rate tables correct (or install them correctly in the first place). Believe me, I'd rather be in the Rochester Tel area anytime. Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ From: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 93 12:49:23 PST Subject: Re: Cellular Phones Are Carcinogens? Reply-To: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com Organization: Tektronix Color Printers, Wilsonville, Oregon > It is believed by some people that the amount of radiation emitted > from a cellular phone antenna can cause cancer. To clarify: there are credible scientific reports that a three watt transceiver, operated near the head for many years, can cause *glaucoma*. This is one reason why police radios are now worn at the waist and wired to a lapel-mounted microphone. I know of no credible evidence linking transceivers to brain cancer. Andrew Klossner (andrew@frip.wv.tek.com) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Jan 93 14:22:17 PST From: reb@ingres.com (Phydeaux) Subject: Re: Cellular Roaming Handbook In article mike@camphq.FIDONET.ORG (Mike Bray) writes: > Cellular Directions, Inc. > PO Box 66843 > St. Petersburg Beach FL 33736 > Their phone number is (813) 345-6150 and their FAX is (813) 347-2981 > and they take VISA, MC, etc, etc. I just called to order one of these books and they are starting to ship the 11th edition. Same price as quoted above. I have no idea what makes them 'official.' reb ------------------------------ From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: Charge Those 900 Calls Date: 31 Jan 1993 12:55:18 GMT Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA In article John R. Levine writes: > In the January edition of the Pocket OAG, there is a large ad > encouraging you to dial 0 900 339 3000 and charge the call to your > AT&T calling card. I just tried this, and it worked for me as well. When I tried to do 0 900 555 1212, I got that AT&T bong, then entered my card. Curiously, there was no "Thank you for using AT&T" message, just about five seconds of silence after I entered the last digit. Then, an operator came on and said "AT&T -- You can't bill a call to a 900 number to a calling card." I tried it again, this time using a bad calling card number. It told me to try again, as the card number was not valid. So, when billing 0 + 900 calls with AT&T, it first checks to see if the card number is valid, then checks to see if the called 900 number is valid for calling card billing. Quite interesting! Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: AT&T Reaches Out to the Arts Organization: Westmark, Inc. Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1993 17:18:35 GMT > [Moderator's Note: AT&T has always been generous to service organizations > and charities as well. Almost always, Pat. Let's remember that the AT&T Foundation, approximately two years ago, discontinued its support for Planned Parenthood, apparently due to pressure from anti-choice political forces. 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 [Moderator's Note: The Planned Parenthood people have always claimed that AT&T stopped their support 'due to pressure from anti-choice forces', but AT&T denies that is the case. They say their support in the past few years has to be more limited than in the past, so they have begun spreading the largesse around to other groups to insure that all worthwhile groups get a piece of the pie. An AT&T executive noted that the company gave a great deal of money to Planned Parent- hood for many years and said, "You'd think that when we started giving money elsewhere instead, Planned Parenthood would have said 'thank you for your many years of support' rather than cursing us because we did not give them still more ..." ... that makes sense to me. PAT] ------------------------------ From: georg@marie.physik.tu-berlin.de (Georg Schwarz) Subject: Re: Phone Translation Experiment Date: 31 Jan 1993 15:12:33 GMT Organization: ZRZ/TU-Berlin In Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Dave Leibold) writes: > be placed into public service. ATR, Carnegie Mellon University > (Pittsburgh) and University of Karlsruhe (Munich) are the partners in > this experiment. ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ For all of those who obviously don't have a clue about European geography: Karlsruhe and Munich are two completly different cities, both located in southern Germany, but several hundred km apart from each another! Both of them do have a university (Munich has even two). And, as the name already suggests, the University of Karlsruhe is located in Karlsruhe and not in Munich. ------------------------------ From: jadams@vixen.cc.bellcore.com (adams,john) Subject: Re: 1-800-CALL-ATT vs. LEC intra-LATA LD Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ Date: Sun, 31 Jan 93 15:34:25 GMT In article mcnally@wsl.dec.com (Mike McNally) writes: > I just c alled my voice mailbox to check voice mail (it's in 415, I'm > in 408) and as I listened to the "Thank you for using Pacific Bell" > recording I though of the recent thread concerning intra-LATA long > distance. On a whim, I decided to try 1-800-CALL-ATT to see if I > could force ATT to carry the call instead. (PacBell won't let 10288 > work for such calls; you get a recording.) It worked. I suspect that your results will vary based on where and how you call. Perhaps a compilation is in order? ;-)! I had a similar experience at JFK International Airport (Queens, NY) where I was able to complete a call to Manhatten *AFTER* getting to AT&Ts network (For a true interlata call) and hitting the "#" after completion. Just out of curiosity, I attempted the same call from the same AT&T Card Caller (after hanging up of course) and with that instance handled by New Yawk Tel. Oh well, at least I found it amusing! Jack (John) Adams Bellcore NVC 2Z-220 (908) 758-5372 {Voice} (908) 758-4389 {Facsimile} jadams@vixen.cc.bellcore.com kahuna@attmail.com ------------------------------ From: goldstein@carafe.dnet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) Subject: Re: Telecom Books (Capacity Planning)? Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1993 02:38:50 GMT In article , Jeff@digtype.airage.com (Jeff Wasilko) writes: > SNET wants to raise intrastate LD rates to a flat 25 cents per minute! > My AT&T rep also tells me that the LD companies are trying (without > much success) to get the state split into multiple LATAs so that there > can be competition for inter-LATA calls ... AT&T is, of course, pulling your leg. LATA boundaries don't allow anything, they merely _prohibit_ certain activities by "Bell" companies. SNET is NOT a Bell, so there's no reason to split CT into LATAs (disregarding Greenwich, NYTel territory). LATAs only exist in Federal law. Whether there is competition for LD within a state is a state decision, and LATA boundaries don't count: Most states allow intra-LATA competition, and a few have, at least for a while, prohibited inter-LATA competition. (AT&T had that franchies, the Bell got intra-LATA.) Your problem is that the Connecticut Public Utility Control Authority (They're still the PUCA, right? Sort of a six-foot invisible rabbit?) is in bed too closely with SNET. Here in Mass., intra-LATA toll for business users is down to 10.5c/min maximum, while residential rates are a bit more variable and subject to various discount plans. Of course, NET here is subject to intra-LATA competition. No coincidence. Fred R. Goldstein goldstein@carafe.tay2.dec.com k1io or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice:+1 508 952 3274 Standard Disclaimer: Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission. ------------------------------ From: burchell@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Toxic Avenger) Subject: Re: Can Phones be Restricted to 911 Only? Date: 31 Jan 1993 01:07:48 GMT Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz In Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Dave Leibold) writes: > Are there jurisdictions where 911-only phone service can be set up > rather than an outright shut-off of phone service? I got a phone bill for my dorm room (served by PAC*BELL, 408 NPA) the day after I left for the winder break. It was due while I was gone, and when I returned, I found it, as well as the official notice that my phone would be interrupted if I did not pay within seven days. Well, I wandered to my room and picked up the phone ... dial tone; good they hadn't canned me yet. So I made out the check and dropped it in the mail. Later that day, I called a friend and got this recording ... {three tones} "I'm sorry, your service has been interupted, you may use this phone to dial 911 for emergencies, 611 for repairs or 811 to discuss your account with a representitive." So yes, it is an option. It is what gets done here in Santa Cruz. Tox ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #57 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24996; 1 Feb 93 1:21 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24820 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 31 Jan 1993 23:08:55 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11260 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 31 Jan 1993 23:08:25 -0600 Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1993 23:08:25 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302010508.AA11260@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #58 TELECOM Digest Sun, 31 Jan 93 23:08:20 CST Volume 13 : Issue 58 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Switchboard Equipment Inquiry (Jeannette Lanier) Public Phone 2000 Illegal (Jim Gottlieb) 2 T-1 to 1/2 Rate T-1 Transcoders (John Phipps) Human Factors for Speech Recognition Systems (Al Dykes) GTE Strikes Again (Richard M. Greenberg) Dial-Up IP Router (Jose Luis Jimenez Fernandez) Bless Me Father, For I Have Faxed ... (Dave Leibold) A Blast From the Past (Steve Brack) Tropez 900DX Cordless Telephone Questiona (W. Gregg Stefancik) Phone Sex Is No Longer Safe Sex (was ATM History) (Zealand R. Hatch) Re: I Want to Pay For a Local Call (John Higdon) Re: I Want to Pay For a Local Call (Steve Forrette) Re: 301-303, Not in 410 (Jacob DeGlopper) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wu/O=NUCLEAR_REGULATORY_COMMISSION/DD.ELN=62868951@mhs.attmail.com Date: 31 Jan 93 22:38:27 GMT Subject: Switchboard Equipment Inquiry This is in the nature of a preliminary inquiry by me personally for information relating to telephone systems. This is not -- at this time -- an official inquiry by this agency and I am not acting as their spokesperson. The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission operates a main switchboard that never closes. This switchboard is operated using a Conveyant Teledesk model 1600 console. We purchased this system less than three years ago. Since many of you may not be familiar with this system, I will briefly explain what it is, how it works and what it does. The Teledesk Console is a modified PC keyboard consisting of the standard QWERTY keyboard with CTRL and ALT keys as well as the ten IBM-PC function keys. At the top of the unit are 16 line keys which allow the console to handle transfers for 16 lines. The calculator keyboard which is normally on the right side is replaced by a Touch-Tone pad, plus hold, flash, camp, release, transfer and next. Release is used to either hang up a call or complete a transfer; next is used to pick up the oldest ringing line (if more than one is ringing) or the line that is ringing. If one has two lines ringing, you can press next, answer the call and ask to wait, then press next which automatically puts the prior call on hold and answers the next line. We have a combination of direct incoming public, inward WATS and internal operator lines all operated on a centrex system from the local telephone company. It is connected to a specialized frame with one set of wires, and each console is plugged into a 1 Meg 80286 PC (IBM PS/2 Model 30) with a color VGA monitor and 20 Meg hard drive. We have our own software using DBASE which we use to update our office and home listings, and we wrote software to convert the DBASE files into input for the Teledesk system which has its own proprietary database format. When a number is selected, the operator can view the name and number to be dialed, and either press a button to automatically dial the number, or can move up or down the list of names to select a different name. The operator can also read the name and number to be called. The frame supports up to four consoles this way. We have four consoles because of the number of calls that come in at certain times. It has a special software package that provides for looking up people by name, by department, by telephone number, as well as supplying a "personal directory" for the operators to look up special, important or critical information such as our Emergency Operations Center or the number for Pizza Hut. :) This software package also supports some report capabilities including number of calls handled and what times are busiest. The system allows any console to be "out" which means it does not ring, or the system can be placed in "night" status. When in night status, the system will automatically dial out to a selected number, so if there is a need to evacuate the building the lines can be diverted elsewhere. It can route different lines to different places, so that, for example, if while in night mode, a call on the Operator line could be transferred to the security guard, and the main incoming number could transfer to another location. Also, the operator can press the transfer key and dial a number, and the system will dial the digits when dial tone comes out even if the operator dialed faster than the switch is ready to take the call. These consoles can also be used as standalone PCs when not running the software package. We used to use standard AT&T Switchboard console telephones, and the call processing times dropped from aproximately one minute per call to as fast as ten seconds per call. Also, since the computer dials the number, the operators can handle calls with less stress since they can't misdial the numbers. However, it does cause a problem: when we did a "hot test" where we plug in an emergency manual dial console for testing our disaster recovery capability, the operators had to dial slower as they punched in the numbers faster than the equipment could handle it! In approximately two years the U.S. NRC will be consolidating its remaining national capital area offices into the Two White Flint Building, which will include the Telephone Operator service. We believe this system we are currently using is still state of the art as we've seen nothing else that compares to it. However, as we will be moving into a new building my superiors have expressed interest in discovering if there is any form of "upgrade" or anything better than what we are using that can be used for a high-volume switchboard (more than 300 calls a day) which makes fast transfers of telephone calls by name lookup or extension number, or might provide other features. I would like to hear of other computer-based switchboards for use in the type of application we are using here. I would like anyone who has information about this may respond in the Digest, or by an E-Mail reply to this message. If you do respond directly to this message, please place: TO: Jeannette Lanier In the text of the reply, or change the "O=nuclear_regulatory_commission" field at the top to read "G=jeannette_lanier". If that fails, try: USNUCLEAR2@ATTMAIL.COM If *that* fails, try: 62868951@eln.attmail.com (You should see what it takes to *send* a message to Internet from a telex number!) You may also respond to this message by facsimile to +1 (301) 492-7371. If you have color brochures or items which don't facsimile well, you may mail them instead to: U S Nuclear Regulatory Commission Jeannette Lanier, P-612 Washington, DC 20555 This is not a contract proposal or official request but is a preliminary inquiry to determine exactly what, if anything, is out there which may enable us to process telephone communications better. Thank you for your cooperation, Jeannette Lanier [Moderator's Note: I am not sure if Ms. Lanier entered a typo when she wrote of 'high volume ... more than 300 calls per day' or if the NRC regards that as high volume. Based on a 24 hour period (she said an operator is always on duty), that would only be 12-13 calls per hour, and assuming people do not call as often at night, there might be 30-35 calls per hour during the day. That amounts to a call on average every five minutes around the clock or every two minutes during the day. I guess this is very subjective, but I don't regard that as a very large volume at all, particularly since as Ms. Lanier points out, there are four operator positions working at various times of the day. On the old cord boards, operators were expected to handle 50-60 calls per hour, and handwrite all the charge tickets, etc. Perhaps her call count was incorrect. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Jan 93 20:41 JST From: jimmy@tokyo07.info.com (Jim Gottlieb) Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb Organization: Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan Subject: Public Phone 2000 Illegal I planned to get some work done at the airport yesterday while waiting for my flight. I had hoped to log in to my computer using a Public Phone 2000. Now that they are in most major airports and hotels, I don't even bother carrying a laptop any more. But it was not to be. When I selected "Place Terminal Call", it said "This service is not currently available." I called the repair number listed on the phone to ask about this. The nice lady at AT&T said that a recent FCC ruling forced them to turn off the terminal option in all of their Public Phone 2000s. Anyone have the details? This is mighty inconvenient. What is the FCC trying to protect us from now? [Moderator's Note: They are trying to protect us from ourselves, silly! Isn't that what Big Government is for? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Jan 93 09:47 EST From: phipps@ctd.comsat.com (John Phipps) Subject: 2 T-1 to 1/2 Rate T-1 Transcoders I am looking for equipment suppliers who manufacture the above equipment. Ideally, using the G.728 16 kbit/s ld-celp algorithm to provide the coding. Nice but not required. Please post any info to: phipps@ctd.comsat.com Thanks for the help. By the way I noticed a definition of a dBm0 referenced to a "test level". I have always used the term Transmission Level Point (TLP) when describing dBm0. In PCM systems 0 dBm0 is defined as being about 3 dB below the maximum PCM code. This max code is the highest signal level which can be transmitted without signal compression. This defines the ceiling. In order to be transmitted without overload, voice, data, and fax signals must be sent at a level below this ceiling. In international operations, end-to-end circuit line ups are simplified since a tech in country a can transmit a -10 dBm0 signal to a tech in country b who only has to know that its level is 10 dB below his own reference TLP. Just a comment, please no replies. In order to test MF signaling try the Northern Telecom 5900 Programable Generator and the 2760 Universal Signaling Analyzer. I don't know if they are still manufactured. The 2760 uses plug-in modules for the desired signaling type, CCITT #5, MF, DTMF etc. For those testing modem, Teltone makes a little black box wich provides battery and ringing to two station interfaces. For those with a lot of money to spend contact Telecom Analysis Systems in New Jersey at 908 544-8347. phipps@ctd.comsat.com Sean-an-Chogaidh ------------------------------ From: adykes@jpradley.jpr.com (Al Dykes) Subject: Human Factors for Speech Recognition Systems Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1993 16:09:45 GMT Organization: Unix in NYC Does anyone know of any studies relating to use of limited vocabulary voice recognition (digits, letters, YES/NO and a few other words) over the national phone network, by the general public? A standard example is the capability to let a bank customer call up and speak his account number and PIN number and then do simple query transactions. For the simplest case this could of course be done via Touch-tone codes. Speech recognition may allow a slightly more complex dialog without the long menu prompts that some applications currently use. I am interested in information pertaining to: 1) human-factors studies related to acceptance of voice recognition by the general public, and comparisions between voice input and Touch-tone input. 2) the technical viability of the North American phone network for limited vocabulary voice recognition applications. The vendors of large-vocabulary word recognition systems have all said that they did not support use over the phone network. Limited vocabulary systems might work. Digit recognition systems clearly work over the phone system. Any information, references, anecdotes, sucess and/or failure stories will be greatly appreciated. Al Dykes adykes@jpr.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Jan 93 21:00 PST From: rmg50@ico.isc.com (Richard M Greenberg) Subject: GTE Strikes Again The public access system that I normally use for Usenet news (the "play" system from my .sig) is in a GTE area (happily, my home isn't). The sysop had four lines coming in, and recently decided to add a fifth. It was put into service today, and GTE figured that as long as the new line was in, the old ones were no longer needed. When I tried to log in this evening, all of the numbers I was aware of got an intercept saying that they were no longer in service. I got the sysop on the phone, and he was not overjoyed at the news. He got to GTE repair, and to their credit, I just dialed two of the numbers and got modem tones again (about four hours later). The others are still on the intercept. Oh well ... Rich Greenberg Work: rmg50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com 310-417-8999 N6LRT Play: richg@hatch.socal.com 310-649-0238 What? Me speak for Amdahl? Surely you jest ... ------------------------------ From: jjimenez@dit.upm.es (Jose Luis Jimenez Fernandez) Subject: Dial-Up IP Router Organization: UUES, Asociacion de Usuarios de UNIX, Spain Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1993 15:21:34 GMT I need a cheap dial-up ip router like this. InterNet | | +---+ |\ | | \ | V32bis Modem | \| +---+ | +-----------------+ | Dial-up Ip | | Router | | | | | +-----------------+ | | | MyNet --------------------------------------------- I am testing with ka9q but the throutput it's very bad. Have some body experience about it ?. Jose Luis ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1993 02:07:28 -0500 From: Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Dave Leibold) Subject: Bless Me Father, For I Have Faxed ... A recent Reuter report spoke of the Roman Catholic Church's plans to install fax machine units for confessions. These are deluxe hi-tech models that resemble space-age telephone booths. Some officials with the RC Church are reportedly less than pleased with the prospect of such space-age atonements. Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:250/98 INTERNET: Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG [Moderator's Note: When the {Chicago Sun Times} mentioned this a couple days ago, they wondered editorially how a person could possibly use the system: would you sneak over to the fax machine at your office when no one was around and fax your confession on the sly, hoping no one came along and read it before you could scoop up the papers and hurry away? :) When the priest responded back by fax, what if the secretary in the office picked your confession up with the stuff she sent by accident ... it happens. Does anyone here recall the time about three years ago when the fellow in New York started the 900 service called 'Confessions' using as an advertisement a picture of a man kneeling in prayer in a NY Tel payphone booth, and how angry NY Tel got as a result? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1993 11:07:08 -0500 (EST) From: sbrack@jupiter.cse.UTOLEDO.edu (Steve Brack) Subject: Blast From the Past Reply-To: sbrack@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu I was visiting a friend's apartment the other day when I spied the most interesting thing: a pay phone whose enclosure did *not* have the logo of any of the LECs around here, but still had the old "Bell System" logo. I hadn't seen one of those in quite a while. Of course, the phone inside it was defaulted to "Charter Network," not AT&T. 8) Steven S. Brack sbrack@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu Toledo, OH 43613-1605 STU0061@UOFT01.BITNET MY OWN OPINIONS sbrack@nyx.cs.du.edu ------------------------------ From: wstef@hubcap.clemson.edu (W. Gregg Stefancik) Subject: Tropez 900DX Cordless Telephone Questions Organization: Clemson University Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1993 00:40:54 GMT I have one and am curious how it works. What type of modulation method does it use and how secure is it? W. Gregg Stefancik wstef@hubcap.clemson.edu ------------------------------ From: zrh@uts.amdahl.com (Zealand R. Hatch) Subject: Phone Sex is No Longer Safe Sex (was ATM History) Date: 31 Jan 93 00:10:30 GMT Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA > [Moderator's Note: Times change with the technology, don't they ... > while "ladies of the evening' (or people of the evening, if we wish > tobe non-sexist about it) are in abundance in most places, more and > more purveyors in the oldest profession are working in the phone rooms > instead; the income is probably as good and certainly the risks which > accompany direct meetings of this sort are eliminated. An old, old > line of work uses all the new technology! PAT] Safe as long as you're not making those calls on your cell phone. :-> Zealand Hatch - 408 746-8720 - {where_ever}!amdahl!zrh Amdahl Corporation -or- zrh@amdahl.amdahl.com (MY BOSS): "He said what! And you believed him?" [Moderator's Note: I suppose you could always wear a balloon over your head while you were talking on the cell phone. :) PAT ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Jan 93 11:50 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: I Want to Pay For a Local Call pas@cc.gatech.edu (Paulo Santos) writes: > If I want a receipt of delivery of a written message to an > addressee, I just fax the message. The long distance charge on my > bill will be evidence that I sent something to the other party's fax. > Much cheaper, much faster. A MUCH better idea: My fax server sends a confirmation of a successful transmission (or even a failed one, so noted) via e-mail. This message includes the telephone number of the destination as well as the remote machine's ID, the number of pages, and the transmission time. This is much better information (and proof of delivery) than a simple telephone charge which could be generated by picking up a telephone without benefit of fax machine and just letting the remote device answer. Yes, it would cost you something to implement this. But it is much more fair for you to pay for your special requirements than to expect a revamp of the public network. I, for one, need a detailed record of my calls. So I keep one. I do not expect the telephone company to do it for me. > But I can't do this for local calls. Local calls are not itemized. Even if you decline to install the fax system described above, you can always install SMDR. Again, it is not up to the telephone company to keep track of your business. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 [Moderator's Note: A successful fax transmission report can be dummied up quite easily just as easily as one could pick up a phone and dial a number without actually sending a fax. But put the two togther, giving two independent verifications that a phone connection was made and a message sent and you have more convincing evidence if it is needed. PAT] ------------------------------ From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: I Want to Pay For a Local Call Date: 1 Feb 1993 02:25:33 GMT Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA In article pas@cc.gatech.edu (Paulo Santos) writes: > I have resorted to dialing local calls with my calling card just to get > an itemized entry, but I don't like it. It is an expensive solution > and I can't autodial from the fax machine. Even the calling card trick won't work in US West territory (at least in Washington state). Here, if you have an unmeasured line, the local switch won't let you 0+ any "local" call. You can 0+ local calls from measured lines or from payphones. This has been an annoyance to me when trying to test the restriction on "call me" calling cards, as I have to go to a payphone in order to test them. (I guess they didn't take this into consideration when designing this restriction :-)) In the big scheme of things, I wonder why they restrict this. After all, if I *want* to pay calling card rates for a local call, why not let me? Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ From: deglop@huey.EEAP.CWRU.Edu (Jacob DeGlopper) Subject: Re: 301-303, Not in 410 Date: 31 Jan 1993 01:38:08 GMT Organization: EEAP, CWRU, Cleveland In article Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) writes: > archives, since they list 303 as a Columbia prefix in 410. Phone > books I checked in Maryland last night list 303 as Berwyn (i.e., a > Washington-metro-area prefix), which could be pseudo-foreign exchange There's something else strange afoot in Berwyn -- it seems many DC area paging companies have their 301 number sets on Berwyn exchanges. I can't see any particular reason to use that part of the world instead of any other; maybe the rent is cheap, but why always Berwyn? Jacob DeGlopper, EMT-A, Wheaton (MD) Volunteer Rescue Squad -- CWRU Biomedical Engineering - jrd5@po.cwru.edu -- ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #58 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27154; 1 Feb 93 2:25 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04306 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 1 Feb 1993 00:13:28 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15407 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 1 Feb 1993 00:13:01 -0600 Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1993 00:13:01 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302010613.AA15407@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #59 TELECOM Digest Mon, 1 Feb 93 00:13:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 59 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: New "Electronic Highway" For Canada (H.Shrikumar) Re: New "Electronic Highway" For Canada (John K. Scoggin, Jr) Re: Apartment Security Stupidity (Ed Greenberg) Re: Apartment Security Stupidity (Marty Brenneis) Re: Where is a Source For CFRs? (Bryan J. Abshier) Re: Distinctive Ringing - How Widespread? (Steve Forrette) Re: Bitfax - How to Turn Off "Wait For Dial Tone" (1012breuckma@vmsf.csd) Re: Baby Bell Breakup (Randy Gellens) Calling a Roaming Cellular Customer (Alan M. Gallatin) Telecom FAQ Update/Info/Whatever (Paul Renault) Telecom Software Quality (Evangelos Kontogiannis) LAN/WAN Issues (Javier Henderson) Vendors of PBX Circuit Boards Wanted (ytsai@clyde.ics.uci.edu) AT&T G2 Information Wanted (Ted Reston) MCI Personal 800 Numbers and Rerouting (Bill Huttig) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1993 19:59:15 -0500 From: shri@unreal.cs.umass.edu (H.Shrikumar) Subject: Re: New "Electronic Highway" For Canada Organization: UMass, Amherst MA + Temporal Sys & Computer Networks Bombay India In article it was reported: > Proponents of the new high-speed network said it is necessary > to keep Canada competitive. The US network, called NSFnet, can > transmit 1.5 million bits per second. In cotrast, CA*net only sends > 56,000 bits per second. Hmmmm ... did I not read somewhere that the last T1 link was disconnected from NSFNET? So the NSFNET now performs over a T3 (45Mbps) backbone. Of course many T1 lines are in service over the regional networks and elsewhere. Right here on C.D.T ... > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE > Wednesday, December 2, 1992 > National Science Foundation Network achieves major milestone > T-1 NSFNET now part of Internet history > (Wednesday, Dec. 2) Like it's predecessors, the ARPANET and the 56 > Kbps National Science Foundation Network (NSFNET), the T-1 NSFNET > passed into history today when the last router was moved to connect to > the T-3 backbone service. As of 12:01 a.m. EST on Wednesday, December > 2, the T-1 NSFNET backbone is no more -- its circuits are turned off > -- marking the beginning of a new networking And with the Tech-VP Al Gore still talking of Super-Data-Highways, the game of catch-up is sure to go on ! shrikumar ( shri@legato.cs.umass.edu ) ------------------------------ From: John K Scoggin Jr Subject: Re: New "Electronic Highway" For Canada Date: 31 Jan 1993 19:27:39 GMT Organization: Delmarva Power & Light Company Reply-To: scoggin@delmarva.COM Anyone care to break the news that the NSFnet is NOT running at 1.544 MBPS -- the T-1 net has been turned down and replaced with a DS-3 network (44.736 MBPS)! John K. Scoggin, Jr. Email: scoggin@delmarva.com Supervisor, Network Operations Phone: (302) 451-5200 Delmarva Power & Light Company Fax: (302) 451-5321 500 N. Wakefield Drive NOC: (800) 388-7076 Newark, DE 19714-6066 The opinions expressed are not those of Delmarva Power, simply the product of an over-active imagination... ------------------------------ From: edg@netcom.com (Ed Greenberg) Subject: Re: Apartment Security Stupidity Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1993 21:01:57 GMT In article dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson) writes: > If I lived there, I'd much rather have that risk than have some > strange CPE that is not under my own direct control sit between my > telephone set and my CO loop. Wouldn't you? What if, with the door system that Pat likes, you choose not to have phone service at all? I imagine you could have an instrument that does nothing but answer the door, right? So, how about, for those purists who don't want some "strange CPE," you bring the doorphone up on one pair, and bring the phone line(s) on other pairs? Edward W. Greenberg | Home: +1 408 283 0511 | edg@netcom.com 1600 Stokes St. #24 | Work: +1 408 764 5305 | DoD#: 0357 San Jose, CA 95126 | Fax: +1 408 764 5003 | KM6CG (ex WB2GOH) [Moderator's Note: What you are saying is exactly the approach IBT used to use when they were installing these systems (they have been prohibited from doing new installations since divestiture, but they service grandfathered accounts). Usually the manager of the building had two or three plain old black rotary dial phones (yes, the Bell version would work with rotary) left in his care by telco. When new tenants moved in, the manager would give them one of these phones to use for front door purposes only until the tenant's own phone service got turned on at a later time. When they got their service and phone, the old black one was given back to the manager. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Jan 93 15:16:43 PST From: droid@kerner.com (Marty the Droid) Subject: Re: Apartment Security Stupidity I've been reading this thread for a while and have to toos in my $.02 worth ... There is a system I have seen at many apartments here in San Francisco that seem to have thought of most of the points raised in this thread ... They are a speakerphone in a metal panel with a metal dial pad. There is a red LED display to guide dialling. There is also a directory of the residents in the building with their codes listed, some places use the apt number for the code. To go off hook you press the octothorpe (#) key and then enter the code. The unit then dial pulses the number for the resident. When the resident answers you can speak with them, when they want to let you enter they press 9 to buzz the door or 3 to disconnect. If the line is busy or unanswered you press 3. The unit will also drop the connection after 45 seconds or so. I played with the one at my brother's place and learned this: Anytime the unit hears a touch tone on the line it disconnects the transmitter in the door phone. If the tone continues it releases the door. This means you can't make outgoing calls from the dialtone when it pops up, nor can you release the door with a TT dialer. Of course you could hack it if you had access to the dmarc, but then if you have access to the dmarc you probably don't need to bugger the door. I suppose you could also do it from the B box, but if you are in that class there are few security measures that will bother you. (Just like Barney and Willie down in the basement of the Gaz company.) :-) Marty 'The Droid' Brenneis ...!uupsi!kerner!droid Industrial Magician droid@kerner.com (415)258-2105 ~~~ KAE7616 - 462.700 - 162.2 ~~~ KC6YYP ------------------------------ From: babshier@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bryan J Abshier) Subject: Re: Where is a Source For CFRs? Organization: The Ohio State University Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1993 20:21:29 GMT In article mwgordon@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mike Gordon) writes: > Since these are federal documents, I'd think they're somewhere. I'm > particularly interested in certain FCC and OSHA regs. Where are they? You can find these at your local law library. If you don't live near a big university or law school, try the county seat. Most county courthouses have some kind of law library which will have CFRs. Bryan J. Abshier -- Abshier@osu.edu -- bg739@cleveland.freenet.edu ------------------------------ From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: Distinctive Ringing - How Widespread? Date: 1 Feb 1993 02:28:33 GMT Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA In article James H. Thompson writes: > I'm looking for information how widespread the availability of > distinctive ringing services are. Would appreciate any suggestions on > where to find this data. > [Moderator's Note: I think almost all the Bell companies have this > feature available on their newer switches. Anyone have precise data > on this and the other recent additions like screening, etc? PAT] 'Almost' does not include Pacific Bell in this case. Out-of-the-way places such as California don't have new-fangled features like distinctive ringing or Caller ID yet. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ From: 1012breuckma@vmsf.csd.mu.edu Subject: Re: Bitfax - How to Turn of "Wait For Dial Tone" Flag Date: 31 Jan 1993 22:40:23 GMT Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services Reply-To: 1012breuckma@vmsf.csd.mu.edu In article , csb@violin.att.com writes: > I have bitfax software on a send/rec modem. How do I switch off > wait for dial tone flag? > The problem I have is the phone line this PC is connected to cannot > dial out. I want the recieving end PC to make the call and my end PC > to blindly send the fax. When I try to do this my PC gives "NO DIAL > TONE" error. > >How do I force it to "blind dial" without caring for a dial tone ? On most modems the "Xn" parameters sets how 'smart' the modem acts in regard to call progress tones (dialtone, busy, ring). Usually ATX0 will cause a blind dial, where the modem will wait a specific amount of time after taking the line off-hook, and then dial. Other values will cause varying amounts of 'smarts' to appear, I would try X0 first, and then try higher numbers and use the highest one that still works. ------------------------------ From: MPA15AB!RANDY@TRENGA.tredydev.unisys.com Date: 31 JAN 93 02:42 Subject: Re: Baby Bell Breakup john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > The split accomplishes two things (three if you include the stated, > public reason). First, it looks good. Pacific Telesis can now say > without lying that there is no connection between the two companies. > Second, it prevents any dreaded backflow of funds. ... > The stated reason for the split is that it frees the unregulated side > of stifling rules imposed by PUCs. Given the fecklessness of the CPUC, > I find this laughable at best. ... Another reason (as reported in the {L.A. Times}) is that as long as PacBell owned PacTell, it could not get a franchise for the next generation of wireless. Randy Gellens randy%mpa15ab@trenga.tredydev.unisys.com A Series System Software if mail bounces, forward to Unisys Mission Viejo, CA rgellens@mcimail.com Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak only for myself ------------------------------ From: alan@acpub.duke.edu (Alan M. Gallatin) Subject: Calling a Roaming Cellular Customer Date: 1 Feb 93 04:12:50 GMT Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C. I'm trying to get some information on the cost of calling someone who is roaming on a cellular phone. Yes, I know that there is no cost beyond normal long distance charges (to the person making the call) but, assuming that the roamer access is long distance, my question is really WHEN do charges start? Hypothetical questions -- In all cases, assume long distance charges would apply. In each case, I call 123-456-ROAM, hear a second "dial tone" and proceed to dial my friend's ten digit cellular number. 1) From the time I hear the second dial tone, there are ten seconds of ringing. My friend answers and we talk for 55 seconds. Is the call considered to be :55 or 1:05 in length? 2) Same call setup, but after 15 seconds I get a recording: "The cellular customer you have dialed is not answering or not in the Cellular calling area." 15+ second call or zero length? 3) Same call setup, but my friend's line is busy. Any charge for the call? I understand that my friend pays roaming charges if he answers the call, but that's an entirely different issue. Why do I ask all this? If someone is travelling and gives me ten different roamer access numbers that he could potentially be reached through (he'll be on the road and passing through different areas) will it cost me an arm and a leg to call each one everytime I need to track him down or will I only pay when I actually reach him? Neither AT&T nor MCI could give definite answers on this one. Further, neither of the local cellular companies (GTE Cellular One/Centel) could answer with certainty, either. * Please e-mail response to alan@acpub.duke.edu since an answer will be * * received much quicker than the processing time for a digest article. * * (You should still post a copy as well for the benefit of others) - * Thanks! Alan M. Gallatin ------------------------------ From: Paul Renault Subject: Telecom FAQ Update/Information/Whatever Date: Sun, 31 Jan 93 10:06:29 EST Thanks for the FAQ: I've just spent three many days on the phone to Bell Canada, Bell Northern Research, and Northern Telecom trying to find out some solid info on Caller ID (Caller Display) so I could tie to a client database via my modem ... Besides having to explain over and over and over WHY I wanted the info, and what I needed, I had to put up with the unbelievable "Gee, I don't know who could help you, you want some really technical information ..." (Like -- these people sell, what, three or four products - god forbid that they should know anything about what they sell ...) I only managed to find one person who could see the point of making DID information free and public: namely, that if the info was available the phone company will sell the service to more users. Gah! Double Gah! Anyway, I found your telcom FAQ, found the telephone number for Stentor, and called them. Thanks. However, the telephone number has changed to (613)781-0534, and for callers from Canada the toll-free number is (800)265-6608 - leave a message. [Moderator's Note: I am glad te FAQ was useful you. A copy of the latest edition (version 4) was posted to comp.dcom.telecom Sunday for anyone who still does not have a copy. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun 31 Jan 93 14:13:11 +0200 From: ekon@intranet.gr (Evangelos Kontogiannis) Subject: Telecom Software Quality Hello, I am looking for info on discussion groups/listl/archive files dealing with Telecom Software Quality issues (ISO Recommendations, etc). My company develops software for digital switches for PSTN. I read TELECOM digest, but do not recall any item dealing with this issue speciffically. Thank you in advance. Please reply by e-mail to: ekon@intranet.gr INTRACOM S.A. ------------------------------ From: jav@crash.cts.com Subject: LAN/WAN Issues Organization: CTS Network Services (crash, ctsnet), El Cajon, CA Date: 31 Jan 93 12:06:10 PST [ Article crossposted from vmsnet.networks.misc ] [ Author was Javier Henderson ] [ Posted on 27 Jan 93 12:04:12 PST ] Hello, everyone, I have the following scenario, which I'd like to present to the net and see what other people may suggest. The company I work for has a central site in Ventura, CA, and remote sites around the state, between 80 and 300 miles away. The central site has two VAX cpu's, and I need about 16-20 terminals or printers at each remote site. There's no need to have 'stuff' at the remote sites networked with the central site at this point (such as PC's running Pathworks for example), but it may be needed in the future. DEC's suggestion was to go with DECMuxes. Terry Poot suggested to use a product called ILAN, to extend the LAN from the central site to the remote sites. The VAXes have DECnet, but no TCP/IP. If we are to set up DEC (or third party) terminal servers at the remote sites, they communicate with the cpu's via LAT, a non-routable protocol. What would you suggest? Thanks, jav@crash.cts.com Javier Henderson ------------------------------ From: ytsai@clyde.ICS.UCI.EDU Subject: Vendors of PBX Circuit Boards Wanted Date: 31 Jan 93 20:07:25 GMT Hi, A friend of mine is looking forward to the possibility of purchasing printed boards for PABX systems (Digital switching) from manufacturers or vendors in the United States, Taiwan or other countries. He would need boards for processor unit, terminal units (user units/trunk units) and some other accessory units for switching systems with 200+ lines. Potentially, large amount of boards would be needed. If somebody knows where he can find the manufactures/vendors, please give me a mail to: ytsai@clyde.ics.uci.edu Any other suggestion will also be highly appreciated. THanks, Steve ------------------------------ From: tjr@batfish.attmail.com Date: 31 Jan 93 18:30:01 GMT Subject: AT&T G2 Information Needed I am looking for technical documentation on AT&T G2. Does anyone out there know where I might get some? Please respond via e-mail. Thank You. Ted Reston Reston Consulting Services batfish!tjr@attmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Jan 93 17:34:41 -0500 From: wah@zach.fit.edu ( Bill Huttig) Subject: MCI Personal 800 Numbers and Rerouting I have two Personal 800 numbers from MCI ... I reroute one of the numbers last night to a party line ... and didn't change it back.. anyway today I find both 800 numbers disconnected and a note on my account stating that they were terminated because of fraud ... I am the one that rerouted the numbers; I am going to pay the bill ... I called the number ... How is this considered fraud? I am unaware of anything from MCI (oral or in writing) that said that I could not reroute to certain types of lines. Fraud Department is not in so I will have to call tommorow morning. I have more trouble with MCI disconnecting the number's and miss billing ... if they thought there was fraud they should have called me and not just disconnect the numbers. I spend over $100/momth with them and I have more trouble with them then I did with ATC ... (only thing is I save $1.20/hr. Bill ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #59 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15543; 1 Feb 93 11:37 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06897 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 1 Feb 1993 09:10:01 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09242 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 1 Feb 1993 09:09:33 -0600 Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1993 09:09:33 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302011509.AA09242@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu Subject: Federal Crackdown on Computer Abuse and Misuse I received this file over the weekend and am passing it along FYI to TELECOM Digest readers. It appears the government wants to see time in prison for anyone/everyone found guilty of numerous crimes involving the use of computers, based on the sentencing guidelines proposed. Comments should be directed to the CPSR, the Sentencing Commission, or one of the newsgroups/mailing lists where the discussion will no doubt be continuing, such as Computer Underground Digest. PAT Organization: Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility From: Dave Banisar Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1993 15:12:11 EST Subject: Revised Computer Crime Sentencing Guidelines From Jack King (gjk@well.sf.ca.us) The U.S. Dept. of Justice has asked the U.S. Sentencing Commission to promulgate a new federal sentencing guideline, Sec. 2F2.1, specifically addressing the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1988 (18 USC 1030), with a base offense level of 6 and enhancements of 4 to 6 levels for violations of specific provisions of the statute. The new guideline practically guarantees some period of confinement, even for first offenders who plead guilty. For example, the guideline would provide that if the defendant obtained ``protected'' information (defined as ``private information, non-public government information, or proprietary commercial information), the offense level would be increased by two; if the defendant disclosed protected information to any person, the offense level would be increased by four levels, and if the defendant distributed the information by means of "a general distribution system," the offense level would go up six levels. The proposed commentary explains that a "general distribution system" includes "electronic bulletin board and voice mail systems, newsletters and other publications, and any other form of group dissemination, by any means." So, in effect, a person who obtains information from the computer of another, and gives that information to another gets a base offense level of 10; if he used a 'zine or BBS to disseminate it, he would get a base offense level of 12. The federal guidelines prescribe 6-12 months in jail for a first offender with an offense level of 10, and 10-16 months for same with an offense level of 12. Pleading guilty can get the base offense level down by two levels; probation would then be an option for the first offender with an offense level of 10 (reduced to 8). But remember: there is no more federal parole. The time a defendant gets is the time s/he serves (minus a couple days a month "good time"). If, however, the offense caused an economic loss, the offense level would be increased according to the general fraud table (Sec. 2F1.1). The proposed commentary explains that computer offenses often cause intangible harms, such as individual privacy rights or by impairing computer operations, property values not readily translatable to the general fraud table. The proposed commentary also suggests that if the defendant has a prior conviction for "similar misconduct that is not adequately reflected in the criminal history score, an upward departure may be warranted." An upward departure may also be warranted, DOJ suggests, if "the defendant's conduct has affected or was likely to affect public service or confidence" in "public interests" such as common carriers, utilities, and institutions. Based on the way U.S. Attorneys and their computer experts have guesstimated economic "losses" in a few prior cases, a convicted tamperer can get whacked with a couple of years in the slammer, a whopping fine, full "restitution" and one to two years of supervised release (which is like going to a parole officer). (Actually, it *is* going to a parole officer, because although there is no more federal parole, they didn't get rid of all those parole officers. They have them supervise convicts' return to society.) This, and other proposed sentencing guidelines, can be found at 57 Fed Reg 62832-62857 (Dec. 31, 1992). The U.S. Sentencing Commission wants to hear from YOU. Write: U.S. Sentencing Commission, One Columbus Circle, N.E., Suite 2-500, Washington DC 20002-8002, Attention: Public Information. Comments must be received by March 15, 1993. * * * Actual text of relevant ammendments: UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION AGENCY: United States Sentencing Commission. 57 FR 62832 December 31, 1992 Sentencing Guidelines for United States Courts ACTION: Notice of proposed amendments to sentencing guidelines, policy statements, and commentary. Request for public comment. Notice of hearing. SUMMARY: The Commission is considering promulgating certain amendments to the sentencing guidelines, policy statements, and commentary. The proposed amendments and a synopsis of issues to be addressed are set forth below. The Commission may report amendments to the Congress on or before May 1, 1993. Comment is sought on all proposals, alternative proposals, and any other aspect of the sentencing guidelines, policy statements, and commentary. DATES: The Commission has scheduled a public hearing on these proposed amendments for March 22, 1993, at 9:30 a.m. at the Ceremonial Courtroom, United States Courthouse, 3d and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20001. Anyone wishing to testify at this public hearing should notify Michael Courlander, Public Information Specialist, at (202) 273-4590 by March 1, 1993. Public comment, as well as written testimony for the hearing, should be received by the Commission no later than March 15, 1993, in order to be considered by the Commission in the promulgation of amendments due to the Congress by May 1, 1993. ADDRESSES: Public comment should be sent to: United States Sentencing Commission, One Columbus Circle, NE., suite 2-500, South Lobby, Washington, DC 20002-8002, Attention: Public Information. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Courlander, Public Information Specialist, Telephone: (202) 273-4590. * * * 59. Synopsis of Amendment: This amendment creates a new guideline applicable to violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1988 (18 U.S.C. 1030). Violations of this statute are currently subject to the fraud guidelines at S. 2F1.1, which rely heavily on the dollar amount of loss caused to the victim. Computer offenses, however, commonly protect against harms that cannot be adequately quantified by examining dollar losses. Illegal access to consumer credit reports, for example, which may have little monetary value, nevertheless can represent a serious intrusion into privacy interests. Illegal intrusions in the computers which control telephone systems may disrupt normal telephone service and present hazards to emergency systems, neither of which are readily quantifiable. This amendment proposes a new Section 2F2.1, which provides sentencing guidelines particularly designed for this unique and rapidly developing area of the law. Proposed Amendment: Part F is amended by inserting the following section, numbered S. 2F2.1, and captioned "Computer Fraud and Abuse," immediately following Section 2F1.2: "S. 2F2.1. Computer Fraud and Abuse (a) Base Offense Level: 6 (b) Specific Offense Characteristics (1) Reliability of data. If the defendant altered information, increase by 2 levels; if the defendant altered protected information, or public records filed or maintained under law or regulation, increase by 6 levels. (2) Confidentiality of data. If the defendant obtained protected information, increase by 2 levels; if the defendant disclosed protected information to any person, increase by 4 levels; if the defendant disclosed protected information to the public by means of a general distribution system, increase by 6 levels. Provided that the cumulative adjustments from (1) and (2), shall not exceed 8. (3) If the offense caused or was likely to cause (A) interference with the administration of justice (civil or criminal) or harm to any person's health or safety, or (B) interference with any facility (public or private) or communications network that serves the public health or safety, increase by 6 levels. (4) If the offense caused economic loss, increase the offense level according to the tables in S. 2F1.1 (Fraud and Deceit). In using those tables, include the following: (A) Costs of system recovery, and (B) Consequential losses from trafficking in passwords. (5) If an offense was committed for the purpose of malicious destruction or damage, increase by 4 levels. (c) Cross References (1) If the offense is also covered by another offense guideline section, apply that offense guideline section if the resulting level is greater. Other guidelines that may cover the same conduct include, for example: for 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(1), S. 2M3.2 (Gathering National Defense Information); for 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(3), S. 2B1.1 (Larceny, Embezzlement, and Other Forms of Theft), S. 2B1.2 (Receiving, Transporting, Transferring, Transmitting, or Possessing Stolen Property), and S. 2H3.1 (Interception of Communications or Eavesdropping); for 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(4), S. 2F1.1 (Fraud and Deceit), and S. 2B1.1 (Larceny, Embezzlement, and Other Forms of Theft); for 18 U.S.C. S. 1030(a)(5), S. 2H2.1 (Obstructing an Election or Registration), S. 2J1.2 (Obstruction of Justice), and S. 2B3.2 (Extortion); and for 18 U.S.C. S. 1030(a)(6), S. 2F1.1 (Fraud and Deceit) and S. 2B1.1 (Larceny, Embezzlement, and Other Forms of Theft). Commentary Statutory Provisions: 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(1)-(a)(6) Application Notes: 1. This guideline is necessary because computer offenses often harm intangible values, such as privacy rights or the unimpaired operation of networks, more than the kinds of property values which the general fraud table measures. See S. 2F1.1, Note 10. If the defendant was previously convicted of similar misconduct that is not adequately reflected in the criminal history score, an upward departure may be warranted. 2. The harms expressed in paragraph (b)(1) pertain to the reliability and integrity of data; those in (b)(2) concern the confidentiality and privacy of data. Although some crimes will cause both harms, it is possible to cause either one alone. Clearly a defendant can obtain or distribute protected information without altering it. And by launching a virus, a defendant may alter or destroy data without ever obtaining it. For this reason, the harms are listed separately and are meant to be cumulative. 3. The terms "information," "records," and "data" are interchangeable. 4. The term "protected information" means private information, non-public government information, or proprietary commercial information. 5. The term "private information" means confidential information (including medical, financial, educational, employment, legal, and tax information) maintained under law, regulation, or other duty (whether held by public agencies or privately) regarding the history or status of any person, business, corporation, or other organization. 6. The term "non-public government information" means unclassified information which was maintained by any government agency, contractor or agent; which had not been released to the public; and which was related to military operations or readiness, foreign relations or intelligence, or law enforcement investigations or operations. 7. The term "proprietary commercial information" means non-public business information, including information which is sensitive, confidential, restricted, trade secret, or otherwise not meant for public distribution. If the proprietary information has an ascertainable value, apply paragraph (b) (4) to the economic loss rather than (b) (1) and (2), if the resulting offense level is greater. 8. Public records protected under paragraph (b) (1) must be filed or maintained under a law or regulation of the federal government, a state or territory, or any of their political subdivisions. 9. The term "altered" covers all changes to data, whether the defendant added, deleted, amended, or destroyed any or all of it. 10. A "general distribution system" includes electronic bulletin board and voice mail systems, newsletters and other publications, and any other form of group dissemination, by any means. 11. The term "malicious destruction or damage" includes injury to business and personal reputations. 12. Costs of system recovery: Include the costs accrued by the victim in identifying and tracking the defendant, ascertaining the damage, and restoring the system or data to its original condition. In computing these costs, include material and personnel costs, as well as losses incurred from interruptions of service. If several people obtained unauthorized access to any system during the same period, each defendant is responsible for the full amount of recovery or repair loss, minus any costs which are clearly attributable only to acts of other individuals. 13. Consequential losses from trafficking in passwords: A defendant who trafficked in passwords by using or maintaining a general distribution system is responsible for all economic losses that resulted from the use of the password after the date of his or her first general distribution, minus any specific amounts which are clearly attributable only to acts of other individuals. The term "passwords" includes any form of personalized access identification, such as user codes or names. 14. If the defendant's acts harmed public interests not adequately reflected in these guidelines, an upward departure may be warranted. Examples include interference with common carriers, utilities, and institutions (such as educational, governmental, or financial institutions), whenever the defendant's conduct has affected or was likely to affect public service or confidence". * * * ------------------- This file has been provided FYI to TELECOM Digest readers. Comments should be directed to either the CPSR or the Sentencing Commission or other newsgroups or mailing lists (such as Computer Underground Digest) where the discussion will no doubt be continuing. PAT   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15274; 2 Feb 93 0:32 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15637 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 1 Feb 1993 22:23:38 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14124 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 1 Feb 1993 22:23:11 -0600 Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1993 22:23:11 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302020423.AA14124@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #60 TELECOM Digest Mon, 1 Feb 93 22:23:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 60 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Clinton Speaks; White House Phones Go Haywire (Mark Vanroojen) Re: Clinton Speaks; White House Phones Go Haywire (H. Shrikumar) Re: Clinton Speaks; White House Phones Go Haywire (Orion@cup.portal.com) Re: Calling a Roaming Cellular Customer (John Higdon) Re: Calling a Roaming Cellular Customer (Alan M. Gallatin) Re: Calling a Roaming Cellular Customer (John Higdon) Re: Calling a Roaming Cellular Customer (John R. Covert) Re: Calling a Roaming Cellular Customer (Steve Forrette) Re: "Secret" Phone Codes (Todd Inch) Re: "Secret" Phone Codes (Tom Avery) Re: "Secret" Phone Codes (Carl Moore) Re: "Secret" Phone Codes (Christopher J. Ambler) Re: Sears Kills Catalog After 95 Years (Ron Dippold) Re: Sears Kills Catalog After 95 Years (Mark Steiger) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 1 Feb 93 15:24:51 CST From: msv@unlinfo.unl.edu (mark vanroojen) Subject: Re: Clinton Speaks; White House Phones Go Haywire Thanks for the posting on the White House phones. I too am dismayed at the amount of hate a simple decision not to discriminate can generate. I appreciate the editorial comments letting the readers know where you stand. Mark van Roojen msv@unlinfo.unl.edu [Moderator's Note: I also received correspondence from Jack Decker (too lengthy to include here) taking me to task for 'making it seem like only the people opposed to gays in the military were making vicious attacks ...' What I said was that intelligent remarks on *BOTH* sides of the issue were a rarity. Jack pointed out -- using the alleged 'art' of Robert Mapplethorpe as an example -- that gay people can also be crude, lewd and quite obscene when expressing themselves. I don't disagree with that. Civility or the lack of it transcends sexual orientation; but the point of my message was not to detirmine who could be the nastiest and most hateful, but rather, that phone traffic was extremely heavy all last week; it caused malfunctioning in the White House telecom equipment; and that the overwhelming majority of callers were not merely content to express their displeasure with President Clinton's posture on this issue but had to embelish their own comments with liberal doses of obscenities and vicious remarks as well, perchance someone missed the reason for their phone call. Jack noted that with this action as one of Clinton's first official acts, the next four years should be interesting, as in the old Chinese saying 'may you live in interesting times'. Yes Jack, I quite agree, the next four years should see some incredible changes in the USA. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1993 19:49:14 -0500 From: shri@unreal.cs.umass.edu (H.Shrikumar) Subject: Re: Clinton Speaks; White House Phones Go Haywire Organization: UMass, Amherst MA + Temporal Sys & Computer Networks Bombay India In article TELECOM Moderator wrote: > So ... the normal increase in phone traffic due to a government in > transition accompanied by an aroused citizenry more willing than ever > to use the telephone to give our president a piece of their mind pro > and con -- mostly con, I might add :( based on reports from telecom > management at the White House -- finally brought the system to a > screaming halt on Thursday and again on Friday for awhile. The switch > serving the White House simply crashed from the volume of traffic. > They'd reboot it, it would run awhile and crash again. Finally it > looked like everything was restored, then came the Friday afternoon Interesting!! But hold it ! Surely I'd imagine switches *would* *be* designed to survive gracefully any severe overload far above BCHA!! Or is it perhaps that the switches are indeed designed to handle several times BCHA gracefully, but only this time the number of call attempts was far in excess of that n * BCHA rating. Enquring minds ... BTW ... what switch was it that needed the rebooting? Are we talking about the LO serving the White House area ie. the (202)-456 Office? Or is it an RLU (if they are use out there) or a PBX or a Centrex that (sometimes) could get confused with the switch when stories go mouth-to-mouth. What make was the "switch" ? shrikumar ( shri@legato.cs.umass.edu ) [Moderator's Note: It was only their internal telecom stuff, not a C&P switch. There is a centrex serving the White House which is not on the 456 exchange. It serves the Executive Office Building and has extensions from it in the White House as well. '456' is the switchboard and some other departments in the executive domain. Calls received at the 456-1414 switchboard can be transferred to the centrex serving the EOB. What they said happened Thursday and Friday was that calls could not be properly transferred from the switchboard to other places. In the process of transferring them, the calls would just vanish. People calling in got endless ringing with no signal showing up at the switchboard or in the Comments Office sub-system. After awhile, the ringing would stop and the caller would be left in limbo, unretrievable by anyone. Calls being transferred would sometimes jump right into the middle of a call already in progress between two other people, dumping the existing caller off. The staffer is talking to one person and suddenly she had a totally different person on line in mid-sentence. People dialing for an outside line would get incoming calls dumped on their line instead of the expected dialtone. Apparently the White House *public* phone system has/had a flaw somewhere. Maybe it was something in the hardware which pooped out from the intensity of the calls, or perhaps a bug in the software only became known when the call volume reached such a high level. They aren't saying. Of course callers who were connected each time the disturbances started would lose their connection and assume the staff had hung up on them; they'd call back angry and more hostile than the first time demanding to be connected with 'whoever that was who hung up on me ...' etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Orion@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: Clinton Speaks; White House Phones Go Haywire Date: Mon, 1 Feb 93 12:07:12 PST Gee, the White House needs a voice mail system with an automated attendant! =) [Moderator's Note: You mean like, press 1 if you agree with Clinton, press 2 if you disagree, dial extension 3825 or 7448 if you need to cuss at someone right away who is taking calls for the President; or at the tone, leave your obscenity. :) PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Feb 93 01:31 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Calling a Roaming Cellular Customer alan@acpub.duke.edu (Alan M. Gallatin) writes: > 1) From the time I hear the second dial tone, there are ten seconds of > ringing. My friend answers and we talk for 55 seconds. Is the call > considered to be :55 or 1:05 in length? > 2) Same call setup, but after 15 seconds I get a recording: "The > cellular customer you have dialed is not answering or not in the > Cellular calling area." 15+ second call or zero length? > 3) Same call setup, but my friend's line is busy. Any charge for the > call? You are charged from the moment you hear dial tone from the MTSO. It could be programmed to supervise upon answer by the mobile, but the cellular companies discovered that AT&T blocks forward audio transmission until the call supervises. This means that you cannot send any DTMF to the MTSO until the call supervises (and charging begins). But why on earth are you using this archaic method of roaming? Most carriers have agreements with other carriers to allow automatic incoming roaming of one sort or another. If you use that, no one gets charged anything until the mobile answers. And you do not have to "track down" anyone. You simply dial the home system mobile number and the call goes right to the mobile phone, regardless of where it is. And even if you pay toll to the base mobile number AND the mobile customer pays the backhaul, it is cheaper than making a dozen unsuccessful calls to MTSO roaming ports. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: alan@acpub.duke.edu (Alan M. Gallatin) Subject: Re: Calling a Roaming Cellular Customer Date: Mon, 1 Feb 93 5:10:10 EST Referring to my method of tracking down a cellular roamer by calling a list of roamer access numbers, John Higdon replies: > But why on earth are you using this archaic method of roaming? [Describes national-call-delivery type roaming services] > And even if you pay toll to the base mobile number AND the mobile > customer pays the backhaul, it is cheaper than making a dozen > unsuccessful calls to MTSO roaming ports. The potential double toll charges are precisely why a national-call- delivery type service is not always desirable (assuming, of course, that I equate my friends toll costs to his cellular account equal in importance to my own). For every unsuccesful call to a roamer port, I waste a minute (shouldn't be any more than that) of long distance; if I have five unsuccesful attempts and then get through, I will have wasted five minutes of toll. Although an NCD type service would have saved me this money, we're paying double toll -- so once the call goes over five minutes, REAL waste kicks in. (Of course, I suppose that once the cell customer is tracked down via NCD, he can then hang up and call back from the cell phone; toll charges to the cellular customer might not be any different but the landline customer saves all $.) Another idea: Assume NCD is activated. I dial the person's cellular number and they are properly located. Can they then simply tell me where they are and have me call back through a roamer port or does having NCD active make other forms of roamer access inoperable? Alan Gallatin ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Feb 93 02:34 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Calling a Roaming Cellular Customer On Feb 1 at 5:10, Alan M. Gallatin writes: > Can they then simply tell me where they are and have me call back > through a roamer port or does having NCD active make other forms of > roamer access inoperable? In my experience, no type of roaming precludes any other. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Feb 93 05:12:27 PST From: John R. Covert 01-Feb-1993 0809 Subject: Re: Calling a Roaming Cellular Customer Charging begins as soon as the roaming port you are calling answers. Since AT&T will not transmit sound from the caller to the called party until charging begins, cellular roaming ports must be arranged to answer immediately; otherwise they would not be able to hear you enter the cellular number with touch-tone. Thus you are charged for each attempt, whether you reach your party or not. There are a _few_ ports which (through error) do not answer until the cellular subscriber answers. These ports cannot be used at all via AT&T, but can be used on other carriers. The person you're calling probably isn't in one of these areas anyway, since these areas clearly don't have many roamers, or the problem would have been fixed due to complaints that the ports don't work when calling long distance. john ------------------------------ From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: Calling a Roaming Cellular Customer Date: 1 Feb 1993 16:01:50 GMT Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA In article alan@acpub.duke.edu (Alan M. Gallatin) writes: > I'm trying to get some information on the cost of calling someone who > is roaming on a cellular phone. Yes, I know that there is no cost > beyond normal long distance charges (to the person making the call) > but, assuming that the roamer access is long distance, my question is > really WHEN do charges start? > 1) From the time I hear the second dial tone, there are ten seconds of > ringing. My friend answers and we talk for 55 seconds. Is the call > considered to be :55 or 1:05 in length? 1:05 > 2) Same call setup, but after 15 seconds I get a recording: "The > cellular customer you have dialed is not answering or not in the > Cellular calling area." 15+ second call or zero length? 15+ seconds > 3) Same call setup, but my friend's line is busy. Any charge for the > call? Yes. > Why do I ask all this? If someone is travelling and gives me ten > different roamer access numbers that he could potentially be reached > through (he'll be on the road and passing through different areas) > will it cost me an arm and a leg to call each one everytime I need to > track him down or will I only pay when I actually reach him? It is unfortunate that this is the case, and it was not always this way. We can all thank AT&T for this new 'feature' that had to be implemented on the cellular roaming ports a few years ago. Once upon a time, the roam ports worked in a 'friendly' way, only returning answer supervision when (and if) the cellular customer actually answered. (Answer supervision is the signal that the terminating central office returns to the originating CO to tell it when to start billing). This was really nice to the long distance (or cellular) caller to the roam port. Then, AT&T implemented a new 'feature' in their long distance network, whereby the forward talk path is not enabled until AT&T receives the answer supervision signal from the called end. If the roam ports were left the way they had been, it would be impossible for anyone calling on the AT&T network to use them. The caller would hear the secondary dialtone, but the roam port would never hear their touchtones. So, all the roam ports are now configured to return answer supervision as soon as they start their own dialtone. On a related note, I would encourage anyone that places calling card calls from a cellular phone to use US Sprint's FON card, as that system does not return answer supervision until and unless the final called party answers. This way, you don't have to pay airtime for uncompleted calls. At least it works this way through the 1-800 access method. The AT&T calling card system returns answer supervision as soon as the 'bong' tone sounds, so you have to pay airtime for uncompleted calls as well. Since most of the time you need to bill cellular calls to a calling card is when you are roaming, this can quickly add up. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ From: toddi@mav.com (Todd Inch) Subject: Re: "Secret" Phone Codes Organization: Maverick International Inc. Date: Mon, 01 Feb 93 21:06:57 GMT In article jyacc!charles@uunet.UU.NET (Charles McGuinness) writes: >> At the end of the month I'm moving to a house that already has one >> phone line installed, and having a second line turned on. >> I have heard that there is a code I can dial into a phone that will >> tell me what phone number that phone is connected to. > There is such a secret code that works everywhere in your situation ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > You dial the phone number of your second phone line. The telephone > company will give you a ringing tone if you are on your first line or > a busy signal if you are on your second line. This is a little known ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Actually, in some places you'll get a recording saying you're trying to call a party-line-number on your own party line, so please hang up and give them time to answer. This is true even if it is not a party line. That feature does let you test your bells and serve as a cheap intercom, however. > feature, so don't spread the word or the phone company might > discontinue it! ;-) This "feature" is not always useful. I usually only get the opportunity to remodel my key system at home after the wife and kids are asleep (which, some days, is the only time both lines are unused), and they don't appreciate my testing which line is which by ringing it. In GTE land north of Seattle, WA, the "secret code" is 411. We use 1-555-1212 for local directory information. The number varies widely depending on your local telco and probably isn't as simple as a three digit number in most areas (hint: it's definitely NOT 911!). In some places, these test numbers are frequently changed to prevent customers from using it, but not around here. Some telcos, especially very small ones, may not even have such a number. ------------------------------ From: avery@f18e.stlouis.sgi.com (Tom Avery) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1993 15:00:41 -0600 Subject: Re: "Secret" Phone Codes I just tried the number here in St.Louis, MO. It worked for me. Nice slow computer generated voice. Gave me my phone number + 8. Tom Avery VM x8939 MDC Account Manager Silicon Graphics, Inc. 12400 Olive Boulevard, Suite 450 St. Louis, MO 63141 314-542-0876 314-542-0751 (fax) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Feb 93 13:54:03 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: "Secret" Phone Codes Mark Bacchus writes: > I've never heard of a case where you could dial a LD carrier access > code followed by a seven digit number. I assume this is possible in area 609 in New Jersey. Long distance within a New Jersey area code is only seven digits, and 609 is split between two LATAs. ------------------------------ From: cambler@zeus.calpoly.edu (Christopher J. Ambler, Phish) Subject: Re: "Secret" Phone Codes Organization: When Fashion Dictates, you're living in a Fashion State! Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1993 11:02:14 GMT Interesting. I tried the number from my ISDN set, and after a tone, it read me back my number with the obligatory 8 appended. After another tone, I got the string of numbers, but not the 0s and 2s that everyone else is getting, I got 8880006. I wonder what they are. Any ideas? cambler@zeus.calpoly.edu | Author, FSUUCP 1.32 chris@toys.fubarsys.com | Secretary, BBSC ------------------------------ From: rdippold@qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) Subject: Re: Sears Kills Catalog After 95 Years Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1993 20:15:06 GMT rdippold@qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes: > I wonder if AT&T is going to yank that commercial - the one about how > they managed to reroute Sears's calls when one of their phone centers Okay, it's been extensively pointed out that this was actually JC Penny. I plead guilty to not paying enough attention to commercials! :) ------------------------------ From: Mark.Steiger@tdkt.kksys.com (Mark Steiger) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1993 11:44:03 -0600 Subject: Re: Sears Kills Catalog After 95 Years Organization: The Dark Knight's Table BBS: Minnetonka, MN (Free!) >> Sears Roebuck & Company's Mail Order Catalog Division is closing >> after more than 95 years. >> Until last year, incredibly enough, SEARS CATALOG DID NOT HAVE >> AN 800 NUMBER. > Aside from the Donnelly company which printed the Sears catalogs, > another big telecommunications loser will be SPRINT, which has had th > privilege of handling the hundreds of thousands of calls to > 1-800-366-3000 for SEARS catalog sales. Sears' Sprint account rep > better get hustling on new business! > BTW, you can still order from Sears catalog until all their merchan- > dise is exhausted. > I guess that Sears will sell its mailing list to raise cash, and thos > of us who've ever ordered from the Sears catalog will now be bombarde > with calls, letters, and catalogs from other mail order houses! I work for a major mail order firm and I know our company is fighting about ten other companies for the Sears mailing list. I've heard around the phone floor that our bid is at about $1 per name. Whoever owns that list will practically own the world of catalog sales. Mark Steiger, Sysop, The Igloo BBS (612) 574-0037 Internet: mark@tdkt.kksys.com Fido: 1:282/4018 Simnet: 16:612/24 [Moderator's Note: The Sears' list will indeed be a plum for some company, and a smart player might buy it then resell it piecemeal to several other companies and clean up financially that way also. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #60 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22411; 2 Feb 93 4:05 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30721 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 2 Feb 1993 01:24:31 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00152 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 2 Feb 1993 01:24:00 -0600 Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1993 01:24:00 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302020724.AA00152@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #61 TELECOM Digest Tue, 2 Feb 93 01:24:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 61 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: I Want to Pay For a Local Call (Paulo Santos) Re: I Want to Pay For a Local Call (John Higdon) Re: I Want to Pay For a Local Call (Jack Decker) Norwegian Number Change, a First Hand Report (Morten Reistad) Re: "Advanced Switching" at SWBT (Don Hackler) Re: Cellular Phones Are Carcinogens? (John Higdon) Re: New "Electronic Highway" For Canada (Robert L. McMillin) Re: Can Phones be Restricted to 911 Only? (Darren Alex Griffiths) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pas@cc.gatech.edu (Paulo Santos) Subject: Re: I Want to Pay For a Local Call Reply-To: Paulo Santos Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1993 22:59:24 GMT I wrote an article here expressing my desired to receive and pay for an itemization of some local calls for fax logging purposes. John Higdon followed up suggesting that I should setup such a system myself, and not expect "the telephone company to keep track of my business." His thesis is that I should not "expect a revamp of the public network" to suit my special requirements. I could not believe it. Here was John Higdon, the same John Higdon who complains regularly in this Digest about the backwardness of Pacific Bell in introducing new features in CA, saying that I should not ask for of expect a new feature. The feature I asked for seems reasonable and a useful one; a feature that some people (at least one) are willing to pay for. Is it unreasonable to bring it up in this Digest for discussion? I don't think so. The telephone network is not just a POTS network anymore. If the telephone companies were in the market just to provide POTS service, I would buy Mr. Higdon's argument. Following his argument, we would still not have three-way calling or call waiting. After all, if you really wanted three-way calling, you could always get two lines and a conference bridge; if you really wanted to receive a call while you were engaged in an other conversation, you could get two lines. The problem is that people put some value in those added services, but are not willing to pay the cost of another line for it. So the phone companies provides an alternative at a lower cost taht people find acceptable and buy. Joe Doe wins, the phone company wins, everyone is happy. Same thing happens with the "per call itemization" that I suggest. I can't justify investing in an ellaborate system, but I would be willing to pay the phone company to do it for me cheaper. It seems that they have the resources (CO + billing) to do it. So I suggested that they offer this service. I have received several pieces of email about this topic. I will summarize to the Digest soon. Paulo Santos pas@cc.gatech.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Feb 93 19:08 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: I Want to Pay For a Local Call On Feb 1 at 18:01, Paulo Santos writes: > I could not believe it. Here was John Higdon, the same John Higdon > who complains regularly in this Digest about the backwardness of > Pacific Bell in introducing new features in CA, saying that I should > not ask for of expect a new feature. You miss a key point. The features that I demand from my local telco are those that I cannot provide for myself AT ANY COST. Shall we examine them? The simple feature, hunting, can only be provided in the central office. "No-loss" three-way calling can only be provided in the CO (using line amps introduces other serious degradations). CLASS features can certainly only be done in the central office. Other features such as call forwarding and call waiting can be accomplished with multiple lines, but can be done much more simply in the CO as a software function. > The feature I asked for seems reasonable and a useful one; a feature > that some people (at least one) are willing to pay for. Is it > unreasonable to bring it up in this Digest for discussion? I don't > think so. Can you not tolerate disagreement? Is it unreasonable to suggest that your "feature" could be better handled at the customer location? You brought it up for discussion. Last time I looked, that is what we were doing, no? For a feature to be viable, it has to have a demand that somewhat exceeds one request. And what you want would be a considerable bother to the telco -- not so much in the recording, but in the processing and delivery of the data to the customer. > Same thing happens with the "per call itemization" that I suggest. > I can't justify investing in an ellaborate system, but I would > be willing to pay the phone company to do it for me cheaper. > It seems that they have the resources (CO + billing) to do it. > So I suggested that they offer this service. If it was set up for you, it would of necessity have to be set up for everyone. To justify the cost, the telco would probably start pushing for mandatory measured service. Itemization of local calls is hardly something that would be in any great demand, particularly if the local calls were not charged for. As far as an "elaborate" set up is concerned, my system consists of a simple Panasonic KX-T1232 and a home computer. Big deal. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 [Moderator's Note: A point worth mentioning though is in the event of a dispute regards the delivery of some printed document (for example, a contract due by a certain date), a telephone company record (as opposed to a record generated by customer premises equipment) might be more acceptable in a court, since telco would in effect be a third party witness to the whole thing and presumably impartial about the outcome. If my CPE generated a record to accompany the record which my fax machine generated, while your record says something different, wouldn't this come down to a case of 'my word against your word'? If my fax machine says successful delivery was made, and telco's record shows a connection at the time in question then it is unlikely you will try to argue that both telco and myself conspired against you. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Feb 93 12:05:26 EST From: jack.decker@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org (Jack Decker) Subject: Re: I Want to Pay For a Local Call In message , pas@cc.gatech.edu (Paulo Santos) writes: > In general, I like the idea of a flat rate for local telephone > service, with no per call charges. Me, too! > I also like itemized billing to have a record of some calls. I don't > send certified letters any more. If I want a receipt of delivery of a > written message to an addressee, I just fax the message. The long > distance charge on my bill will be evidence that I sent something to > the other party's fax. Much cheaper, much faster. > But I can't do this for local calls. Local calls are not itemized. I > have resorted to dialing local calls with my calling card just to get > an itemized entry, but I don't like it. It is an expensive solution > and I can't autodial from the fax machine. Okay. Let's get one thing straight. Traditional local measured service as is commonly offered by, and sometimes forced upon customers by local telcos would NOT help you, since local calls are not itemized (which, by the way, is one of the primary objections to local measured service ... there HAVE been cases where each call was counted twice, or some other abnomoly in the system has increased the call count beyond what it really should have been). > So here is an idea for the local companies. How about a *nn service > to provide call detail on certain calls, at a reasonable cost (say, > 10c to 25c per call). I would dial *nn nnn-nnnn, and the call would > go through as ususal as an untimed local call. The call would appear > itemized and charged accordingly on my local phone bill. That would be a great idea for an OPTIONAL service, although it should only be enabled on the lines of customers that request it. However, in the interim, you might see what happens if you dial just a carrier access code (10XXX) plus a local number. I inadvertently did that once when I lived in Michigan Bell territory (started to dial an LD call and changed my mind, but forgot to hang up the phone and get new dial tone before dialing the local number, so what I wound up dialing was 10222 plus a seven digit local number. The call, which fortunately lasted only a minute, showed up on my next MCI bill, billed at the standard rate for a toll call of under ten miles, or whatever the lowest geographic rate band is). If your state allows intraLATA competition, this might work, depending on how your local central office switch is configured. I'm not sure your carrier would like this much, though ... I think that after the originating and terminating line charges (which are distance-insensitive) are figured in, they actually lose money on those short-distance toll calls, especially those placed during the night/weekend rate period. They probably would come out ahead on such calls placed during the day rate period, but not by much. Jack ------------------------------ Date: 1 Feb 93 00:20 +0100 Organization: Oslo Stock Exchange From: Morten Reistad Subject: Norwegian Number Change, a First Hand Report As announced, the (02) area code in Norway changed to eight-digit dialing 15:50 last Thursday (jan 28th). A massive publicity campaign has warned us about this for more than a year. Still many people did not get the message according to "Aftenposten" Thursday 28th. Media told us the cut would take place 15:50 till 16:00. At 15:50 I placed a call from a direct line on (02) 335 XXX to our switchboard at (02) 341 700, an attempt at the same gave fast-busy 15:52, and a call to 22 341 700 was successful. Calls to 950 XXX and 640 XXX dumped to fast-busy at 15:56, and 22 640 XXX and 22 950 XXX worked from then on. The much acclaimed "speaking translator" (speaking the new number) did not come on-line until 16:45 or thereabout. And even now, three days later, calls to (02) 341 700 and (02) 22X XXX STILL dump to fast-busy. Incoming calls from Sweden appeared to be changed at 15:58. "Aftenposten" Friday the 29th could report that the cut worked as announced except for three switches. Two of these were out of order until 16:15, and one until 16:45. Of course one "vital" service; the Taxi ordering lines. These were out of order until 16:45. Emergency calls to Ambulance, Police of Fire Dept were unaffected by the cut. (Due to legal issues these are separate in the Kingdom of Norway). The PTT has met critisism for doing this at a prime business hour. The reply has been that "they would rather see that it all worked at once under heavy business loads, than find out in the morning after a night cut." (Aftenposten 29th, my translation of the journalist's words) Or, have half a million people help in the debugging of the system. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: "Advanced Switching" at SWBT From: donh@shakala.com (Don Hackler) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 93 01:39:18 PST Organization: Shakala BBS (ClanZen Radio Network) Sunnyvale, CA 408-734-2289 john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > As to digital circuits, Pac*Bell now almost begs customers to take > POTS on T1. There is no extra charge. Already reasonably priced, point ^^^^^^^^^^^ How does somebody in Pac Bell land do this? What equipment do I need to buy? How can these be broken up as voice/data? I run a Usenet/Internet BBS and would love to arrange a high-speed digital link to my feed site ala SW56, etc ... the outside plant in my area (northern Sunnyvale) is old and leaky, with lots of line noise after rain. How good does the copper need to be? I know I'm on a DMS100 or 5ESS switch here in this area. Don Hackler - donh@shakala.com Shakala BBS (ClanZen Radio Network) Sunnyvale, CA 408-734-2289 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Jan 93 23:34 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Cellular Phones Are Carcinogens? andrew@frip.wv.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) writes: > To clarify: there are credible scientific reports that a three watt > transceiver, operated near the head for many years, can cause > *glaucoma*. This is one reason why police radios are now worn at the > waist and wired to a lapel-mounted microphone. I know of no credible > evidence linking transceivers to brain cancer. A very good reason is that it is a helluva lot easier to use a radio in this manner. I have a new policy concerning this sort of thing. The phrase "credible scientific reports" does not cut it anymore. Please site the source (with author, title, and any other identifying data) so that I can look it up and decide FOR MYSELF if it is a "credible" piece of work. The net is awash in unattributed "authority". Many of us have access to vast university libraries and other depositories of scientific literature. It is time some of this was made real. If after reading these reports I am convinced that the material is significant, then and only then will I give the slightest credence to ANY RF scares. Also, remember that one study means little. The results must be repeatable by independent researchers. And the study must be meaningful in terms of its statistical associations. It can be easily demonstrated that virtually all people who have developed cancer have swallowed their own saliva. Does this tell us much? So I am waiting for your references. Let me read this shocking material. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Feb 93 07:41:23 -0800 From: rlm@indigo2.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) Subject: Re: New "Electronic Highway" For Canada > Could someone tell me how old NSFnet is? And who might be the > owners/operators of NSFnet? Any other details about NSFnet would be > greatly appreciated. Please excuse my ignorance. No worry -- I had to look it up myself. Here's the lowdown from the excellent O'Reilly and Associates book, {!%@:: A Directory of Electronic Mail Addressing and Networks}: NSFNET is the [United States'] National Science Foundation's network. It is currently made up of the NSFNET backbone and 23 mid-level wide area networks which interconnect over 1,000 research institutions, corporations, and government agencies. The NSFNET allows researchers access to supercomputers at the United States supercomputing centers as well as providing other network services. The NSFNET backbone is managed by Merit, Inc., a consortium of eight Michigan universities in partnership with the State of Michigan, IBM, and MCI. As November, 1989, the NSFNET has connections to 837 networks. All computers on NSFNET use Internet-style domain addresses. The NSFNET runs on a T-1 backbone system. The mid-level networks use both T-1 and 56 Kbps lines. NSFNET is planning to increase the speed of its backbone to T-3 (45 Mbps). A T-1 linke to EASInet in Geneva, Switzerland, is planned for 1990. Other mid-level networks will be added to NSFNET in the future. --------- Unfortunately, the book gives no history of NSFNET, so I can't help you there. Maybe someone else in net.land knows. Robert L. McMillin | Voice: (310) 568-3555 Hughes Aircraft/Hughes Training, Inc. | Fax: (310) 568-3574 Los Angeles, CA | Internet: rlm@indigo2.hac.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Feb 93 19:25:14 PST From: dag@ossi.com Subject: Re: Can Phones be Restricted to 911 Only? Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Dave Leibold) writes: > {The Toronto Sun} on 22nd January 1993 had a letter from Linton Graham > of Weston, Ontario regarding Bell Canada phone disconnection policies. > The writer wondered if phone service had to be shut off, then why not > continue to at least allow access to 911 for emergencies. The writer > didn't mention specific types of situations, though phone shut-offs > due to failure to pay the bill come to mind. When an old girlfriend's phone was disconneted in San Francisco a few years ago, Pac Bell did just what you described. Any call made on the phone resulted in a recording saying that phone service had been disconnected and the only valid calls were to the billing office and 911. She didn't pay the bill and after about two weeks the phone went completely dead. Of-course, incoming calls were also disabled. Cheers, Darren Alex Griffiths dag@nasty.ossi.com Open Systems Solutions Inc. (510) 652-6200 x139 Fujitsu Ltd. Fax: (510) 652-5532 Operating Systems Division Coins: 7924-139 6121 Hollis Street Emeryville, CA 94608-2092 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #61 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10644; 2 Feb 93 12:50 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13470 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 2 Feb 1993 09:31:09 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04604 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 2 Feb 1993 09:30:33 -0600 Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1993 09:30:33 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302021530.AA04604@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #62 TELECOM Digest Tue, 2 Feb 93 09:30:30 CST Volume 13 : Issue 62 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Two Line Bridge Schematics (Toxic Avenger) Security Topics in Telecom Archives (TELECOM Moderator) HP-48S as a Phone Dialer? (Bob Izenberg) ISDN Basic Rate Access (Govindan Raghavan) Waste Disposal Problems? (Jane Fraser) Caller ID and Voice Messaging in Centrex (Tad Cook) Hotel Telephone Surcharge (Robert E. Laughlin) Alternate Reason For White House Busy (Rob Knauerhase) For Sale: Cellular Starter/Hands-Free Kits (Michael Blackstock) Old 202 Area (was 313 Split Not Being Well Publicized) (Carl Moore) Using Fax Machine + Fax Modem as a Scanner (Robert J. Barth) Sorry, Wrong Number (Paul Robinson) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 1 Feb 93 17:53:49 -0800 From: burchell@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Toxic Avenger) Subject: Two Line Bridge Schematics With all this talk of a call fowarding device, and the different methods of implementing the idea, I decided to search my archives, and found this textfile. It is plans for a simple diverter (call fowarder), It was also first published as a phreaking tool, so there are no security measures integrated in the design. A DTMF decoder could be added to keep the right people using the line, and the wrong people sighing. Anyway, what follows is the full text of the plans, including all the standard Phreak/Hack BS. Use it as you will. NOTE\WARNING: The device described by these plans is a wire-fraud access device. This makes it illegal to possess one in many states. Using it on one's own phone line without any intention to defraud should be totally legal, but It would probably be best not to carry one around in your pocket, as freedoms and the bill of rights are headed towards the window as it is, and we don't need another example. Tox ------File Begins------ Cheshire Catalyst Research Productions present ... Diverter 1992. An alternative to the DARK BOX. Design: Mavicon M.D., The Ear, Cheshire Catalyst and two that shall remain nameless. Plans: Mavicon M.D. Diverter Plans Parts List: Everything can be obtained at your local Radio-Shack. As much as I hate that store, they are convenient ... RLY1 DPDT relay T1 1:1 audio transformer D1 1N914 or similar diode D2 large LED LMP1 neon lamp R1 10 k R2 photocell R3 22 k R4 47 k Q1 2N2222, 2N3904, 2N4401, most any other NPN switching transistor 1 nine volt battery. The negative terminal goes to ground on the schematic. Positive terminal to +9 volts. Assembly: The best way to assemble the design is to grab one of those small copper lined perfboards from Radio-Shack. They are nice to work on, and can easily be trimmed down to a minimum size once everything is soldered in. The process is the same as any other. Solder all the parts in per the schematic. The photocell must be in a position so that the light from the neon lamp (LMP1) and the LED (D2) both shine on it. All the polarity must be observed. Whichever direction you put the led in, you must remember (color code your wires, green is positive, red is negative, yellow is positive, black is negative) the negative side of the line must go to its negative side. The same goes for the transformer. The positive side of each line has to be connected to the correct pair on the transformer. On the Radio-Shack transformers, put positive of both lines on the Red and Black pairs, The negative on Yellow and White. Our prototypes have reached less that 1" x 1" in size. NOTE: The entire thing MUST be wrapped in black tape. IT must be light tight or you will have a relay that turns on with the sunrise. Theory of Operation: The diverter works on some basic electronic principals. Step by step. The phone rings. The neon lamp is activated by the high voltage(88 p-p) ac and flashes. This light shines on the photocell, decreasing its resistance. When this happens, the positive voltage flowing through the photocell and the 10k resistor exceed the breakdown voltage of the base of the transistor and switches that transistor on. Once the transistor is on, current flows freely from emitter to collector, energizing the relay. The relay's two sets of switches connect both lines to the 1:1 audio transformer, effectively taking both lines off the hook and coupling any audio signals from either line to the other one. Once this happens, current is now flowing through the transformer,relay,led loop. This current lights the led and that light shines on the photocell. This is what keeps the device latched. The light from the led keeps the photocell resistance low enough to keep the transistor on. Now, you make you call and get on with your business. You hang up. Now, the local CO keeps current flowing through the indial line for about 5 seconds, at which point it drops down for a second or so and then goes back up. This is the signal the device uses to determine when you've hung up. When the current drops down, there is no light, and the photocell resistance raises enough to turn the transistor off and delatch the entire system. B |------------------------------------- | | o +9V | L1+ T1 | | | o-------wwwww----------| | | | | | | | L1- | | | | o-------------| | | o--------| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | L2- | |---l----------l---------l--| _____ o-------\ LMP1 | | | \| | | w | /^\ D1 R4 47k * | | | | |\ | w | /---\ --\/\/--/ | | | | | | | w | | | | |-l----------l-----------l--| | | | | RY1 | | | o L2+ |------| | | | | | o--------- | | | | | ----| | D2 | / | |\ | T1 | / |----------| >|-----wwwwww---------- / |/ | 000 |--------- 000 Q1 | 000 oooo | \ o o 10k | \ o-------o-/\/\/o------------/\/\/---| \ +9V o o R2 \ R1 | oooo / 22k ----- \ R3 --- | - | ----- --- - -------END of File------ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1993 09:34:15 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Security Topics in Telecom Archives After mailing out the file to you Monday detailing new federal govern- ment sentencing guidelines for persons convicted of crimes which involve computers, it occurred to me some of you might not be familiar with a section of the archives where numerous articles of this sort have been collected over the years, so I made an image of the directory and attach it below. This is just one small section of the Telecom Archives -- a very tiny part, actually -- and you are invited to explore the entire thing using anonymous ftp via lcs.mit.edu. For readers without ftp ability, various ftp > email services are available. Enjoy your visit to the Telecom Archives! total 1047 drwxr-xr-x 2 ptownson telecom 1024 Feb 1 10:17 ./ drwxrwxr-x 15 telecom telecom 6144 Feb 1 10:23 ../ -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 24515 Sep 3 1991 atm-bank.fraud -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 6144 Mar 14 1991 cellular.fraud.abernathy -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 2755 Mar 14 1991 cellular.fraud.prevention -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 13343 Feb 25 1990 computer.fraud.abuse.act -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 27395 Jun 23 1990 craig.neidorf.indictment -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 9354 Jul 30 1990 craig.not.guilty -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 67190 Jun 23 1990 crime.and.puzzlement -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 62602 Aug 12 1990 ecpa.1986 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 97987 Aug 12 1990 ecpa.1986.federal.laws -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 21918 Dec 2 1990 illinois.computer.laws -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 28935 May 19 1990 jolnet-2600.magazine.art -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 30751 Mar 7 1990 jolnet-attctc.crackers -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 43365 Jan 28 1990 kevin.polsen -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 35612 Apr 1 1990 legion.of.doom -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 20703 Aug 12 1990 len.rose-legion.of.doom -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 2516 Jun 14 1991 len.rose.in.prison -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 184494 Jun 22 1991 len.rose.indictment-1 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 192078 Jun 22 1991 len.rose.indictment-2 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 15355 Feb 1 10:16 sentencing.guidelines -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 67099 Nov 4 1990 telecom.usa.call.block-1 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 31995 Nov 20 1990 telecom.usa.call.block-2 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 10833 Nov 20 1990 telecom.usa.call.block-3 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 6344 May 24 1992 virgin.islands.phreak -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 14821 Sep 12 1990 war.on.computer.crime Using ftp: ftp lcs.mit.edu login: anonymous use name@site as password cd telecom-archives cd telecom.security.issues get PAT ------------------------------ From: bobi@vswr.sps.mot.com (Bob Izenberg) Subject: HP-48S as a Phone Dialer? Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1993 12:01:21 +22306404 (CST) A guy that I know wants to use his HP48S as a telephone auto-dialer. He wanted to know if anyone's tried anything like this. I don't know beans about the HP48S sound capabilities, so I'll ask the Digest readership: Is what he wants to do possible? Where should I tell him to start looking for info on how to do this? (Other than calling HP, which has been suggested.) Thanks! Bob Izenberg voice phone: 512-891-8680 Motorola RISC Software bobi@vswr.sps.mot.com ------------------------------ From: exugsr@exu.ericsson.se (Govindan Raghavan, XT-DL) Subject: ISDN Basic Rate Access Reply-To: exugsr@exu.ericsson.se Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc. Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1993 20:48:24 GMT When we lay copper access cables from end offices to the customer premises, we use repeaters if the distance to the CPE exceeds a certain value. Is there such a "range" for basic rate access lines? Are there repeaters available in the market for basic rate access to cover customers at large distances from end offices? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1993 13:16:12 EST From: fraser@ccl2.eng.ohio-state.edu Subject: Waste Disposal Problems? Someone told me recently that the modernization of phone networks is causing a large problem of waste disposal because lines being replaced contain lead and copper. Also, old switches have materials with low levels of radioactivity. Are there such problems? Can anyone provide more details? Jane Fraser, Center for Advanced Study in Telecommunications, The Ohio State University, 210 Baker Ssytems, 1971 Neil Avenue, Columbus, 43210, 614-292-4129 ------------------------------ Subject: Caller ID and Voice Messaging in CENTREX Date: Mon, 1 Feb 93 11:59:55 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) At home I have two-line residential CENTREX service from US West, which they market under the name Centraflex. I am served by a 5ESS switch. I am confused about application of telco voice messaging and Caller-ID on this type of service. Currently my service is set up so that calls to the main number (we don't give out the number on the second line in the hunt group, and it is unlisted) rotate to the second line when the main line is busy. If the second line is busy, that line gets a Call-Waiting tone. I am also able to transfer calls between the two lines, or to anywhere else, without staying on the line and making it a conference call. I can also turn off Call-Waiting for the duration of the call on the second line. I thought it might be neat to get voice messaging from the telco, so that if the call is not answered after six rings or so on either line, or if both lines were busy and the person on the second line ignored the Call-Waiting signal, voice messaging would answer and take the message. Unfortunately, the telco tells me that telco provided voice mail is incompatible with Centrex! Does anyone know why? Didn't Bellcore design telco provided voice mail to work with Centrex? It seems to me that I have been answered by CO provided voice mail when calling numbers in a Centrex group in the past, but maybe this was really provided by external hardware at the called location. The other questions involve Caller-ID, which US West tells me should be available in May. They have informed me that on outbound calls, the number for the second line will show up in the ID if a call is placed from that line. We have been trying to keep people calling our main number instead of dialing direct into our second line, so that calls will be answered by our answering machine (which is only on the first line), but if people we call from the second line see that number, they may try to return calls to the wrong line. Does anyone know if it is possible to get the same number listed as the ID on both lines? The other Caller-ID problem involves reading the ID on incoming calls. Apparently this will work fine if I read it off of the first line, but if the first line is busy and the call rotates to the second line, US West informs me that I will only see the ID of the first line as the incoming caller, because the call was actually forwarded from the first line upon busy! Does anyone know of any way around these problems? Surely Bellcore or the designers of the 5ESS would have thought these through! Tad Cook | Phone: 206-527-4089 (home) | MCI Mail: 3288544 Seattle, WA | Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA | 3288544@mcimail.com | Internet: tad@ssc.com or...sumax!ole!ssc!tad ------------------------------ From: bel@kluso.nosc.mil Subject: Hotel Telephone Surcharge Organization: NRaD Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1993 21:43:34 GMT Hello, Some time ago there was a thread about hotels charging to make a call. This is just to pass on to the world that at least one hotel is still doing it. Hilton Resort on Hilto Head Island, SC, charges $0.75 for every call outside of the hotel, even 800 numbers. I was there and did not find the notice in one of the hotel brochures that is in the room (second drawer down of a dresser). This is intended just as a heads up to the world of telecom. Robert E. Laughlin NCCOSC RDT&E Div (NRaD) These opinions are mine. I do not speak for NRaD. email bel@nosc.mil From Compuserve my email address is ">INTERNET:bel@nosc.mil". ------------------------------ From: Rob Knauerhase Subject: Alternate Reason For White House Busy Date: Mon, 1 Feb 93 22:52:15 CST Organization: Department of Computer Science, Univ. of Illinois @ Urbana PAT's recent discussion about busy signals at the White House was all fine and good, but Jay Leno (on _The Tonight Show_, 2/1/93) had an alternate explanation (the first part is not an exact quote): "... People have been complaining about getting busy signals when they call the White House." "Well, if I just told America they weren't getting a tax cut OR their Social Security, I'd take the phone off the hook too!" [I assume TELECOM Digest is not the place for a continuing political commentary, but this bit of humor was related enough to the topic at hand that I thought I'd pass it along.] Rob Knauerhase, University of Illinois @ Urbana, Dept. of Computer Science [Moderator's Note: Thanks for passing along that clever response from Jay Leno. The Chicago papers discussed the White House phone congestion in recent days by noting that the combination of a popular president combined with the several controversial issues he raised and people's willingness to use long distance without flinching at the rates as they might have done a few years ago led to the problem. PAT] ------------------------------ From: eltrut@csn.org (Michael Blackstock) Subject: For Sale: Cellular Starter/Hands-Free Kits Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc. Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1993 16:15:51 GMT I have the following extra items: New Hands Free kit for Motorola 8000/9000 "brick" hand-held cellular phone comes with glass mount antenna, speaker, mike, and power cradle. By Alliance Research Corp. $70 New Hands-Free kit for Motorola 8000/9000. The same kit as above but with a passive repeater "cordless", glass mount antenna. $60 New Starter Kit for the Audiovox/Prestige "mini" portable cellular phones, such as the Audiovox MVX-500. Comes with rechargeable battery, Battery Saver (allows you to plug the phone into the cigarette lighter plug), and a leather case. $40 New Quick Charger/Conditioner for the Motorola micro T.A.C. "Flip Phone" This charger can be used both in the car or home use. $35 New Hands Free Kit for the Mitsubishi 3000 or DiamondTel 99x portable cellular phone. Comes with glass mount antenna, speaker, mike, and power cradle By Alliance Research Corp. $70 Prices include COD and shipping. Michael (719) 633-5277 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Feb 93 13:14:37 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Old 202 Area (was 313 Split Not Being Well Publicized) All but the outermost MD and VA suburbs were reachable long distance in area code 202 until October, 1990 (at which time local calls in the DC area were fully cut over to NPA + 7D if they were to a different area code from the calling location. 202 under this local scheme, even before MD and VA were deleted from 202, could be used for DC only). This change in 202 was like an area code split (I refer to it as such, because 202 shrank even though there was no new area code). (You are saying that no point was ever reachable in 408 and at the same time reachable in 415?) The "202 for MD/VA suburbs" had remained in effect when the DC area had to go from NNX to NXX prefixes in late 1987. To avoid confusion for local callers, the Pentagon, physically in Virginia but then using area code 202 and NOT 703, was switched in 1990 to area 703. This did not change the seven-digit numbers in the Pentagon EXCEPT that 202-694 gave way to 703-614 (703-694 being in use at Stuart, Va., way down near the NC border). ------------------------------ From: rob@sound.demon.co.uk (Robert J Barth) Subject: Using Fax Machine + Fax Modem as a Scanner Reply-To: rob@sound.demon.co.uk Organization: Sound & Vision BBS +44 (0)932 252323 Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1993 01:20:52 +0000 How can I use a standalone fax machine as a scanner? I would like to be able to plug my fax machine into my pc fax/modem, and press a few buttons, and end up with a fax format file of whatever was on the sheet of paper ... Has anyone managed this? I've tried with not much success so far ... Any ideas appreciated. Nominal : Rob Barth | RJB Communications (+44) (0)932 253131 InterNet : rob@sound.demon.co.uk | Sound & Vision BBS (+44) (0)932 252323 FidoNet : sysop, 2:254/14 | The best UK BBS with a full UseNet & Nyx : rbarth@nyx.cs.du.edu | Internet Email feed. All hours/speeds. ------------------------------ Reply-To: TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM From: Paul Robinson Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1993 22:27:44 EST Subject: Sorry, Wrong Number An article in the February 1 {Washington Post} Business Monday section, tells how AT&T, the creator of 1-800 numbers back in 1967, and today claiming the fastest connection times, set up a number for people to call to get a rebate of $500.00 when they purchased an AT&T videophone, had to change the number because of a mixup. The subcontrator of the rebate program didn't know that it was being hired by AT&T, so it got the 1-800 number for AT&T's rebate plan issued by: MCI. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #62 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11148; 2 Feb 93 13:07 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30492 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 2 Feb 1993 10:11:50 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14955 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 2 Feb 1993 10:11:01 -0600 Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1993 10:11:01 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302021611.AA14955@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #63 TELECOM Digest Tue, 2 Feb 93 10:11:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 63 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Symposium on Broadband (Steve Agard) Telecom's Competition in South Africa (Cliff Featherstone) Suche Unterlagen fuer Lightspeed 2400C! (Dieter Vuellers) Frame Relay Congestion Question (Shu Zhang) Re: Prodigy <> Internet Gateway Almost Finished (Bob Hofkin) Re: Introduction to comp.dcom.telecom / TELECOM Digest (Jack Decker) Re: MIB for Northern Telecom PBX (Christian Doucet) Re: Mitel Value Ripoff Policy (Dale R. Worley) Re: AT&T Public Phone 2000 Credit Card Bug (Javier Henderson) Re: AT&T G2 Information Needed (Jim Allen) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: sagard@digi.lonestar.org (Steve Agard) Subject: Symposium on Broadband Organization: DSC Communications, Plano Tx. Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1993 00:23:23 GMT IEEE Symposium Announcement: ---------------------------- | | | SYMPOSIUM ON BROADBAND | | | -------------------------- Presented By IEEE Communications and Vehicular Technology Society Dallas Chapter Broadband - Network services of the future, or just another technology for backbone Public, Private, and Local/Wide Area networks? Broadband networks are expected to provide the foundation of emerging services, synergistic with the Advanced intelligent Network and the Personal Communications Services network. Aspects of broadband are enjoying the broadest international spectrum of interest and activity yet seen by the Telecommunications and Computer industries. This one-day multi-track symposium with panel discussion will present the latest developments in broadband and wideband markets and technologies. The symposium will address such questions as: How do ATM, SMDS and Frame Relay services inter-relate? What are the most recent technical issues and developments? How do we get to Broadband from here? What are the benefits of Bandwidth-on- Demand services? Is there synergy between telephone and cable TV companies? April 27, 1993 The Richardson Civic Center 411 West Arapaho Rd (@ I 75), Richardson, Texas Registration: 7:45 AM - 8:15 AM Keynote Speaker: Dr. Dave McDysan Boardmember, The ATM Forum; Executive Staff Member, Virtual Data Services Strategic Planning, MCI Telecommunications Tentative Agenda Topics/Speakers Three sessions are presented: Overview and Applications; Technology; Services. The Services and Technologies sessions run in parallel. OVERVIEW and APPLICATIONS ------------------------- The Evolving Network Richard W. Stephenson Director, Customer Applications Analysis Southwestern Bell, Technology Resources CCITT & Trends in ATM Deployment Michael R. Zeug Vice-Chair, T1S1.5; Member of Technical Staff Ameritech Services ATM Technology As it Applies to Services Dr. Krish Prabhu V.P., Research And Development Alcatel Network Systems Information Service Network Architectures (INA / TINA) Dave Brown Principle Member of Technical Staff NEC America Broadband Network Infrastructure Al Pereira Manager, Applications Marketing & Advanced Technology GTE Telephone Operations PANEL DISCUSSION, FOLLOWED BY LUNCH TECHNOLOGY ---------- ATM LANs & Application Requirements Chase Bailey Chief Technical Officer Efficient Network Technology An Introduction to Multimedia, and Its Impact On The Network Jim Pollock President BusinessWorks Issues Between Private & Public ATM Networks Sam Shuler Senior Member of Technical Staff Texas Instruments Multipoint Signaling: A Case Study Michael Gaddis Senior Research Associate; Associate Director of the Applied Research Laboratory Washington University Introduction to Network Management for ATM Networks Gunnar Nilsson Systems Architecture Manager ELLEMTEL Scalable Coherent Interface for ATM Peter R. Fenner President Lightbus Technology SERVICES --------- Irfan Ali V.P., The ATM Forum; Manager, Competitive Analysis & Technology Northern Telecom Benefits of a Common Broadband Services Platform Athar S. Mian Member of Technical Staff NYNEX Science and Technology Internetworking Frame Realy, ATM, SMDS and ISDN Larry Lang Product Manager Cisco Systems Applications of Frame Relay and Wideband Services Mike McLoughlin Systems Product Manager General DataComm Switched DS1 and Fractional DS1 Services Richard Barale Director, Video Systems Marketing DSC Communications Corporation Meeting End-User Demand For Flexible Bandwidth Gary Sanders Product Manager, Transport Network Applications Ericsson Network Systems PANEL DISCUSSIONS, FOLLOWED BY RECEPTION SESSION CHAIRS: Overview and Applications ------------------------- Steven Agard Vice-Chair, The ATM Forum; Chairman, T1S1.5 ATM Subworking Group; Senior Manager DSC Communications Corporation Technology ---------- Demos Kostas Manager, Complex Technologies Standards GTE Telephone Operations Services Services -------- Ron Maginley Senior Manager, Carrier Service Development Northern Telecom Although I am willing to answer Symposium questions e-mailed to me, registration must be provided in writing, with the following form: REGISTRATION FORM: Symposium On Broadband Send your tax-deductible funds, payable to "IEEE" to: IEEE, 2116 E. Arapaho, Suite 474, Richardson, TX 75081. Registrations postmarked before April 7, 1993 are eligible for the Pre- registered rates below. Seating is limited. Check all that apply: Attendee: Pre-registered: (Before April 7, 1993) At the Door: ---------------------- ------------- Student/ Lifetime/ Retired Members [ ] $20 [ ] $30 IEEE Student ID#____________ Group (of 2 or more, price each) [ ] $50 [ ] N/A IEEE Member [ ] $60 [ ] $75 Non-Member [ ] $70 [ ] $95 [ ] Master Card/Visa [ ] PO#____________ Amount $____________ (Sorry, no Amex) [ ] Check#_________ Amount $____________ #_________________________ Exp. date:________________ Planning to Attend: [ ] Overview and Applications + Technology sessions or: [ ] Overview and Applications + Services sessions Name________________________________________________ Company_____________________________________________ Address_____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ Chapter Chairperson: Dhawal Moghe, BNR Inc., (214) 684-9907 Symposium Chairperson: Steve Bootman, DSC Communications Corp., (214) 519-2110 Program Chairperson: Steven Agard, DSC Communications Corp., (214) 519-3743 Symposium Treasurer: Stanton Zeff, Alcatel Network Systems (214) 996-5626 ------------------------------ Date: 02 Feb 93 03:47:33 EST From: Cliff Featherstone <70154.1536@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Telecom's Competition in South Africa South Africa has been "traditionally" served by a government owned PTT (Post and Telecommunications -- or P&T), providing both postal and tele- communications services. In true bureaucratic tradition, the general attitude was in the order of "you're lucky we see fit to GIVE you a telephone line, let alone one that actually works". In recent years, the level of service has been improved. About a year ago, the PTT was broken up into two independent business units -- "The Post Office" and "Telkom". The powers that be are trying very hard to instill a business ethic and mentality in what were previously "government departments". Similarly, our rail system was run by the state-owned South African Railways which was renamed South African Transport Services (SATS) a few years back. Like the P&T, SATS was broken up into multiple business units not too long ago. At the time, nothing was said (at least not publicly) about SATS' telephone and data systems. (The only other phone network in South Africa belongs to the military). There has been much talk and speculation (and the inevitable official enquiry) regarding opening the market to competition. Big names (including AT&T have been mentioned). But, to date, nothing has happened. This morning on breakfast television ("Good Morning South Africa") an ad was flighted for "Transtel, South Africa's alternative telecomm- unications carrier". South African telecommunications is, it seems, poised to be dragged (kicking and screaming) into the twentieth century. Cliff Featherstone SERCH Specialised Electronic Research South Africa +27 31 304 2009 ------------------------------ From: vuellers@uni-paderborn.de (Dieter Vuellers) Subject: Suche Unterlagen fuer Lightspeed 2400C! Date: 2 Feb 1993 09:04:36 GMT Organization: Uni-GH Paderborn, Germany Hallo! Ich suche dringend Unterlagen zum Modem Lightspeed 2400C. Besonders benoetige ich die Belegung der Netzteilbuchse und der DIP-Schalter. Vielen Dank fuer eure Muehe. Dieter Vuellers vuellers@uni-paderborn.de University of Paderborn (Germany) ------------------------------ From: zhang@sce.carleton.ca (Shu Zhang) Subject: Frame Relay Congestion Question Organization: Carleton University Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1993 02:26:27 GMT Is anyone familiar with congestion notification in the frame relay networks, especially with the consolidate link layer management(CLLM) message? Would you please explain to me why all CLLM messages have the same same two address octets of 111110R0 and 1111XXX1, instead of different address octets, like ordinary data frame in the frame relay network? Thanks in advance. ------------------------------ From: Bob Hofkin Subject: Re: Prodigy <> Internet Gateway Almost Finished Reply-To: hofkin@software.org Organization: Software Productivity Consortium Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1993 16:58:20 GMT > I just got a note from Prodigy that advised me to look for Internet > mail access in January, BIX has finally put their Internet link into production. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 02 Feb 93 10:06:34 EST From: jack.decker@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org (Jack Decker) Subject: Re: Introduction to comp.dcom.telecom / TELECOM Digest In message <31.01.93.1@eecs.nwu.edu>, TELECOM Moderator wrote: > The TELECOM ARCHIVES provides a wealth of information including a full > set of the back issues of TELECOM Digest (twelve year's worth) and > dozens of other files, including a "Frequently Asked Questions" file. > Please review the archives if possible for answers to questions you > may have, but do not hesitate to write to the Digest if necessary. > The archives are available using anonymous ftp: lcs.mit.edu. Users at > non-Internet sites (ie UUCP, Bitnet, MCI Mail, etc) will need to use > an email/ftp server. I've had FTP access for close to a month now and have yet to be able to connect with lcs.mit.edu. It almost seems as though the connection gets misrouted along the way (apparently I get to a *different* machine that hangs off of lcs.mit.edu). I sent a message to the postmaster at lcs.mit.edu describing the problem, but so far no response. In any event, I wonder if anyone else has had this problem, and if you were able to work around it. I'd especially appreciate either: A working IP address OTHER THAN 18.26.0.36, if there is such a thing, or The address of a "mirror site" for the telecom archives, if such a site exists. Any help along these lines would be appreciated. Jack [Moderator's Note: I've thought about Jack's question for awhile and really have no answer as to why he reaches something else. There are other sites which have some of the archives material, but I am not sure if anyone has the entire thing other than lcs.mit.edu. Perhaps people with dial up access to some of the stuff will write Jack with details and anyone who can answer his first question is welcome to do so also. PAT] ------------------------------ From: lancelot@mais.hydro.qc.ca (Christian Doucet) Subject: Re: MIB for Northern Telecom PBX Organization: Hydro-Quebec (DSB) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1993 19:20:02 GMT veilleux@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Wayne Veilleux) writes: > Does anyone knows if it is possible to get the entreprise MIB > (Management Information Base) for the Northern Telecom PBX ? Try to dial 1-800-NORTHERN, they should have all the info you need. Christian Doucet ----- lancelot@Mais.Hydro.Qc.Ca | Hydro-Quebec System Administrator - lancelot@Rot.Qc.Ca | voice: + 1 514 858 7704 I speak for myself! -- #include | fax : + 1 514 858 7799 ------------------------------ From: drw@euler.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley) Subject: Re: Mitel Value Ripoff Policy Date: 1 Feb 93 17:09:53 Organization: MIT Dept. of Tetrapilotomy, Cambridge, MA, USA In article Barton F. Bruce writes: > I want to know if Mitel's license is transferable to a new customer or > not. DEC lets you transfer your operating system license for a $300 > processing fee. If the Mitel license is not transferable, are not many > folks carrying it on their books as an asset and should not be? My impression is that most license agreements automatically terminate upon bankruptcy of the licensor. I think this is because the bankruptcy court has wide latitude in disposing of the assets of the bankrupt, and in modifying contracts that it has (like the license agreement). Thus, in order to make sure that the licensed property can't be sold to, say, a competitor, and to make sure that the license agreement can't be retroactively modified by the court, license agreements are written to automatically terminate in the event of bankruptcy. Dale Worley Dept. of Math., MIT drw@math.mit.edu ------------------------------ From: jav@crash.cts.com Subject: Re: AT&T Public Phone 2000 Credit Card Bug Organization: CTS Network Services (crash, ctsnet), El Cajon, CA Date: 02 Feb 93 01:18:46 PST In reference to the AT&T 2000 pay phones ... I tried to use one of them at DFW the other day, and couldn't ... a message kept appearing on the screen about my calling card being invalid ... the one I had just used, on the same phone, to make voice calls. I called the 800 number for customer service, posted right by the keyboard, and they told me that the keyboards were disabled 'not too long ago', for reasons that 'I can't explain'. Does anyone have any insights? Javier Henderson jav@crash.cts.com [Moderator's Note: You are the second person to write about this in recent days. A few issues ago, the writer said he called AT&T to ask and was told there was a problem with the FCC. No answers have yet come forth. Does anyone know what is going on? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Feb 93 01:06:12 EST From: bear@hocpb.att.com Subject: Re: AT&T G2 Information Needed Organization: AT&T In article , tjr@batfish.attmail.com writes: > I am looking for technical documentation on AT&T G2. Does anyone out > there know where I might get some? Unfortunately the email to batfish bounced so here's two of the most generic documents in the AT&T CIC. Call 1 800 432 6600. Jim Allen bear@hocpb.att.com ----------------- DEFINITY Communications System Generic 2 System Description Issue 1 Select Code: 555-105-201. Pages: 474 Issue: 01 Issue date: 920601 A technical description of the system intended for service personnel, sales personnel, and customers who need a comprehensive overview. Included are descriptions of features, hardware, software, system administration, a maintenance plan, upgrade plans, technical specifications, environmental requirements, illustrations of components, and a list of related publications for System 85 R2V1 to R2V4 and DEFINITY Communications System Generic 2. DEFINITY Communications System Generic 2 and System 85 Feature Descriptions Issue 1 Select Code: 555-105-301. Pages: 2120 Issue: 01 Issue date: 920601 A two-volume set containing an in-depth description of the DEFINITY Generic 2 and System 85 system, data, network, and voice features. Intended for customers, AT&T sales personnel, and system administrators. Included are user operations, interactions between features, restrictions, administration, and hardware requirements. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #63 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11411; 3 Feb 93 3:55 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13281 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 3 Feb 1993 01:13:05 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29736 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 3 Feb 1993 01:10:59 -0600 Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 01:10:59 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302030710.AA29736@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #64 TELECOM Digest Wed, 3 Feb 93 01:10:50 CST Volume 13 : Issue 64 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Human Factors for Speech Recognition Systems (Norm Tiedemann) Re: Differences Between ANI and Caller-ID (Fred R. Goldstein) Re: ISDN Basic Rate Access (Fred R. Goldstein) Re: Two Line Bridge Schematics (Barry Bouwsma) Re: Wiring For Multi-Lines on One Jack (Tony Harminc) Re: Overseas Directory Assistance (Clive Feather) Re: Overseas Directory Assistance (Joe Harrison) Re: Holiday Overseas Callbacks From Bell Canada Operators (Tony Harminc) Re: Alternate Reason For White House Busy (Roger Theriault) Re: Alternate Reason For White House Busy (J. Philip Miller) AT&T's Ad on Sears - NOT! (Paul Robinson) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 2 Feb 93 14:12:28 EST From: normt@ihlpm.att.com Subject: Re: Human Factors for Speech Recognition Systems Organization: AT&T > Does anyone know of any studies relating to use of limited vocabulary > voice recognition (digits, letters, YES/NO and a few other words) over > the national phone network, by the general public? Quite a few, the only problem is finding non-propriatary ones. See the list at the end. > 1) human-factors studies related to acceptance of voice recognition by > the general public, and comparisions between voice input and DTMF input. Studies have shown that most people would like the option of using DTMF or voice. Most conclude it is easier to use voice if you are calling on a speaker phone, since you don't need to be looking at or have your hands near the phone, or cordless phone or cellular phone, since you don't need to remove your mouth from the headset to hit the buttons. However, no matter how good the speech recognition is, DTMF will be more accurate. > 2) the technical viability of the North American phone network for > limited vocabulary voice recognition applications. The vendors of > large-vocabulary word recognition systems have all said that they did > not support use over the phone network. Limited vocabulary systems > might work. Digit recognition systems clearly work over the phone system. That's mainly due to the fact that "vendors of large-vocabulary word recognition systems" have not trained their recognizer over the phone network. There are some significant limiting factors in speech recognition over the phone network. (4KHz frequency range, very characteristic background noise, then add speaker phones and cellular for more trouble.) My experience is in limited vocabulary systems, and these system when they are designed to work over the network work very well if fact. The secret is to do all the training and preliminary data collection over the network. For limited vocabulary of 6-10 words 95-98% recognition is not out of the ordinary. This depends greatly on the words selected to recognize, and the harder problem in this type of recognition is the human factors aspect (getting the caller to say the right thing, and only the right thing.) American like to say "one please" or "I would like sales" even when they know they are talking with a machine, so garbage rejection is almost more important the correct recognition. It will never be technically feasible to recognize the alphabet with out some human factor aid (D as in dog, T as in Tom). The 4KHz sampling rate cuts off the hard phoneme at the beginning of these letter and that's why a human can not tell the difference. (I always need to spell my last name T, as in Tom, I E D, as in David, E M A N N.) A few papers and proceedings you may want to get are: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, New York, April 1988. A particular article is pp. 55-57 J.G. Wilpon "Isolated Word Recognition over the DDD Telephone Network - Results of Two Extensive Field Studies" Proceedings of the Fifth World Telecom Forum, Vol. 1, Part 2 1986. pp 235-238, R. Thanawala, et al, "Automatic Speech Recognition in the Public Switch Network. Proceedings of the Voice I/O System Applications Conference, September 1989. R. Mikkilineni, R.Perdue, "Experiences with Implementing Automatic Speech Recognition in the Public Telephone Network" Also an AT&T Technical Journal on "Speech Technologies" Sept/Oct 1990 Vol 69, Number 5. This contains 5 or 6 articles that address speech recognition in the network. (AT&T Technical Journals can be obtained by calling the AT&T Customer Information Center at (800) 432-6600.) There have also been two recent conferences at which I know specific papers were presented dealing with this topic. But I can't put my hands on them right now. If this is not enough, or you would like something specific I may be able to help you. Feel free to get in touch with me directly. Norm Tiedemann AT&T Bell Labs IH 5C-416 att!ihlpm!normt 2000 Naperville Rd. normt@ihlpm.att.com Naperville, IL 60566 ------------------------------ From: goldstein@carafe.dnet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) Subject: Re: Differences Between ANI and Caller-ID Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1993 22:47:32 GMT In article , bcapps@atlastele.com (Brent Capps) writes: >> Anybody know of any other implementations of SCAI? The name "SCAI" is confusing: Northern uses it for their own link, but it's also the name of the ANSI standard link. NT sort of pretends to be a predecessor of ANSI, but I'll leave that for others to argue. Suffice to say that NT SCAI .NE. ANSI SCAI. > CompuCall has a long and checkered history within BNR. It's actually > a throwback to the mid '80s when BNR was developing a CO/PBX LAN > server whatchamacallit called the PTE; this box communicated with an > SL1 over a proprietary out-of-band signaling protocol that shared some > similarities with the not-yet-standardized CCS7. Well, after wasting > millions of dollars on this turkey, NT finally pulled the plug; but in > the quest to salvage something from the wreckage a certain manager > (now a senior exec at NT) hit upon the idea of taking this old > proprietary protocol, dusting it off, and changing its name to the > ISDN/AP. This is a typical evil marketeers trick, the names have been > changed to fool the innocent. This protocol had almost nothing in > common with ISDN other than the fact that both of them are > out-of-band. It's a bit longer than that. Way back in 1982, we at Digital did an advanced development with Northern on a "Command and Status Link" to the SL-1. CSL used a protocol that vaguely sort of resembled early snapshots of ISDN (this was before Q.931 was finished). In 1986, we actively began to build products to this and similar links, under the generic term Computer Integrated Telephony. NT renamed CSL to "ISDN/AP" when it was actually released as a product (around 1987). Later, they decided to introduce a gratuitous processor in between the SL-1 and the user's CIT server, which converts the protocol to a different one, which might be (I'm confused myself) called Meridian Link. SCAI is on the DMS-100 and SL-100 product lines, while Meridian Link is on the SL-1 product line. Both lines, of course, are now called Meridian 1. They do love to keep the terminology from being clear ... Fred R. Goldstein goldstein@carafe.tay2.dec.com k1io or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice:+1 508 952 3274 Standard Disclaimer: Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission. ------------------------------ From: goldstein@carafe.dnet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) Subject: Re: ISDN Basic Rate Access Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1993 23:05:29 GMT In article , exugsr@exu.ericsson.se (Govindan Raghavan, XT-DL) writes: > When we lay copper access cables from end offices to the customer > premises, we use repeaters if the distance to the CPE exceeds a > certain value. Is there such a "range" for basic rate access lines? > Are there repeaters available in the market for basic rate access to > cover customers at large distances from end offices? The ANSI Standard BRI (2B1Q code) goes 18,000 feet. Repeaters do exist. However, they cost something over a thousand dollars apiece right now, so the telephone comapnies aren't exactly beating down a path to the vendors' doors. Thus if you don't live within 18 kf of an ISDN line termination (CO or neighborhood mux, like a SLC-96, which handles ISDN), you're probably "SOL". PRI (T1) only goes 6000 feet, so they're used to repeaters. Besides, it's factored into the price. Fred R. Goldstein goldstein@carafe.tay2.dec.com k1io or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice:+1 508 952 3274 Standard Disclaimer: Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission. ------------------------------ From: ag786@yfn.ysu.edu (Barry Bouwsma) Subject: Re: Two Line Bridge Schematics Reply-To: ag786@yfn.ysu.edu (Barry Bouwsma) Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1993 21:00:53 GMT In a previous article, burchell@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Toxic Avenger) describes and diagrams a device one can use as a call forwarder, which works by detecting the ringing of one phone line and connecting that line to another through an isolation transformer. I would like to point out a few difficulties which may occur in the operation of such a device. These will be phone system dependent. > Theory of Operation: > The diverter works on some basic electronic principals. Step by > step. The phone rings. The neon lamp is activated by the high > voltage(88 p-p) ac and flashes. This light shines on the > photocell, decreasing its resistance. When this happens, the > positive voltage flowing through the photocell and the 10k > resistor exceed the breakdown voltage of the base of the > transistor and switches that transistor on. Once the transistor > is on, current flows freely from emitter to collector, energizing > the relay. The relay's two sets of switches connect both lines > to the 1:1 audio transformer, effectively taking both lines off > the hook and coupling any audio signals from either line to the > other one. A problem I had with my phone system when I was making devices which operated similarly was that the phone would be answered too soon and the call would not be connected through. The caller would hear the phone ringing normally for part of the ring which would then jump to a busy signal (whether fast or not I do not recall.) I had to design a circuit to be triggered by the ring and delay the answer connection by a bit. The phone system has since been switched to a digital system and I don't know whether a similar problem would occur with it now. If not, the simpler circuit would be adequate. > You hang up. Now, the local CO keeps current flowing through the > indial line for about five seconds, at which point it drops down for a > second or so and then goes back up. This is the signal the device > uses to determine when you've hung up. Not all phone systems do this. The circuit I mentioned above was designed for a U-Mich radio station with this in mind, with an older relay-operated switching phone system in use. The University installed its own digital phone system shortly afterwards, one which did not drop the DC when a call was terminated; in fact the DC would *never* be dropped. I had installed a key phone system for the same station and now a line put on hold stays on hold forever even after the caller hangs up. A second problem was that the older phone switch would drop the DC momentarily when the call was completed. I had to add a second circuit triggered by the first circuit to apply a short continuous pulse to keep the relay energized during the time the connection was being made. Perhaps that was the entire problem with the simpler circuit, that the connection would be made briefly and then lost, causing the switch from ringing to busy. The regular telephone company, which had provided the university's phone service before it put in its own, has since upgraded most of its exchanges to digital, but I have not performed further experiments to determine its behavior when phones are answered. The DC does get dropped, not shortly after the connection is closed, but maybe a minute later, just before that off-hook racket graces your ears. Barry Bouwsma, Internet: ag786@YFN.YSU.EDU ab189@swrl36.CalState.EDU ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 02 Feb 93 01:11:16 EST From: Tony Harminc Subject: Re: Wiring For Multi-Lines on One Jack Pat Turner wrote on the assignment of pairs to modular jacks: > Summary: > Scheme Pair 1 Pair 2 Pair 3 Pair 4 > USOC 4&5 3&6 2&7 1&8 > AT&T 4&5 1&2 3&6 7&8 > T568A 4&5 3&6 1&2 7&8 > * Looking at the JACK, with the "spring" tab recess facing down, pins > are numbered 1-8 from left to right. A six position plug would > contact pins 2-7. I have a Northern Telecom QNE1FN6(101) eight pin jack (actually only six terminals and wires are installed), and it comes with a wiring diagram: Front View BIX Terminal # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 T4 T3 T2 R1 T1 R2 R3 R4 USOC WB/BW WO/OW WG/GW WBr/BrW T3 R3 T2 R1 T1 R2 T4 R4 IDSN WB/BW WO/OW GW/WBr WG/BrW So this is another way of looking at it -- what NT calls ISDN seems to match T568A (and this diagram indicates Tip and Ring too). The BIX terminals are laid out so that wiring the colours in the normal order gets the USOC arrangement, but for ISDN you need the strange order. Tony Harminc ------------------------------ From: clive@x.co.uk (Clive Feather) Subject: Re: Overseas Directory Assistance Date: Wed, 3 Feb 93 6:47:19 GMT In Telecom 13.47.2 TELECOM Moderator notes: > [Moderator's Note: Yes and no. No, you are not supposed to dial > international DA direct (no, people in other countries cannot dial > 555-1212 in this country -- I don't think) Strangely enough, I was trying this from the UK the other day. The results were odd. When I dial 010-1-NPA-555-1212 (010 is the international access code), what happens depends on the area code: Canadian codes 414, 416, 519, 604 all work every time; 418, 514, 613, 705, 807, 819, 204, 306, 403, 506, 709, 902 always give me number unobtainable after dialing the whole number 905 [not yet in use]; gives number unobtainable immediately after the area code. U.S.codes 212, 408, 415, 510 work about one time in three, and give number unobtainable the rest of the time. Carribean codes 809 works every time. Clive D.W. Feather | IXI Limited clive@x.co.uk | Vision Park Phone: +44 223 236 555 | Cambridge CB4 4RZ Fax: +44 223 236 550 | United Kingdom ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1993 18:43:27 +0000 From: J.Harrison@bra0401.wins.icl.co.uk Subject: Re: Overseas Directory Assistance It's been discussed recently whether or not people in countries outside the the USA can or cannot call into US 555-1212 directory assistance. Well the answer is "yes" to that one, at least from here. I just wanted a number in Boston so I called 010-1-617-555-1212 (I'm calling from England). Right away I got a reply from a female voice, definitely with an American accent, so I don't think I got intercepted by any kind of British assistance service. She answered the phone by saying "What city please?" - I don't know if that is the regular greeting from directory assistance when calling it from within the US. I thought she would already know I was calling Boston (617?), so maybe I was in fact connected to some separate assistance centre that only handles incoming international calls. I guess I should have asked her. The call ended with a computerized voice (also with an American accent) telling me the number I wanted. Joe Harrison [Moderator's Note: The reason she asked what city you wanted is because 617, like most area codes, has numerous towns and cities within it. Indeed, Boston is the main place in 617, but there are lots of suburban towns in the vicinity in their own directories. I've noticed when calling directory assistance in the UK the response is the same; a live person answers and takes the request, then the robot speaks up with the answer, and invites me to stay on the line if I have further inquiries. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Feb 93 01:44:05 EST From: Tony Harminc Subject: Re: Holiday Overseas Callbacks From Bell Canada Operators Carl Moore comments on the Moderator's reference to Miquelon: > Moderator's note mentioned Miquelon. That is a French possession next > to Newfoundland, Canada. There was a little blurb in the digest > earlier about how is it reached from, say, Newfoundland. And the Moderator delivers a little geography lesson: > [Moderator's Note: Ah, but you are referring to the islands known as > St. Pierre and Miquelon -- French possessions -- located near the > coast of Newfoundland. I was referring to a tiny little town named > Miquelon in far northern Quebec. If you find Val-D'or, then look a few > hundred miles almost straight north. PAT] Perhaps it is our Moderator who needs the geography lesson. Miquelon is at about latitude N 49.5, or about 30 miles north of the US border. (Obviously the US border is much further south that far east, but this still puts Miquelon south of Winipeg and less than 100 miles north of Seattle.) 'Far northern Quebec' would be over 900 miles further north, at about N 62.5 for the top of the province. Tony Harminc [Moderator's Note: Our disagreement seems to be over the term 'far northern' and I agree your explanation makes sense. Miquelon is about 100 miles north of Val-D'or and a few hundred miles north of the USA border *at that point*. Relative to where most Canadians live -- within a hundred miles or so of the USA border -- it is a bit to the north, but not 'far north' in the sense that the little villages around the Hudson Bay area are in far northern Canada. Thanks for the geography lesson. When I drew a straight line across my map from Seattle eastward, I found you are quite correct in your measurements, although I did not believe you were correct until I measured it for myself. PAT] ------------------------------ From: theriaul@mdd.comm.mot.com (Roger Theriault) Subject: Re: Alternate Reason For White House Busy Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1993 10:12:50 -0800 (PST) Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division, Vancouver, CANADA Perhaps they just haven't learned how to use their phones? A Doonesbury cartoon a few weeks back depicted the Clinton White House, with someone asking "Anyone figured out the phones yet?" Roger Theriault Internet: theriaul@mdd.comm.mot.com UUCP: {uw-beaver,uunet}!van-bc!mdivax1!theriaul CompuServe: 71332,730 (not too often) I am not a spokesman for Motorola or anyone else besides myself. ------------------------------ From: phil@wubios.wustl.edu (J. Philip Miller) Subject: Alternate Reason For White House Busy Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1993 16:57:09 -0600 (CST) > [Moderator's Note: Thanks for passing along that clever response from > Jay Leno. The Chicago papers discussed the White House phone congestion > in recent days by noting that the combination of a popular president > combined with the several controversial issues he raised and people's > willingness to use long distance without flinching at the rates as > they might have done a few years ago led to the problem. PAT] Today the President pointed out that the switchboard in the White House was installed in 1964. He used it to illustrate the type of infrastructure that needs replacing in the US. J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067 Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110 phil@wubios.WUstl.edu - (314) 362-3617 [362-2694(FAX)] [Moderator's Note: My contact said he 'thought the switchboard itself dated back about thirty years' which would seem to agree with what Clinton said. He pointed out there were numerous 'improvements' made over the years, software patches, and changes to increase the capacity of the system and apparently some of this finally has caught up with them. PAT] ------------------------------ Reply-To: TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM From: Paul Robinson Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1993 20:33:29 EST Subject: AT&T's Ad on Sears - NOT! In Telecom Digest #13-54, Brad Hicks wrote: > (Paul Robinson) writes: >> Sears Roebuck & Company's Mail Order Catalog Division >> is closing ... > I wonder if AT&T is going to yank that commercial -- the > one about how they manage to reroute Sear's cals when > one of their phone centers was unable to function during > the Christmas season ... I don't wish to contradict such an Eminent Spokesperson for Visa International as Mr. Hicks, but that advertisement was for the company operated by Mr. James Cash Penney, which is known by his initials. Oh wait, Mr. Hicks works for Master Card. Never mind ... :) Paul Robinson -- TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM These (uninformed and inaccurate) opinions are mine alone, no one else is (stupid enough to be) responsible for them. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #64 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13324; 3 Feb 93 5:07 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16358 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 3 Feb 1993 02:30:13 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11600 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 3 Feb 1993 02:29:35 -0600 Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 02:29:35 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302030829.AA11600@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #65 TELECOM Digest Wed, 3 Feb 93 02:29:30 CST Volume 13 : Issue 65 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Introduction to comp.dcom.telecom / TELECOM Digest (Glenn R. Stone) Re: Introduction to comp.dcom.telecom / TELECOM Digest (Mark Earle) Re: Norwegian Number Plan Change -- More Information (Erik Naggum) Re: Frame Relay Congestion Question (Fred R. Goldstein) Re: ISDN Basic Rate Access (Bob Larribeau) Re: Telephone Line Bridge Info Needed (William Stuart) Re: Australia Phone Test Numbers (John J. Butz) Re: "Secret" Phone Codes (Dan Lawrence) Re: Cellular Phones Are Carcinogens? ... (H. Shrikumar) Re: AppleTalk Docs Wanted (Maxime Taksar) Re: Prodigy <> Internet Gateway Almost Finished (Benjamin Chernoff) Correction to Inquiry on Phone Systems (Jeannette Lanier) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1993 14:23:20 -0500 From: gs26@prism.gatech.edu (Glenn R. Stone) Subject: Re: Introduction to comp.dcom.telecom / TELECOM Digest Reply-To: glenns@eas.gatech.edu In Telecom 13.63.6 jack.decker@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org (Jack Decker) writes: > I've had FTP access for close to a month now and have yet to be able > to connect with lcs.mit.edu. It almost seems as though the connection > gets misrouted along the way (apparently I get to a *different* > machine that hangs off of lcs.mit.edu). I sent a message to the > postmaster at lcs.mit.edu describing the problem, but so far no > response. The address "lcs.mit.edu" is actually a domain, or whole group of machines. The one you get when you say "ftp lcs.mit.edu" is a machine called "mintaka", which is the main ftp and mail server for that domain. The IP address 18.26.0.36 is the correct one, and I had no trouble doing FTP, logging in as "anonymous", cd'ing to telecom-archives, and browsing for a minute or two at the titles ... The fact that the FTP welcome banner says "mintaka" is probably confusing to about half of the few who bother to notice, including, I assume, Mr. Decker ... rest assured that the banner is a red herring, and that the archives really are hiding in there in the right place. Glenn R. Stone (glenns@eas.gatech.edu) small medium at large [Moderator's Note: I've never noticed this for the simple reason I do not ever use FTP to the archives. Instead, I rlogin/telnet/dial-up to one of two work stations given to me for my use by MIT, then I get my Kerbos ticket punched for a trip over to mintaka via /nfs/common/telecom-archives. With a valid K. ticket, I get read/write privileges in the common directory at mintaka, but I never see the mintaka banner or greeting message since I enter from a different direction and never actually log in to mintaka, anonymous or other- wise. I wonder if what you say is what causes Jack's problem. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Feb 93 20:36:26 -0600 From: mearle@cgull.ccsu.edu (Mark Earle) Subject: Re: Introduction to comp.dcom.telecom / TELECOM Digest Jack Decker writes about being unable to connect with the site where the Telecom Archives are kept. Here is my experience: ------------------------------------ Kill is Ctrl-U cgull:/users/staff/mearle $ ftp lcs.mit.edu Connected to lcs.mit.edu. 220 mintaka FTP server (Version 5.57 Thu Dec 6 10:57:23 EST 1990) ready. Name (lcs.mit.edu:mearle): anonymous ------------------------------------ Jack -- dunno what to say. I tried FTP to both the numeric address and the more usual lcs.mit.edu and get there everytime. Must be something funky in the system you're trying from, or perhaps "upstream" from your site? mearle@falcon.ccsu.edu 73117.351@compuserve.com Mark Earle 1:160/50 wa2mct@ka5lzg ax.25 packet ------------------------------ From: Erik Naggum Date: 03 Feb 1993 02:57:46 +0100 Subject: Re: Norwegian Number Plan Change -- More Information After having asked people all over the Telco about this, I _finally_ got through to the head architect behind the new numbering plan. It's such a relief to find people who know things so well. Here's what he told me. Last summer, all areas of the country except 02 (which comprises Oslo and Akershus) switched to full eight-digit dialing, i.e. they had to dial the area code in front of all numbers dialed, complete with the leading zero. Oslo and Akershus were exempt from this change because they would be the first to cut over to the new numbering plan, and the Telco figured that two changes so close in time in this very populated area would be too much. The cut-over to the new eight-digit numbering plan occurs in five stages, with 02 being switched over first. Oslo becomes 22 and Akershus gets 67 and 66. The reason for these counter-intuitive numbers is that between phase one and phase two, the new numbers would have to work simultaneously with the old numbers, and the only place in the old numbering plan where there is enough space to accomodate Akershus is in 066 and 067. Several exchanges changed number to fit into the vacant slots in these areas. The problem that I discussed in my previous article was thus solved on the basis of the first digit following 66 and 67 in international calls. The entire country could not switch over at the same time because of lack of both telco and central office vendor personnel to monitor the cut-over. As Morten has reported, several central offices experienced problems and there also was a period of 18 hours after the official cut-over that some remote COs refused to acknowledge their own new prefix, so people connected to them could only dial other parts of the country. Although it was evident that much money would be saved by a single cut-over, more money would be spent accomplishing it and getting enough personell available. Morten reported previously that there would be no grace period and no permissive dialing. That's true for Oslo, since we've had six-digit numbers all the way up until the cut-over 28 January. However, the rest of the country will find that the new numbering plan is available for those COs that can handle the larger routing tables. The Telco does not _guarantee_ that the new numbering plan will work until the date and time they have scheduled because only then will the last COs be cut over on the new numbering plan. In the old numbering plan, there are four-digit special service numbers starting with "01", such as DA (0180, as someone mentioned here), Telco access lines (0140 for Telco headquarters, 0145 for fault reporting, 019x for Telco branch offices, etc), and other local oddities (such as 0177 for the public transportation information center in Oslo, only). 1 Jan 1994, these will drop the leading zero, and become three-digit numbers, instead. No other change is expected. As Morten mentioned, we have special Fire Department, Police and Ambulance emergency numbers: 001, 002 and 003, respectively, (although I have to look them up to remember which is which). These will change from 00x to 11x on 1 Jan 1994, too. Thus, all special service numbers will have three digits and start with 1, and will generally not be accessible to international callers. Starting 1 Jan 1995, the international access code will become "00" (it's the somewhat strange "095" today). The one year grace time for the "00x" numbers may be used to provide permissive dialing and voice warnings. Today, they report a number of problems with American tourists travelling all over Europe and calling home "00-1" to reach the U.S., and there is a great desire to have a common numbering plan scheme for all of the European Community (EC) and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) countries. Other interesting tid-bits include our "green numbers" (the name is taken from the French "ligne vert" (sp?)), which are now "050" and will become "800" in the new numbering plan. The mobile services number ranges have been cleaned up and given much more growth space ("lebensraum"). This is the number ranges that have been the hardest pressed, only second to 02 numbers. Norway boasts the highest number of mobile units per population, and also sports one of the highest number of telefaxes per population. With a population of 4.1 million, the number space for the dumb and numeric pager service (110,000) is full, and the text pager has been given 200,000 numbers, 70,000 of which are already used, which means that one in a little over twenty Norwegians carry a pager of some sort. My experience during the past week is that the switch has been relatively painless. However, it's interesting to notice ads in the newspapers and on billboards showing the old number, or only six digits. There are some really clever ways to group the eight digits in new numbers. The "official" notation is four groups of two digits, also known as the "bingo card notation" when you list several numbers: Phone: +47 22 95 03 13 Pager: +47 96 62 54 64 Fax: +47 22 85 24 01 I have a personal preference for two groups of four, though, and it seems to be spreading. I've asked for statistics on how often the old numbers are dialed and intercepted, and will report as soon as I get the first set of numbers. Best regards, Erik Naggum +47 2295 0313 ------------------------------ From: goldstein@carafe.dnet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) Subject: Re: Frame Relay Congestion Question Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 02:02:09 GMT In article , zhang@sce.carleton.ca (Shu Zhang) writes ... > Is anyone familiar with congestion notification in the frame relay > networks, especially with the consolidate link layer management(CLLM) > message? Would you please explain to me why all CLLM messages have the > same same two address octets of 111110R0 and 1111XXX1, instead of > different address octets, like ordinary data frame in the frame relay > network? Good question. It is because BY DEFINITION, ordinary data frames in FR have a (network-owned) header that ends with the last "address" octet, and a (user-owned) payload that includes the nominal HDLC "control" octet. In order to have explicit congestion notification, we (ANSI T1S1.2, the standards committee that slugged this out in the late '80s) stole one bit from the header for Forward Explicit Congestion Notification (FECN), one bit for Backwards ECN, and one for Discard Eligible (DE). FECN is set on frames that see congestion. BECN is set on frames sent on a Virtual Circuit that is congested in the OTHER direction, so that the SENDER sees that its frames are hitting congestion. BECN depends upon two-way traffic. That's fine for HDLC and similar acknowledged data (even TCP), but what if there's no backwards traffic? That's what CLLM is for. Now the bulk of the group did not think this was a crucial problem -- AT&T wanted it, and their main use was, we think, voice, and we designed FR for data, period -- so we were not about to steal a FOURTH bit from the "address" field (really, the FR header). But the "control" field isn't control, it's payload, so we couldn't just put "XID" in a user's payload. The solution was to use a reserved (management) address for all of these messages. That's why it's the _consolidated_ link layer management message -- all "source quench" (that's basically what it is) messages are consolidated into one, and shuffled around the network with much effort. I personally don't know of any data networks that actually use it. Fred R. Goldstein goldstein@carafe.tay2.dec.com k1io or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice:+1 508 952 3274 Standard Disclaimer: Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission. ------------------------------ From: Bob Larribeau Subject: Re: ISDN Basic Rate Access Organization: Consultant Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 01:36:10 GMT > When we lay copper access cables from end offices to the customer > premises, we use repeaters if the distance to the CPE exceeds a > certain value. Is there such a "range" for basic rate access lines? > Are there repeaters available in the market for basic rate access to > cover customers at large distances from end offices? It depends on the transmission techniques used on the loop. In the U.S. the ANSI standard U interface has a limit of 18,000 feet. Extenders exist. AT&T has one they call the BRITE Card. Adtran also has an extender. I have heard that Pacific Bell's new single line tariff includes an extender if it is required at no additional charge. Bob Larribeau San Francisco ------------------------------ From: stuart@ee.fit.edu (William Stuart) Subject: Re: Telephone Line Bridge Info Needed Date: 3 Feb 93 01:07:06 GMT Organization: Florida Tech, CP/EE Dept. In jack.decker@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org (Jack Decker) writes: > In message , rossix!amber.dnet!dan@ > fernwood.mpk.ca.us (Dan Cook, Ross Escondido) writes: >> I recently created a small electronic circuit which allows me to use a >> pair of telephone lines to 'forward calls.' What I do is call the >> first line, get bridged to the second, then dialout from there. >> (Dialtone on the second line is not accessable until the correct four >> digit DTMF password has been entered. I also put a toll restrictor on >> the line -- just in case.) > If you manage to do this at a reasonable cost, it would probably help > a *lot* of TELECOM Digest readers if you would publish the schematics > for your device. While the solutions recommended were good, I know of an even simpler method. A friend of mine has an uncle in the Middle-of-Nowhere, Illinois. All of his family and businesses are in a small town that is about 30 minutes away and in a different calling zone. Needless to say, this could run up some big phone bills. His solution?: He pays for two phone lines that are connected at a point midway between his home and the nearby town. The location of the connection is just inside the calling zone of the town, so the line that provides dialtone is a local line. The second line is just a leased line, like radio stations use to send audio to their transmitters. This line qualifies as a 'local' line in his calling area. Somewhere in a cow pasture there is a junction box that connects the two. Needless to say, the whole thing is transparent and audio quality does not suffer. While a leased line costs more than a standard line, he says its not much more and the whole deal is FAR less than ldx charges. To top it off he says Ma Bell did the whole thing for him once he explained what he wanted to do! Bill stuart@ee.fit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Feb 93 15:52:25 EST From: jbutz@hogpa.ho.att.com (John J Butz +1 908 949 5302) Subject: Re: Australia Phone Test Numbers U1066579@csdvax.csd.unsw.EDU.AU writes: > Here are some Australian test numbers. These numbers will read the > telephone number back to you using a computer generated voice, the numbers > are: > 19123 (Most widely used, most states) > 1231 (Works in Adelaide) > 1111 > 11544 > (03) 552-4100 (Toll free number, has very poor comp generated voice!) > In my experience none of these numbers will work from a public telephone. > Instead you will hear "no information to identify telephone number". G'day Mates, I tried the toll free number from here in the States just for the hell of it ... The first try resulted in an announcement telling me to not dial the 0 when trying to reach Tazmania. My second try without the "0" gave a computer voice "number" playback that sounded something like this ... "mnualahh mhyaq thyr errr oi" =8-) Put that one on your barbie ... J "INTL_BILL_OPTS" Butz AT&T - BL jbutz@hogpa.att.com ER700 Sys Eng ------------------------------ From: dan@halcyon.com (Dan Lawrence) Subject: Re: "Secret" Phone Codes Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1993 20:42:25 GMT In article toddi@mav.com (Todd Inch) writes: > In GTE land north of Seattle, WA, the "secret code" is 411. We use > 1-555-1212 for local directory information. The number varies widely > depending on your local telco and probably isn't as simple as a three > digit number in most areas (hint: it's definitely NOT 911!). In some > places, these test numbers are frequently changed to prevent customers > from using it, but not around here. Some telcos, especially very > small ones, may not even have such a number. I used to live in the GTE land north of Seattle (Halls Lake was my exchange) and I found that 411 only worked on phone book published numbers. It would not return an unlisted unmber. To do that you had to dial 611! Dan Lawrence ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Feb 93 16:32:33 -0500 From: shri%legato@cs.umass.edu (H.Shrikumar) Subject: Re: Cellular Phones Are Carcinogens? Hi, > This is one reason why police radios are now worn at the waist and > wired to a lapel-mounted microphone. I know of no credible ... A thought ... why cannot the cellular rubber-duckie stick out of the *bottom* of the handheld unit, so that its sticks out the front and below from of your body, and closer to the waist than the head. Customer acceptance would be a problem ... would people get too confused ? :-) I agree ... it would look a bit wierd. shrikumar ( shri@legato.cs.umass.edu ) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Feb 93 16:03:22 -0800 From: mmt@RedBrick.COM (Maxime Taksar KC6ZPS) Subject: Re: AppleTalk Docs Wanted In article is written: > Can anyone point me to a good source (preferably on-line!) describing > Appletalk (and Localtalk?) in detail? The Apple doc's aren't going to > be available for a while, AppleTalk documentation has been available from Apple for quite a while now. The most recent, most complete document about it is {Inside AppleTalk}, which I've seen at many bookstores here in the Bay Area. If there is sufficient interest, I can find out author, cover price, ISBN, and possibly how to order it from Apple. Maxime Taksar KC6ZPS mmt@RedBrick.COM ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 01:26:44 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Benjamin Chernoff Subject: Re: Prodigy <> Internet Gateway Almost Finished Bob Hofkin@software.org wrote: > BIX has finally put their Internet link into production. Now that Prodigy has internet mail, is there anyway to look up a Prodigy user's address? Michael ------------------------------ From: wu/O=NUCLEAR_REGULATORY_COMMISSION/DD.ELN=62868951@mhs.attmail.com Date: 2 Feb 93 21:51:51 GMT Subject: Correction to Inquiry on Phone Systems In a previous message, I asked for information about advanced switchboard systems for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's pending move to the Two White Flint Building. The operator who typed in the message made a mistake and mistyped the sentence "This is a high volume office handling more than 300 calls a day." While the sentence is technically correct, what I had originally wrote was "This is a high volume office handling more than * 800 * calls a day." (Operators routinely handle more than 250 calls on weekdays, each; we have three people, not four; the fourth console is available for updating the databases and as a spare in case one of the other machines fails.) Please excuse any misunderstanding on this. I have already received some helpful information and I appreciate any information anyone can offer. Thank you for your attention, Jeannette Lanier ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #65 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01926; 3 Feb 93 14:10 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04104 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 3 Feb 1993 10:50:34 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28569 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 3 Feb 1993 10:49:41 -0600 Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 10:49:41 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302031649.AA28569@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #66 TELECOM Digest Wed, 3 Feb 93 10:49:30 CST Volume 13 : Issue 66 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: ISDN Basic Rate Access (David G. Lewis) Re: ISDN Basic Rate Access (Bob Blackshaw) Re: ISDN Basic Rate Access (Gary W. Sanders) Re: AT&T Public Phone 2000 Credit Card Bug (Edwin G. Green) Re: AT&T Public Phone 2000 Credit Card Bug (Doug Krause) Kudos to AT&T (Public Phone 2000) (Ken Jongsma) Re: Caller ID and Voice Messaging in Centrex (Terry Kennedy) Re: Where is a Source For CFRs? (Eric P. Scott) Re: Sears Kills Catalog After 95 Years (Howard Wilson) Re: I Want to Pay For a Local Call (Carl Moore) Roaming Ports Blocked For Some Users (Kevin Henson) AT&T Changes Reach Out America (Ken Jongsma) International "900" Numbers (Ken Jongsma) Need Information on Bridges and Dialogic's Phone Number (John V. Jaskolski) Iridium: How Will It Find You? (Ross Stapleton) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) Subject: Re: ISDN Basic Rate Access Organization: AT&T Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 14:15:29 GMT In article goldstein@carafe.dnet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) writes: > In article , exugsr@exu.ericsson.se > (Govindan Raghavan, XT-DL) writes: > PRI (T1) only goes 6000 feet, so they're used to repeaters. Besides, > it's factored into the price. Just to clarify: this is a layer 1 limitation of the T1, so use of HDSL would push it out to 18kft; repeaters would push it out to the physical limit of the repeaters, and fiber-optic transport for the DS1 would push it out indefinitely. So in other words, with, say, a DDM-1000 carrying the DS1, I could drop a PRI off a switch in Boston to a customer in San Diego ... It would be silly, but it's possible :-) David G Lewis AT&T Bell Laboratories david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!goofy!deej Switching & ISDN Implementation ------------------------------ From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) Subject: Re: ISDN Basic Rate Access Organization: Corporation for Open Systems Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 14:31:35 GMT In exugsr@exu.ericsson.se (Govindan Raghavan, XT-DL) writes: > When we lay copper access cables from end offices to the customer > premises, we use repeaters if the distance to the CPE exceeds a > certain value. Is there such a "range" for basic rate access lines? > Are there repeaters available in the market for basic rate access to > cover customers at large distances from end offices? Here in the U.S. using 2B1Q line encoding and echo cancelling, the basic rate access is limited to 18,000 feet. However, the standards documents show various means of extending this distance. Use of remote concentrators or repeaters are among the possibilities. The U reference point line code superframe also includes a means of addressing these units. Bob ------------------------------ From: gary.w.sanders@att.com Date: Wed, 3 Feb 93 13:45:56 GMT Subject: Re: ISDN Basic Rate Access Organization: AT&T In article goldstein@carafe.dnet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) writes: > In article , exugsr@exu.ericsson.se > (Govindan Raghavan, XT-DL) writes: > The ANSI Standard BRI (2B1Q code) goes 18,000 feet. > Repeaters do exist. However, they cost something over a thousand > dollars apiece right now, so the telephone comapnies aren't exactly > beating down a path to the vendors' doors. Thus if you don't live > within 18 kf of an ISDN line termination (CO or neighborhood mux, like > a SLC-96, which handles ISDN), you're probably "SOL". > PRI (T1) only goes 6000 feet, so they're used to repeaters. Besides, > it's factored into the price. Ohio Bell's ISDN request was approved on Jan 20 by the PUCO (Ohio). In it they have a two tier pricing schedule, under 18kft and over 18kft. If you're over 18Kft they bring in a T1 to your location and split out to the ISDN interface onsite. I am still waiting to find out what the pricing is really going to be. Will Ohio Bell offer reasonable priced ISDN service and sell a lot of price it out of site and sell a few? March 9 is the offical roll out date. Gary W. Sanders (N8EMR) gary.w.sanders@att.com AT&T Bell Labs 614-860-5965 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Feb 93 07:29:25 EST From: egg@inuxy.att.com Subject: Re: AT&T Public Phone 2000 Credit Card Bug Organization: AT&T In article is written: > In reference to the AT&T 2000 pay phones ... I tried to use one of > them at DFW the other day, and couldn't ... a message kept appearing > on the screen about my calling card being invalid ... the one I had > just used, on the same phone, to make voice calls. > I called the 800 number for customer service, posted right by the > keyboard, and they told me that the keyboards were disabled 'not too > long ago', for reasons that 'I can't explain'. > Does anyone have any insights? > [Moderator's Note: You are the second person to write about this in > recent days. A few issues ago, the writer said he called AT&T to ask > and was told there was a problem with the FCC. No answers have yet > come forth. Does anyone know what is going on? PAT] These and other similar services have been turned off pending FCC approval. They will be resumed when AT&T receives authority from the FCC. I am sorry for any inconvenience that this is causing and will post to this group as soon as the service is turned on again. Edwin G. Green AT&T Bell Laboratories Indianapolis, Indiana, USA INH 1E-506 317-845-3659 egg@inuxy.att.com ------------------------------ From: dkrause@miami.acs.uci.edu (Doug Krause) Subject: Re: AT&T Public Phone 2000 Credit Card Bug Organization: University of California, Irvine Date: 3 Feb 93 10:16:40 GMT In article jav@crash.cts.com writes: > I called the 800 number for customer service, posted right by the > keyboard, and they told me that the keyboards were disabled 'not too > long ago', for reasons that 'I can't explain'. Can you still plug a laptop modem in or is that dead as well? Douglas Krause University of California, Irvine Internet: dkrause@hydra.acs.uci.edu Bitnet: DJKrause@uci.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1993 13:56:56 EST From: Ken Jongsma Reply-To: jongsma@esseye.si.com Subject: Kudos to AT&T (Public Phone 2000) Well, as much as AT&T gets bashed around here, I've got to say they're doing something right. I was at O'Hare the other day and wanted to use one of those Public Phone 2000 terminals to call in and get my mail. There were none to be seen in the United terminal, so I thought I'd call AT&T and see if I could find someone that knew if there were any at O'Hare. I called the 1-800-CALL-ATT number and asked the operator. She didn't know what a Public Phone 2000 was, but put me through to the home videophone marketing department. They knew exactly what I was talking about and connected me with someone in the Public Phone 2000 office. He actually had a directory of the locations and was able to look it up in under two minutes. (There are 20 of them just outside of Terminal E). I then asked about the keyboards being disabled, and he confirmed that according to a recent FCC ruling, they weren't able to allow people to use them for the time being. The dataports would still be useable, but since didn't have a machine with me, that was of little use. Does anyone know what the deal is on this ruling? I suppose that someone thinks tying an unregulated rental offering of a terminal to a regulated long distance offering is a "bad thing." Anyway, I was impressed that a company as large as AT&T has managed to train their people that deal with the public to handle some pretty esoteric requests. I was impressed. Probably the reason they had those record profits last year ... Kenneth R Jongsma jongsma@benzie.si.com Smiths Industries 73115.1041@compuserve.com Grand Rapids, Michigan +1 616 241 7702 ------------------------------ From: Terry Kennedy Subject: Re: Caller ID and Voice Messaging in CENTREX Organization: St. Peter's College, US Date: 3 Feb 93 09:52:53 EST In article , tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) writes: > They have informed me that on outbound calls, the number for the > second line will show up in the ID if a call is placed from that line. This is correct. > [...] but if people we call from the second line see that number, > they may try to return calls to the wrong line. Normally two lines in a hunt group are considered to be equivalent in function. I'm not sure why you feel that having the second number displayed is such a problem -- after all, if it was intended to be a special line (for example, one that you would answer after hours, etc.) you wouldn't want hunting from the first one, right? > Does anyone know if it is possible to get the same number listed as > the ID on both lines? It's not possible. Caller ID delivers the actual telephone number. ANI would deliver the billing number. > The other Caller-ID problem involves reading the ID on incoming calls. > Apparently this will work fine if I read it off of the first line, but > if the first line is busy and the call rotates to the second line, US > West informs me that I will only see the ID of the first line as the > incoming caller, because the call was actually forwarded from the > first line upon busy! This is not true -- with CO-based call forwarding / hunt / etc. you will see the caller's number (provided that it's not blocked and in your LATA, etc.). 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: Wed, 3 Feb 93 01:48:58 PST From: eps@toaster.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott) Subject: Re: Where is a Source For CFRs? Organization: San Francisco State University Reply-To: eps@cs.SFSU.EDU Executive agencies of the United States Government issue regulations all year long, which are then printed in the Federal Register. Once a year (generally) a cumulative "snapshot" of current regulations appears as the Code of Federal Regulations. Federal Regulations are grouped by topic into Titles, each title consisting of multiple Parts. Frequently you'll see references to "Part 15" or "Part 68" -- the implicit whole is Title 47, Telecommunications. Since the sheer volume of federal regulations precludes their being published all at once, 47 CFR bears an effective date of October, with copies actually appearing in print sometime around January. As of this writing, only the 1991 edition is available: 47 CFR, Parts 0-19 $19 47 CFR, Parts 20-39 $19 47 CFR, Parts 40-69 $10 47 CFR, Parts 70-79 $18 47 CFR, Parts 80-END $20 Prices reflect the number of pages in each book. The 1992 edition should be available in about three weeks, with a probable $5 - $15 price increase. Each paperbound book can be purchased separately. + Note that if you are interested in more than a few Titles, it's probably cheaper to get an annual subscription to the entire CFR. The most recent catalog prices that at $620 (or $188 on microfiche). Prices include shipping within the U.S., and there is no sales tax. For shipment to foreign addresses, add 25% to all prices. + Note also that public libraries designated as Government Depository libraries, university libraries, etc. should have the complete CFR available in their reference or government publications sections. Yes, law libraries too. "How to order": In person: visit your nearest U.S. Government Bookstore --> beware of limited hours e.g. San Francisco's closes at 3:30 p.m. By phone (Visa/MasterCard): call your nearest U.S. Government Bookstore -or- +1 202 783 3238, 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. Eastern time -=EPS=- ------------------------------ From: stile@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Howard Wilson) Subject: Re: Sears Kills Catalog After 95 Years Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 09:59:56 GMT Joe Bergstein (Joe.Bergstein@p501.f544.n109.z1.fidonet.org) wrote: > BTW, you can still order from Sears catalog until all their merchan- > dise is exhausted. Sorry folks, but I feel this error *MUST* be corrected. Sears is NOT going out of business. The probability "all merchandise is exhausted" is so slim as to be impossible. This is Sears folks, they have more crap than you can buy in a year. To correct the error, this is NOT a closeout sale. You can order from the Sears catalog until the end of this year. That means get those orders in by 12/31/93, or they won't honor it. At least for now. I don't see them popping up in December saying "we'll let you order for another month", but it IS possible. Again, you can NOT order from the catalog until all merchandise is gone (the catalog won't be around long enough). You can only order until the end of this year. Howard Wilson II Stile, Howard Wilson II, and any other names I might use can be reached at: stile@okcforum.uoknor.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Feb 93 16:13:53 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: I Want to Pay For a Local Call I think I was able to do 0+ on a local call from my residence phone and indeed put it onto my phone bill. (Delaware.) ------------------------------ Subject: Roaming Ports Blocked For Some Users Date: Tue, 02 Feb 93 11:39:47 PST From: kph@cisco.com John Higdon writes: > In my experience, no type of roaming precludes any other. LA Cellular (the A carrier for Los Angeles and surrounding areas) does not allow calls via roamer access ports for customers in the California SuperSystem. For example, a Bay Area Cellular customer roaming in LA can only be reached by calling their mobile number directly. If you call a roaming port in LA and enter the ten-digit mobile number, you will receive a recording about this being an invalid mobile number. I checked with customer service when I was down there, and this is intended behavior, not a bug. Kevin ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1993 13:55:28 EST From: Ken Jongsma Reply-To: jongsma@esseye.si.com Subject: AT&T Changes Reach Out America According to an ad in the {Wall Street Journal} and other national newspapers, there's been a significant change in AT&T's Reach Out America plan. The price has increased from $7.15 for the first hour to $7.50, but the beginning time has been moved to 7PM from 10PM. Additional time remains at .10 per minute. Kenneth R Jongsma jongsma@benzie.si.com Smiths Industries 73115.1041@compuserve.com Grand Rapids, Michigan +1 616 241 7702 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1993 15:21:27 EST From: Ken Jongsma Reply-To: jongsma@esseye.si.com Subject: International "900" Numbers For those of you that collect those 900-like international numbers, I came across a couple more: 011 592 1010 (Guyana) 011 351 99 35110 (Portugal) These numbers were supposed to be accessable from the US. I don't know about other countries. No other charge than the tariffed international rate was suppose to apply. The AT&T operator said direct dial to the Guyana number was $2.99 for the first minute and $1.28 each additional. I didn't ask about the second. Nor did I actually call either of them. You're on your own! Kenneth R Jongsma jongsma@benzie.si.com Smiths Industries 73115.1041@compuserve.com Grand Rapids, Michigan +1 616 241 7702 ------------------------------ From: jasko@park.bu.edu (John V. Jaskolski) Subject: Need Information on Bridges and Dialogic's Phone Number Date: 2 Feb 93 21:20:25 GMT Reply-To: jasko@park.bu.edu Organization: Boston University Dept. of Cognitive and Neural Systems Can anyone out there tell me Dialogic's phone number? Also, I am interested in buying (or building) telephone bridge. This device would allow multiple callers to teleconference. In other words, five or six people can all call into the same number and talk to each other simultaneously. Bridges can be purchased but they are very expensive. A bridge that has the capability of having 15 people talk at the same time can cost $15,000 to $30,000 dollars. Any information regarding chips, books, hardware, manufacturers, etc. will be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much. John V. Jaskolski ------------------------------ Subject: Iridium: How Will It Find You? From: stapleton@misvms.bpa.arizona.edu (Dr. Ross Alan Stapleton) Date: 2 Feb 1993 14:51 MST Organization: University of Arizona MIS Department When/if the Motorola Iridium (Dysprosium? ;-) system is built, how exactly will it work, as far as finding its users? If I'm a subscriber, and someone tries to reach me, just how will the system determine where I am to call me (does it ping every satellite footprint, looking for my receiver, or am I required to send "I am here" information every so often?) and just how does it happily pass users off to less expensive services where these are available? Ross stapleton@mis.arizona.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #66 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03705; 3 Feb 93 14:50 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29767 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 3 Feb 1993 11:54:07 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09986 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 3 Feb 1993 11:53:00 -0600 Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 11:53:00 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302031753.AA09986@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #67 TELECOM Digest Wed, 3 Feb 93 11:53:43 CST Volume 13 : Issue 67 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Low Cost Access to a Network? (Chuck Petch) Mitel SX-200 Message Indicator Lights (Darren Alex Griffiths) Calling Telco With Questions is a Waste of Time (John Andrusiak) Telephone Costs Go Up in Russia (H. Shrikumar) Personal 800 Number Question (Howard Wilson) What Phone Do I Put On a Boat? (Steve Grabhorn) What the Heck is 4,941,976.667 Hz Good For? (Bob Clements) Re: Cellular Phones Are Carcinogens? (Jack Decker) Re: Prodigy <> Internet Gateway Almost Finished (Paul Robinson) Re: Prodigy <> Internet Gateway Almost Finished (ghadsal@american.edu) Correction: AT&T's Ad on Sears - NO (Brad S. Hicks) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch) Subject: Low Cost Access to a Network? Date: 2 Feb 1993 23:19:48 GMT Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA Does anyone know of a free or low cost network connection for the home computer user? I have access to Internet at work and would like to enjoy a similar type of network connection at home, but of course, I can't afford Internet prices. I'm not real computer savvy, so please forgive me if I'm asking what seems obvious. Incidentally, I've run across mentions of FidoNet that indicate it may be what I'm looking for. Can anyone supply a few details? I would appreciate a reply by e-mail as I don't normally check this SIG. Thanks, Chuck Petch ------------------------------ Subject: Mitel SX-200 Message Indicator Lights Date: Tue, 02 Feb 93 17:13:01 PST From: dag@ossi.com We have a new voice mail system called Repartee, and an old Mitel SX-200 switch. The voice mail system claims to be able to turn on lights on the phone when we have a new message, and the Mitel claims to know how to do this as well. The voice mail system requires a string of to send to the switch, something like *22 + ext I suppose, but we don't know what this string is supposed to consist of. We have long since lost the Mitel manual and the voice mail vendor and Mitel support are not much help. Does anyone know how to switch on the message indicator lights using the Mitel switch? Thanks, Darren Alex Griffiths dag@nasty.ossi.com Open Systems Solutions Inc. (510) 652-6200 x139 Operating Systems Division Fax: (510) 652-5532 6121 Hollis Street Coins: 7924-139 Emeryville, CA 94608-2092 ------------------------------ From: John Andrusiak Subject: Calling Telco With Questions is a Waste of Time Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 02:14:58 GMT In article Paul Renault, renaul2@CAM. ORG writes: > I've just spent three many days on the phone to Bell Canada, Bell > Northern Research, and Northern Telecom trying to find out some solid > info on Caller ID (Caller Display) so I could tie to a client database > via my modem ... > Besides having to explain over and over and over WHY I wanted > the info, and what I needed, I had to put up with the unbelievable > "Gee, I don't know who could help you, you want some really technical > information ..." Don't bother calling up the phone company for information that's technical. It's a waste of time. (NT is the phone company in a way, so it applies to them too.) Take NT/BNR mentioned above. I used to work for them. One day when I was working for them I needed a component that they make. I wasn't connected into the informal distribution channels for this stuff. So I tried phoning the NT sales department. Once I found who to call, they couldn't do anything for me that was useful. The only thing these people seem to respond to is "I want a phone system and I have $X bucks to spend." (where X is a big as possible.) Still, things are getting better. A few years ago when I attempted to get some technical information from the phone company they got their lawyers to phone my parents and threatened them with lawsuits, etc. This because I wanted to know which wire was TIP and which was RING! Try Motorola instead. They probably have a technical report to go with the chips for Caller ID that they produce. John Andrusiak - umandru1@umanitoba.ca ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 00:17:34 -0500 From: shri@unreal.cs.umass.edu (H. Shrikumar) Subject: Telephone Costs Go Up in Russia I just read in {NYTimes} (2 Feb 1993) that (along with several other costs) in Russia, the telephone costs are being driven up by the inflationary pressures. Off my memory, the monthly rental for a phone line is now to be some 106 Roubles. And local calls are to cost three Roubles a minute (up from few kopecks ... so that makes it a several hundred percent jump straight). Businesses are to pay double the domestic [I think this means residential -- shri] phone rates. International calls are also to cost more. Calls to Europe would attract 110 Roubles a minute, and those to Africa/America 220 Roubles a minute (for residential subscribers). [ Some Rouble-$ rates I had seen a month ago converts these to $0.194 per min to Europe, and $0.388 per min to Africa/America. These are not bad at all, so till now I'd guess calling from Russia should have been dirt cheap! Unless the Rouble has changed from 568 Roubles to one USD - could've ... I just dont know. :-) ] BTW ... are there any readers from Russia, the Ukraine and other CIS states on this list? It would be interesting to hear your comments and more! shrikumar ( shri@legato.cs.umass.edu ) [Moderator's Note: We used to get messages from fellow in the Soviet Union now and then a couple years ago here. I don't know whatever happened to him. PAT] ------------------------------ From: stile@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Howard Wilson) Subject: Personal 800 Number Question Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 10:14:02 GMT Ok, I guess I pretty much need personal 800 numbers explained to me all over. It was my understanding (and still is, considering my source of the "new info) that personal 800 numbers were assigned to ONE number, and that changing that assigned number was pretty darned difficult. Example: My phone number at home is 444-4444. I get an 800 number assigned there, and from anywhere in the US, I can call my 800 number and ring 444-4444. Ok? Sounds fine to me. Now I get this person (ahem ... it's a separate story, but trust me, I have GOOD reason to believe he's lying, as this would be the first true thing I've heard from him) telling me he has a personal 800 number (and no job, yeah ... sure). He says the way HIS works is he can dial any number he wants, such as 555-5555, from his number, 444-4444, and have it billed there. I replied "You don't need an 800 number to do this, just pick up 444-4444 and dial". He then changed his tune and said he MEANT he could dial 555-5555 from any OTHER phone, and have it CHARGED to his 800 number (at 444-4444). Again, I replied he didn't need an 800 number for that, and in fact didn't even need to bother an operator to do it. Now, what I need to know is, exactly how full of it IS he? I thought the whole POINT of a personal 800 number was to call one number from anywhere else, not call ANY number from anywhere else. Has this service changed, or have I misunderstood it? If it is the latter, why use an 800 number? If you can bill a call to your own 800 number, why do that rather than your own HOME number? I hope this is clear, because I'm quite confused about it all. Stile, Howard Wilson II, and any other names I might use can be reached at: stile@okcforum.uoknor.edu I speak for no one but myself! [Moderator's Note: What an 800 number, 'personal' or otherwise does is allow the caller to automatically reverse the charges to the called party. Period. Some 800 numbers terminate on their own wire pairs and instruments at some place while others are arranged to terminate on an actual POTS line instead. Some 800 numbers (like those from Cable and Wireless) can have the place where they terminate changed by the user remotely. Others require the carrier to make the changes. 800 numbers have nothing to do with billing calls dialed between two numbers to be billed to a third number. *Where* an 800 number is usable is decided by the customer and the carrier. Some are purely local in range while others are statewide or interstate. A few are international. PAT] ------------------------------ From: grabhorn@gandalf.nosc.mil Subject: What Phone Do I Put on a Boat? Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 09:55:26 GMT I need to replace an installed sound-powered phone (I think) system on a fairly small ocean-going vessel (90' long by 50' beam) with something a little more modern. The old system consisted of stations with a rotary switch (to select the station you wanted to talk to), a handset with a push-to-talk button, and a hand crank (a "growler") to "ring" the station you wanted to communicate with. A friend suggested that we might be able to replace the whole system on the vessel with a small, self-contained phone system. We are also going to install a seperate, sound-powered phone network. I've pulled out my North Supply 'Business Telephone Systems' catalog, but I don't have any experience selecting any of the small systems. I installed a Mitel SX-200 system ten years ago, after spending two weeks at their school in Colorado, so I'm not _too_ ignorant about telephony. I'd appreciate any advice in two areas: One, what would be a good, small phone system to buy? We'd need two outside lines when the boat docks, and no more than ten or twelve extensions internally. An intercom ability between extension units is needed, as well as external paging capability from any extension. 120VAC is available, any system without backup batteries is unacceptable. Of course, the longer the system can run on batteries, the better. Two, I'd appreciate any advice from people familiar with marine work.I don't plan on installing the extension stations with RJ-11 jacks, I think hardwiring them is the way to go. I plan on stocking the boat with spares. Well, I didn't say 'three', but there's something else that's bothering me. The older systems, that have already been ripped out, were designed with special things in mind, mainly by people that have used them for years and know what to look out for. I don't know how many of you have heard a 'growler', but you can't mistake it for anything else, and you can hear it over quite a bit of background noise. We'll probably have to add ringers if the extension phones have pizo-electric crystal ringers. One last thing, I don't even want to think about putting a phone in the engine room. But whatever we buy will probably have to support external ring circuits so we can flash strobe lights, or something like that, to get people's attention. but that shouldn't be a problem. Steve Grabhorn, Code 984, Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center San Diego, CA, 92152-5000; Phone:619-553-3512; Internet:grabhorn@nosc.mil ------------------------------ Subject: What The Heck is 4,941,976.667 Hz Good For? Date: Wed, 03 Feb 93 09:05:56 -0500 From: clements@BBN.COM The question: What the heck is 4,941,976.667 Hz good for? The background: In the early 1980s, AT&T bought a bunch of Rubidium atomic frequency standards. They were specially modified for AT&T from a standard model. The main modification was the addition of an extra standard frequency output at the above frequency, in addition to the normal standards of 1.0 MHz and 5.0 MHz. I can't figure out what that frequency is good for. It isn't related to T1, T2 or T3 bit rates. Nor the European equivalents. Nor SONET rates. It isn't related to NTSC or PAL video subcarriers. And in the red herring department, it is not related to the natural frequency of the Rubidium oscillator itself, which is up in the 6.84 GHz area. I've asked a number of other Telecom-knowledgable people, who will remain nameless here, and they can't identify it either. So: Anyone know what AT&T wanted that frequency for? Thanks, Bob Clements, K1BC, clements@bbn.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Feb 93 11:16:03 EST From: jack_decker@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org (Jack Decker) Subject: Re: Cellular Phones Are Carcinogens? In message , john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) wrote: > I have a new policy concerning this sort of thing. The phrase > "credible scientific reports" does not cut it anymore. Please site the > source (with author, title, and any other identifying data) so that I > can look it up and decide FOR MYSELF if it is a "credible" piece of > work. > Also, remember that one study means little. The results must be > repeatable by independent researchers. And the study must be > meaningful in terms of its statistical associations. It can be easily > demonstrated that virtually all people who have developed cancer have > swallowed their own saliva. Does this tell us much? > So I am waiting for your references. Let me read this shocking > material. I have to agree with John on this. Let us keep in mind that the recent wave of hysteria about RF and EMI radiation is being fueled by the press, which is hardly noted for checking their fact (the most notable example of this was when "60 Minutes" started the story about the use of Alar on Apples and nearly put the Apple industry out of business ... this was totally irresponsible journalism, if you can even call it journalism, since there wasn't any hard evidence at all to back up the allegations). At the same time, I tend to use a bit of common sense, and common sense tells me that the shorter the wavelength, the more potential it has for harm on the body. Everyone agrees that overexposure to microwaves is harmful (you wouldn't want your hand inside an operating microwave oven!) and when you are up in the 900 MHz range it's not ALL that far, relatively speaking, from the frequencies that could be considered as microwave. So for that reason alone, it's prudent to limit your exposure a bit. I would not spend hours a day on a handheld cellular phone, but I would not have done it before the current media reports surfaced, either. In a similar manner, I've never thought it was a good idea to spend long periods of time underneath high-tension electrical lines. But now the media has "discovered" that these cause cancer, and the reports exaggerate the matter to the point that the kids are afraid to play underneath the (relatively low voltage) electric feeder lines that run down the side of the road. What ALL these reports overlook is the inverse square law. Put simply, when you are twice as far away from a source of radiation, you get only one fourth the radiation. On one news report, a guy was going around measuring the radiation from various household appliances, and in each case he held a probe right up close to the appliance, within an inch or so at most. What they didn't point out was that at only a foot away from that appliance, the radiation would be only 1/144th of the radiation at one inch. If handheld cellular phones DO pose any danger, it's only because the antenna is SO close to the head (which leads one to wonder, could they design such a phone so that the antenna sticks out of the BOTTOM of the handset rather than the top? It might look funny, but would probably cut the radiation received at the closest point of the brain to about 1/50th of the current level). What would be poetic justice is if the network technicians (the guys who operate their transmitters, and mircowave and satellite equipment) started bringing lawsuits against the networks for overexposure to RF fields ... after all, the networks could hardly claim they didn't know about the danger, now could they? :-) And if they manage to scare everyone to the point that no new electrical feeder lines can be run, and the power companies have to start shedding load, let's keep in mind that TV transmitters rely on electric power to operate! Wouldn't it be interesting to see the networks put out of business by a crisis of their own making? :-) Jack Decker | Internet: jack.decker@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org | Fidonet: 1:154/8 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 11:30:58 -0500 (EST) From: Paul Robinson Subject: Prodigy <> Internet Gateway Almost Finished Today someone mentioned that someone at Prodigy had information about ISDN. So I decided to try sending some mail to them: Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 03:34:04 -0500 From: Mail Delivery Subsystem To: tdarcos@access Cc: mbounces@access Subject: Returned mail: User unknown ----- Transcript of session follows ----- While talking to inetgate.prodigy.com: >>> RCPT To: <<< 550 ... User unknown 550 "Sandra G. Weiss" ... User unknown There's something there, all right. I tried calling up their system to see if its mailer is working: % telnet telnet> open inetgate.prodigy.com 25 Trying 192.207.105.34 ... Connected to inetgate.prodigy.com. Escape character is '^]'. 220 inetgate.prodigy.com 5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 Sendmail is ready at Wed, 3 Feb 1993 11:24:02 -0500 helo access.digex.com 250 Hello access.digex.com, pleased to meet you rcpt to: 550 ... User unknown rcpt to: 550 ... User unknown rcpt to: 250 ... Recipient ok telnet> close So now I tried calling back to my own system: telnet> open access.digex.com 25 Trying 192.55.213.2 ... Connected to access. Escape character is '^]'. 220 access.digex.com 5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 Sendmail is ready at Wed, 3 Feb 1993 11:28:42 -0500 This indicates that they are apparently running the same mail program as we are, and I send and receive mail just fine. You might ask why I did an SMTP connection when I could have just done a 'ping'. That's because I already know they are connected; I wanted to know if their *mailer* worked. Now if they can figure a way to deliver mail to the users, then there should be no problem. [Moderator's Note: On the other hand, maybe they do know how to deliver mail to users, but you got the address wrong. It happens. PAT] ------------------------------ Organization: The American University - University Computing Center Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 11:40:07 EST From: GHADSAL@AMERICAN.EDU Subject: Re: Prodigy <> Internet Gateway Almost Finished Michael and others, I am a Prodigy subscriber and have access to name lookups. I am willing, time constraints and all, to lookup anyone's name. Form I would prefer for requests: Email to me at ghadsal@american.edu Name, City, State List several varations if you aren't sure of anything. Guy [Moderator's Note: Why don't you see what you can find out about Sandra G. Weiss, a/k/a 'hfdg66r' and get back to Paul Robinson. However Guy, you may be sorry you made this offer -- you may find yourself turned into a full time directory assistance operator rather quickly once this message makes the rounds and a few thousand people read it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@mhs.attmail.com Date: 3 Feb 93 15:59:04 GMT Subject: Correction: AT&T's Ad on Sears - NOT Paul Robinson's message in TCD 13.64 misattributes somebody else's remark to me. I never commented on any AT&T ad, with respect to Sears, Penneys, or anybody else. J. Brad Hicks Internet: mc!Brad_Hicks@mhs.attmail.com X.400: c=US admd=ATTMail prmd=MasterCard sn=Hicks gn=Brad [Moderator's Note: It appears Mr. Robinson was referring to a message sent by Ron Dippold but he got it confused with something involving your name. Then when I published it, I did not catch it either. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #67 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23527; 4 Feb 93 12:34 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25103 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 4 Feb 1993 09:29:35 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14012 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 4 Feb 1993 09:28:47 -0600 Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1993 09:28:47 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302041528.AA14012@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #68 TELECOM Digest Thu, 4 Feb 93 09:28:40 CST Volume 13 : Issue 68 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Caller ID and Voice Messaging in Centrex (John Higdon) Re: Caller ID and Voice Messaging in Centrex (Terry Kennedy) Re: Caller ID and Voice Messaging in Centrex (John Higdon) Re: Caller ID and Voice Messaging in Centrex (David G. Lewis) Re: Sears Kills Catalog After 95 Years (Rick Duggan) Re: Sears Kills Catalog After 95 Years (Timothy Hu) Re: Prodigy <> Internet Gateway Almost Finished (A. Alan Toscano) Re: Prodigy <> Internet Gateway Almost Finished (Peter M. Weiss) Re: Overseas Directory Assistance (Jan Richert) Re: Overseas Directory Assistance (Carl Moore) Re: ISDN Basic Rate Access (Roy Smith) Re: "Secret" Phone Codes (Lars Poulsen) Re: Personal 800 Number Question (Steven H. Lichter) Re: Alternate Reason For White House Busy (Robert L. McMillin) Re: What The Heck is 4,941,976.667 Hz Good For? (John R. Ackermann, Jr.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 3 Feb 93 13:41 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Caller ID and Voice Messaging in Centrex Terry Kennedy writes: > In article , tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) > writes: >> Does anyone know if it is possible to get the same number listed as >> the ID on both lines? > It's not possible. Caller ID delivers the actual telephone number. > ANI would deliver the billing number. Bzzzt. But thanks for playing anyway. It is perfectly possible to get the same directory number assigned to an unlimited number of lines in a hunt group. In fact, telco PREFERS this, since it does not use up the available number supply. I have no less than two hunt groups, one with ten lines, the other with four lines, wherein all of the lines have the same number. Number readback identifies them all alike; and it matters not which one is used concerning interaction with CLASS features at the other end (they are all treated the same). This is true because each line does in fact have the same telephone number. To report a specific line to telco (for repair or other purposes), one uses a "terminal number". For instance, "I would like to report trouble on 408 264-4115, terminal #4." This uniquely identifies the line for repair service. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1993 17:09:22 -0500 (EST) From: Terry Kennedy Subject: Re: Caller ID and Voice Messaging in Centrex Organization: St. Peter's College, US > Bzzzt. But thanks for playing anyway. It is perfectly possible to get > the same directory number assigned to an unlimited number of lines in a > hunt group. In fact, telco PREFERS this, since it does not use up the > available number supply. I have no less than two hunt groups, one with > ten lines, the other with four lines, wherein all of the lines have the > same number. Number readback identifies them all alike; and it matters > not which one is used concerning interaction with CLASS features at the > other end (they are all treated the same). This is true because each > line does in fact have the same telephone number. Given the constraints the original poster gave, I stand by my answer. He wanted two lines with different numbers (so they could be called individually) and wanted to know if in that case they could report the same number for Caller ID purposes only. With those constraints, they will each report a different number. He could do as you suggest if he considers the single number more important than the ability to reach the numbers individually, provided that his local telco offers the configuration you describe. 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: Wed, 3 Feb 93 14:22 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Caller ID and Voice Messaging in Centrex On Feb 3 at 17:09, Terry Kennedy writes: > Given the constraints the original poster gave, I stand by my answer. He > wanted two lines with different numbers (so they could be called individ- > ually) and wanted to know if in that case they could report the same number > for Caller ID purposes only. I guess I glossed over that part of it. My automatic assumption is that if someone wants hunting, the lines are treated equally and it matters not which lines are reached by a caller. For instance, here at home, I have actually three hunt groups. One is for PEP modems, one for V.32 modems, and the other for my toy voice conference. Obviously, on each line of a particular group there is a similar device as on every other line. Amusingly enough, an associate had a modem hunt group with a different kind of modem on each line. I used to call it "modem roulette", since you never really knew what was going to answer. He has since come around. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) Subject: Re: Caller ID and Voice Messaging in Centrex Organization: AT&T Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 18:03:16 GMT In article Terry Kennedy writes: > In article , tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) > writes: >> They have informed me that on outbound calls, the number for the >> second line will show up in the ID if a call is placed from that line. > This is correct. >> Does anyone know if it is possible to get the same number listed as >> the ID on both lines? > It's not possible. Caller ID delivers the actual telephone number. > ANI would deliver the billing number. The only ways I could see to have the Calling Party Number of the first line used for calls originated from the second line are (a) if both lines are behind a key system, but then I don't know if the hunt group will work; (b) if they're ISDN lines with a "shared DN" capability, where each ISDN set has call appearance buttons for both lines and the person calling out from the "second" line can actually grab a call appearance of the "first" line to place the call. David G Lewis AT&T Bell Laboratories david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!goofy!deej Switching & ISDN Implementation ------------------------------ From: duggan@cc.gatech.edu (Rick Duggan) Subject: Re: Sears Kills Catalog After 95 Years Reply-To: duggan@cc.gatech.edu (Rick Duggan) Organization: College of Computing Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 18:17:59 GMT In article stile@okcforum.osrhe. uoknor.edu (Howard Wilson) writes: > Sorry folks, but I feel this error *MUST* be corrected. Sears is NOT > going out of business. The probability "all merchandise is exhausted" > is so slim as to be impossible. No one said they were. As we all know by now, they are phasing out catalog operations. However, the catalog has many, many more items than the retail stores (and more than the stores could ever stock). So, it's not unreasonable to believe they've probably purchased all they will of some of the items they know *won't* be carried in the stores. Since they have a finite supply of such items, they might run out of them. Now, Sears isn't the biggest proponent of just-in-time delivery, but they don't have the next 20 years worth of catalog-only bicycles sitting in some warehouse. And why would they bother to get a new small shipment of something they're about to stop selling? Rick Duggan - duggan@cc.gatech.edu ------------------------------ From: timhu@ico.isc.com (Timothy Hu) Subject: Re: Sears Kills Catalog After 95 Years Organization: Interactive Systems Corp., Boulder CO Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 18:46:23 GMT In article stile@okcforum.osrhe. uoknor.edu (Howard Wilson) writes: > Again, you can NOT order from the catalog until all merchandise is > gone (the catalog won't be around long enough). You can only order > until the end of this year. Then I suppose DAK will buy up what's left and sell it. Timothy Hu timhu@ico.isc.com | The intelligence (or lack of) expressed Interactive Systems Corporation | above does not necessarily reflect Resource Solutions International | that of anyone else. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Prodigy <> Internet Gateway Almost Finished Date: Wed, 3 Feb 93 13:29:30 CST Reply-To: atoscano@attmail.com From: atoscano@taronga.com (A Alan Toscano) Several readers have posted examples of mail to prodigy.com which were returned 'User Unknown'. Recently, I enquired of Prodigy Membership Services about when Internet email might become available. Here's the reply I received: > From: SERVICE USAGE HELP > Subject: Internet mail access > Sent on: 01/28 at 08:19 PM > Dear Mr Toscano: > With "MAX E-MAIL" you will be able to compose, edit and spellcheck all > private messages "offline". There is a one time introductory charge > for downloading the required software. For a nominal additional cost, > members can exchange private messages with those on INTERNET, send > faxes, or U.S. mail letters from their computers. look for details on > this new product early in 1993. > Thanks for writing. > Kathleen T,. Membership Services As of this writing, availability of these new services hasn't been announced yet, so I wouldn't think that any ordinary Prodigy members have Internet email access at this time. (I've previously been told that it was being beta tested by Prodigy employees.) I wonder if sending email to a Prodigy member who isn't subscribed to the "MAX E-MAIL" (additional cost) features, would result in mail returned 'User Unknown'? Perhaps this is the cause of what's been occurring recently. A Alan Toscano -- Houston, TX -- -- ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 15:59:56 EST From: Peter M. Weiss Subject: Re: Prodigy <> Internet Gateway Almost Finished In article , GHADSAL@AMERICAN.EDU says: (He offered to do lookups of names/addresses for the rest of the net.) > [Moderator's Note: Why don't you see what you can find out about > Sandra G. Weiss, a/k/a 'hfdg66r' and get back to Paul Robinson. > However Guy, you may be sorry you made this offer -- you may find > yourself turned into a full time directory assistance operator rather > quickly once this message makes the rounds and a few thousand people > read it. PAT] Not really, he then reverse bills you -- it's a 900-type IP service ;-) Pete ------------------------------ From: jrichert@krefcom.GUN.de (Jan Richert) Subject: Re: Overseas Directory Assistance Date: 3 Feb 93 16:13:18 GMT Organization: Krefcom UUCP Server, Krefeld, FRG amunn@gibbs.oit.unc.edu (Alan Munn) writes: > Is it possible to connect directly to directory assistance in other > countries? Sometimes you can reach the US directory assistance from Germany by dialing +1 XXX 555 1212 ... but sometimes you get a message "Your call cannot completed as dialed" ... from time to time this message is interrupted and the directory assistance answers ... strange thing. The German directory assistance can be reached by dialing +49 211 1188 from anywhere. Greets, Jan Richert (NIC-ID: JR482) | Internet: jrichert@krefcom.GUN.de Krefeld, FRG | Datex-J: 02151399843-0001 Voice & FAX: +49 2151 313124 | IRC-Nick: jrichert ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Feb 93 17:43:08 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Overseas Directory Assistance clive@x.co.uk (Clive Feather) writes: > Canadian codes > 414, 416, 519, 604 > all work every time; > 418, 514, 613, 705, 807, 819, 204, 306, 403, 506, 709, 902 > always give me number unobtainable after dialing the whole number > 905 [not yet in use]; > gives number unobtainable immediately after the area code. Off the top of my head, I think all the Canadian area codes are accounted for above. But why is 414 included? 414 is Wisconsin (U.S.), not in Canada. I thought you might be thinking of 514, but that's included elsewhere. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Feb 93 13:31:46 -0500 From: roy@mchip00.med.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: Re: ISDN Basic Rate Access Organization: New York University, School of Medicine > Repeaters do exist. However, they cost something over a thousand > dollars apiece right now, so the telephone comapnies aren't exactly > beating down a path to the vendors' doors. Thus if you don't live > within 18 kf of an ISDN line termination (CO or neighborhood mux, like > a SLC-96, which handles ISDN), you're probably "SOL". I live on City Island, which is a bit of land about 1/2 mile wide by two miles long, isolated from the rest of the Bronx by several miles. When I enquired of NYTel about ISDN in my area, I was told that we don't even have a CO on the island, but are served by a substation (I think that was the word he used) from some CO in the Bronx, and that we're either 1) not even on the list or 2) scheduled for sometime in 1994 (depending on who you talk to). City Island has the entire 718-885 exchange. Would a SLC-96 be serving an entire exchange, or several of them? Would that be what the telco guy meant by a "substation?". Roy Smith Hippocrates Project, Department of Microbiology, Coles 202 NYU School of Medicine, 550 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 ------------------------------ From: lars@spectrum.CMC.COM (Lars Poulsen) Subject: Re: "Secret" Phone Codes Organization: CMC Network Systems (Rockwell DCD), Santa Barbara, CA, USA Date: Wed, 3 Feb 93 19:26:58 GMT In article toddi@mav.com (Todd Inch) writes: > In GTE land north of Seattle, WA, the "secret code" is 411. We use > 1-555-1212 for local directory information. The number varies widely > depending on your local telco and probably isn't as simple as a three Here in GTE Santa Barbara land, it's 114 ("reverse 411") and 1-555-1212 says "it is not necessary to dial a 1"; 555-1212 yields reorder as does 1-805-555-1212. This latter is one of my pet peeves with GTE. I have tried to suggest to various information operators, repair dispatchers and customer service representatives that 1-805-555-1212 should be routed somewhere useful, but they claim that "everybody knows to use 411 for information within your own area code" and they refuse to even write down the suggestion. (After all, it can't be much harder to route it to a service point than to route it to reorder.) This is what I hate about GTE. "We don't care, we don't have to. We're the phone company." At this time, GTE is laying off plant maintenance people left and right, and soon all customer service and information operators will move from Thousand Oaks, California to Plano, Texas. I think this is the effect of rate cap regulation, which gives the LEC a strong reason to cut costs. (On the other hand, the rate cap regulation has not prevented GTE from filing for rate increases, nor CPUC from granting them.) Technically, they are pretty good by now, but their attitude stinks. ... Oops. Got carried away again. "GTE - a phone company that inspires passion in our customers!!" Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer Internet E-mail: lars@CMC.COM CMC Network Products / Rockwell Int'l Telephone: +1-805-968-4262 Santa Barbara, CA 93117-3083 TeleFAX: +1-805-968-8256 ------------------------------ From: co057@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steven H. Lichter) Subject: Re: Personal 800 Number Question Date: 3 Feb 1993 21:02:42 GMT Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA) I have an 800 number for my BBS line for my use when I get into areas that don't have PC Pursuit (there are more then you think). It has saved me large amounts of money over the couple of years I have had it. The rate is the same anytime of the day (AT&T). I have never looked at any other service carriers. It works like a remote call forwarding number and AT&T can chnage it for me within a few minutes if needed. I have found that unless I block some area codes it can be used anywhere in the US including local. My big complaint is there are people trying to hack it thinking it is a DID line, so each month I get a bunch of calls listed that are 15 to 30 seconds and they do add up. Also I have been told that slimmy phone marketers look for 800 fax machines and numbers to sell their junk. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Feb 93 13:43:35 -0800 From: rlm@indigo2.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) Subject: Re: Alternate Reason For White House Busy TELECOM Moderator writes: > [Moderator's Note: Thanks for passing along that clever response from > Jay Leno. The Chicago papers discussed the White House phone congestion > in recent days by noting that the combination of a popular president > ... Oh please -- Clinton lost the popular vote. The only groups the man is popular with are the ever politically correct media and the usual Democratic rabble. Robert L. McMillin | Voice: (310) 568-3555 Hughes Aircraft/Hughes Training, Inc. | Fax: (310) 568-3574 Los Angeles, CA | Internet: rlm@indigo2.hac.com [Moderator's Note: Well then, one could say he is controversial and Has generated a lot of discussion. That, combined with a willingness by citizens to use the phone more than ever gets us to the same point. I think the lesson here is we are going to see the telephone and electronic mail used a lot more with this administration. In the next issue of the Digest, I will pass along Clinton's new email address. PAT] ------------------------------ From: John Ackermann Subject: Re: What The Heck is 4,941,976.667 Hz Good For? Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 21:49:48 GMT clements@BBN.COM writes: > The question: > What the heck is 4,941,976.667 Hz good for? > I can't figure out what that frequency is good for. It isn't > related to T1, T2 or T3 bit rates. Nor the European equivalents. Nor > SONET rates. It isn't related to NTSC or PAL video subcarriers. And > in the red herring department, it is not related to the natural > frequency of the Rubidium oscillator itself, which is up in the 6.84 > GHz area. It's a subharmonic of the natural rubidium oscillation frequency. The standard uses a PLL to lock a crystal oscillator at the 4.96xxxx MHz frequency to the natural rubidium resonant frequency (it's something like a divide by 1,842 loop). The 1 and 5 MHz outputs are synthesized from that locked oscillator. I don't know what you would use the direct output for, although it would be the most stable and jitter-free output available. Perhaps they fed that signal from several standards to a phase comparator to track the difference between a suite of such standards. By the way, I'd love to get hold of one of those things at "hobbyist" pricing some day ... John R. Ackermann, Jr. Law Department, NCR Corporation, Dayton, Ohio (513) 445-2966 John.Ackermann@daytonoh.ncr.com Packet Radio: ag9v@n8acv.oh tcp/ip: ag9v@ag9v.ampr [44.70.12.232] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #68 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27685; 5 Feb 93 5:06 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00767 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 5 Feb 1993 00:40:07 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19665 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 5 Feb 1993 00:39:03 -0600 Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1993 00:39:03 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302050639.AA19665@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #69 TELECOM Digest Thu, 4 Feb 93 12:06:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 69 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Rochester Tel Plans to Split (Democrat & Chronicle via Curtis E. Reid) Proposed Restructuring of Rochester Tel (Curtis E. Reid) German PCN License (E1) Given to VEBA and Thyssen (Thomas Diessel) Computer-Telephone Integration (Rick Zwiep) Teledoc (Geneva) Document Server (Joe Harrison) Question About a Telephone "Relay" When Phone's in Use (John Jackson) Salesmen That Won't Quit (Ed Sims) Telecommunications Magazine Asks: Another Divestiture Needed? (J Sicherman) Wanted: Info on Interalia Digital Voice Announcer (William Petrisko) X.32 Protocol: Software Emulation Possible? (Nadim Massoud) Fujitsu F9600 Inquiry (Todd Lesser) Clinton's E-Mail Address (From the White House via Bonnie J. Johnson) Who is Telebec? (John R. Levine) Where Did Genesis Electronics Go? (Are They Now Microlog?) (Robert MacKin) Cellular (XXX0)/XXX- Listings Wanted (J.R. Bob Dobbs) Cellular Phone Frequency Allocations (Hugh Eaves) Frame Relay Advice Sought (Paul Fisher) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 04 Feb 1993 10:07:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Curtis E. Reid Subject: Rochester Tel Plans to Split There was a Page 1 news report in Rochester, NY's {Democrat & Chronicle} today February 4, 1993. This is a excerpt. ROCHESTER TEL PLANS SPLIT It would invite other firms to compete Praise and surpise greeted yesterday's announcement by Rochester Telephone Corp. that it wants to be the first in the industry to break up its monopoly on local telephone service. Rochester Tel filed a petition yesterday with the New York State Public Service Commission proposing to invite other companies to compete for residential and commerical phone service in exchange for freedom from many state regulations. 'Groundbreaking' is how telecommunications experts described the plan. Rochester Tel has bolstered its reputation for being an industry innovator. 'They're ahead of everybody else,' said Ellie Noam, director of the Columbia Institute for Tele-Information at Columbia University. 'This is the future, the way telecommunications is going.' Rochester Tel is the first regulated telephone company in the country to propose spiltting its local telephone operation into two parts: A regulated network of phone lines and call-switching equipment that any company can use, and a competitive marketing company that will sell telephone service to commerical and residential customers. The company wants to run its business like a railroad, said Noam, who cautions that he hasn't seen the petition. The network will be the railroad track -- Rochester Tel owns it, but other companies can pay to use it. The marketing company will be one of several 'trains' that send information over the network. This is the approach the PSC has encouraged for several years. And as its rulings steadily open doors for potential competitors, regulated monopolies like Rochester Tel lose more customers to nimble, non-regulated "alternate providers." ... end of excerpt ... Curtis E. Reid CER2520@ritvax.isc.rit.edu Rochester Institute of Technology/NTID REID@DECUS.org (DECUS) P.O. Box 9887 716.475.6089 TDD/TT 475.6895 Voice Rochester, NY 14623-0887 U.S.A. 716.475.6500 Fax (Business Use Only) ------------------------------ Date: 04 Feb 1993 10:18:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Curtis E. Reid Subject: Proposed Restructuring of Rochester Tel {This is an extract from Rochester, NY's {Democrat & Chronicle"}, February 4, 1993, page 9A. It is a diagram that I will attempt to duplicate here: PROPOSED RESTRUCTURING OF ROCHESTER TEL Rochester Telephone Corp. has proposed an 'Open Market' structure in which a holding company would compete in the unregulated marketplace. A separate, regulated, network company would maintain control over infrastructure, the 911 emergency system and some operator services. Here is an outline of the proposed restructuring: Rochester Telephone Corp. Local telephone service (regulated) /\ --------- ------- // \\ // \\ /// \\\ vv vv Under proposed Open Market structure Rochester's Rochester's network company competitive company ('R-Net,' regulated) ('R-Com,' unregulated) ------------------------- ----------------------------- * Pole and main phone * Line from pole into house lines * Phone bills * Central offices * Equipment sales, leases * Switching networks * Inside wire maintenance * Buildings * Yellow Pages * Land and right-of-ways * Customer service * 911 emergency service * Some operator services * Some operator services * Voice Mail and other special calling features such as call forwarding, call waiting and caller identification Curtis E. Reid CER2520@ritvax.isc.rit.edu Rochester Institute of Technology/NTID REID@DECUS.org (DECUS) P.O. Box 9887 716.475.6089 TDD/TT 475.6895 Voice Rochester, NY 14623-0887 U.S.A. 716.475.6500 Fax (Business Use Only) ------------------------------ From: diessel@informatik.unibw-muenchen.de (Thomas Diessel) Subject: German PCN License (E1) Given to VEBA and Thyssen Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1993 16:20:16 +0100 (MET) Today the German Secretary of Mail and Telecommunications gave the license for a PCN network in Germany (called E1) to the E-plus group led by VEBA und Thyssen, both based in Duesseldorf. The other candidate was the E-Star group led by Munich based BWM and MAN. (The secretary comes from Munich, too.) E-plus plans to start the E1 service in Berlin and Leipzig (both cities located in the eastern part of Germany) by the end of this year. There are already two GSM networks in Germany, D1 by Telekom and D2 by Mannesmann Mobilfunk (based in Duesseldorf, too). Thomas Diessel Federal Armed Forces University, Munich - Computer Science Department Werner-Heisenberg-Weg 39 - W-8014 Neubiberg, Germany ------------------------------ From: Rick_Zwiep@magic-bbs.corp.apple.com Organization: Macintosh Awareness Group In Canada Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1993 07:28:22 EST Subject: Computer-Telephone Integration In article , Fred Goldstein provides further background on SCAI, CompuCall and the Meridian Link. In the latest Northern doc I have, they state: "Meridian Link is Northern Telecom's strategic offering to provide Host to Switch functional integration ... and evolution towards Switch to Computer Application Interface ... CSAI" >> Anybody know of any other implementations of SCAI? I am very curious to know of *any* organizations using Computer-Telephony Integration (particularly Centrex-based). According to some implementors, there are less than 300 CTI installations in North America. If you know of any, please post here. > snapshots of ISDN (this was before Q.931 was finished). As far as I understand, Q.931 was not envisioned to include the concept of a monitor function and a proxy function. The monitor function allows the call status to be seen outside of the switch, and the proxy function allows the computer to dial and receive calls on behalf of the telephone set. Rick Zwiep rick_zwiep@magic-bbs.corp.apple.com The Transition Group voice:+1 416 602 4800 x234 Standard Disclaimer: I have no opinions, but I'll listen to yours. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 17:59:51 +0000 From: J.Harrison@bra0401.wins.icl.co.uk Subject: Teledoc (Geneva) Document Server Do TD readers know this exists? (I didn't). A selection of useful telecommunications documents such as ITU, CCITT, CCIR, IFRB, BDT stuff is available from this server. Internet mail address: teledoc@itu.arcom.ch X.400 mail address: S=teledoc/P=itu/A=arcom/C=ch To use, send mail with TEST or HELP in the body to either of the above addresses (Subject: is ignored). Joe Harrison ------------------------------ From: scourge@kazak.NMSU.Edu (John Jackson) Subject: Question About a Telephone "Relay" When Phone's in Use Organization: Alternative Collegiate Computing Association Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 23:30:29 GMT Greets. I got my caller ID interface for my computer Tuesday. Got my caller ID on Wednesday. Everything seems to work great. Thing is, I've bought a "dumb" deocder. Some of the smart ones will only decode after the first ring. Mine has no special care. This puppy tries to decode voice conversations. Solution: slap something on the line that will disconnect the decoder when the line is in use (or impedance goes low). I see now on a piece of paper I received with the box that: 'noisy telephone lines may produce "garbage" characters between ASCII call data.' So, in other words, aren't these guys TELLING me this thing is going to decode during calls?? :) I don't care, really. I think it's neat. Hell, I've already called myself on my other line and recorded the signal, then played it through the decoder :) But for now, I want to build something to "un-plug" it. I'm in the mood to build something else (this is fun). I just don't know what the hell to use. Idea is: .--------------. .-----------. .-----------------. CO====| Line Monitor |======| Decoder |/////| C O M P U T E R | `--------------' `-----------' `-----------------' Could someone supply some schematics or refer me to IC's/existing circuits that will allow me to drop a relay in and disconnect the decoder when the line is in use? Thanks, John ------------------------------ Reply-To: esims@froggy.win.net (Ed Sims) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 21:17.58.78 Subject: Salesmen That Won't Quit From: esims@froggy.win.net (Ed Sims) About a year ago, we signed up at a home show for some literature on replacement windows. One company, Omni Windows, has called five times trying to sell their wares. Each time we have told them that we have already bought windows from another company and to take us off their list. Late one Sunday evening about a month ago they called and the salesman got really crappy after I got crappy with him about not being off their list yet. They called again tonight and I again requested they take us off their list (Actually I didn't -- my wife did. She won't let me talk to them now.) My wife, the list-lurking telecom manager, says there are laws but can't seem to come up specifics. How do we break Omni Windows? BTW we live in Indianapolis, IN. Ed Sims esims@froggy.win.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1993 00:29:30 -0800 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: Telecommunications Magazine Asks: Another Divestiture Needed? Organization: Cal State Long Beach The January 1993 issue of {Telecommunications} has an article called "The State of the Public Network: Why We Need Another Divestiture". it pretty much covers much of the discussion here about how RBOC's use local monopolies to subsidize supposedly separate and competitive businesses, mostly ineffectively and almost always to the detriment of the ratepayer with generally ineffectual oversite by (C)PUC's. In fact, I would have thought it was ghost written by Higdon but there wasn't the tele-tale, requistite diatribe against GTE. However there was one unfamiliar item in it. It, in one brief sentence, referred to 'proposed 511 services'. Did I miss a discussion of this topic in the Digest ? Jeff Sicherman ------------------------------ From: petrisko@evax2.engr.arizona.edu (William Petrisko) Subject: Wanted: Info on Interalia Digital Voice Announcer Date: 4 Feb 1993 10:01:44 GMT Organization: University of Arizona, College of Engineering and Mines, Tucson Reply-To: petrisko@evax2.engr.arizona.edu I recently came across a nifty device that will record a short voice message (digitally) and will serve as a outgoing-only voice announcer for two telephone lines. I would like to know, however, what the bank of DIP switches on the back panel are for. It is made by Interalia (in Canada), model# DMU-2CAB, and is labelled "Digital Voice Announcer." If anyone has a similar unit, or can tell me the phone number/address of the manufacturer, please let me know. Thanks, bill petrisko SHORT and SOON to EXPIRE: petrisko@evax2.engr.arizona.edu aka n7lwo LONG and INVALID: !uunet!4gen!warlok!gargle!omnisec!thumper!bill ------------------------------ Organization: The American University - University Computing Center Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1993 08:23:55 EST From: MASSOUD@AMERICAN.EDU Subject: X.32 Protocol: Software Emulation Possible? I need to connect to a network using the X.32 protocol (X.25 Dial-in PAD). The only modems I' ve heard can do this are the Hayes Ultra 9600 or 14400. I own a Zoom v32bis modem, and can connect to the X.32 number in V.32 synchronous mode, but I cannot do anything more than connecting. Since I can connect, isn't it possible to emulate X.32 by software? If such a software exists, where can I find it (for PC under DOS or Windows)? If not, are there any modems that offer the capability while being cheaper than the Hayes? Thanks for your help. Nadim Massoud Massoud@american.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Feb 93 16:56 PST From: todd@silo.info.com (Todd Lesser) Reply-To: Todd Lesser Subject: Fujitsu F9600 Inquiry A non profit corporation my father is on the board of is looking into purchasing a Fujitsu F9600 PBX. They were given a quote for 78K. It is going to have 48 trunks (1 T1 and 24 analog) and 32 extentions. It sounds a bit spendy to me. Does anyone know of anything good or bad about the Fujitsu? Please send e-mail to todd@silo.info.com. Todd Lesser Info Connections (619) 459-7500 Voice (619) 459-4600 Fax or ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Feb 93 12:59:46 EST From: Bonnie J Johnson Subject: Clinton's E-Mail Address While reading another list I came across this information: "The first time in history that the White House has been connected to the public through e-mail. We welocome your comments and suggestions." Jock Gill Electronic Publishing Public Access E-mail The White House Washington, DC 75300.3115@Compuserve.com CLINTON PZ on America On-line Just an FYI. bj ------------------------------ Subject: Who is Telebec? Date: Wed, 3 Feb 93 15:32:27 EST From: John R. Levine In a booklet about the Magdalen Islands, windswept sand bars in the Gulf of St. Lawrence noted for baby harp seals in the winter and windsurfing in the summer, there is an ad from Telebec (accents over the first two e's) which says it's the phone company for the Magdalen Islands. The islands are part of Quebec and are direct dialable in area code 418. I thought that Bell Canada was the telco for all of Quebec. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us or {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ From: rpmackin@student.business.uwo.ca (Robert Patrick MacKin) Subject: Where Did Genesis Electronics Go? (Are They Now Microlog?) Organization: University of Western Ontario Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 23:42:34 GMT I am looking for info on the Genesis Genie 220B voicemail unit. I think Microlog bought them out but I have no number for them. Can anyone help? Thanks! rpmackin@student.business.uwo.ca (Robert Patrick MacKin) Western Business School -- London, Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Feb 93 19:59:31 -0500 From: dynastar@gnu.ai.mit.edu (J.R. Bob Dobbs) Subject: Cellular (XXX0)/XXX- Listings Wanted I am looking for a list of the cellular exchanges by area code (with SID if possible). I have attempted to find a listing and have failed to do so as of yet. If anyone has a listing, could they please forward it to me (or the newsgroup). If such a list doesn't exist, could someone who has partial listings (even if it is only for your area code), please mail those to me. With them I will attempt to compile my own listing by SID or area. Thanks, Dynastar [Moderator's Note: One of my favorite radio programs is the 'Hour of Slack Radio Ministry' sponsored by the Church of the Sub-Genius, the Reverend J.R. 'Bob' Dobbs, Pastor. Here in Chicago, his show is on every Saturday afternoon on WZRD, 88.3 FM. In response to Maxime Taskar and a few others who have complained about what they perceive as my 'hypocrisy' from time to time in these daily bouts of insanity we call comp.dcom.telecom I can only offer in my own defense these comforting words from the immortal Pastor Bob -- "I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person that I'm preaching to" -- J. R. "Bob" Dobbs Praise Bob! PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 04 Feb 1993 10:42:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Hugh Eaves Subject: Cellular Phone Frequency Allocations These are probably FAQ's, but I've got a few questions about the frequency allocations for cellular phones: Are all the allocated frequencies usually in use in a particular area? Do different carriers in the same area use different channels? What frequencies are used (specifically), and what is the channel spacing? Are there plans to expand the currently allocated frequency set? Thanks, Hugh L. Eaves Internet: hleaves@ruby.vcu.edu Medical College of Virginia Bitnet: hleaves@vcuruby Department of Human Genetics Voice: (804) 371-8754 ------------------------------ From: pfisher.HIS.LOCAL!pfisher@sol.UVic.CA (Paul Fisher) Subject: Frame Relay Inquiry Organization: UVic Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1993 00:00:00 GMT Could anyone direct me to some basic reference works on the subject of fram relay. I have a fourth year student preparing a term paper on the subject and would like to assist him in sourceing this information. Thanks. PFISHER@HSD.UVIC.CA ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #69 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18794; 5 Feb 93 14:44 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07043 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 5 Feb 1993 10:00:08 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15396 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 5 Feb 1993 09:59:25 -0600 Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1993 09:59:25 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302051559.AA15396@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #70 TELECOM Digest Fri, 5 Feb 93 09:59:15 CST Volume 13 : Issue 70 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Large BBS Raided by FBI (Richard B. Dervan) US Air Force Officer Sentenced in Computer/Sex Charge (Nigel Allen) Federal Criteria for Information Technology Security Review (Willis Ware) New Twist to Caller ID (Star-Tribune via Kevin Bluml) Consumers Could Choose Local Phone Service (Dem & Chronicle via P Dampier) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: rdervan@orac.holonet.net (Richard B Dervan) Subject: Large BBS Raided by FBI Organization: HoloNet National Internet Access BBS: 510-704-1058/modem Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1993 13:18:52 GMT WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The Federal Bureau of Investigation on Saturday, Jan. 30, 1993, raided "Rusty & Edie's," a computer bulletin board located in Boardman, Ohio, which has allegedly been illegally distributing copyrighted software programs. Seized in the raid on the Rusty & Edie's bulletin board were computers, hard disk drives and telecommunications equipment, as well as financial and subscriber records. For the past several months, the Software Publishers Association ("SPA") has been working with the FBI in investigating the Rusty & Edie's bulletin board, and as part of that investigation has downloaded numerous copyrighted business and entertainment programs from the board. The SPA investigation was initiated following the receipt of complaints from a number of SPA members that their software was being illegally distributed on the Rusty & Edie's BBS. The Rusty & Edie's bulletin board was one of the largest private bulletin boards in the country. It had 124 nodes available to callers and over 14,000 subscribers throughout the United States and several foreign countries. To date, the board has logged in excess of 3.4 million phone calls, with new calls coming in at the rate of over 4,000 per day. It was established in 1987 and had expanded to include over 19 gigabytes of storage housing over 100,000 files available to subscribers for downloading. It had paid subscribers throughout the United States and several foreign countries, including Canada, Luxembourg, France, Germany, Finland, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. A computer bulletin board allows personal computer users to access a host computer by a modem-equipped telephone to exchange information, including messages, files, and computer programs. The systems operator (Sysop) is generally responsible for the operation of the bulletin board and determines who is allowed to access the bulletin board and under what conditions. For a fee of $89.00 per year, subscribers to the Rusty & Edie's bulletin board were given access to the board's contents including many popular copyrighted business and entertainment packages. Subscribers could "download" or receive these files for use on their own computers without having to pay the copyrighted owner anything for them. "The SPA applauds the FBI's action today," said Ilene Rosenthal, general counsel for the SPA. "This shows that the FBI recognizes the harm that theft of intellectual property causes to one of the U.S.'s most vibrant industries. It clearly demonstrates a trend that the government understands the seriousness of software piracy." The SPA is actively working with the FBI in the investigation of computer bulletin boards, and similar raids on other boards are expected shortly. Whether it's copied from a program purchased at a neighborhood computer store or downloaded from a bulletin board thousands of miles away, pirated software adds to the cost of computing. According to the SPA, in 1991, the software industry lost $1.2 billion in the U.S. alone. Losses internationally are several billion dollars more. "Many people may not realize that software pirates cause prices to be higher, in part, to make up for publisher losses from piracy," says Ken Wasch, executive director of the SPA. In addition, they ruin the reputation of the hundreds of legitimate bulletin boards that serve an important function for computer users." The Software Publishers Association is the principal trade association of the personal computer software industry. It's over 1,000 members represent the leading publishers in the business, consumer and education software markets. The SPA has offices in Washington DC, and Paris, France. CONTACT: Software Publishers Association, Washington Ilene Rosenthal, 202/452-1600 Ext. 318 Terri Childs, 202/452-1600 Ext. 320 ======================= Richard B Dervan rdervan@holonet.net System Support Programmer/Analyst 70007.6230@compuserve.com Information America, Inc ------------------------------ From: Nigel Allen Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1993 09:00:00 -0500 Subject: U.S. Air Force Officer Sentenced in Computer/Sex Charge Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto I saw the following item in the U.S. Air Force News Service, which is regularly posted to soc.veterans, and thought that it might be of some interest. I have also posted it to misc.legal. (from AF News Svc 01/28/93, posted by bergman@afpan.pa.af.mil) GOODFELLOW AFB, Texas (AFNS) -- The former commander of Goodfellow Technical Training Center was sentenced to dismissal from the Air Force after being found guilty of pornography charges Jan 25. A jury deliberated about an hour before sentencing Col. James A. Maxwell Jr., said Capt. Christopher Mathews, circuit trial counsel. Dismissal for an officer is equivalent to a dishonorable discharge for an enlisted member and includes loss of all pay, allowances and military retirement benefits. Maxwell, a 26-year Air Force veteran, was charged July 2 with conduct unbecoming an officer for using his personal computer to solicit, collect and distribute child pornography and pornographic information. He was also charged with interstate transmission of indecent language and pornography via the computer, and using indecent language with a junior officer. The maximum jail sentence Maxwell could have received was ten years and six months. He was center commander for two years and will stay at Goodfellow as special assistant to the commander while his appeal is pending. Nigel Allen nigel.allen@canrem.com Canada Remote Systems - Toronto, Ontario World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044 ------------------------------ Subject: The Federal Criteria for Information Technology Security Review Date: Fri, 05 Feb 93 02:41:52 PST From: Willis H. Ware [Moderator's Note: Mr. Ware passed along this item from RISKS which he thought would be of interest to many telecom readers. PAT] Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 16:08:16 EST From: lynch@csmes.ncsl.nist.gov (nicki lynch) Subject: The Federal Criteria for Information Technology Security review The **PRELIMINARY DRAFT** of the U.S. Federal Criteria for Information Technology Security (FC) (which will eventually replace the "Orange Book") is available on-line. The files are located on both the NIST Computer Security Bulletin Board and on the NCSC's DOCKMASTER computer system. DOCKMASTER has the FC available in UNIX compressed postscript format, while the NIST BBS has the FC available in PKZIP postscript format. When printed out, both volumes of the document total approximately 280 pages double-sided. By the first week of February, the FC (without the figures) should be available in ASCII format at both sites. The figures will also be available individually in postscript form. What follows are instructions on how to download the files from both sites, how to register your name for announcements, and how to send in comments. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TO DOWNLOAD THE FILES FROM DOCKMASTER: The files can be found on DOCKMASTER in the directory: >site>pubs>criteria>FC - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TO DOWNLOAD THE FILES FROM NIST'S BBS: Volumes 1 and 2 of the FC can be accessed through the Internet via anonymous ftp. To download, ftp to csrc.nist.gov or to 129.6.54.11. Log in as "anonymous" and use your Internet address as the password. The FC postscript files are in directory /bbs/nistpubs. The files are fcvol1.ps.Z and fcvol2.ps.Z, for volumes one and two respectively. Both of these volumes have been ZIPped using PKZIP. The PKZIP program is available in /bbs/software should you need to download it. REGISTERING YOUR NAME: When you receive an electronic copy of the draft FC, please send us you name, mailing address, telephone, and e-mail address to the e- mail address listed below and state that you have an electronic copy of the FC. If you distribute the document to additional people in your organization, please send us the same information on those people as well. We will put the names into our database for any further announcements, meeting notices, draft announcements, etc., related to the effort. NIST will be sending out a LIMITED NUMBER of hard copies, but due to the substantial expense of sending out such a large document - even at book rate, we would prefer people to receive the document via electronic means. Therefore, by sending us your name and the names of those in your organization who have the downloaded copies of the document, it saves us from having to send additional hard copies. COMMENTS: We are soliciting TECHNICAL, SUBSTANTIVE comments on the document. The deadline for comments is March 31, 1993. All those who contribute substantive comments will be invited to a two-day workshop at the end of April 1993 to resolve the comments. The workshop will be held in the Washington-Baltimore area in a to-be- announced location. Please send your comments to: lynch@csmes.ncsl.nist.gov or, if you prefer, you can send us a 3.5" or 5.25" diskette in MSDOS or UNIX format (please indicate which) to: Federal Criteria Comments ATTN: Nickilyn Lynch NIST/CSL, Bldg 224/RM A241 Gaithersburg, MD 20899 We would prefer to receive electronic copies of comments and/or name registrations, but we will also receive hardcopy comments/name registrations at this same address. You can also contact us via the following fax: FAX: (301) 926-2733 Thank you in advance for your interest in this effort. Federal Criteria Group, National Institute of Standards and Technology ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Feb 93 14:08:51 CST From: kevin@ferris.cray.com (Kevin Bluml) Subject: New Twist to Caller ID From the {Minneapolis Star-Tribune} Wed. Feb. 3, 1993 Headline - Bill would permit bus, cab companies to use caller- identification technology. Taxi drivers may soon have a weapon against crime. A bill introduced by Rep. Walter Perlt, DFL-Woodbury, would allow telephone companies to offer caller identification services to commercial passenger carriers, including buses, taxicabs, and limousines. The device displays the phone number or the name of the subscriber of the telephone being used by the caller. "If something goes wrong, like a robbery, they can trace back the number," he said. "It's not foolproof, but it can help." Fred Blankenburg, general manager of Blue and White Taxi in Minneapolis, said he's eager to see the bill become law. "When we ask for a phone number of somebody requesting a cab and they give us a different number than what appears on the caller ID device, or nobody is there when we call to verify, who knows? You could be preventing a crime or just saving time from picking up somebody who is playing games," he said. Perlt acknowledged that he's heard talk that dispatchers might ignore calls with prefixes from high-crime neighborhoods. "I discount that because you can't pinpoint an address from a phone number," he said. "It's just a no-cost way to the taxpayers to give drivers some protection and provide better customer service." David Chanen (Star-Trib byline) ---------------- This is the first thing I've heard about CID in Minnesota, I wish they'd just offer it to everyone with the various hearings and blocking options that other states have discussed. This seems like a really backwards way of starting it up in the state. The above is the whole article, no talk of blocking options, etc, or when or if it will be offered to the general public. Kevin V. Bluml - Cray Research Inc. 612-683-3036 USmail - 655 - Lone Oak Drive, Eagan, MN 55121 Internet - kevin.bluml@cray.com UUCP - uunet!cray!kevin ------------------------------ From: phil@rochgte.fidonet.org (Phillip Dampier) Reply-To: phil@rochgte.fidonet.org Date: Fri, 05 Feb 1993 10:18:24 -0500 Subject: Consumers Could Choose Local Phone Service [Moderator's Note: A further update on the announcement made by Rochester Telephone this week from the {Democrat & Chronicle}. PAT] CONSUMERS COULD CHOOSE THEIR LOCAL TELEPHONE SERVICE by Janet Lively Remember when you had to "vote" for the long-distance company you wanted to use? If Rochester Telephone Corp. gets its proposal through state regulators, you could choose local telephone service the same way. But don't start mulling over the decision: Under the best circumstances, choice would not come to local telephone service until the middle of next year, according to the company. Rochester Tel started the process yesterday when it filed a petition with the New York State Public Service Commission asking to reorganize its company. It also must file requests with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Neither commission is likely to approve Rochester Tel's request verbatim. The company wants consumers to be able to buy local telephone service from any number of qualifying companies, including a subsidiary of Rochester Tel. In exchange, Rochester Tel will be freed from some regulations it says restricts its growth in several businesses. Consumers would choose companies using a ballot system similar to the one used eight years ago for long-distance carriers. Competitors would be given six months' notice to gear up marketing campaigns. Phone numbers would stay the same, no matter which company you choose. But if you picked a company other than Rochester Tel, that company would bill you and handle complaints about service. It also would hookup new customer's phones. Under the Rochester Tel proposal, basic residential line rates would be capped through 1998 for all local telephone service providers. After that, the PSC would continue to regulate basic rates. Prices for other services, such as toll calls and call forwarding, would be set by the marketplace. But competition will only bring prices down, as it has for long-distance prices since the AT&T monopoly broke up in 1994, said company spokeswoman Diana Melville. The company plans to split its Rochester Telephone business into two parts -- a regulated, wholesale basic service operation and a non-regulated business that would deal directly with commercial and residential customers. Rochester Tel employees would be divided between the two new companies and a new holding company, but there would be no layoffs. The regulated operation would include: - Telephone poles, call switching equipment, the directory assistance system and phone lines (excluding the line between the pole and the customer's property). - Some special services, such as call identification, that work with the computerized central switches. Non-regulated phone companies, including the Rochester Tel retail service operation, would buy these network services at prices regulated by the PSC. The new companies could resell these telephone services in any combination and at any price they like, except for caps on basic service. One more exception: Rochester Tel's proposal would require competitors to provide at least basic service to all customers within the six county area served by Rochester Tel. Crucial to Rochester Tel's strategy is its proposal to reorganize its corporate structure. It wants to create a holding company, which would probably be renamed, to handle general corporate functions, such as finance, corporation information and acquisitions. All other parts of the business, including the two new operations in Rochester, would be separate subsidiaries. In addition to the local service business in the Rochester area, Rochester Tel owns 44 operating companies in 15 states. Most of the companies are regulated regional telephone companies. But the company is also in the long-distance, commercial phone systems and wireless businesses. The PSC has denied previous Rochester Tel petitions to reorganize into a holding company, a structure used by most large telephone companies. Holding companies are harder to monitor, because the PSC would have access to only the books of the regulated operations. It also would be more difficult to make sure that profits and costs weren't being shifted between regulated and non-regulated operations. That argument doesn't hold, said Ronald L. Bittner, company president and chief executive officer. Rochester Tel has no desire to subsidize its subsidiaries to be profitable; they should be profitable on their own, he said. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #70 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29169; 8 Feb 93 1:20 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29935 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 7 Feb 1993 22:57:52 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22918 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 7 Feb 1993 22:57:16 -0600 Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1993 22:57:16 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302080457.AA22918@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #71 TELECOM Digest Sun, 7 Feb 93 22:57:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 71 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Customer Surveys For Voice/Data Installation Services (Aaron Leonard) Alphanumeric Pagers Question (Bradley G. Wherry) Meridian 1 Information Request (Stephen Caron) Watch Your ANI Translation! (John Boteler) Ontario Communications Ministry Merged (Nigel Allen) Satellite Explosion: Chinese Rocket Was Not to Blame (CND via Nigel Allen) How to Get 800 Enhanced Call Routing on a Non 800 Number? (P. Mohta) Area Code Trivia From Ontario (Carl Moore) Are Supra v.32bis FAX Modems Any Good? (Michael L. Barrow) Intelligent Networks (IN Concept) (Lars Kalsen) PacBell SDS/IS (Matt Holdrege) Proposed 511 Service (Paul Robinson) 800 Portability Booklet (David Lesher) Telex to Internet Gateway Questions (John Schmidt) Extended Services Sufficient to Work With X25 Card? (A. W. Morsink) Calling Outside the US (Binoy P. James) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 07 Feb 1993 10:37:15 -0700 (MST) From: Aaron Leonard Subject: Customer Surveys For Voice/Data Installation Services My university is embarking on a project to improve the quality of its provision of voice and data services to customers on campus (a "Total Quality Management" - TQM - project.) Right now, we're focusing on our work order process, which involves the installation of voice and data services, from consultation with customer to verification of satisfaction. We would be very much interested in finding out from other service providers (commercial providers, in-house corporate operations, etc.) what tools or metrics they may have for ascertaining customer expectations and/or satisfaction. These might include such things as: Customer survey questions and procedures; Survey results; Installation followup interviews or response forms. If anyone has any such information in an easily accessible form, I would very much appreciate it if he/she could email it to me. (If you'd be willing to sit still for some brief questions, please send me your phone number and I'll call you at your conveniene.) Thanks in advance, Aaron Leonard University of Arizona CCIT Telecommunications Internet: aaron@arizona.edu BITNET: AARON@ARIZONA ------------------------------ From: bwherry@nyx.cs.du.edu (Colorado Cyberpunk) Subject: Alphanumeric Pagers Question Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept. Date: Sun, 7 Feb 93 17:45:23 GMT Do alphanumeric pagers all use the same protocol between the terminal and whatever system to which you are connected? Are the protocol(s) published/documented anywhere? If so how do I go about getting them? Obviously this is leading to writing some software to do automated monitoring of some systems. Since it isn't for resale if someone has already written something and it is available (source code) on the internet then a pointer to it would be appreciated. Thanks, bradley g wherry bwherry@nyx.cs.du.edu ------------------------------ From: cvads008@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu Subject: Meridian 1 Information Request Date: 7 Feb 93 15:31:54 PST Organization: California State Polytechnic University, Pomona I am a student attending California Polytechnic University at Pomona majoring in Computer Information Systems with an emphasis in telecommunications Analysis. Currently, I am taking a course in Network Management. One of the projects in this class involves groups of five students conducting a feasibility analysis, writing a RFP, responding to the RFP, then evaluating the response to the RFP. We are using two PBX products for comparison in this project: The AT&T Definity G3 and the Northern Telecom Meridian 1. Here is our problem. While we have received some cooperation from AT&T, we have not been able to get any pricing information from Northern Telecom. The couple of students that have had contact with N.T. have run into dead ends. They have been given the impression that N.T. feels that they are conducting some form of corporate espionage and are unwilling to reveal much about their product price or technical wise. We have been able to find some pricing information in the Faulkner Technical Reports, but this is mainly prices on the station equipment. So, what my fellow group members and I are looking for, is any pricing information on a Meridian 1 series system (as prescribed in the case given to the groups) that will is to be used in a nationwide manufacturing firm and support the following: ---1,000 lines with 10% line growth over the next seven years; ---ACD capability for at least 40 stations; ---Digital telephone support; ---CCS connectivity to the local IXC; ---Support for both BRI and PRI ISDN; ---Integration with a DEC VAX host; ---Support for desktop video conferencing at 64Kpbs. I hope this is enough information to give you an idea of what size system we are looking for. Any pricing information on any of the Meridian 1 components would be appreciated. We would also be interested in any comments you have on the Meridian 1. Stephen Caron Cal. Poly. Pomona cvads008@vmsa.is.csupomona.edu ------------------------------ From: John Boteler Subject: Watch Your ANI Translation! Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1993 10:56:47 -0500 (EST) To echo and expand on Bill Cerny's comments, it's also a good idea to check closely your ANI translation from time to time. We just had a situation where customers were being mis-identified because of a "typo" when the MCI switch serving our T1 got loaded. The asterisk ("*") was appearing in the phone number sent to us in-band! Just something else to keep you 800 users on your toes. :) bote@access.digex.com (John Boteler) ------------------------------ From: Nigel Allen Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1993 19:00:00 -0500 Subject: Ontario Communications Ministry Merged Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto Ontario's premier Bob Rae has amalgamated the Ministry of Culture and Communications with the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation to form a new Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation. (The word "communications" does not appear in the new ministry's name.) Anne Swarbrick has been appointed minister of the amalgamated ministry. The changes are part of a government reorganization and cabinet shuffle announced Wednesday, February 3. Former Culture and Communications minister Karen Haslam becomes a minister without portfolio assigned to the Ministry of Health. The Communications Division of the new ministry will probably not be affected much by the merger. It publishes a newsletter, _Communica- tions Ontario_, which you can receive free of charge by writing to: Communications Division Ministry of Culture and Communications 77 Bloor Street West, 20th Floor Toronto, Ontario M7A 2R9 Canada telephone (416) 326-9600 fax (416) 326-9654 According to an Ontario government publication, the Communications Division "is responsible for providing policy, operational and technical advice on issues affecting Ontario consumers, suppliers and manufacturers of telecommunications and broadcasting and cable systems and services. Activities include policy development, representations and interventions before the federal government and Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, research, technology assessments, and industry and federal- provincial liaison on communications matters. Canada Remote Systems - Toronto, Ontario World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1993 19:43:00 -0500 From: ndallen@r-node.pci.on.ca (Nigel Allen) Subject: Satellite Explosion: Chinese Rocket Was Not to Blame Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto Forwarded from soc.culture.china From: xlli@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (xiao-lin li) Organization: Indiana University Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 16:08:50 GMT From CND News: Forwarded by: Chongyu Hua and Wenfeng Source: UPI, 2/2/1993 BEIJING -- An investigation into the launch failure of a U.S.-built Australian satellite in December has found the Chinese carrier rocket operated normally and was not to blame, a state-run newspaper said Tuesday. The Guangming Daily quoted Chinese space specialists as saying the clearing of the rocket came after an investigation and a visit to China by a dozen American technicians last month. The satellite, manufactured by Hughes Aircraft Co. of the United States and owned by the Sydney, Australia-based firm Optus Communications, was launched Dec. 21 aboard a Long March 2-E rocket from China's Xichang Space Center in southwest Sichuan Province. The rocket appeared to place the Optus B-2 satellite in orbit but officials later disclosed a small explosion had occurred and the satellite had broken up. The Guangming Daily said the American space experts examined launch telemetry, analyzed the data and checked wreckage found of the satellite and that "the result of the investigation indicates the flight of the rocket was completely normal." The newspaper said the explosion occurred in the satellite vehicle itself about 45 seconds into the launch. It did not speculate on a cause, but said the outcome indicated "the performance of the Chinese rocket is very reliable." -------- Nigel Allen, Toronto, Ontario ndallen@r-node.pci.on.ca ------------------------------ From: pushp@nic.cerf.net (Pushpendra Mohta) Subject: How to Get 800 Enhanced Call Routing on a Non-800 Number? Date: 7 Feb 1993 16:53:39 GMT Organization: CERFnet Dial n' CERF Customer Group I am looking for a cost effective way to get features seemingly available only using 800 Enhanced Call Routing (ECR). I want the caller to pay for the call and/or minimize my per minute costs. The application calls for a single number, which when called presents a menu. The options in the menu then transfer the caller to one of three sites, California, New Jersey or default. The default attendant may then manually route this call to California or New Jersey. Now I suppose it is easy to do this with a PBX or some such but I end up paying the cost of the transfered call and it ties my ports. (In the enhanced 800 service a menu transfer is treated as one call and the attendant handled call can be treated as one call using "Take Back and Transfer" or Caller TakeBack). Short of a 900 number, where I could recover the costs from the caller? Are there other ways to accomplish this? I only want the caller to pay for the call, initial and transferred. Thank you, Pushpendra Mohta pushp@cerf.net +1 619 455 3900 Director of Engineering pushp@sdsc.bitnet +1 800 876 2373 CERFNet +1 619 455 3990 (FAX) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Feb 93 12:03:57 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Area Code Trivia From Ontario From material which I received regarding 416/905 split in Ontario: LET'S PLAY AREA CODE TRIVIA! Here are a few interesting facts on telephone area code evolution. Just for fun why not test your knowledge with the following questions: 1. Q. In 1947, Ontario had only two area codes. What were they? 2. Q. By 1962, Ontario had five area codes. What years were the three additional codes introduced and what were they? 3. Q. In 1993, Ontario will have a total of six area codes. Which province has more? 4. Q. Three U.S. regions have recently introduced new area codes. Can you name the cities around which these changes occurred? 5. Q. What numbers never appear as the first number of an area code? [Moderator's Note: Answers will appear in an issue of the Digest on Monday. PAT] ------------------------------ From: supra@posse.mit.edu (Michael L Barrow) Subject: Are Supra v.32bis FAX Modems Any Good? Date: 7 Feb 1993 18:30:20 GMT Organization: MIT Information Systems/CSSC I recently purchased a pair of these modems and I have had several problems with them. In addition, I know of five friends that own them and have similar problems. I have two main problems: - When I call our campus modem pool, I experience pausing problems. This is hard to explain, but basically, the modem will receive a chunk of text (less than a full screen) and then pause. After about a half-second or so, it will continue painting the screen. This didn't happen with the Motorola/UDS modem I had and I can't figure out what the problem is here. - Any noise or anything on the line causes the modem to immediately drop the line. Noise includes, a roomate picking up another phone, someone powering up or down another modem connected to the same phone line, or a phone technician clipping his butt-set onto the line to check for conversation. Once again, this never happened with my Motorola modem and I don't know why it's happening with this one. After all, what are MNP5 and v.42bis for anyway? If you've had any unpleasant experiences with this modem, please let me know by emailing supra@posse.mit.edu. Thanks! ------------------------------ From: dalk@login.dkuug.dk (Lars Kalsen) Subject: Intelligent Networks (IN Concept) Organization: DKnet Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1993 19:01:19 GMT Hi, I am looking for a good book on Intelligent Networks (IN). I am also interested in references to overview arcticles about the subject. If you have some information please E-mail me - I will make a list with all the answers and send it to this list. Greetings from Denmark! Lars Kalsen ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 Feb 1993 11:11:27 EST From: Urban Surfer Subject: PacBell SDS/IS PacBell will be filing thier residential ISDN BRI tariff next month. The marketing name is SDS/IS which is something like Switched Digital Service/Integrated Service. The line charges should be the same as a 1mb line. I hope this means that local BRI calls will be about one cent per minute. Hopefully the PUC won't screw this up and we can get ISDN at home cheaply by April. Matt Holdrege holdrege@dcv4kd.phs.com Pacificare Health Systems ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1993 00:21:33 -0500 (EST) From: Paul Robinson Subject: Proposed 511 Service In Telecom Digest 13-69, Jeff Sicherman asked about 'Proposed 511': I was the one that posted the article about it several weeks ago. A Cox newspaper got permission to operate an information service in a city in which it operates a paper; the telephone number for the service is 511. (I think the city was in Florida but don't hold me to that.) Dialing the three digits from that town connects you to their service. This was the first time a non-telephone company was given permission to have a three digit telephone number. ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: 800 Portability Booklet Date: Sun, 7 Feb 93 0:51:44 EST Reply-To: wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu (David Lesher) Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex I picked up a rather interesting Sprint giveaway at ComNet this week. It gives a good overview of what is going on with the hows & whats of 800 portability. It's technical enough for us hardcore CDT'ers to enjoy it. It's one of their "TeleNotes" series, and seems to come from their 800 Marketing Group in Atlanta. Joe Bob Briggs says "Check it out ..." wb8foz ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 Feb 1993 23:22:54 EST From: JOHN SCHMIDT Subject: Telex to Internet Gateway Question Some time ago I read something posted here which seemed to imply that there was a gateway between the telex "system" and Internet. Is this true? Can I receive telexes here sent by someone with telex service? What about sending them? (I assume this can't be done, because they would have no way to bill for them.) If receiving is possible, how would the sender address the telex? Does this work for international telexes, and if so, over which carrier, (former RCA), or (former WUI)? or both? I have friends in Africa who have access to inexpensive (relatively) telex service, I can fax them (at least to a friend of theirs who gets them at his business), but it is very expensive or impossible for them to reply by fax. They have attempted to Telex me at work, but the telexes seem to often get lost between the machine and my office! My friend has the hard copy of at least one he sent with the answerback from our machine on it, proving it got through. The only explanation I got fron the mail room was that they don't get many these days and "the guy who takes care of the machine was on vacation when it came in"!?! Anyway, having it appear as E mail here would probably work much better. I have tried to find Internet connectivity there (in Central African Republic), with no luck. Someone said there is a Fidonet node there, but I've never found an address. John H. Schmidt, P.E. Internet: schmidt@auvax1.adelphi.edu Technical Director, WBAU Phone--Days (212)456-4218 Adelphi University Evenings (516)877-6400 Garden City, New York 11530 Fax-------------(212)456-2424 ------------------------------ From: amorsin@cs.vu.nl (A. W. Morsink) Subject: Extended Services Sufficient to Work With X25 Card? Organization: Fac. Wiskunde & Informatica, VU, Amsterdam Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1993 14:21:36 GMT Hi. Our faculty will soon be getting a datafeed over a telephone line. The sender supposedly uses the X25 protocol. If they get an X25 card for their PS/2 486 OS/2 system and install the extended services (which seem to support X25 up to a certain degree), do they need any additional software? The data should consist of pure ASCII only and if they can get that in a flat file, they can take it from there. If you can help us with this, please mail me. Arnoud W. Morsink Internet: amorsin@cs.vu.nl Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam amorsin@econ.vu.nl The Netherlands BITNET : v67cam01@hasara11 ------------------------------ From: bpj2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (BINOY P JAMES) Subject: Calling Outside the US Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1993 20:46:51 GMT Organization: Lehigh University Hi, I am attempting to decipher the best possible calling plan to call outside the United States, specifically to Qatar in the Middle East. Which long distance company? AT&T, MCI, SPRINT etc ... Which plan? REACH OUT WORLD, Special Country plan, etc ... Please reply by e-mail if possible. Calls would usually go out after 11:00 pm, eastern time, lasting between 1/2 hour to one hour. Thanks in advance, bpj2@ns3.cc.lehigh.edu Binoy P. James ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #71 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02699; 8 Feb 93 2:54 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15843 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 8 Feb 1993 00:33:09 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12100 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 8 Feb 1993 00:32:22 -0600 Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1993 00:32:22 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302080632.AA12100@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #72 TELECOM Digest Mon, 8 Feb 93 00:32:15 CST Volume 13 : Issue 72 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Bell Canada Applies to Hike Local Rates (Nigel Allen) Exchange Scanning - Enough Already! (Bill Garfield) An Interesting Hotel Blockage (Ed Greenberg) FAX Problems Between Mac Quadra and Amiga 3000 (Adele Ponty) Interesting Tricks You Can Do With Your Phone (Matthew Harttree) "phONEday" Area Code Changes in UK (Linc Madison) T1, MUXs, D/A, etc. (Roy H. Gordon) MFJ and Non-OCC's (David Lesher) No 976 Lines Here, Folks (American Heritage via Charles A. Hoequist) Standard Dialing Plan (John Higdon) Motorola 8000-D Docs Needed (William Petrisko) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nigel Allen Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1993 19:00:00 -0500 Subject: Bell Canada Applies to Hike Local Rates Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto Bell Canada applied yesterday (February 5) for a substantial and complicated increase in local telephone rates -- up to 60% in some cases -- in response to competition in the long distance market. In Phase I, local rates would increase on April 1 by $1.40 per month for all residence customers with individual-line service and $3.25 per month for individual-line business customers. Residential installation charges would increase by $3 (no installer visit required) or $6 (if an installer has to do work on the premises). In Phase II, effective September 1, a Community Calling Plan (CCP) would eliminate toll charges between many suburban exchanges that are local to the same major city (such as Toronto, Ottawa-Hull or Montreal [except that the Montreal CCP would not be implemented until November 1) but long distance from each other. But local phone rates would rise sharply: a Toronto residence customer, who now pays $12.60 plus tax monthly for an individual phone line without added features, would see an increase to $14.00 with the Phase I increase and to $19.45 with the Community Calling Plan increase. Without the Community Calling Plan, Toronto's residential rate would increase to $15.80 on September 1. Oakville, a suburb of Toronto, would see rates rise from $14.75 (today) to $16.15 (April 1) and to $21.95 (Sept. 1, with CCP) or to $16.80 (Sept. 1, without CCP). Customers in Bell's smallest exchanges would see their rates rise from $5.60 to $7.00 (April 1) and to $10.30 (September 1). The CCP would be a replacement for Extended Area Service (EAS) in the greater Toronto, Ottawa-Hull and Montreal areas. Customers would not be able to opt out of it; the "without CCP" figures above are provided in the event that the CRTC does not approve the introduction of CCP. The application would not affect long distance rates, given the competition Bell is now facing (and the competition will get fiercer once telephone subscribers can pre-subscribe to a competitive long distance service, as opposed to having to dial extra digits or use an autodialler to reach a competitive long distance company's dial port and enter an authorization code). Bell recently received approval to increase the surcharge for collect, third-number and pay phone coin calls from $1.50 to $1.75. Some observations: The CRTC does not like to grant interim rate increases, which the proposed April 1 increases would be, unless the company is in serious difficulty. A lot of suburban Toronto businesses (in Mississauga, say) have Toronto foreign exchange service so that customers in other suburbs can reach them without having to make a long distance call. (Of course, their Toronto customers can call them at their regular (suburban) telephone number.) The Toronto telephone exchange includes all of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto (the city of Toronto, the borough of East York, and the suburban cities of Etobicoke, Scarborough, North York and York). The complete application weighs over 20 pounds, including Bell's voluminous responses to the CRTC's written questions. It can be examined at certain Bell public offices. For more information on Bell's application, call 1-800-668-2355 (voice), or contact: Mr. Bernard A. Courtois Vice-President (Law & Regulatory Affairs) 105 rue Hotel de Ville, 5th Floor Hull, Quebec J8X 4H7 telephone (819) 773-5588 fax (819) 778-3437 If you wish to comment on the application, send a letter so that it will be received by March 22 to: Mr. Allan J. Darling, Secretary General Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N2 and send a copy to Mr. Courtois as well. If you wish to appear at the hearing (tentatively scheduled to begin in Hull on May 17), notify the CRTC and Bell by March 22. Nigel Allen nigel.allen@canrem.com Canada Remote Systems - Toronto, Ontario World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044 ------------------------------ Subject: Exchange Scanning - Enough Already! From: bill.garfield@yob.sccsi.com (Bill Garfield) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 93 14:45:00 -0600 Organization: Ye Olde Bailey BBS - Houston, TX - 713-520-1569 Reply-To: bill.garfield@yob.sccsi.com (Bill Garfield) My employer, at our Houston corporate office, has _all_ of one exchange plus 3,000 numbers in another exchange. Approximately 4500 of the total numbers are currently unassigned, reserved for expansion. Recently, I did a traffic study on calls going to intercept due to number not in service. I was shocked to discover that we're taking over 5,000 intercept pegs per day, every day. Peg counts overnight, between 10 PM and 6 AM average 165 per hour. SWBT tells me that most of this is due to "scanning" and that there are legitimate companies that actually perform this "service". They say most of the scanning is done searching for fax machines. Some of it is would-be hackers, looking for anything of value they can find. But it doesn't end with a single scan. Exchanges are routinely scanned over and over and over, constantly looking for new equipment installations. Why is this legal? This to me, constitutes nuisance calling and harrassment. What can be done to stop it? Ye Olde Bailey BBS 713-520-1569 (V.32bis) 713-520-9566 (V.32bis) Houston,Texas yob.sccsi.com Home of alt.cosuard [Moderator's Note: It is a little hard to yell at hackers for doing this when 'legitimate companies' do it and get away with it. Are any of your (in service) lines equipped with Caller-ID? Operating on the assumption the 'legitimate companies' and/or hackers don't know which lines in the exchange are operative and which are not -- why else would they be scanning if they knew the answer? -- it is likely they hit one or more of your connected lines during the night as well. Of course it rings once or twice and they move along; no one in your company is going to be there at midnight to answer them, and even if they did, the other end is equipped to just disconnect immediatly when it hears a voice. So, put Caller-ID on a few of the lines in sequence; let's say put it on extensions 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. Observe the Caller-ID unit for a few days and see if the same number shows up on all of them a few seconds or a minute apart. Be sure and flush the box before you leave for the night and check it first thing in the morning. If over a period of several days you see the same numbers showing up on those lines then find out who they belong to and call them back. If it turns out to be a hackerphreak, then tell 'em if it becomes necessary for you to make a home visit, you'll bring a sledgehammer and smash their toy computer into a thousand pieces. If it turns out to be a 'legitimate company' then you call, get the president of the firm on the line and your first question to him should be to ask for the name of his attorney. When he wants to know why, as I am sure he will, you tell him it is due to the continuing harassment he is causing your company. Don't worry about talking first to one of his underlings, let him straighten it out. It is harassment and nuisance calling to dial a number, let it ring once and disconnect when done deliberatly as part of a scan. PAT] ------------------------------ From: edg@netcom.com (Ed Greenberg) Subject: An Interesting Hotel Blockage Date: Sun, 7 Feb 93 15:29:10 PST This weekend, I booked a room at the Best Western Garden Inn, in Santa Rosa, CA. The Garden Inn is part of a chain of "Pacific Plaza Hotel" properties. The hotel states that "To Serve You Better" calls are handled by Sprint and can be charged on all major credit cards, a sprint card, and MCI card or an AT&T card. They also say that you may use your own carrier and may contact your carrier for dialing instructions. All very standard. Very nicely, there is no charge for local, 1-800 or calling card calls added to the hotel bill. Kudos for that. A few minutes investigation reveals that 0+ calls are handled by the "Best Western Hotel Network" and that 10xxx dialing (at least 10288+) works fine. So far, Pacific Plaza Hotels have made me feel very good about their phone service. One problem exists ... when you dial an 0+ call that is within the LATA, the Best Western network intercepts it. Dialing 10288+0+ yields a Pacific Bell recording that a long distance code is not required. Since there is no way to prefix an intra-lata call, there is no way to keep Best Western Network from grabbing the call from Pacific Bell, and thus no way to be sure that the charge won't be through the roof. I am writing to the hotel and copying them on this message, although the real question is whether there will be anybody at the hotel that is telecom literate enough to understand the problem. I may try a PUC or Pacific Bell complaint. PB will likely be interested in the skimming of THEIR revenue. One other comment about this motel: It was spotlessly clean, I was treated with great courtesy and respect, and would definitely stay at this or another Pacific Plaza property again, but would watch my back on telecom routings and charges. Edward W. Greenberg | Home: +1 408 283 0511 | edg@netcom.com 1600 Stokes St. #24 | Work: +1 408 764 5305 | DoD#: 0357 San Jose, CA 95126 | Fax: +1 408 764 5003 | KM6CG (ex WB2GOH) ------------------------------ From: aponty@utcc.utoronto.ca (Adele Ponty) Subject: FAX Problems Between Mac Quadra and Amiga 3000 Organization: UTCC Public Access Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1993 23:27:34 -0500 My friend and I have an ongoing problem sending FAXes between our machines and I would like some feedback from anyone with some insight into this problem. The two machines in question are a MAC Quadra and an Amiga 3000. The Quadra has a JVC external fax/modem and the FAX software used is called STF. My machine is the Amiga 3000. Connected to it is a Supra V.32bis fax/modem and my software is called GPFax. My friend claims that my Amiga is at fault yet we both claim to be able to send and receive FAXes flawlessly to any other destination other than between our equipment. I asked my friend to send back to me the contents of the file that I originally FAXed him. When I view the returned file, it contains nothing but a series of tightly drawn horizontal lines, displaced at random intervals by white space. I think my friend has screwed something up here. Or maybe the Quadra displays things at resolutions to high for my Amiga's display. Anyone have any ideas?? Please e-mail. INTERNET: aponty@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca UUCP: wheaties@intacc.uucp (bbs) aponty@nsq.uucp (alternate) ------------------------------ From: HARTTREE@vax1.elon.edu (Matthew Harttree) Subject: Interesting Tricks You Can Do With Your Phone Date: 7 Feb 1993 12:44:48 GMT Organization: Elon College I have always wondered about the strange messages/events that I get when I mis-dial a number. The lighter side of telephony, I guess. Stupid things you do by accident or find out somehow. For example my Dad lives in Northern New Jersey in the 201 area code. I muffed the digits on his phone number once and got a recording telling me to "Please deposit twenty cents" ???? (I was calling from my dorm room!) I was really intrigued by the story of the 10-732 Caller-ID. If this type of thing amuses you too, I would love to hear about it. If there is enough interest I could get a list going. No phreakers, please ... AT&T has enough trouble with out me adding to it. (no offense). Thanks in advance, Matt ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 Feb 93 23:21:20 GMT From: Linc Madison Reply-To: telecom@hedonist.demon.co.uk Subject: "phONEday" Area Code Changes in UK ----- BT advert in 7th February Sunday Times ----- AREA CODES CHANGE ON PH[ONE]DAY ON 16 APRIL 1995, your area code will change. Oftel, the Office of Telecommunications, has announced that the availability of new telephone numbers in the UK is to be increased. Recent years have seen considerable growth in the range of telecoms services on offer, and in the number of companies operating such services. These have been matched by increases in customer demand. To ensure that these trends can continue, and to allow customers to benefit in full from the continuing growth in the networks, one digit is to be added to all UK area codes. The change will come into effect on Phoneday, 16 April 1995. * All UK geographic area codes will have a 1 inserted after the initial 0. For example, the Dundee code changes from 0382 to 01382; the London codes from 071 to 0171 and 081 to 0181; and so on. * Bristol, Leeds, Leicester, Nottingham and Sheffield will each receive entirely new codes to help meet the rapid growth in demand for telecoms services in these cities. Their local numbers will also be extended by the addition of an extra digit at the start of the existing number. * At the same time, all international dialling codes will change from the 010 prefix to 00. This will bring the UK into line with the rest of Europe, as required by the EC. If you'd like to know more about Phoneday, call for your free information pack on 0800 01 01 01. --------------------- Most of the above has been covered here in the Digest, but I didn't know about the changes in Bristol, Leeds, etc. For the benefit of non-UK readers, I'll send along a summary when the info pack arrives. Also, one personal note: if there's anyone out there who knows anything about configuring MacTCP for SLIP, please e-mail me! I've got access to a full NNTP feed, but can't use it because I can't get my Macintosh software to do SLIP. Linc Madison == Linc@Hedonist.Demon.co.uk == Telecom@Hedonist.Demon.co.uk 59 Stourcliffe Close, London W1H 5AR Tel. +44 71 723 0582 ------------------------------ From: royg@netcom.com (Roy H. Gordon) Subject: T1, MUXs, D/A, etc. Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1993 00:43:55 GMT We have the following application and are attempting to find a more cost effective solution. The proposed alternative architecture is obvious, but nobody knows if it can be done, or, except for vague suggestions, whom to contact. So, here it is. At the user end is a dumb terminal (e.g., a PC running ProComm with vt100 terminal emulation). The remote host (an RS/6000) is called where this interactive application actually runs. The requirements of the application are such that many sessions need to be supported concurrently. (This isn't a problem.) So, we are going to get several T1 lines from the telco, reachable on an 800 number by the users. At the host end, the T1s will go through a PBX and be broken out into 24 analogue lines which will be routed through modems into terminal servers. The terminal servers are connected to the RS/6000 via ethernet, and the terminal servers do the IP conversion and routing. So, here's what it looks like (from the point of view of the user): in / output client comm program - digital modem - digital <--> analogue telco (e.g. AT&T) - analogue <--> digital T1 line - digital PBX (at host site) - digital <--> analogue modems at terminal servers - analogue <--> digital RS/6000 - digital So, since we want digital into the RS/6000 and we get digital out of the T1, why can't we take it directly as digital, instead of having it converted at the PBX into analogue only to be reconverted back to digital by the host modem in the very next link in the chain. Clearly, we would need a MUX at the end of each T1 to break out the 24 logical channels on each T1. But if we had such a MUX why couldn't we then take the individual lines directly into the terminal server or into the RS/6000, and at the very least bypass the need for the modems? It would seem that one issue would be if there would be a MUX that would convert each channel out in some standard protocol, e.g., RS232 (asynch) protocol, in which case we could then connect via a standard serial cable into the terminal server (or RS/6000) serial ports. Obviously, assuming we could find a MUX that will take a T1 on one end, a crucial question is what protocols it converts to on the other end. Is this scenario possible? Are MUXs like this available? Are there holes in this scenario I haven't considered? I'm also assuming we can bypass the PBX if needed, but we would then have to arrange for some type of call forward busy and call forward no answer. Thanks in advance. Roy ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: MFJ and Non-OCC's Date: Sun, 7 Feb 93 1:03:16 EST Reply-To: wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu (David Lesher) Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex I got a call tonight from the salessleeze from the local cable company. I was immediately tipped off by the fact he asked for the billing name the C&P account is in, not the listing name. I got rid of him with my usual tactic [I demanded his name, credit card number and expiration date and explained that I charge to talk to telesleeze ...] but then started wondering. I know the MFJ requires See & Pee release data on subs to OCC's, but under whose standard does Slimeball Cable qualify as such? wb8foz ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1993 10:54:00 +0000 From: Charles (C.A.) Hoequist Subject: No 976 Lines Here, Folks From _American Heritage_ magazine, December 1982: "Cincinnati, December 26 [1882]: A Mr. A.H. Pugh, dissatisfied with the service of the telephone company, was moved to strong lanugage: 'If you can't get the party I want you to, you may shut up your damn telephone!' Aghast, the phone company removed its instrument from Pugh's home. He sued to get it restored, but the courts decided in favor of the company. _Damn_ was not to be said over the wire." Charles Hoequist |Internet: hoequist@bnr.ca BNR Inc. | 919-991-8642 PO Box 13478, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3478 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Feb 93 00:35 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Standard Dialing Plan Pacific Bell has just announced that by October 11, 1993, the company will institute its "Standard Dialing Plan" throughout the serving areas. It is as follows: ALL ten-digit calls (area code + seven digit number) will be prefixed by the access code '1'. This means that the last stronghold of "one not required", Greater San Jose, will fall to the "dial 1" monster. ALL seven-digit calls (within the area code) will NEVER be preceded by the access code '1', even if it is toll or long distance. ALL 0+ calls will require ten digits. Even a call within the area code will require the area code to be dialed as part of the number. This plan is anticipation for the new "phoney" area code numbering system currently being advanced by Bellcore. Since the switches will not be able to spot area codes by the presence of a '1' or '0' as middle digit, the dialing sequence has to be standardized. So it looks like after nearly forty years of DDD, a '1' will soon be required from telephones in San Jose. I wonder when the "educational" process will begin. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: petrisko@evax2.engr.arizona.edu (William Petrisko) Subject: Motorola 8000-D Docs Needed Date: 7 Feb 1993 09:51:35 GMT Organization: University of Arizona, College of Engineering and Mines, Tucson Reply-To: petrisko@evax2.engr.arizona.edu I recently purchased a Motorola 8000 cellphone (used) without instructions. Noone seems to have a manual for this phone (it is the "D" series.) Anyone want to mail me a quick synopsis for user commands? (Volume, storing/recalling #'s, RING VOLUME, etc ...) bill petrisko SHORT and SOON to EXPIRE: petrisko@evax2.engr.arizona.edu aka n7lwo LONG and INVALID: !uunet!4gen!warlok!gargle!omnisec!thumper!bill ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #72 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05261; 8 Feb 93 3:41 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07728 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 8 Feb 1993 01:26:22 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22370 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 8 Feb 1993 01:25:15 -0600 Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1993 01:25:15 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302080725.AA22370@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #73 TELECOM Digest Mon, 8 Feb 93 01:25:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 73 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson The White House Phone Situation (Reuters/Vielmetti via J. Philip Miller) Definity Phone Sets (Dale Chayes) Finding a Vendor For Hardware Units in Switching Systems (Youhua Tsai) Telex <=> RS-232 (Robert Horvitz) When Does 800 = 900? (Ken Jongsma) Chicago Uses E911 as Revenue Source (Ken Jongsma) New French E-Journal on Computer Security (Jim Warren) ANI on 800 Line w/o T1? (Tas Dienes) Re: Cellular Phones Are Carcinogens? (Joel Upchurch) Re: Cellular Phones Are Carcinogens? (RISKS/Weinstein via Jack Decker) Re: Cellular Phones Are Carcinogens? (Gregory Youngblood) Re: Cellular Phones Are Carcinogens? (John R. Ruckstuhl Jr.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: phil@wubios.wustl.edu (J. Philip Miller) Subject: The White House Phone Situation Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1993 08:22:27 -0600 (CST) [Moderator's Note: Mr. Miller passed along this report from Ed Vielmetti which originally came from Reuters. PAT] Organization: Msen, Inc. -- Ann Arbor, Michigan Date: Fri, 05 Feb 93 01:27:38 EST From: Edward Vielmetti REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT TO EMPLOYEES OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 3 Feb When I took office, the White House had a telephone system that had been there since President Carter -- (laughter) -- and a switchboard that has been there since the 1960s. They talk about jamming the White House switchboards -- you can do it tomorrow if you want to; it's not hard. (Laughter.) I could not have a conference call in my office on my telephone, except an unwanted one -- anybody in the central office could punch a lighted button and listen to what I had to say. (Laughter and applause.) The American people, I think, would be pretty surprised and disappointed that after a dozen years of people who promised to run the government like a business -- they meant a business in the 1950s, not for the 21st century. (Laughter.) ...... From: reuters@msen.com (Msen Reuters Automated News) Date: 3 Feb 1993 13:0:39 -0500 CLINTON MAKING WHITE HOUSE COMPUTER FRIENDLY By Steve Holland WASHINGTON, Reuter - Bill Clinton's aides knew the White House phone system left something to be desired when they discovered the operators transferring calls by plugging cords into holes. Then the president himself tried to arrange his own conference call and found he could not do it without getting an operator or a secretary involved. "I was amazed," Clinton said later, showing frustration probably similar to that of President Rutherford B. Hayes, who installed the first phone at the White House in 1877 but had nobody to call because few people had phones then. For Clinton, it was not long before a deluge of calls from Americans interested in expressing their opinions on topics ranging from Zoe Baird to gays in the military overwhelmed the White House, which could handle only 5,000 calls a day. Phones either went unanswered or people found a constant busy signal. It was a terrible embarrassment for Clinton, whose 1992 campaign prided itself for its communications and whose headquarters could accept 60,000 calls a day. His immediate reaction was to blame the Republicans. "The other crowd had the White House for 12 years, and they have presented themselves as businesslike and modern, you know, and tried to make the Democrats look like yesterday's crowd. Well, when I got to the White House, guess what I found? Same phone system Jimmy Carter had," he said recently referring to the last Democrat to win the White House. For 200 years the White House has been subjected to the whims of the presidents and every occupant has left a mark on the place, whether it be Harry Truman's complete rebuilding job or Jackie Kennedy's redecorating. Now, Clinton and his team are trying to bring White House phones and the executive mansion's computer system up to date and ready for the 21st century. "It's a yesterday place, and we need to make it a tomorrow place," Clinton said. Some of this work is falling to Jeff Eller, Clinton's director of media affairs, a moustachioed fellow who lives and breathes computer software, electronic mail, satellite uplinks and the like. "Tyson's Chicken had a better phone system than we had in the White House before we got here," says Eller, referring to a large Arkansas business that Clinton's Little Rock headquarters surpassed as the state's largest in phone capacity when his campaign picked up steam last year. Eller says there is a generational, philosophical and emotional gap between the new White House team and that of George Bush, who only learned how to use a computer in the last couple of years and often complained he could not program his television video cassette recorder. "What I'm talking about is that we are for the most part younger, computer literate, comfortable with computers and understand their value in moving information," Eller said. The Clinton team has already installed a comments line for everyday Americans to phone in their concerns. It's 202-456-1111. And the team is working to allow the system to accept more calls, helping out the half-dozen or so weary operators who still plug patch cords into holes to transfer calls -- a system that apparently dates back at least to the Kennedy administration in the early 1960s. Clinton's assistants are also seeing how they can expand the capacity of an obsolete mainframe computer and adapt it for easier access to "E-mail," an electronic mail system in which people can quickly send messages to each other via computer terminals. Troubled by the sight of an old wire service teletype printer when he got to the White House, Eller is improving the ability to call up news on more computer terminals rather than printing out stories and copying them for distribution. "Emotionally, our heads are always in touch with the news cycle. That's how we think," Eller said. "We believe that the more information you share, the better you're going to be." REUTER ------------------- J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067 Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110 phil@wubios.WUstl.edu - (314) 362-3617 [362-2694(FAX)] ------------------------------ From: dale@lamont.ldgo.columbia.edu (dale) Subject: Definity Phone Sets Reply-To: dale@lamont.ldgo.columbia.edu Organization: Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory of Columbia University Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1993 16:53:13 GMT Our institution has recently installed an AT&T Definity phone system (with Audix voice mail) but in the process of upgrading, only the high level administrative folks got new phones on their desks. Its clear that these digital phones make a much more sensible user interface to the features of this system than a standard touch-tone phone. The first problem with our existing arrangment is that there is no way to tell that you have voice mail without dialing into AUDIX to find out. In larger AUDIX systems, there is apparently a warble tone when you take the handset off hook, but this feature is not available on our system. We have heard that it will be available as an upgrade perhaps this summer. The AT&T digital phones have a "message" LED among many other useful features. My question is: what (perhaps non-AT&T) desk sets are known tol work well with a Definity/Audix system? We already know about the $550 AT&T digital phones, and the $60 or so AT&T phones with a message LED. Surely there must be third party equipment for this market. Dale Chayes Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University Internet: dale@lamont.ldgo.columbia.edu Voice: (914) 365-8434 Fax: (914) 359-6940 ------------------------------ From: Youhua Tsai Subject: Finding a Vendor For Hardware Units in Switching Systems Date: 7 Feb 93 19:46:07 GMT A friend of mine is looking for the opportunity of purchasing hardware units for PABXs. Initially, he would need to purchase the Digital Switching Network, Central Processor Unit. If you have any information as where he can find the vendor, please contact me to the following email address: ytsai@ics.uci.edu Thanks in advance. Steve ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1993 13:53:56 -0800 From: Robert Horvitz Subject: Telex <=> RS-232 We have this big old and very loud telex machine in our office. We'd like to get rid of it and integrate telex with our LAN. Surely we're not the first to have this idea. Assuming the wheel has already been invented, can someone explain how to do this? Is there a particular kind of modem designed for interfacing DOS machines with telex circuits? Thanks in advance for your help. Send answers via email and I'll post a summary ... unless there's already a file that answers this question. ------------------------------ Subject: When Does 800 = 900? Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1993 19:35:23 -0500 (EST) From: ken@wybbs.mi.org (Ken Jongsma) OK boys and girls! Here's another opportunity to have phun at your local COCOT or other suitable phone. An IXC company called ATN is promoting the use of 800 numbers assigned to it as a means of getting around 900 call restrictions. For example: You might dial 1-800-697-1110 thinking that it is a free call. Stay on the line long enough and the real time ANI number for the phone you are on will be charged for a collect call at 900 rates! ATN is apparently smart enough to check some line records. Calls from the LEC payphones I tried get a recording stating that the 800 number is not valid from the area I was calling from. Calls from a hotel in the same area went through just fine. Can you imagine what this is going to do for colleges, businesses and others that don't have ATN assigned 800 exchanges blocked? Yuck. Ken ken@wybbs.mi.org [Moderator's Note: At least they call back collect, rather than just converting it to 900, so a certain number will be caught and stopped that way by telephone operators at universities and business places. But for those folks reading this who control their phone system: I tried it and stayed on long enough to hear the opening message. It is a sex line. Be forewarned and get it blocked out if possible! PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Chicago Uses E911 as Revenue Source Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1993 19:36:26 -0500 (EST) From: ken@wybbs.mi.org (Ken Jongsma) According to an article in _GPS_World_, the City of Chicago has amassed over 30 million dollars in a fund built from the $1 per month surcharge on every phone bill for Enhanced 911 services. Since this is well in excess of what it actually costs to provide E911, the city is looking for ways to spend the money on other projects. Apparently, the thought of reducing the surcharge has not occurred to them ... Ken Jongsma jongsma@benzie.si.com Smiths Industries ken@wybbs.mi.org Grand Rapids, Michigan 73115.1041@compuserve.com [Moderator's Note: Not true. The city is building a new emergency communications center on the west side of Chicago with that money. It is being used both to fund the E-911 system itself and construct the building. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Feb 93 19:19:29 PST From: jwarren@autodesk.com (Jim Warren) Subject: New French E-Journal on Computer Security [Moderator's Note: Jim passed along this correspondence he received. PAT] From: jbcondat@attmail.com To: jwarren@autodesk.com Subject: New French computer security e-journal Bonjour! A new computer security e-journal is already published in France. It's the first in my country: * weekly; * name: _Chaos Digest_; * last issue available: #1.07 (8 Fev 1993); * for a subscription send an e-message to: jbcondat@attmail.com If you can diffuse this e-journal throughout your site, don't hesitate to contact me, ok? Thanks, and hope to hear from you soon! Jean-Bernard Condat Chaos Computer Club France [CCCF] B.P. 8005 E-Mail: jbcondat@attmail.com 69351 Lyon Cedex 08, France Phone: +33 1 47874083 Fax: +33 1 47877070 ------------------------------ From: Tas Dienes Subject: ANI on 800 Line w/o T1? Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711 Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1993 06:37:22 GMT Does anybody know if it is possible to get ANI on an 800 line without having to get T1 service? I just have a couple of regular (actually, Centranet) lines - local service is GTE, 800 is Sprint. Sprint says no, but I was wondering if anybody else can? Thanks, Tas ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Cellular Phones Are Carcinogens? From: upchrch!joel@peora.sdc.ccur.com (Joel Upchurch) Date: Sun, 07 Feb 93 17:52:28 EST Organization: Upchurch Computer Consulting, Orlando FL andrew@frip.wv.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) writes: >> It is believed by some people that the amount of radiation emitted >> from a cellular phone antenna can cause cancer. > To clarify: there are credible scientific reports that a three watt > transceiver, operated near the head for many years, can cause > *glaucoma*. This is one reason why police radios are now worn at the > waist and wired to a lapel-mounted microphone. I know of no credible > evidence linking transceivers to brain cancer. I've heard the same thing. I also recall some rumors concerning health hazards in operating hand-held radar guns. While I have some strong doubts about portable cellular phones causing tumors, I wonder if you could reduce the risk considerably by having the antenna come out of the bottom of the phone instead of the top? Would it have that much effect on reception? (If your mail bounces use the address below.) Joel Upchurch/Upchurch Computer Consulting/718 Galsworthy/Orlando, FL 32809 joel@peora.ccur.com {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd,ucf-cs}!peora!joel (407) 859-0982 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 Feb 93 14:36:47 EST From: jack.decker@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org (Jack Decker) Subject: Re: Cellular Phones Are Carcinogens? Just in case you missed it, I saw the following in the RISKS-FORUM Digest, Tuesday 2 February 1993, Volume 14, Issue 30: Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 16:55 PST From: lauren@cv.vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: Re: EM Radiation (and cell phones) (Menon, RISKS-14.29) The issues surrounding the topic of possible negative health effects from cellular phone use are going to be among the hottest (no pun intended) in coming years. There are no definitive studies that fully address the complexities of the situation, especially in view of increasing circumstantial evidence that non-ionizing radiation may have more biological effects than previously thought. It's true that walkie-talkies, ham radios, etc. have been around for many years--but there are some potentially significant differences with cellular phones: 1) Most walkie-talkie, police radios, ham radios, etc. are operated in a push-to-talk mode. You're only transmitting when you're actually talking. Cell phones transmit continuously, so exposure is continuous during calls. 2) Cell phones operate at higher frequencies than most common service or ham radios (common hand-held ham radios, for example, usually go no higher than the 440 Mhz band. Cell phones operate in the 800-900 Mhz region, which puts them just about in the microwave range. Recently there have been a number of concerns raised about microwave exposure to the operators of police radar units. We're talking longer exposure and higher frequencies in the radar case -- but nobody knows where the "thresholds" might be for exposure to possibly show effects in some persons. The bottom line is that the higher the frequency, the more "energetic" the effects. In at least a couple of the cases of persons accusing cell phones of causing tumors, part of their evidence is the shape and direction of tumor growth -- they apparently are aligned with the antenna and growing inward from the outside. Of course, this says nothing about cause and effect -- but it has to at least be considered. It's true that cell phones use quite low power. But a little power packs a bigger "punch" at these frequencies, and with the antenna right next to the head the *field strength* (which matters more than the absolute power) can be quite high (inverse square law applies). Concerns about health effects from hand-held radios have been around for a long time. But with the millions of people using continuously transmitting, ultra high frequency units who never did before, some new dimensions are added to the picture -- and they are definitely worthy of serious consideration. By the way, not all cellular systems are created equal when it comes to radiation exposure. The new CDMA digital system, for example, throttles back the power from the portable unit depending on how close you are to the cell site -- the site transmitter sends a signal back to the handheld controlling the power level. The main reason for doing this is to drastically increase battery life, but it has the additional benefit of reducing overall exposure as well. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jan 93 17:03:44 PST From: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) To: pnm@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au Subject: Re: EM Radiation - is smoking safer? (Menon, RISKS-14.29) "We've had walkie talkies (ok - two way radios) for years with no perceivable or admitted risk to the health of users." Not so. Long term (over 20 years) use of two-way radios by police officers has been linked to higher incidences of glaucoma. This is one reason why the transmitter unit is now worn on the belt, with the microphone pinned to the lapel. (This means that the transmitter irradiates the gonads instead of the eyeballs ... a possible new risk?) -=- Andrew Klossner (andrew@frip.wv.tek.com) (uunet!tektronix!frip.WV.TEK!andrew) ------------------------------ [end of excerpt from the RISKS-FORUM Digest] Jack Decker | Internet: jack.decker@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org | Fidonet: 1:154/8 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Cellular Phones Are Carcinogens? From: tcscs!zeta@src.honeywell.com (Gregory Youngblood) Reply-To: zeta%tcscs@src.honeywell.com Date: Sun, 07 Feb 93 11:00:02 CST Organization: TCS Consulting Services I'm a cellular network technicians, and I have been for roughly four years now. I'm also a heavy user of cellular, averaging 1800 to 2000 minutes a month, with a little over half using handhelds. The rest of the time the handheld is in a car kit. I agree with the person who mentioned before about limiting the amound of time transmitting close to your body when possible. Unfortunately a lot of times I had no choice in the matter as there was no POTS service where I was, and my celllular system was the only phone system around. What I'd like to see is a study that looks at the cellular network people, and cellular employees from all over the country, using all sorts of phones and cellular systems. These are the ones that use cellulars the heaviest at times, and also the technicians are in the cell sites and exposed to more than just the usage of the phone. Personally I'd like to see several studies done like the one I'm talking about. BTW, have others noticed the change in names from cellular phones to cellphones. Is that another media driven word created by them to make it easier and faster to say? Or is that a trend that appears to be going on around the country? I'm asking as I saw this in the national 'news' shows and the local tv news. Greg TCS Consulting Services P.O. Box 600008 St. Paul, MN 55106-0008 Mail-server requests to: mail-server%tcscs@idss.nwa.com zeta%tcscs@src.honeywell.com or zeta%tcscs@idss.nwa.com ..!srcsip!tcscs!zeta or ..!guppy!tcscs!zeta ------------------------------ From: ruck@beta.ee.ufl.edu (John R. Ruckstuhl Jr.) Subject: Re: Cellular Phones Are Carcinogens? Organization: EE Dept at UF Date: Sun, 7 Feb 93 21:54:38 GMT In article jack_decker@f8.n154.z1. fidonet.org (Jack Decker) writes: > I have to agree with John on this. Let us keep in mind that the > recent wave of hysteria about RF and EMI radiation is being fueled by > the press, which is hardly noted for checking their fact (the most > What ALL these reports overlook is the inverse square law. Put > simply, when you are twice as far away from a source of radiation, you > get only one fourth the radiation. On one news report, a guy was > going around measuring the radiation from various household > appliances, and in each case he held a probe right up close to the > appliance, within an inch or so at most. What they didn't point out > was that at only a foot away from that appliance, the radiation would > be only 1/144th of the radiation at one inch. If handheld cellular Just a point of information -- I think that "inverse square law" is only applicable to point-source radiation. For line-source radiation (e.g. from transmission lines) intensity diminishes linearly with distance for plane-source radiation, intensity doesn't diminish at all with distance. Of course, this assumes a perfectly transmitting medium (vacuum). FWIW. Best regards, John R. Ruckstuhl, Jr. ruck@alpha.ee.ufl.edu Dept. of Electrical Engineering ruck@cis.ufl.edu, uflorida!ruck University of Florida ruck%sphere@cis.ufl.edu, sphere!ruck ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #73 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06240; 8 Feb 93 4:09 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30872 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 8 Feb 1993 02:00:15 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27468 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 8 Feb 1993 01:59:24 -0600 Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1993 01:59:24 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302080759.AA27468@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #74 TELECOM Digest Mon, 8 Feb 93 01:59:20 CST Volume 13 : Issue 74 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Overseas Directory Assistance (Frederick Roeber) Re: Overseas Directory Assistance (Lutz Albers) Re: Overseas Directory Assistance (Harold Hallikainen) Re: Cellular Phone Frequency Allocations (Ron Dippold) Re: Cellular Phone Frequency Allocations (Paul Robinson) Re: Caller ID and Voice Messaging in Centrex (Dave Ptasnik) Re: Caller ID and Voice Messaging in Centrex (Terence Cross) Re: Sears Kills Catalog After 95 Years (Paul S. Sawyer) Re: Sears Kills Catalog After 95 Years (Steven H. Lichter) Re: Introduction to comp.dcom.telecom / TELECOM Digest (Jack Decker) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roeber@vxcrna.cern.ch Subject: Re: Overseas Directory Assistance Reply-To: roeber@cern.ch Organization: CERN -- European Organization for Nuclear Research Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1993 17:52:25 GMT > Sometimes you can reach the US directory assistance from Germany by > dialing +1 XXX 555 1212 ... but sometimes you get a message "Your call > cannot completed as dialed" ... from time to time this message is > interrupted and the directory assistance answers ... strange thing. Do +1 xxx 555 1212 numbers supervise? If not (since they are supposed to be free calls, at least in some telcos), this may well explain why the PTTs get upset -- they don't like the idea of not getting money. Frederick G. M. Roeber | CERN -- European Center for Nuclear Research e-mail: roeber@cern.ch or roeber@caltech.edu | work: +41 22 767 31 80 r-mail: CERN/PPE, 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland | home: +33 50 20 82 99 ------------------------------ Date: 07 Feb 93 17:38:41 EST From: Lutz Albers <100022.1102@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Overseas Directory Assistance In TELECOM Digest 68/V6 writes: > The German directory assistance can be reached by dialing +49 211 1188 > from anywhere. This is the directory assistance of the city of Duesseldorf. Not that this will cause a problem for an international dialer (except for the language, the operators usually speaks German), because DA requests are often routed all over the country to find a free operator. I've tried this three times from munich and got an operator in Traunstein, Kempten and Augsburg. Lutz Albers InterNet: 100022.1102@compuserve.com Reginfriedstr. 10 CompuServe: 100022.1102 8000 - Muenchen 90 Phone: +49 89 651 71 85 Germany Fax: +49 89 651 71 88 ------------------------------ From: hhallika@zeus.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Re: Overseas Directory Assistance Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1993 07:56:16 GMT > [Moderator's Note: ... noticed when calling directory assistance in > the UK the response is the same; a live person answers and takes the > request, then the robot speaks up with the answer, and invites me to > stay on the line if I have further inquiries. PAT] I recently found the "invite to stay on the line" to cause a problem. Since the "called party" had not disconnected, I could not use the # to place another call without rekeying my credit card number. Slowed me down a bit ... Harold ------------------------------ From: rdippold@qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Frequency Allocations Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1993 20:54:13 GMT HLEAVES@Gems.VCU.EDU (Hugh Eaves) writes: > These are probably FAQ's, but I've got a few questions about the > frequency allocations for cellular phones: > Are all the allocated frequencies usually in use in a particular area? Can't tell you for certain on this one, but I would suspect that this is the case in a heavy use urban area. The frequency use cuts the available channels down by a factor of seven (from 833 channels to 119 per cell) -- and of course, you can't always place the cells ideally. Then consider that you've got carriers A and B in an area and that's 60 channels per cell, which isn't that much for the LA freeway. In many areas, however, I can't see all the channels being used -- a single carrier using just a few cells has way too many channels available. I know from experience that Juneau, Alaska, actually has a cellular system. > Do different carriers in the same area use different channels? Yup, otherwise it would be awfully hard to aquire both A and B in a single location depending on your preference. Now, their coverage areas may not completely overlap, but you can bet that for, say, downtown LA they'll both be there. > What frequencies are used (specifically), and what is the channel > spacing? 30 khz channels. A separate frequency is used for transmission and recieve. System A center transmit frequencies are 825.03 to 834.99 MHz (A) and 845.01 to 846.48 MHz (A') and 824.04 to 825.00 MHz (A'') for the mobile, and 870.03 to 879.99 (A) and 890.01 to 891.48 MHz (A') and 869.04 to 870.00 MHz (A'') for the base. System B center transmit frequencies are 835.02 to 844.98 MHz (B) and 846.51 to 848.97 MHz (B') for the mobile, and 880.02 to 889.98 MHz (B) and 891.51 to 893.97 MHz (B') for the base. > Are there plans to expand the currently allocated frequency set? Well, you can see that there are A, A', and A'' frequencies, and the channel numbering is a bit strange - channels 990-1023 are actually lower frequencies than channels 1-799, which would seem to indicate at least one extension. I've seen references to A''' and B'' possibilities, which would suggest another extension -- say picking up some of that banwidth from 849 to 869 MHz, although I have absolutely no idea what's in there right now. However, the current allocation system is massively inefficient because the current technology, while incredibly better than what was there before, is obsolete. For example, each voice channel is using 30 KHz -- yet the phone company can do with 3 KHz for the same conversation if you use your regular phone. The AMPS system needs to leave plenty for error and separation from adjacent channels. The methods being looked at right now are mostly geared at making better use of the current bandwidth. There's NAMPS from Motorola - I have absolutely no idea what this is about, although it's supposed to get a small capacity increase -- sort of an interim thing. There's TDMA, which basically time multiplexes each of those 30 KHz channels three ways to get a theoretical maximum triple capacity (but keep away from multipath and cell reuse). Finally, there's CDMA which offers 10-30 times capacity depending on circumstances. Mostly about 20, but if you think 10 then you can be pleasantly surprised later. All of these technologies coexist with current AMPS technology, because all those cell phones that are currently out there won't just dry up and go away, however much it might be wished! I think a capacity increase through better efficiency looks better than one from allocating new frequencies -- in both cases you need new mobiles and have to upgrade your base stations. Plus, technologies such as CDMA offer additional features such as soft handoff, better data services, etc. (I might as well disclaim here that I'm working on CDMA.) else ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1993 00:42:22 -0500 (EST) From: Paul Robinson Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Frequency Allocations In TELECOM Digest 13-69, Hugh Eaves asked: > Are all the allocated frequencies usually in use in a particular area? According to what I know, the cellular system has 666 channels (this number is probably higher; I have heard '872' used) available for phones, based on a cell system in which a particular group of channels is assigned to a particular cell area, of which there are six types of cell areas. No cell area will touch another using the same frequencies. That means that aproximately 111 frequencies (666/6, or 872/6 if that's right) are therefore available in any one of the six cell area. The 112th simultaneous cellular phone in that area won't be able to use the system. In heavy usage areas, this could be as small as a three block area or smaller if need be, so crowding shouldn't be a problem. > Do different carriers in the same area use different channels? I'm not sure. I know that in the US, the telephone company carrier and the non-telephone carrier are treated differently as "A" and "B". In some casea a cellular phone must explicitly indicate which system it is attached to or it could be charged for use of two different systems simultaneously. Europe is totally different. You might want to send your questions to the following lists, and subscribe to them. (Change 'Cellular' to 'Cellular-Request' to request a subscription.) I'll pass the question on to them for response: cellular@slcdec.dfv.rwth-aachen.de Cellular@yngbld.gwinnett.com ------------------------------ From: davep@carson.u.washington.edu (Dave Ptasnik) Subject: Re: Caller ID and Voice Messaging in Centrex Date: 7 Feb 1993 17:59:32 GMT Organization: University of Washington tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) writes: > At home I have two-line residential CENTREX service from US West, > which they market under the name Centraflex. I am served by a 5ESS > switch. I am confused about application of telco voice messaging and > Caller-ID on this type of service. > >I thought it might be neat to get voice messaging from the telco, so > that if the call is not answered after six rings or so on either line, > or if both lines were busy and the person on the second line ignored > the Call-Waiting signal, voice messaging would answer and take the > message. Unfortunately, the telco tells me that telco provided voice > mail is incompatible with Centrex! Does anyone know why? Didn't > Bellcore design telco provided voice mail to work with Centrex? It > seems to me that I have been answered by CO provided voice mail when > calling numbers in a Centrex group in the past, but maybe this was > really provided by external hardware at the called location. At the University of Washington we are served by Centrex provided by a US West 5ESS. We have a central voice mail system manufactured by the same company that manufactures the US West system (Octel). You want your calls to be forwarded on a don't answer basis to voice mail, from a line that has call waiting. We have been told (having users who want the same service) that the 5ESS is not configured to provide this service. It is assumed that if you have call waiting, you want that second call. As a result the waiting call does not forward anywhere else on a don't answer basis. If you really want to get that extra call, put in another line, or just drop the call waiting, and your callers will be able to leave messages. At least it seems that US West is being consistent. The above is nothing more than the personal opinion of: Dave Ptasnik davep@u.washington.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Feb 93 17:02:25 GMT From: eeitecs@eeiuc.ericsson.se (Terence Cross) Subject: Re: Caller ID and Voice Messaging in Centrex Terry Kennedy writes: > In article , tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) > writes: >> Does anyone know if it is possible to get the same number listed as >> the ID on both lines? >> It's not possible. Caller ID delivers the actual telephone number. >> ANI would deliver the billing number. This is in fact possible in ISDN, without sharing the DN (DN: directory number, similar to POTS line with more than one line). There can be a number of DNs for each access and the Telco can be requested by the subscriber to set a special Access Default Number (ADN), this number instead of the DN will then be sent forward for CLID. The ADN must be the same as one of the DNs though. rgs, Terence Cross +353 902 74601 Software Engineer (B.A., B.A.I.) ECN +830 1498 AXE Operations & Maintenance Committee Ericsson Systems Expertise Irl. Ltd. eeitecs@eeiuc.ericsson.se Athlone, Ireland eeitecs@memo.ericsson.se ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Sears Kills Catalog After 95 Years Date: 7 Feb 93 07:40:45 EST (Sun) From: paul@unhtel.unh.edu (Paul S. Sawyer) Sears dropping their Catalog Service? That's unthinkable! That would be like AT&T dropping UNIX! Huh? Really ...? Nevermind. Paul S. Sawyer - University of New Hampshire CIS - paul@unhtel.unh.edu Telecommunications and Network Services - VOX: +1 603 862 3262 Durham, New Hampshire 03824-3523 - FAX: +1 603 862 2030 ------------------------------ From: co057@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steven H. Lichter) Subject: Re: Sears Kills Catalog After 95 Years Date: 7 Feb 1993 19:29:24 GMT Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA) From an article timhu@ico.isc.com (Timothy Hu): > Then I suppose DAK will buy up what's left and sell it. No but C.O.M.B or DAMARK might buy what is left. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 Feb 93 11:39:05 EST From: jack.decker@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org (Jack Decker) Subject: Re: Introduction to comp.dcom.telecom / TELECOM Digest In message , gs26@prism.gatech.edu (Glenn R. Stone) wrote: > In Telecom 13.63.6 jack.decker@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org (Jack Decker) > writes: >> I've had FTP access for close to a month now and have yet to be able >> to connect with lcs.mit.edu. It almost seems as though the connection >> gets misrouted along the way (apparently I get to a *different* >> machine that hangs off of lcs.mit.edu). I sent a message to the >> postmaster at lcs.mit.edu describing the problem, but so far no >> response. > The address "lcs.mit.edu" is actually a domain, or whole group of > machines. The one you get when you say "ftp lcs.mit.edu" is a machine > called "mintaka", which is the main ftp and mail server for that > domain. The IP address 18.26.0.36 is the correct one, and I had no > trouble doing FTP, logging in as "anonymous", cd'ing to > telecom-archives, and browsing for a minute or two at the titles ... > The fact that the FTP welcome banner says "mintaka" is probably > confusing to about half of the few who bother to notice, including, I > assume, Mr. Decker ... rest assured that the banner is a red herring, > and that the archives really are hiding in there in the right place. Glenn, I appreciate the help (from you and others who replied) but I'm not quite THAT dumb, although I can see where my original message might lead you to think that I had actually connected to something. The fact is that when I try to FTP to lcs.mit.edu (or 18.26.0.36), it tries to connect but never quite gets there ... I never get ANY sort of welcome banner. It also makes no difference if I explicitly specify mintaka.lcs.mit.edu. If I try to do a traceroute to either, I get essentially the same results, e.g: Resolving lcs.mit.edu... traceroute to 18.26.0.36:33434 1: 35.214.1.0 via.musk.merit.edu. (110 ms) (110 ms) (110 ms) 2: 35.214.0.1 musk.merit.edu. (660 ms) (715 ms) (660 ms) 3: 35.1.208.2 gr.merit.edu. (825 ms) (825 ms) (770 ms) 4: 35.1.208.1 eth0.grand.mich.net. (825 ms) (825 ms) (770 ms) 5: 35.124.80.1 (825 ms) (880 ms) (825 ms) 6: 35.124.144.1 (880 ms) (880 ms) (825 ms) 7: 35.127.48.1 ser3.michnet1.mich.net. (825 ms) (880 ms) (825 ms) 8: 35.1.1.1 en-2.enss131.t3.ans.net. (880 ms) (880 ms) (880 ms) 9: 140.222.41.3 t3-2.Cleveland-cnss41.t3.ans.net. (880 ms) (990 ms) (825 ms) 0: 140.222.40.4 t3-3.Cleveland-cnss40.t3.ans.net. (880 ms) (880 ms) (880 ms) 11: *** 140.222.32.2 t3-1.New-York-cnss32.t3.ans.net. (825 ms) (880 ms) 12: 140.222.48.1 t3-0.Hartford-cnss48.t3.ans.net. (880 ms) (935 ms) (880 ms) 13: 140.222.49.1 t3-0.Hartford-cnss49.t3.ans.net. (990 ms) (880 ms) (880 ms) 14: 140.222.134.1 t3-0.enss134.t3.ans.net. (880 ms) (935 ms) (880 ms) 15: 192.54.222.1 w91-cisco-external-ether.mit.edu. (880 ms) (880 ms) (880 ms) 16: 18.168.0.6 B24-CISCO-FDDI.MIT.EDU. (880 ms) (935 ms) (825 ms) 17: *** *** *** 18: *** *** *** [... more of the same through line 29 ...] 29: *** *** *** traceroute done: !! maximum TTL exceeded When I said I got to a "different machine", in this case it's B24-CISCO-FDDI.MIT.EDU that I'm referring to. A few days ago, I had different results... it was essentially the same as above except that lines 15 through 18 read: 15: *** 192.54.222.1 w91-cisco-external-ether.mit.edu. (825 ms) (990 ms) 16: 18.168.0.6 B24-CISCO-FDDI.MIT.EDU. (935 ms) (990 ms) (880 ms) 17: 18.52.0.1 RADOLE.LCS.MIT.EDU. (880 ms) (935 ms) (935 ms) 18: *** *** *** As you can see, I was at least getting as far as RADOLE.LCS.MIT.EDU; now I'm not even getting THAT far. For whatever reason, lcs.mit.edu is one of only a handful of systems I have been unable to FTP to, and as you can see I'm actually getting as far as MIT, just not to the correct machine. I don't know if it makes any difference, but I'm coming in over a dial-up line using the net.exe program from the KA9Q package. I don't know if there's anything that could be done here (by way of changes in the configuration) that would help (I suspect not), but then I'm not quite that familiar with how this software actually works so if anyone knows of any settings that could be tweaked here, please let me know. Failing that, I suspect a network problem of some sort ... after all, as I say there are VERY few other sites that I have been unable to ftp or telnet to, and in most cases those were just temporary outages (or I wasn't interested enough to try again). Jack Decker | Internet: jack.decker@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org | Fidonet: 1:154/8 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #74 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23449; 8 Feb 93 12:12 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15640 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 8 Feb 1993 09:28:30 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29016 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 8 Feb 1993 09:28:03 -0600 Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1993 09:28:03 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302081528.AA29016@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #75 TELECOM Digest Mon, 8 Feb 93 09:28:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 75 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: AT&T PP2000 Bills, 5 Months Later (Mark Rudholm) Re: X.32 Protocol: Software Emulation Possible? (H. Shrikumar) Re: X.32 Protocol: Software Emulation Possible? (Morten Reistad) Re: Frame Relay Congestion Question (Shu Zhang) Re: Cellular (XXX0)/XXX- Listings Wanted (Brent Whitlock) Re: HP-48S as a Phone Dialer? (Martin McCormick) National Data Superhighways - Access? (Will Martin) Re: Who is Telebec? (Nigel Allen) Re: Low Cost Access to Network (Lars Poulsen) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 7 Feb 93 15:13:18 PST From: rudholm@ruby.aimla.com (Mark Rudholm) Subject: Re: AT&T PP2000 Bills, 5 Months Later In Volume 13, Issue 55, Message 7 of 17, nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes: > Interestingly, the "keyboard usage" is listed as being at Los > Angeles CA, while the call is listed as being from Inglewood to Culver > City. Is this phone, perhaps, tied directly to AT&T's network, > bypassing PacTel? Certainly there's enough long distance traffic out > of LAX to justify bypass. Since I was making a LOCAL call, the call > may have been routed through AT&T to the nearest gateway to PacTel, > then via PacTel to the destination. Is this the explanation for the > strange billing? Probably not. LAX happens to be in one of the many parts of the City of Los Angeles (mind you, that is, WITHIN the corporate limits of the city) that is served by central offices identifying themselves as something other than "Los Angeles." In the case of LAX, the central office is Inglewood, which is an adjacent city. I suspect that the bill from AT&T uses the postal address for the "Keyboard Usage" and the CO names for the actual telephone call. By the way, a voice call made from any public phone in LAX will be billed as from INGLEWOOD for the same reason. Another example of political and telco geographical inconsistencies would be the Venice and Pacific Palisades areas, which are served by Santa Monica. Also, the Beverly Hills CO serves some of the areas surrounding Beverly Hills (mostly L.A.) Then there is the entire San Fernando Valley, which, other than Burbank, Glendale, and the city of San Fernando, is all part of the city of L.A. yet I don't know of a single CO up there that is listed as "Los Angeles." Instead, they're named after districts like "Sherman Oaks," "Van Nuys," and "Canoga Park" (the residents of which, are often unaware themselves that they live in L.A!) Mark D. Rudholm Philips Interactive Media rudholm@aimla.com 11050 Santa Monica Blvd. +1 213 930 1449 Los Angeles, CA 90020 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1993 02:25:28 -0500 From: shri@unreal.cs.umass.edu (H.Shrikumar) Subject: Re: X.32 Protocol: Software Emulation Possible? Organization: UMass, Amherst MA + Temporal Sys & Computer Networks Bombay India In article MASSOUD@AMERICAN.EDU writes: > I need to connect to a network using the X.32 protocol (X.25 Dial-in > PAD). The only modems I' ve heard can do this are the Hayes Ultra > 9600 or 14400. I own a Zoom v32bis modem, and can connect to the X.32 > number in V.32 synchronous mode, but I cannot do anything more than > connecting. Since I can connect, isn't it possible to emulate X.32 by > software? Well ... possible but ... but to get the HDLC (or rather LAPB) framing right, you'd need to send synchronous bytes. This cannot be done by the PC com ports so you'd need a sync card. You'd also need the X.25 software for layers two and three. Precisely such a thing is an X.25 card and software. Ones from Eicon can support X.32 very well. There should be other makes too but I don't know. X.32 does not seem to be very widespread in installation around the world. I believe (hearsay from an Eicon Dealer) that Canada provides X.32 access ports. Is this correct? +------------------ Informal X.32 availabilty Poll: I'd like to know which countries X.32 is offered in. This is not so much in demand, so most reviews of PSDN offerings dont seem to cover this topic. If you could mail me a brief note if X.32 is available in your country and the service provider (if not the PTT) and the tarriffs (and if different from X.25 leased access), I'll summarize back to the list. +------------------ Considering the interest that the Async access mechainsms for X.400 are generating around the world, the place that X.32 could have taken could possible go to Async OSI protocols! Way to go!! > Nadim Massoud Massoud@american.edu Is this in the US? Where are you located ... and who is the X.32 provider? shrikumar (shri@legato.cs.umass.edu) [Moderator's Note: American University is in Washington, DC. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 5 Feb 93 22:36 +0100 From: Morten Reistad Subject: Re: X.32 Protocol: Software Emulation Possible? In Telecom DIGEST Vol 13.69 Nadim Massoud says: > I need to connect to a network using the X.32 protocol (X.25 Dial-in > PAD). The only modems I' ve heard can do this are the Hayes Ultra > 9600 or 14400. First, X.32 is only a method to bring the protocol X.25 to the customer over ordinary phone lines. Just like SLIP or PPP for the IP networks. You then need something in your end of the connection that provides layer 2 and 3 of the X.25 protocol. You may also want some higher protocol that acually does something useful, like providing an X.29 terminal interface. (Calling X.32 'dial-in pad' is just like calling SLIP/PPP 'dial-in telnet'. ) > I own a Zoom v32bis modem, and can connect to the X.32 number in > V.32 synchronous mode, but I cannot do anything more than connecting. You then need a computer (or switch, pad, bridge or router) that can communicate with this synchronous interface. The normal serial interface on a PC is not useful for this. > Since I can connect, isn't it possible to emulate X.32 by software? You do not have to EMULATE X.32. X.32 is a standard, and you can comply with standards just as well as anyone else. X.25 is mainly software, but for a PC you will need some extra hardware for the actual interface. > If such a software exists, where can I find it (for PC under DOS or > Windows)? If not, are there any modems that offer the capability > while being cheaper than the Hayes? There are two alternatives here. You could buy a full X.25 card with X.25 software for your PC. Eicon Technology sells a good card with software, and have excellent technical documentation. Be prepared to fork over $800+ and some work for this. OS/2 also has an X.25 solution, but I do not know the details. Or, you could buy a 'pad-in-a-box' cards or modems that run X.25 and protocols above it on the board/modem itself, and provides an asynchronous interface to the PC, looking exactly like a normal PAD. These will probably cost $500 ++. The Hayes one is probably one of the cheapest of these. I have no affiliation with Eicon, except that a sales rep of theirs bought me a beer once. Best regards, Morten Reistad ------------------------------ From: zhang@sce.carleton.ca (Shu Zhang) Subject: Re: Frame Relay Congestion Question Organization: Carleton University Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1993 06:56:13 GMT goldstein@carafe.dnet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) writes: > The solution was to use a reserved (management) address for all of > these messages. That's why it's the _consolidated_ link layer > management message -- all "source quench" (that's basically what it > is) messages are consolidated into one, and shuffled around the > network with much effort. Thank you for your explanation. Is it possible to make some modifications on the address field of the CLLM messages? for example, use the same address value as that of the ordinary data frames in the backward direction. I think this will allow the intermediate nodes to relay CLLM messages in the same way they relay the data frames, without adding any specific processing to CLLM messages. Am I right? Thanks. ------------------------------ From: bwhitlock@uiuc.edu (Brent Whitlock) Subject: Re: Cellular (XXX0)/XXX- Listings Wanted Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1993 16:18:55 GMT Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana dynastar@gnu.ai.mit.edu (J.R. Bob Dobbs) writes: > I am looking for a list of the cellular exchanges by area code (with > SID if possible). I have attempted to find a listing and have failed > to do so as of yet. If anyone has a listing, could they please forward > it to me (or the newsgroup). If such a list doesn't exist, could > someone who has partial listings (even if it is only for your area > code), please mail those to me. With them I will attempt to compile my > own listing by SID or area. Ameritech Mobile has a brochure which contains the roaming access numbers for virtually all of North America. This brochure would probably give you most of the cellular exchange numbers. Your local cellular carriers may have equivalent brochures. By the way, what does SID stand for? I didn't find it in the FAQ. Did you mean STD? * * * * * * --> DISCLAIMER: I speak only for myself. <-- * * * * * * Brent Whitlock Beckman Institute for Advanced Science & Technology bwhitlock@uiuc.edu Dept. of Electrical & Computer Engineering University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ------------------------------ Subject: Re: HP-48S as a Phone Dialer? Date: Sun, 07 Feb 93 16:32:24 -0600 From: martin@datacomm.ucc.okstate.edu > A guy that I know wants to use his HP48S as a telephone auto-dialer. > He wanted to know if anyone's tried anything like this. I would be the last person to say that something can't be done, but here is why it might be a pretty good project. My experience is with the HP28 series so the HP48 might be different, but first of all, the sounder in the HP28's is a little piezoelectric speaker that produces a click each time the CPU accesses it. This is similar to the noise makers on the IBM PC's and Apple II.'s which were previously discussed in this group. The sounder makes single-frequency tones pretty easily. In order to make duel-tone signals, it would be necessary to produce a complex pattern of pulses at the speaker. You would need to have assembly-level access to the processor and hope that the system clock is fast enough to produce several thousand samples per second. Patterns stored in memory would eat memory like crazy. Writing timing loops to produce similar signals would also be really fun. I have also noticed that the system clock seems to have some short-term instability which shows up as slight audible changes in the pitch of notes sounded from the calculator and slight variations in timing of the printer output signal which appears on the infrared port. Finally, it might be hard to get enough audio out of that little sounder to produce a valid signal on the telephone, not to mention the lack of equalization. In short, your work is cut out for you. Martin McCormick WB5AGZ Stillwater, OK O.S.U. Computer Center Data Communications Group ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Feb 93 9:46:25 CST From: Will Martin Subject: National Data Superhighways - Access? I believe this topic has been touched on in Telecom in the past, and I'd like to see more discussion about it: There's been recent news coverage of the new administration's plan to set up a data network for general public access that has been referred to as "National Data Superhighways". Publicized examples of the way such a network would be used include such things as letting school students run programs on NASA supercomputers that model weather and other such computing-intensive tasks. What nobody ever mentions in these news items is just what sort of access control and/or security is planned for this environment. After all, for years now, these type of systems have been the target of crackers and thus have had to beef up their system security. Now the government is proposing letting massive numbers of anonymous individuals get access to the very machines they have been trying to protect and close off from such access. Is this a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing, or is there really some sort of plan for setting up specific public-access systems that would be dedicated to this educational use, separate and distinct and in addition to the computers government agencies need to use to do their own work? (If so, who will be paying fior these extra machines -- NASA, for example, can't even afford to store its existing magtape inventory in controlled conditions, much less copy the data to newer-format storage media. Now they're expected to have extra Crays for kids to play on?) Can anyone point me to published references that go into some level of detail as to the practical aspects of implementing this proposal? Regards, Will If header address doesn't work, try: wmartin@st-louis-emh2.army.mil OR wmartin@stl-04sima.army.mil ------------------------------ From: Nigel Allen Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1993 19:00:00 -0500 Subject: Re: Who is Telebec? Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto John R. Levine asks: > Who is Telebec? I thought that Bell Canada was the telco for > all of Quebec. Telebec is a subsidiary of BCE Inc., which also owns Bell Canada. While Bell Canada (which now calls its Quebec division Bell Quebec) is regulated federally by the Canadian Radio- telkevision and Telecommunications Commission, Telebec is regulated provincially by the Quebec Telecommunications Board (Regie des telecommunications du Quebec). I understand that Telebec was created from various independent telephone companies that Bell acquired over the years. Since the Quebec government wanted to retain jurisdiction over the telephone operations that Bell had bought, they were operated as a separate subsidiary. Long distance rates from Telebec points appear to be significantly higher than from Bell Canada points, suggesting that keeping Telebec territory under provincial jurisdiction kepy Quebec nationalists happy, but at the expense of telephone subscribers served by the exchanges in question. There are several other independent telephone companies in Quebec. The largest of them is Quebec-Telephone (based in Rimouski), which is half-owned by GTE Corporation. GTE also owns half of the British Columbia Telephone Company. There are also about 20 independent telephone companies in Ontario. One of them, Northern Telephone Ltd., is owned by BCE Inc. The largest Ontario independent telephone company is the telephone department of the city of Thunder Bay. Nigel Allen nigel.allen@canrem.com Canada Remote Systems - Toronto, Ontario World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Feb 93 10:57:17 PST From: lars@spike.CMC.COM (Lars Poulsen) Subject: Re: Low Cost Access to Network In article Chuck Petch writes: > Does anyone know of a free or low cost network connection for the home > computer user? I have access to Internet at work and would like to > enjoy a similar type of network connection at home, but of course, I > can't afford Internet prices. The times are changing. The days when an Internet connection meant $500K/year for a 56Kbps ARPAnet pipe are long gone. The new low end in turnkey packages is the Rockwell NetHopper. You attach one to your ethernet at home** and the other to the ethernet at work; plug each of them in to a dedicated phone line; spend five minutes configuring each and presto: When packets want to move, the box dials a connection on the built-in modem. When the line is idle, it hangs up. The price is less than $2000 per box, which makes it quite affordable for professional telecommuting. [** Ethernet at home: There are more of those than PBXs at home, I bet!] Too expensive for you ? Don't mind a little tinkering ? Several "freeware" packages are available to use similar technology on PCs and workstations at home, and when configured right, it is all interoperable. And next year, as we all know, those links will not be 14400 bps modems, but 64000 bps ISDN connections. :-) :-) :-) With Vice-President Gore leading the charge, there is a real chance that we will soon have the local county administration on the Internet, title database, zoning maps etc. as well as the local library. Since my workplace first got an Internet connection, I have been excited about bringing this technology "to the people". Now, ten years later, I'm building the products to make that happen. I love it!! Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer Internet E-mail: lars@CMC.COM CMC Network Products / Rockwell Int'l Telephone: +1-805-968-4262 Santa Barbara, CA 93117-3083 TeleFAX: +1-805-968-8256 [Moderator's Note: I love it also! And the really wild part of the whole thing Lars is that even less than a decade ago none of us would have imagined the tremendous growth of the net. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #75 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28439; 9 Feb 93 4:01 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05573 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 9 Feb 1993 01:32:00 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24410 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 9 Feb 1993 01:31:31 -0600 Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1993 01:31:31 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302090731.AA24410@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #76 TELECOM Digest Tue, 9 Feb 93 01:31:30 CST Volume 13 : Issue 76 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Where is a Source For CFRs? (Mike Gordon) Re: PacBell IntraLATA Rate Ripoffs (John David Galt) Re: It's Not a Bug, It's a Feature (Matt Healy) Re: Telephone Costs Go Up in Russia (Timothy E. Buchanan) Re: Wanted: Small (4-12 Line) PBX/Phone System (Wayne Vogel) Re: Hotel Telephone Surcharge (Tony Waddell) Unhappy GTE Representatives (was "Secret" Phone Codes) (Jeff Wasilko) Re: German PCN License (E1) Given to VEBA and Thyssen (H. Shrikumar) Re: Prodigy <> Internet Gateway Almost Finished (Kauto Huopio) California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State (Ken Dykes) Re: SS7 / CID Question (Douglas Scott Reuben) Meet Me at the Power Line (Col. G. L. Sicherman) Re: Salesmen That Won't Quit (Mitch Wagner) Re: Wiring For Multi-Lines on One Jack (Conrad Kimball) Ontario Trivia Answers (Carl Moore) Re: Ontario Trivia Answers (Tony Pelliccio) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: mwgordon@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mike Gordon) Subject: Re: Where is a Source For CFRs? Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept. Date: Tue, 9 Feb 93 01:22:27 GMT Thanks to everyone who replied to my request for a source for the Code of Federal Regulations. Unfortunately, I was looking for an FTP site for them. It seems that the first paragraph of my message got rerouted to the bit bucket. So, my original question stands. Does anyone know of an FTP site for the Code of Federal Regulations? Mike Gordon N9LOI mwgordon@nyx.cs.du.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Feb 93 22:04:01 -0800 From: jdgalt@shell.portal.com (John David Galt) Subject: Re: PacBell IntraLATA Rate Ripoffs I have MCI, and have no problem using it in the Bay Area. Dial 950-1022, wait for tone, dial 0 + ten digit number, wait for tone, dial calling card number. (MCI card, not Pac Bell card.) As Pat says, this is probably illegal, but it's not as if you're ripping anybody off, you're just evading a monopoly that morally shouldn't exist. More power to you. John David Galt Freedom of Lifestyle is an inalienable human right. ------------------------------ From: matt@wardsgi.med.yale.edu (matt healy) Subject: Re: It's Not a Bug, It's a Feature ... Organization: Public Macs, Yale University Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1993 16:23:31 GMT In article , GARRUS@delphi.com wrote: > Another early system I worked on, an IBM 1401, would play music on a > small transistor radio that was tuned between stations. The radio was > placed on top of the CPU. The one song I remember was "Coming 'Round > the Mountain" which also used the 1403 printer as a rhythm section. Early programmable pocket calculators could make neat noises when placed atop radios; I once played around with them. Also, years ago I ran programs from a DECWRITER terminal. I soon learned to tell the difference between program output and error messages (it had a *noisy* dot-matrix printhead; at 30 characters/sec it sounded like a machine gun). I'm away from the lab just now... This message was posted from a public Macintosh at Yale University. The identity of the poster is not necessarily their true one. ------------------------------ From: buchanan@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (BUCHANAN TIMOTHY E) Subject: Re: Telephone Costs Go Up in Russia Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1993 17:22:25 GMT In article shri@unreal.cs.umass.edu (H. Shrikumar) writes: > I just read in {NYTimes} (2 Feb 1993) that (along with several other > costs) in Russia, the telephone costs are being driven up by the > inflationary pressures. > BTW ... are there any readers from Russia, the Ukraine and other CIS > states on this list? It would be interesting to hear your comments and > more! My wife is Russian, and we just got back from a visit there. 106 rubles a month, plus local tolls, will be a burden for most people, since monthly wages are typically 2000-5000 rubles now. Of course, it's still less than a kilo of good sausage from a kiosk, 1000 rubles. A snickers candy bar on the street costs 140 rubles. A telecom story from Russia: public payphones still take either the tiny two or a fifteen kopeck coin, both of which have disappeared from circulation due to the inflation. A man at the Komsomolskaya train station was selling the 15 kopeck coins for 10 rubles each! I bought a dozen for 100 rubles, which meant my calls cost < two cents each. Timothy ------------------------------ From: wvogel@mtholyoke.edu (keeper of the tone) Subject: Re: Wanted: Small (4-12 Line) PBX/Phone System Date: 8 Feb 1993 13:25:57 -0500 Organization: Mount Holyoke College You might also want to check out VODAVI, ISOTEC and MITEL. The first two are hybred key systems and will support all the requirements you stated. The second is a PBX-style switch which will also support your needs. I recommend the sx-20 or sx-50 if you look at the Mitel. wayne telcom dept mount holyoke college wvogel@mtholyoke.edu telcom/alarm service v413-538-2239 f413-538-2050 insert standard disclaimer here ------------------------------ From: aawadde@ns.PacBell.COM (Tony Waddell) Subject: Re: Hotel Telephone Surcharge Organization: Pacific * Bell Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1993 19:27:21 GMT In article bel@kluso.nosc.mil writes: > Some time ago there was a thread about hotels charging to make > a call. This is just to pass on to the world that at least one hotel > is still doing it. Hilton Resort on Hilto Head Island, SC, charges > $0.75 for every call outside of the hotel, even 800 numbers. I was > there and did not find the notice in one of the hotel brochures that > is in the room (second drawer down of a dresser). > This is intended just as a heads up to the world of telecom. I think this is fairly common. I recently stayed at the Horizon Hotel and Casino in Lake Tahoe Nevada. Not only did they charge for ALL calls local, toll free, or otherwise, but if you didn't provide them with a credit card (Mastercard, Visa, etc) at check-in, they disable the phone entirely except for calls withing the hotel. The surcharge was 75 cents and was applied to all outside calls. Tony Waddell ------------------------------ From: Jeff@digtype.airage.com (Jeff Wasilko) Subject: Unhappy GTE Representatives (was "Secret" Phone Codes) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 93 21:18:52 EST Organization: Univ of Fnord; Roslyn's Cafe Div. Reply-To: jeff@digtype.airage.com In regards to article <199302041528.AA14012@delta.eecs.nwu.edu>: > This is what I hate about GTE. "We don't care, we don't have to. > We're the phone company." At this time, GTE is laying off plant > maintenance people left and right, and soon all customer service and > information operators will move from Thousand Oaks, California to > Plano, Texas. I think this is the effect of rate cap regulation, which I've been talking to GTE in Northeastern Virginia (outside of DC). Somehow someone at GTE screwed up our service order to disconnect six lines from an office we closed down. Six months later, we're still getting bills for normal service (despite the fact that the lines were all disconnected and going to referral). In speaking to the various reps, I heard that GTE had just moved them from an office in Southern VA to the Northern VA office six months ago. They just found out that GTE was now planning to close the VA office altogether and move the Customer dis-service operation to Florida. The reps I spoke to on my last call were very helpful in straightening out the billing problem (they offered to re-do the service order and back-date it to get us credit), but they were both very bitter about the way GTE was treating them. They were also worried about the level of service GTE Virgina customers would get when customer service was in Florida. Too bad, GTE. You could learn a few things from Rochester Tel. Jeff Jeff's Oasis at Home. Jeff can also be reached at work at: jwasilko@airage.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1993 02:13:04 -0500 From: shri@unreal.cs.umass.edu (H. Shrikumar) Subject: Re: German PCN License (E1) Given to VEBA and Thyssen Organization: UMass, Amherst MA + Temporal Sys & Computer Networks Bombay India In article diessel@informatik. unibw-muenchen.de wrote: > a PCN network in Germany (called E1) by E-plus ... other was > the E-Star > There are already two GSM networks in Germany, D1 by Telekom > and D2 by Mannesmann Mobilfunk I wonder what the competitive environment is? Would E-plus and E-star compete? What about D1 and D2? If not today, are there plans? Or is there a zonal split? I'd welcome diessel@informatik, or anyone else who knows about these trends there to tell us about the division of the market among these service providers. PS: Wow! The services and companies providing them are also named so methodically!! An admittedly irrational conclusion re. the possible "non"-competitiveness springs in my mind ! :-) Or is it just the fabled German perfection at work ?? shrikumar ( shri@legato.cs.umass.edu ) ------------------------------ From: Kauto.Huopio@lut.fi (Kauto Huopio) Subject: Re: Prodigy <> Internet Gateway Almost Finished Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1993 16:02:26 GMT Organization: Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland In article Bob Hofkin writes: >> I just got a note from Prodigy that advised me to look for Internet >> mail access in January, > BIX has finally put their Internet link into production. Hmm, let me see: bix.com preference = 10, mail exchanger = bix.com bix.com preference = 20, mail exchanger = genvid.com bix.com internet address = 192.80.63.253 genvid.com internet address = 192.80.63.1 genvid.com internet address = 192.80.63.2 genvid.com internet address = 192.80.63.3 genvid.com internet address = 192.80.63.4 genvid.com internet address = 192.80.63.6 So, it might be even possible to get a telnet connection to BIX? Kauto Huopio (huopio@kannel.lut.fi) Mail: Kauto Huopio, Punkkerikatu 1 A 10, SF-53850 Lappeenranta,Finland ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1993 05:15:31 -0500 From: kgdykes@Thinkage.On.CA (Ken Dykes) Subject: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State Recently I received a call from the Glendale area of Los Angeles. I live in southern Ontario CANADA. My Caller-ID box instead of showing out-of-area showed PRIVACY. The call to me was made (and answered) twice in the same night; both times PRIVACY ... some sort of call-blocking was enabled by PacBell. PacBell is being far too kind to the zealots :-) And ... I'm impressed that SS7 is so well connected throughout North America. (And just a month ago I was impressed with getting Ottawa numbers in my area, about 300 miles away :-).) Ken Dykes, Thinkage Ltd., Kitchener, Ontario, Canada [43.47N 80.52W] kgdykes@thinkage.on.ca postmaster@thinkage.com thinkage!kgdykes [Moderator's Note: Are you certain this was PacBell's doing, or was it your caller who entered the privacy mode? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 8-FEB-1993 05:34:04.17 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Re: SS7 / CID Question Hi, A number of question have come up regarding SS7 and CID: 1. Can a 1ESS switch display CID? Are there any software upgrades/hardware upgrades which allow it to do so? 2. Assuming a 1ESS can't offer CID to its local subscribers, if it is connected with SS7 to a 5ESS or a DMS or in general some CID-capable switch, can the 1ESS send out the CID information? That is, what does it take for a switch to send out CID over SS7? Do you just have to "connect" SS7 to that given switch, or is another software package needed to SEND OUT (not display) the originating number via the SS7 protocol? Can a 1ESS support this "send out" package, if such a thing exists? (Or is the "send out" and "local CID" package one and the same?) 3. Can a 1ESS support SS7? I THINK they can, so the reason that you can't get CID from a 1ESS isn't because it can't handle SS7, right? Basically, I am wondering if it is technically possible for a 1ESS (which from what I gather can not support CID) to send out the numbers of people who call FROM the 1ESS to newer, CID-capable machines. Or, is there some technical limitation which prevents the 1ESS from sending out the numbers as well? Every 1ESS that I've tried to get CID info from fails (ie, you call from the 1ESS to a 5ESS that has CID). Is the Telco doing this intentionally, ie, so that customers on the 1ESS who can't hit *67 to make their calls private will not have to show their number to EVERYONE they call, or is it more of a technical reason why one can't get CID from a 1ESS? Thanks for any info ... Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Feb 93 13:39:06 EST From: gls@windmill.att.com Subject: Meet Me at the Power Line Organization: Save the Daleks Foundation In , jack_decker@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org writes: > ... and the reports exaggerate the matter to the point that the kids > are afraid to play underneath the (relatively low voltage) electric > feeder lines that run down the side of the road. > What ALL these reports overlook is the inverse square law. Put > simply, when you are twice as far away from a source of radiation, you > get only one fourth the radiation. On one news report, a guy was > going around measuring the radiation from various household > appliances ... The inverse-square law holds only for point sources. For a line, the corresponding law is straight reciprocal: inversely proportional to the distance from the line. Even with a household appliance, the inverse-square law may not apply. If you're six feet tall and broad in proportion, and are bending over a toaster, you may get more radiation than you would expect from the inverse-square law. I play it safe -- my C.R.T. runs on liquid propane. Col. G. L. Sicherman gls@windmill.att.COM ------------------------------ From: wagner@utoday.com (Mitch Wagner) Subject: Re: Salesmen That Won't Quit Organization: Open Systems Today Date: Mon, 08 Feb 93 18:00:56 GMT I've always thought that if I ever had a salesman that just wouldn't stop phoning, even when I asked them to stop, I would inform them that if they didn't stop calling I would file harassment charges against them with the police. And then if they called back, I would do so. Would this work? mitch w. [Moderator's Note: Depending on where you live, perhaps the police would come out and -- with a very straight look on their faces -- take your complaint, then later on file it away. In places like Chicago, the police probably would not even bother to take the complaint and would refer you instead to a courtroom where you could speak with a judge and ask for an order restraining the caller from contacting you again. Then it would be up to you to serve notice of this order on the offender or pay a sheriff in that jurisdiction to serve the notice. (Mitch to his secretary: "I am driving over to Kalamazoo and Timbuck, too. I am going to look for that guy who called me twice last week after I told him to stop and serve this court order on him. I hope he gave me the right name when he called. I hope he decides to obey the order so I don't have to go back to court again, wait in line for an hour with the court clerk and file another complaint saying he did not obey the first order ..."). Generally I would say the police are ineffectual when it comes to matters like this unless it gets very prolonged, very harassing and (as often as not on the caller's part) very sick. Then they'll trap him and prosecute in a half-hearted way. You are better off calling the company, raising cain and filing a civil suit if your bottom line can justify it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: cek@sdc.boeing.com (Conrad Kimball) Subject: Re: Wiring For Multi-Lines on One Jack Date: 8 Feb 93 19:22:35 GMT Organization: Boeing Computer Services, Seattle, WA In article , rsiatl!turner@rsiatl.UUCP writes: > 4) Any damn way the installer wants it. :-) Listed above are two ways > of pairing pins. With four pins there are 4! or 24 different ways to > number the pairs, resulting in 48 different combinations. Not quite right. If all four pins are considered to be distinct then there are 4! or 24 permutations of four pins. There is no need for your final multiplication by two, If that was intended to account for swapping polarity in each pair then you've already accounted for that situation by assuming that each pin is distinct. (To help see why, consider a single pair of pins. Your algorithm would predict 2! ways to number the pair, times another two, for four combinations, when we can intuitively see that the answer must be just two.) If you want to keep polarity out of the analysis until the end, you should proceed by considering how many combinations of pairs of pins (where pins are indistinct within a pair) can be drawn from a set of four pins -- the answer is 4!/(2!*2!) or six combinations (look in a statistics book under "combinatorics"). Then, each pair can be permuted 2! ways (the polarity issue), and since there are two pairs in the set of four pins, we get six combinations of pairs * 2! permutations of pair #1 * 2! permutations of pair #2, or 6*2*2 = 24, which agrees with the original 4! answer. Conrad Kimball | Client Server Tech Services, Boeing Computer Services cek@sdc.boeing.com | P.O. Box 24346, MS 7A-35 (206) 865-6410 | Seattle, WA 98124-0346 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Feb 93 12:12:54 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Ontario Trivia Answers This is to be the followup to the message sent regarding Ontario area code trivia. Area Code Trivia Answers! 1. A. 416 and 613. 2. A. 1953--(519), 1957--(705), 1962--(807). 3. A. None. 4. A. New York, Los Angeles and Baltimore. 5. A. 0 and 1, as they are reserved for the operator and long distance. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Feb 93 20:19:12 EST From: Tony Pelliccio Subject: Ontario Trivia Answer The only two digits that can't be used as the first digit of an area code are 0 and 1. Tony ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #76 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01475; 9 Feb 93 5:36 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12258 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 9 Feb 1993 02:25:07 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28954 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 9 Feb 1993 02:24:40 -0600 Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1993 02:24:40 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302090824.AA28954@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #77 TELECOM Digest Tue, 9 Feb 93 02:24:40 CST Volume 13 : Issue 77 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cellular Phones Are Carcinogens? (Mark Walsh) Re: Cellular Phones Are Carcinogens? (Scott D. Fybush) Re: Cellular Phones Are Carcinogens? (Gregory Youngblood) Re: When Does 800 = 900? (John R. Levine) Re: When Does 800 = 900? (Daniel Burstein) Re: New Twist to Caller ID (John Higdon) Re: New Twist to Caller ID (Carl Moore) Re: Standard Dialing Plan (Calif.) (Carl Moore) Re: AT&T Public Phone 2000 (Michael H. Brand) Re: Hilton Hotel Telephone Surcharge (Dave Levenson) Re: "Secret" Phone Codes (Shawn Nunley) Jack Decker's FTP Problem (Aninda Dasgupta) Re: Using Fax Machine + Fax Modem as a Scanner (Ronald Elliott) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: walsh@optilink.com (Mark Walsh) Subject: Re: Cellular Phones Are Carcinogens? Date: 8 Feb 93 23:17:46 GMT Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA From article , by ruck@beta.ee.ufl.edu (John R. Ruckstuhl Jr.): > In article jack_decker@f8.n154.z1. > fidonet.org (Jack Decker) writes: >> What they didn't point out was that at only a foot away from that >> appliance, the radiation would be only 1/144th of the radiation >> at one inch. > Just a point of information -- I think that "inverse square law" is > only applicable to point-source radiation. For line-source radiation > (e.g. from transmission lines) intensity diminishes linearly with > distance for plane-source radiation, intensity doesn't diminish at all > with distance. Now *that* would be a gain antenna! :-) But seriously folks, the handheld phone antennas are at least as omnidirectional as your theoretical 1/4 wave antenna because people never seem to orient these things vertically. Just makes me wonder; what is car phone performance like for those folks who like to lay down their antenna so it is almost horizontal as if they've just done mach 0.25 or something ... Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh AOL: BigCookie -- Amateur Radio: KM6XU@WX3K -- USCF: L10861 ------------------------------ From: fybush@world.std.com (Scott D Fybush) Subject: Re: Cellular Phones Are Carcinogens? Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1993 02:48:39 GMT The {Boston Sunday Herald} of February 7, 1993 includes an article rehashing the cellphone/cancer "controversy", including a mention that the only phones causing concern are handheld cellulars, not car-mounted cellulars or cordless phones. So what photo do they have illustrating the article? You guessed it, a guy on a Brookline streetcorner yakking away on a *BAG PHONE*! I work in the media, and even I think the press that's been given to the whole issue is way out of line ... and wildly inaccurate much of the time. One TV reporter in Boston (who I'm embarrassed to admit works for the same company I do :-( ) did a whole report on the potential dangers of high-voltage power transmission lines, then ended the report by interviewing a family that lives under the big *broadcast TV and FM* towers in Needham/Newton, Mass. If reporters can't even distinguish their own transmitting tower from a high-voltage power line, we're all in worse trouble than we thought. Scott Fybush -- fybush@world.std.com ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Cellular Phones Are Carcinogens? From: tcscs!zeta@src.honeywell.com (Gregory Youngblood) Reply-To: zeta%tcscs@src.honeywell.com Date: Mon, 08 Feb 93 11:59:36 CST Organization: TCS Consulting Services jack.decker@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org (Jack Decker) writes: > The issues surrounding the topic of possible negative health effects > from cellular phone use are going to be among the hottest (no pun > intended) in coming years. > Concerns about health effects from hand-held radios have been around > for a long time. But with the millions of people using continuously > transmitting, ultra high frequency units who never did before, some > new dimensions are added to the picture -- and they are definitely > worthy of serious consideration. It is interesting to note that a local TV station in Minneapolis/St. Paul MN took some measuring equipment (didn't catch what it was exactly) and took several measurements. The hand-held two way radios the station used put out more of whatever they were measuring. Cellular phones came in the same category as TV screens and computer monitors, far lower than the two way radios. I sould point out though I didn't catch the entire excerpt, so it may be they were measuring residual radiation or something like that. Greg TCS Consulting Services P.O. Box 600008 St. Paul, MN 55106-0008 Mail-server requests to: mail-server%tcscs@idss.nwa.com zeta%tcscs@src.honeywell.com or zeta%tcscs@idss.nwa.com ..!srcsip!tcscs!zeta or ..!guppy!tcscs!zeta ------------------------------ Subject: Re: When Does 800 = 900? Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 8 Feb 93 15:09:49 EST (Mon) From: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) > An IXC company called ATN is promoting the use of 800 numbers assigned > to it as a means of getting around 900 call restrictions. For example: > You might dial 1-800-697-1110 thinking that it is a free call. Stay on > the line long enough and the real time ANI number for the phone you > are on will be charged for a collect call at 900 rates! > [Moderator's Note: At least they call back collect, rather than just > converting it to 900, ... No they don't -- like he said, stay on the line and ATN will fabricate a collect call that never happened. This strikes me as an inherently fraudulent procedure since in many cases if they in fact hung up and called back, the collect call it would reach an attendant who would reject it or the line might not even be able to receive incoming calls. If they really did hang up and call back collect, I'd think that'd be a legitimate business technique, certainly if they warned the callee-to-be what the collect charge would be. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl [Moderator's Note: I called it again to be certain. The message says, "in just a minute you will receive a collect call back from ATN ... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ when we call you, if you accept the call the charges will be $2 per ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ minute. That seems pretty clear. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dannyb@Panix.Com (Daniel Burstein) Subject: Re: When Does 800 = 900? Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1993 10:41:37 GMT In ken@wybbs.mi.org (Ken Jongsma) writes: > ATN is apparently smart enough to check some line records. Calls from > the LEC payphones I tried get a recording stating that the 800 number > is not valid from the area I was calling from. Calls from a hotel in ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ note #1 > the same area went through just fine. > Can you imagine what this is going to do for colleges, businesses and > others that don't have ATN assigned 800 exchanges blocked? Yuck. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ note #1, #2 Response notes from dannyb@panix.com: 1: Since many hotels and other groups may be routing their calls through distant locations, the restriction-by-area deal may not work. 2: While at this point "800" number prefixes (the "abc" in 1-800-abc-defg) define the company, this is being phased out. pretty soon, each company will be able to grab each and every prefix. i.e. tele-sleaze might have 1-800-abc-1232, while tele-rip might have 1-800-abc-1212. dannyb@panix.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Feb 93 11:52 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: New Twist to Caller ID kevin@ferris.cray.com (Kevin Bluml) writes: > This is the first thing I've heard about CID in Minnesota, I wish > they'd just offer it to everyone with the various hearings and > blocking options that other states have discussed. This seems like a > really backwards way of starting it up in the state. You talk about backwards. Count your blessings; you might be stuck with Caller ID, California Style (none). Since Caller ID is now becoming commonplace throughout the country, a number of businesses have developed new services that take advantage of the technology. One of them involves the ordering of Pay-Per-View cable features. My local cable company has the customer call the PPV order number while the cable box is set to the desired channel, at which time the PPV program is enabled automatically. How does it do this without CNID? With a MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE 800 number is how. Of course, this expense is reflected in our stratospheric cable rates. California -- the land of innovative technology -- NOT! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Feb 93 17:27:46 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: New Twist to Caller ID I take it there is some sort of regulatory commission which could take up possible "redlining" of some phone prefixes? A phone prefix is an even less precise means of pinpointing a location than a five-digit U.S. zipcode. In Wilmington, Delaware, the downtown prefixes are also found in the expensive Greenville-Centerville area (going northwest on state route 52). ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Feb 93 15:20:11 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Standard Dialing Plan (Calif.) What about those parts of California served by, say, GTE? I understand the southern part of 408 has continued to publish 1+ (area code if different from yours) +7D for long distance. Is that what is published in 209, 916, 707 and 619? (For example, what do the Sacramento and Fresno phone books have to say?) Obviosly, 1 + 7D would reduce to just 7D. 213, 310, 818, 714, 909, 415, 510 already have the new scheme because they had to accommodate N0X/N1X prefixes. I recall some blurb about 805 also dropping the leading 1 for long distance within it. In area 215 in Pennsylvania, Bell of Pa. published the change to "no 1"; i.e., 1+7D became 7D within 215. Some remote parts of 215 are not under Bell of Pa., but as far as I know they made that change (such as at Birdsboro) except for what I noted (in the archives) for Denver and Adamstown (which will eventually make that change also). ------------------------------ From: mhb@chinet.chi.il.us (Michael H. Brand) Subject: Re: AT&T Public Phone 2000 Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1993 05:42:07 GMT I used an AT&T Public Phone 2000 last Friday (2/4/93) at the Omaha, Ne Airport just outside Gate 11. The keyboard was NOT disabled; things were working great. Perhaps this phone was forgotten, or they are ALL enabled now? Mike ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: Hilton Hotel Telephone Surcharge Organization: Westmark, Inc. Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1993 04:15:12 GMT I regularly stay at the Hilton in Pikesville, MD. I routinely call my own 800 number to `phone home' the inexpensive way. The hotel imposes what they call a `nominal' charge of 75 cents to handle this call. The inbound 800 call is usually to the modem, and usually takes less than a minute, resulting in a charge from the 800 service provider of eleven cents. A 75 cent surcharge on call that costs 11 cents is hardly nominal! The Hilton in San Jose does not impose a surcharge on 800 calls. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ From: shawnn@Novell.COM (Shawn Nunley) Subject: Re: "Secret" Phone Codes Organization: Novell Inc., San Jose, Califonia Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1993 00:21:31 GMT tompkins@tti.com (Tompkins) writes: > In one of those discussions, about a year ago, a number was posted > that purported to work nationally: 10732-1-404-988-9664. Here's an interesting note. Our company is already on SDN, so when I try to dial 10732 ... I get a fast busy right away (from our Definity Generic III switch). So, I tried just dialing 404-988-9664 and it worked. Since our switch is already on the network, and therefore already programmed to append the 10732, it was snap. Also, the numbers recited after the actual phone number + 8 were 8880000465. Is this some routing information maybe? Internet: Shawn_Nunley@novell.com UUCP: {ames,sun,apple,mtxinu,cae780,sco} !novell!shawn Shawn Nunley Tel: (408) 473-8630 ------------------------------ From: add@philabs.philips.com (Aninda Dasgupta) Subject: Jack Decker's FTP Problem Organization: Philips Laboratories, Briarcliff, New York Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1993 14:41:35 GMT By looking at Jack Decker's traceroute output, it seems that his TCP packets are going through too many gateways. Though these gateways (the ones run by ANS and MERIT) are fast boxes (often RS/6000 boxes), and though they are for the most part connected by T3 links, his TCP packets are just not getting to mintaka in time. You see, every TCP packet has a "Time-to-live" field. As the packet goes through each gateway, or "hop," as they are called in TCP parlance, the Time-to-live (TTL) field is decremented. As is shown by traceroute, when the packet reaches a node that sees a value of 0 in the TTL field, it simply discards the packet and echoes back to the original sender that the packet's TTL has expired. [For further reading on this topic, see Douglas Comer's excellent book "Internetworking with TCP/IP"] It is interesting to note that often, Jack's packets seems to reach very close to mintaka. What can be done to rectify this problem? The most obvious, though often impossible, thing to do is to change the default of 60 seconds for the TCP TTL that is compiled into the UNIX (or other OS) TCP software. I have done this in UNIX so I will describe that. Editing the file in_proto.c and changing the default of 60 assigned to the variable named tcp_ttl, to something like 120, should work. After the editing, the kernel will have to be rebuilt (using make). Alternatively, experienced UNIX admins. can use the adb debugger to patch the changes into the kernel that is already running. Both these solutions require root access to the host that Jack is dialing into. In case root access to the dialup host is not available, Jack might try connecting to a different host, preferably in a different part of the country than from where he is trying. As I said, it is simply a matter of getting to mintaka with a few less hops on the Internet. Often, trying ftp from a "larger" host helps. By larger, I mean a host that is directly on the 35.1 domain. That way, he will save the two hops that he has on the 35.214 domain. I suspect, a saving of just two hops is all he needs, since he has been able to get to radole.lcs.mit.edu. Moreover, he should try to ftp late at night, when the other usual TCP traffic will be less and therefore, his TCP packets will get to mintaka faster, hopefully before the 60 sec. TTL. Hope this verbose description helps. I tried to email to Jack directly, but somehow, with our new Internet gateway configuration, the mail bounced. Aninda DasGupta (add@philabs.philips.com) Ph:(914)945-6071 Fax:(914)945-6552 Philips Labs\n 345 Scarborough Rd\n Briarcliff Manor\n NY 10510 [Moderator's Note: In a way, I am glad your mail did bounce, as you have provided an excellent reply to Jack's question, and mentioned something many of us would not have considered. Thanks! PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Feb 93 11:51:56 PST (GMT-7) Reply-To: ronell@caron.ati.com Organization: Science and Technology Center, Apple Valley Ca. From: ronell@caron.ati.com Subject: Re: Using Fax Machine + Fax Modem as a Scanner In comp.dcom.telecom, article , is written: > How can I use a standalone fax machine as a scanner? > I would like to be able to plug my fax machine into my pc fax/modem, > and press a few buttons, and end up with a fax format file of whatever > was on the sheet of paper ... > Has anyone managed this? I've tried with not much success so far ... > Any ideas appreciated. What I have done is plugged my fax machine into my first line and dialed my fax/modem on the second line with no problem. What you are trying to do would require a knowledge of the codes your fax modem uses to cause it to go offhook then online in fax mode, or to determine if a call is fax or data. For example, the Hayes "standard" says *ATH1* should cause a *modem* to go offhook, then *ATO* takes it online. If you then give the other *modem* an ATC1 it should detect the handshake and the two should talk. If you can accomplish that with your fax/modem in *fax* mode, you're good to go. Ronald Elliott Science and Technology Center ronell@caron.ati.com P.O. Box 818 (619)243-2595 Apple Valley, Ca 92307 (619)242-3514 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #77 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15177; 10 Feb 93 5:09 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08964 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 10 Feb 1993 02:21:02 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01691 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 10 Feb 1993 02:20:33 -0600 Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1993 02:20:33 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302100820.AA01691@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #78 TELECOM Digest Wed, 10 Feb 93 02:20:30 CST Volume 13 : Issue 78 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson A Whole New Ball Game - Sport Broadcasts via Phone (FIDO via Don Kimberlin) AT&T Are You Listening? (Laurence Chiu) PhoneStation -- A New Mailing List (Jody Kravitz) Pacific Bell Caller ID (Todd Lesser) SecureClear Model 100 Demo Let Down (Rob Bailey) Live From AT&T Bell Labs Teleconference (Tom Flavell) Text of MFJ Wanted (ghadsal@american.edu) Seeking Older Telrad Telephone Instruments (Tom Betz) Steve Jackson Games Articles Wanted (Gregory Youngblood) Smart Talk Network Restricts Some Calls (FIDO/Chris Farrar via D. Leibold) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1993 02:14:27 -0500 From: Don.Kimberlin@f730.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Don Kimberlin) Subject: A Whole New Ball Game - Sport Broadcasts via Phone [Originally posted in Fidonet's BROADCAST conference] TELECOMMUNICATIONS MAKES IT A WHOLE NEW BALL GAME One of the more common limitations suffered by smaller radio broadcasters is maintaining carriage of local sports teams when their town's team is on the road. When economically possible, the small station has classically ordered a "Schedule D program transmission channel" from the phoneco, and aired a remote broadcast from as far away as the broadcaster could afford. (The "Schedule D channel" is one common name for an ordinary telephone message channel of 3 kHz bandwidth supplied for program use.) But, dramatic increases in charges for such channels coupled with more and more curtailed offering of them by the phonecos has made it ever more difficult for the local broadcaster to provide live sports coverage of "the hometown club" when it's out on the road. Now, it looks as though a new twist in telephone communications could make obtaining out-of-town coverage as easy as a dial-up phone call. An Akron, Ohio company called TRZ Communications has started a dial-in 800 offering called "Teamline" that offers callers telephonic connection to listen to any of about 3,500 live radio broadcasts of high school, college and NFL football games, major league baseball, hockey, basketball and auto racing. The founder of TRZ Communications, Tom R. Zawistowski, is a former college athletic director who perceived a merket exists for people who wanted to be able to hear their favorite team from anywhere a telephone could reach. He said the idea first came to his mind in 1982 when many alumni of William & Mary College of Williamsburg, Virginia, where he was then athletic director, complained of not being able to keep up with their alma mater's team play-by-play. Using a large PBX, TRZ offers dial-in customers to its 800 numbers their choice of a wide range of sporting events, and more recently has expanded offerings to special programs in fields like business, education and medicine. The entire operation at TRZ is automated to the extent that a caller dials in on an 800 number, selects the broadcast they want with a four-digit number, and then is prompted to enter a credit card number, which is automatically verified, after which the connection to the selected program is made. Local flagship radio stations are the source of the programs, for which they recieve a portion of the proceeds of each call. Rates are much like an ordinary phone call, starting at 50 cents a minute, decreasing to 20 cents per minute for long calls. The current price schedule makes a three-hour game cost about $36.00, but TRZ expects that with increased usage, the cost can be reduced to about $6.00 for a three-hour game within five years. So, it looks as though a means to provide occasional program service for local radio stations has been developed and is available through TRZ Communications of Akron, Ohio. With some 3,500 events already available, it is obvious a large number of local stations already know of TRZ, since they are sources for its programs, while many others may now be ready to take advantage of TRZ's output. Dialing up an occasional program line to get an out-of-town live sports event...what a far cry from the struggle of setting up a one-time program channel of just a few years ago ... and with 800 numbers to dial, to boot! Don Kimberlin - via FidoNet node 1:250/98 INTERNET: Don.Kimberlin@f730.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG [Moderator's Note: It was quite common for many years to relay sports events back to the local radio station via telegraph. I remember very well listening to the Chicago Cubs when they were broadcast by radio station WIND (560 AM) back in the 1950's. Games at home were carried live, and games away from home were read by the announcer direct from the ticker machine. When the ticker machine would slow down or stop for awhile, the announcer would play music; then after the record finished he would resume reading the stuff which came over the wire from the baseball stadium until he got to the end of it; then if more had come out of the machine he would read it also, otherwise he would play another record. PAT] ------------------------------ From: LCHIU@HOLONET.NET Subject: AT&T Are You Listening? Organization: HoloNet National Internet Access BBS: 510-704-1058/modem Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1993 04:05:25 GMT Some comments on AT&T and MCI international calling plans -- My current LD carrier is AT&T. I call NZ and Australia a bit and my wife calls China. I am currently subscribed to ATT's Reach Out World Plan which gives me 20% discounts on all calls made in off-peak hours. The trouble is China is not included in ROW. But for some inconsistent reason China is included in their Special Country plan which offers discounts for calling one specified country at any time. The trouble you cannot have both plans and if I sign up for SC then I lose all discounts to Aust/NZ. Calling China is especially costly since my wife has to make a quick one minute call to alert the parties that she will be calling later (her parents do not have a phone in the home). The first minute charge for calls to China are outrageous (up to $5 in peak times and no less than $3.) I am thinking about MCI instead. They have a similar plan to ROW (don't remember the name) with similar rates but also they have Friends and Family. I can denote two international numbers F&F (China is allowed) and thus get savings to all the international destinations I call. I don't want to switch carriers. I like AT&T. Their lines are good (I've made consistent 14.4 connects all over the country using my cheap Supra modem), their customer service very friendly etc. But they just don't offer the calling plans I want. Anyway MCI advertise all the time on our local channel which carries Chinese broadcasting, in both Cantonese and Mandarin with toll-free numbers you can call which are answered by Chinese speaking operators so my wife is always asking me why I don't use MCI! I cannot explain modems to her that easily! So if there are any AT&T people out there who can pass on these comments to the powers that be, please do so. You may be losing another customer to the opposition. Laurence Chiu lchiu@holonet.net [Moderator's Note: Are you sure this is AT&T's fault or that of the local telco which does AT&T's billing? For some six or eight months after AT&T started Reach Out World with the additional ten percent discount on domestic calls granted in that program, IBT customers could not have it since IBT was unable to get the billing correct. What had to happen was each month I was told by AT&T that they would get a copy of my bill, examine it and manually correct it, issuing credits as required. You might want to specifically inquire if AT&T is saying they do not offer the arrangement you are seeking *or* if they do but your local telco (if that is who bills your AT&T calls) is not up to speed on it, and if so, can you have it with AT&T issuing the required credits manually. They might say yes! PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Feb 93 18:57:23 PST From: kravitz@foxtail.com Subject: PhoneStation -- A New Mailing List During the Winter USENIX Technical Conference in San Diego, Stephen Uhler of Bellcore presented the paper: PhoneStation, Moving the Telephone onto the Virtual Desktop Uhler described a research project involving an pots-line interface he built for a Sun SparcStation and a programming language based on an extension of John Osterhout's TCL (U.C.Berkeley). The TCL extensions provide for call progress monitoring, text-to-speech conversion, phone line control, exception handling, etc. Demonstration programs were presented showing how easy it is to build an answering machine or voice-mail system. Uhler believes that one of the reasons that many menu-based voice-mail systems are so clumsy is that the languages used to code them are themselves clumsy. Those who have programmed existing commercial voice-mail systems would appreciate the example programs from the paper. During the question-answer session which followed the presentation of the paper, a number of issues were brought up: Will (or can) Bellcore license the language and/or the interface design? Will this work be put in the public domain? Could the programming language be adapted to support existing hardware platforms such as Watson boards? What additional extensions to the language would be appropriate? How should ISDN be supported? I suggested that a mailing list be set up. The response appeared favorable and it appears that Uhler will participate. With thanks to Brent Chapman, the mailing list has now been set up as: PhoneStation@GreatCircle.Com A "digestified" version, which transmits all of the day's traffic in a single message is also available as: PhoneStation-Digest@GreatCircle.Com These lists are currently accepting "subscribe" requests as described below. After the initial flurry (we hope) of subscription requests have died down, I'll enable the list for traffic and send a welcome message to everyone on the list. How to subscribe: GreatCircle.Com uses a new list management system called "majordomo". (majordomo: a person who speaks, makes arrangements, or takes charge for another.) To subscribe, send mail to "majordomo@GreatCircle.Com" containing the following in the body (the subject line is ignored) of the message: help subscribe PhoneStation or help subscribe PhoneStation-Digest You may optionally specify an e-mail address at the end of the subscribe line if you want to. I'm looking forward to some lively discussion. Jody Kravitz ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Feb 93 20:59 PST From: todd@silo.info.com (Todd Lesser) Reply-To: Todd Lesser Subject: Pacific Bell Caller ID In the February 1993 issue of {Phone + Magazine}: "Pacific Bell Drops Caller ID Plans" "Pacific Bell announced it will not offer Caller ID service in California at this time because California Public Utilities Commission requirements prevent it from offering customers a viable service at a reasonable price. However, the company plans to offer three other services - Call Trace, Call Screen and Call Return - beginning next month. Caller ID was approved in California with a free line blocking requirement, in addition to the free per-call blocking option proposed by Pacific Bell. Additionally, California requires that unlisted customers receive locking authomatically. This automatic line blocking, say Pacific Bell officials, makes it economically impossible for the company to offer Caller ID service at this time. The new services to be introduced will help people avoid unwanted calls and return missed calls. Call Trace permits subscribers to automatically trace a disturbing or threatening call - the number is captured by Pacific Bell and released to law enforcement authorities when a police report is filed. Call Screen rejects calls from as many as 10 specified phone numbers. Call Return lets subscribers automatically return the last call received, whether the call actually was answered." Todd Lesser Info Connections (619) 459-7500 Voice (619) 459-4600 Fax or ------------------------------ Date: 09 Feb 93 22:03:57 EST From: Rob Bailey <74007.303@CompuServe.COM> Subject: SecureClear Model 100 Demo Let Down I couldn't resist ... I was attracted to the cheazy display by the (otherwise without-function) blinking red LED. It said "For a demonstration of the Motorola Secure-Clear technology, press the button" (or at least something like that). I held my breath, and pressed ... and ... As reported previously here, it was just voice inversion. So ... I whipped out the handy-dandy pocket tape recorder and recorded the demo - about 20 seconds of clear text wrapped around about five seconds of scrambled speech. I might point out I specifically remember the demo saying that the scrambling "prevented" eavsdropping. I take issue with that; "thwart" or "slows down", but not "prevented". Out to the car. I played the demo over my handheld (two-way radio) w/o turning on the scrambler, and I listened over the car-radio with the descrambler turned on. I expected to hear something really juicy like "We're the Motorola design team" or "Hi, Mom". But what I actually got was the last couple of seconds of the following sentence (the part in []'s has been extrapolated by me, since for whatever reason it was apparently clipped from the demo): [This is the Motorola] model 100 operating in half-scrambled mode." What a let down. Anyway, now you all know what it says. By the way, for those of you that think I'm not listening, my VHF-Loband mobile radio has a scrambler/descrambler on it and I do have the cordless phone frequencies programmed into channels I1 through J9, so be careful what you say. Of course, I'd never violate the ECPA, though. Rob Bailey, WM8S or 74007.303@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: tflavell@pbs.org Subject: Live From AT&T Bell Labs Teleconference Date: 9 Feb 93 10:47:56 EST Please contact the Education Services Director at your local PBS station if you are interested in seeing this program broadcast locally. To register as a downlink site, simply E-mail TFLAVELL@PBS.ORG. LIVE FROM AT&T BELL LABS, the third annual NSTW Teleconference of AT&T Bell Labs, will be fed to stations live on Wednesday, April 28, 10-11 am, ET /D. The teleconference will feature hosts David Heil, of PBS's NEWTONS APPLE, Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate and Bell Labs' vice president of research, introducing celebrities like Penn & Teller and the Flying Karamazov Brothers to students across America. Penn & Teller, magicians and pranksters, will explore what scientists "really" do in their laboratories when nobody is looking. The Flying Karamazov Brothers, world renown jugglers, will demonstrate the relationship between juggling, mathematics and physics. Between segments on communications in the year 2003, the on- going revolutions in microelectronics and software, and features on minorities and women in science, students will have the opportunity to ask questions of researchers and developers. In addition to transmission on PBS's Spacenet IV, LIVE FROM BELL LABS will be available to schools on AT&T Telstar 302's C and KU- band transponders. On April 28, the program will be broadcast live from 10-11am ET and rebroadcast on Telstar 302's C and KU- band transponders at 11am, 12, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 pm ET. For more information on these feeds or program content, call Brian Monahan, AT&T Bell Labs, (908) 582-4760. To register as a downlink site, simply call Tom Flavell at (703) 739-5402 or E-mail him at TFLAVELL@PBS.ORG Free posters and curriculum guides are available from: LIVE FROM AT&T BELL LABS, 600 Mountain Avenue, Room 3A-309, Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636. Off-air taping rights: Unlimited. Duplication rights granted. ------------------------------ Organization: The American University - University Computing Center Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1993 15:49:31 EST From: GHADSAL@AMERICAN.EDU Subject: Text of MFJ Wanted Doesn anyone have a full text copy of the Modified Final Judgement (MFJ) from divestiture? If so, please email to me at: ghadsal@american.edu ------------------------------ From: tbetz@Panix.Com (Tom Betz) Subject: Seeking Older Telrad Telephone Instruments Organization: Betz & Associates Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1993 19:19:10 GMT While we're saving our nickels and dimes to replace our aging Telrad key/BX, I need to add a couple of extensions to it. Unfortunately, as this model system was discontinued about a year after it was installed in 1984, I can't get them from the company who sold them to us originally; they no longer support this system. Also unfortunately, it is an oddball binary system, so just any telephone won't work with it. I would appreciate any help in finding vendors for used/reconditioned/ new telephone instruments with the Telrad catalog numbers 83-050-0100 or 83-050-0000. These numbers have a /0 or /1 following them on the units we have. Please respond to this account, or to tom_betz@execnet.com. Thanks. Tom Betz -- 512 Warburton Avenue - Yonkers, NY 10701-1832 -- (914) 375-1510 tbetz@panix.com | "It's a sick world... | tbetz@upaya.panix.com ------------------------------ Subject: Steve Jackson Games Articles Wanted From: tcscs!zeta@src.honeywell.com (Gregory Youngblood) Reply-To: zeta%tcscs@src.honeywell.com Date: Wed, 10 Feb 93 00:10:39 CST Organization: TCS Consulting Services Could the person who sent the reports of the Steve Jackson trials please contact me? I was only able to find days one, two and possibly three of the trials, but then it ended leaving me in suspense about what happened next. Please contact me at any of the addresses below. Thanks, Greg TCS Consulting Services P.O. Box 600008 St. Paul, MN 55106-0008 Mail-server requests to: mail-server%tcscs@idss.nwa.com zeta%tcscs@src.honeywell.com or zeta%tcscs@idss.nwa.com ..!srcsip!tcscs!zeta or ..!guppy!tcscs!zeta [Moderator's Note: So far as I know, only three articles were issued in the most recent batch, covering the three days of the trial. I do not think any further reports have come out, because the judge has not yet ruled. I believe following the three days of testimony, the judge took the matter under advisement and stated he would rule at a later time, which is where we are at now, waiting for the court's findings and decision. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1993 02:11:32 -0500 From: Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Dave Leibold) Subject: Smart Talk Network Restricts Some Calls [Author is Chris Farrar, as originally posted on Fidonet PHONES conference ... STN is a long distance resale company.] Smart Talk Network included a notice with this month's phone bill regarding changes dialing outgoing calls, and restrictions on where calls may be placed to: Calls to area code 809 will not be permitted from STN's North American access number 1-800-STN-2-STN Calls originating from the following area codes will not be permitted over the STN network: Area code 212 - New York (Manhattan); area code 718 - Brooklyn, Bronx, Queens, Statan Island. The notice also goes on to tell how to dial a call from a pay phone, and the common sense information about not giving out your card number or pin to anyone, and make sure no-one is watching over your shoulder when you dial calls. Chris ---------- Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:250/98 INTERNET: Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #78 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05613; 10 Feb 93 14:51 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25480 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 10 Feb 1993 10:38:47 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31057 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 10 Feb 1993 10:38:03 -0600 Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1993 10:38:03 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302101638.AA31057@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #79 TELECOM Digest Wed, 10 Feb 93 10:38:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 79 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson What It Could Come To ... (FIDO via Don Kimberlin) Bell Canada/BC Tel Telecom Public Notice CRTC #9314 (Adele Ponty) Current Switched56 (tm) DSU/CSU Vendors Needed (Ronal Thompson) ADSI Standard Information Wanted (Barry Kominik) Second Line Non-Pub/Unlisted? (Dan Lanciani) SMDS Question (Sean Malloy) TCP Time-to-Live (TTL) Field (Mark Boolootian) Client Server Computing? (Matthew Lucas) CoinSoft Software Wanted (Kurtis MacFerrin) GTE Does It Again (David Gast) Overseas Chat Lines (Jason Garner) Yellow Pages Data on Disk Wanted (Lynne Gregg) Oldtown, MD Revisited (Carl Moore) Telephone Malaprops (FIDO via Don Kimberlin) BIX Gateway (John R. Levine) Re: Number Identifier Attempts From Canada (Dave Leibold) Re: Calling a Roaming Cellular Customer (Bob Frankston) Re: ISDN Basic Rate Access (Fred R. Goldstein) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1993 02:10:49 -0500 From: Don.Kimberlin@f730.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Don Kimberlin) Subject: What It Could Come To ... [crossposted from Fidonet's FCC conference] Here's a news kicker originally posted by Bill Oxner in Fido's Asian_Link. It tells what the public reaction could get to if the phonecos in the U.S. don't shape up: Tongue-tied Thais blast phone company BANGKOK, Reuter - A powerful bomb that damaged a telecommunications office in eastern Thailand on Monday may have been planted by customers angered by the shortage of working phone booths, residents said. Local residents said they believed the bomb might have been planted by customers angered because many public telephones in Chantaburi province had been out of order for months. They said people had recently taken to laying black funeral wreaths next to broken public phones. Police said the bomb shattered windows at the provincial telephone centre and destroyed five booths. Don Kimberlin - via FidoNet node 1:250/98 INTERNET: Don.Kimberlin@f730.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ From: aponty@utcc.utoronto.ca (Adele Ponty) Subject: Bell Canada/BC Tel Telecom Public Notice CRTC #9314 Organization: UTCC Public Access Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1993 14:26:18 -0500 Many people may still be unaware of the application Bell Canada made last fall with the CRTC, to eliminate the free directory assistance service currently available. If approved, Bell will no longer offer free 411 calls made publically, free long distance directory enquiries and directory assistance requested by the blind and visually impaired. Apparently, Bell Canada's argument for the elimination of this service is based on their view that revenue from calls made on competing phone networks are in part, generated by callers making these 411 enquiries at Bell's expense. If you disagree with Bell's application or have an opinion I strongly urge you to send it in writing to the CRTC. The application in question is called CRTC Telecom Public Notice #9314 and the deadline for submission is March 1st. The address is Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, Ottawa Ontario K1A 0N2. You can send it to the attention of Mr. A. J. Darling, Secretary General. INTERNET: aponty@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca UUCP: wheaties@intacc.uucp (bbs) aponty@nsq.uucp (alternate) BELL: (416) 652-8072 FAX:416-653-1654 ------------------------------ From: ronal@telebit.com (Ronal Thompson) Subject: Current Switched56 (tm) DSU/CSU Vendors Needed Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1993 22:15:12 GMT I am currently in search of vendors that carry Switched56 DSU/CSU products. We are expanding our evaluation and compatibility process and require information of current vendors. Our list now includes: AstroCom St. Paul MN 1-612-227-8651 AT&T San Mateo, CA 1-415-513-6300 Dowty Cherry Hill, NJ 1-301-317-7710 General Datacomm Middlebury, CN 1-800-243-1030 NEC San Jose, CA Motorola Mannfield, MA Contact information for these vendors came from the 1991 Network World and I _hope_ that more exist now. Many thanks in advance for your help. Ron ronal@telebit.com These ain't no opinions but my own! R.THOMPSON65 GEnie MJWG99A Prodigy ------------------------------ From: barryb@mindvox.phantom.com (Barry Kominik) Subject: ADSI Standard Information Wanted Organization: [Phantom Access] / the MindVox system Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1993 20:29:22 GMT Does anyone know where I can get a description of the Bellcore Technical Release for the Analog Display Services Interface (ADSI)? This is the new proposed standard for screen based telephone equipment. Thanks in advance, Barr Kominik barryb@mindvox.phantom.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 93 03:08:59 -0500 From: ddl@burrhus.harvard.edu (Dan Lanciani) Subject: Second Line Non-Pub/Unlisted? I recently ordered a second line in my name and at the same address as my existing line. For some reason I thought one could get non-published or unlisted (I forget) status at no extra charge for each line beyond the first. Did I imagine this? The business office was quite certain that I would have to pay extra. I suppose the answer is specific to NET land ... Dan Lanciani ddl@harvard.* ------------------------------ From: scm3775@tamsun.tamu.edu (Sean Malloy) Subject: SMDS Question Date: 9 Feb 1993 23:59:39 -0600 Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX I was at the symposium for Broadband Networks last week, and watched with some interest a presentation by a gentleman from GTE on SMDS. He was talking about applications, and mentioned that one would be the interconnection of LANs within a metropolitan area. I thought about it for a while, and alarm bells started to go off in my head. Putting LANs on a public-switched network? Doesn't that open up all sorts of security issues? I asked the speaker about this, and he danced around the issue. I got frustrated, and decided that security wasn't his bag. But the question remains. What sort of precautions are taken to prevent unauthorized users from getting into the LAN? Passwords? That's proven to be incredibly effective on the net (heh). Besides, it'd add overhead. Some sort of callback? That reduces the advantages of being switched ... The speaker mentioned that Rockwell and NASA had used SMDS in a trial in Southern CA, and -they- had no outstanding security questions. Of course, they were the only ones on the network ... Maybe I'm misunderstanding something fundamental about the service, or there -is- security that might work effectively (right now, it seems to be security through obscurity). Can anyone out there straighten me out, or at least point me in the right direction? Thanks, Sean C. Malloy - Texas A&M University - scm@tamu.edu ------------------------------ From: booloo@framsparc.ocf.llnl.gov (Mark Boolootian) Subject: TCP Time-to-Live (TTL) Field Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1993 08:06:24 -0800 (PST) add@philabs.philips.com (Aninda Dasgupta) writes: > What can be done to rectify this problem? The most obvious, though > often impossible, thing to do is to change the default of 60 seconds > for the TCP TTL that is compiled into the UNIX (or other OS) TCP > software. Thought I'd mention the following because it wasn't entirely clear in the post: While the TTL is supposed to be the amount of time a packet is allowed to live in the network, in general, it is used as a hop count. Each router the packet passes through typically will decrement the TTL field by one. If a router has excessively long queues and the packet has to hang around for some time, the router may elect to decrement the TTL field by some larger amount. Although I didn't see the original post, I find it very hard to believe the user has a path with so many hops that the TTL is expiring. The Internet is broad, but not that broad. By the way, most implemenations of traceroute use a TTL of 30. Mark Boolootian booloo@llnl.gov +1 510 423 1948 Disclaimer: booloo speaks for booloo and no other. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1993 11:57:09 -0500 (EST) From: Matthew Lucas Subject: Client Server Computing? I would appreciate any help or pointers to a good book with respect to client server computing. In particuliar: Client Server Computing: - Why is it replacing mainframes? - Why is it so hot? - What is it replacing? - What does it have to do with telecom? - What does it have to do with network computing? - What does it have to do with high performance workstations? - What does it have to do with big high capacity LANs? Thanks, Matt. ------------------------------ Date: 09 Feb 1993 17:24:58 -0500 (EST) From: MACFERRI@HUSC3.HARVARD.EDU Subject: CoinSoft Software Wanted From: macferri@husc3.harvard.edu Subject: CoinSoft? Date: 9 Feb 93 17:24:44 EST Organization: Harvard University Science Center Hi, A friend of mine has a payphone that can supposedly be programmed using some software from ATT called "CoinSoft". Does anyone know where, besides ATT, I might be able to get a copy? Thanks! Kurtis MacFerrin macferrin@slsvax.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 93 00:06:06 -0800 From: gast@CS.UCLA.EDU (David Gast) Subject: GTE Does It Again Since about last Friday, all datacom (modem and fax) going from Gte-land to UCLA has had lots and lots of errors. According to UCLA telecommunications, the problem is due to the installation of a new trunk by GTE. I don't know that UCLA telecom is not blameless; in fact, I know of previous problems with them, particularly their VM system. I have been logged out, suspended from jobs, exited from vi, foiled in attempting to "less" a file (it kept going back in the file), etc. Just in typing this letter, I have had to delete about 25 characters and retype 10 others that were changed. The light may be on, but the phone service?? David ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 93 01:45:50 -0800 From: jgarner@netcom.com (Jason Garner) Subject: Overseas Chat Lines I recently saw an ad on late night television for a chat line. It looked like the typical 900 chat services where you get to talk to very beautiful women for a very low fee. This one was not a 900 service though. It began with 011 followed by a country code for Equador or Chile and then a number. I don't recall the rate for calling but I did call an operator at the time and determined that the amount stated in the commercial was about the same as the price AT&T charged for the call. So how do they make any money? The commercial did not suggest using any particular long distance carrier as some commercials that I've seen in the past have. Anyone notice this on TV lately? I asked my girlfriend to jot down the number if she saw the commercial again (she watches more TV than I do) and she just sort of laughed at me so I seriously doubt she will. [Moderator's Note: We've discussed this here in recent weeks. The profit to the information provider comes from payments made to him by the telco where he is located which shares revenues from the increase in traffic they have as a result of calls to the IP. Various telecom administrations are willing to do this. In the USA, AT&T will do it provided incoming calls are forced to go over AT&T, as in the example of 702-333-8444. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 10 Feb 93 10:42:11 EST From: Lynne Gregg <70540.232@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Yellow Pages Data on Disk Wanted Anyone have ideas for sources for Yellow Page data on disk? I'm looking for YP's for most major cities. Please reply email: 70540.232@compuserve.com Thanks! Lynne ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Feb 93 17:49:06 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Oldtown, MD Revisited I wrote earlier about 301-395 (Oldtown) apparently being discontinued, with people on it being switched to 301-478 (Flintstone). Oldtown is about 14 miles southeast of Cumberland, Md. Because of an indirect link to one of my ancestors, I have traveled again to western MD (and nearby WV). In Oldtown proper (squeeze thru a one-lane railroad underpass off Md. route 51 and then turn right) I saw an advertising sign where parts of the old "395" were still visible but "4","7","8" (smaller size) had been put up in its place. Enough of "395" is covered to cause a problem in identifying it if I didn't have the other sources available. Out on route 51, however, I saw at least 3 business places still showing 395 on their signs. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1993 02:11:13 -0500 From: Don.Kimberlin@f730.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Don Kimberlin) Subject: Telephone Malaprops [crossposted from Fidonet FCC conference] Here's a republication of some fun malapropisms of common telephone jargon, for those who missed it earlier: From the June, 1992 newsletter of Allied Supply, Council Bluffs, Iowa: "I had a nice letter from Carey Maurer at UTC, He had some `out of context' telecom terminologies of his own. Here are a few of his ideas: "KEY SERVICE UNIT - The last gas station with a rest room that's open along the interstate; "FIBER MUX - The condition of a two year old's outfit after eating an ice cream cone; "ONE WAY OUTGOING TRUNK - What became of your baggage after it was loaded on the airplane; "RANDOM ACCESS MEMORY - The function of most teenagers' memory, especially after being told to do the chores; "RINGING GENERATOR - The clapper of a bell; "T-CARRIER - An airline flight attendant; "Thanks, Carey! Anyone Else?" Don Kimberlin - via FidoNet node 1:250/98 INTERNET: Don.Kimberlin@f730.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ Subject: BIX Gateway Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 10 Feb 93 06:17:07 EST (Wed) From: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) >> BIX has finally put their Internet link into production. > Hmm, let me see: > bix.com preference = 10, mail exchanger = bix.com > bix.com preference = 20, mail exchanger = genvid.com > bix.com internet address = 192.80.63.253 > genvid.com internet address = 192.80.63.1 > ... > So, it might be even possible to get a telnet connection to BIX? Probably, sooner or later. The address genvid.com is actually the same as delphi.com, the Delphi online service which is also owned by General Videotex, the same outfit that now owns BIX. Delphi has a very functional Internet connecting allowing inbound and outbound telnet, outbound FTP, and e-mail both ways. (My Delphi mailbox is jlevine@delphi.com.) Currently they tell Delphi users to telnet to a public access system to read usenet news, but that will certainly change. Since they have Internet connectivity in place, I expect that they'll eventually extend it to BIX. At the moment, though, the address 192.80.63.253 doesn't respond to pings yet. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1993 02:20:45 -0500 From: Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Dave Leibold) Subject: Re: Number Identifier Attempts From Canada There were recent posts about calls to +1 404 988.9664 which would read back the caller's number when dialed with 10732 within the U.S. (via AT&T on a special connection). Equal access and 10XXX+ are about 18 months away; Bell Canada is making preparations for this to accomodate Unitel and eventually other carriers. My attempts to dial the number as straight long distance calls on Bell and Unitel networks result in a ringing which is not answered, thus it seems numbers from Toronto are not passed along. In the case of Unitel, it should be noted that the calls are done by account number and thus the caller's number is not known to Unitel in any event. Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:250/98 INTERNET: Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ From: Bob_Frankston@frankston.com Subject: Re: Calling a Roaming Cellular Customer Date: Wed 10 Feb 1993 23:15 -0400 When I call from a coin phone to a local roaming port, I notice that I get my money back if the called party doesn't answer but don't if either they answer or I get the recorded message telling me that the other party is out of range. ------------------------------ From: goldstein@carafe.dnet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) Subject: Re: ISDN Basic Rate Access Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1993 05:37:01 GMT In article , roy@mchip00.med.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: > I live on City Island, which is a bit of land about 1/2 mile > wide by two miles long, isolated from the rest of the Bronx by several > miles. When I enquired of NYTel about ISDN in my area, I was told > that we don't even have a CO on the island, but are served by a > substation (I think that was the word he used) from some CO in the > Bronx, and that we're either 1) not even on the list or 2) scheduled > for sometime in 1994 (depending on who you talk to). City Island has > the entire 718-885 exchange. Would a SLC-96 be serving an entire > exchange, or several of them? Would that be what the telco guy meant > by a "substation?". A SLC-96 is a 96-line mux, hence the name. In its most common analog application, five 24-channel T1 lines are used to support the 96 lines, with one of the T1s in "hot standby". There are other products like it, basically larger and smaller packages. But offhand I'd guess that yes, a mux like that is what the telco guy meant by "substation". The prefix code doesn't prove anything. It's common practice for one central office to have different codes in it, assigned geographically. In MA the phone company does this a lot for billing reasons: If you're in Woburn, you used to be 3MU from Boston, while Winchester was 2MU. Woburn numbers were served off the Winchester switch. I suspect City Island's the same way (though I thought it was billed as a city zone, not a billing zone of its own, so it's sort of pointless). Fred R. Goldstein goldstein@carafe.tay2.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 V13 #79 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06451; 11 Feb 93 4:43 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14049 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 11 Feb 1993 01:41:48 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17442 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 11 Feb 1993 01:41:07 -0600 Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1993 01:41:07 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302110741.AA17442@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #81 TELECOM Digest Thu, 11 Feb 93 01:41:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 81 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Telex Interfaces (Tony Harminc) Re: Telex Interfaces (Doran Howitt) Low Cost Telex Reception (Was Telex to Internet) (Paul Robinson) Telex to Connectivity (Bob Frankston) Re: Interesting Tricks You Can Do With Your Phone (Gregory Youngblood) Re: Interesting Tricks You Can Do With Your Phone (Mark Terribile) Stupid Phone Tricks (Jim Rees) Re: Salesmen That Won't Quit (Ben Cox) Re: Salesmen That Won't Quit (Peter M. Weiss) Re: Salesmen That Won't Quit (Mitch Wagner) Re: Second Line Non-Pub/Unlisted? (Arthur Rubin) Re: Second Line Non-Pub/Unlisted? (Dave Bonney) Re: Second Line Non-Pub/Unlisted? (Paul Barnett) Re: Second Line Non-Pub/Unlisted? (John R. Levine) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 11 Feb 93 00:47:27 EST From: Tony Harminc Subject: Re: Telex Interfaces Two recent posts can share an answer: JOHN SCHMIDT wrote: > I have friends in Africa who have access to inexpensive (relatively) > telex service, I can fax them (at least to a friend of theirs who gets > them at his business), but it is very expensive or impossible for them > to reply by fax. They have attempted to Telex me at work, but the > telexes seem to often get lost between the machine and my office! My > friend has the hard copy of at least one he sent with the answerback > from our machine on it, proving it got through. The only explanation > I got fron the mail room was that they don't get many these days and > "the guy who takes care of the machine was on vacation when it came > in"!?! Anyway, having it appear as E mail here would probably work > much better. and Robert Horvitz wrote: > We have this big old and very loud telex machine in our office. We'd > like to get rid of it and integrate telex with our LAN. Surely we're > not the first to have this idea. Assuming the wheel has already been > invented, can someone explain how to do this? Is there a particular > kind of modem designed for interfacing DOS machines with telex > circuits? The answer to both problems would seem to be a Telex interface box. There used to be lots of these on the market, but with the near demise of telex except in the third world, I imagine many makers are now out of business. The box I used several years ago converted async RS232 ASCII to/from the telex 5 level code (and also handled the *bizarre* 130V current loop interface (260V in some areas!)). This box came with PC software to process inbound and outbound telexes, queue them, etc. much like a FAX board does. In my application I had the box plugged directly into an IBM mainframe (VM) system, so it isn't restricted to PCs, though of course the supplied software won't run on anything else. I just called DA and the maker of the box I used is still listed, so presumably they have other lines of business too :-) They are Nomis Systems (613) 232-3637. And to the best of my knowledge the box is still sitting in my former employer's basement storage room -- probably they'd be glad to sell it for a few bucks. Tony Harminc ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 93 21:58:20 EDT From: radburn@radburn.jvnc.net (Doran Howitt) Subject: Re: Telex Interfaces There were a couple of messages recently asking about how to connect to the telex network. A good way to access telex is to get an account with AT&T EasyLink Services. This is the former Western Union Telegraph Company telex/TWX business, which AT&T bought in 1990 and then folded in with AT&T Mail. Western Union had pretty nicely integrated the telex and e-mail technologies, and the result is now marketed by AT&T. EasyLink will give you a electronic mailbox and assign it a regular telex number so that all your telexes come into the box. You can either dial up to get your messages of have them forwarded automatically to another address such as a fax machine. EasyLink is available in a many countries. In the USA, last I looked, there was a $25 a month minimum to have an account. There's no charge to receive a telex into your mailbox, because sender pays all -- just like a telephone call, though you do pay extra for forwarding. EasyLink has X.400 connections with CompuServe and the like but I don't know if it has an internet connection. I believe MCI Mail has a competitive offering. Anyone who still has a real telex machine is throwing away money on a dedicated circuit that's idle probably 99.9 percent of the time. ------------------------------ Reply-To: TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM From: Paul Robinson Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1993 23:06:51 EST Subject: Low Cost Telex Reception (Was Telex to Internet) Schmidt@auvax1.adelphi.com wrote about getting someone with "cheap telex service" in Africa to be able to communicate with him via some method over the Internet. Here's how you can do it and you can test it for free: You can subscribe to MCI Mail. MCI Mail accounts not only offer internet access for incoming and outgoing messages, at no extra charge they provide an incoming telex address. For example, my account on MCI mail uses the name of TDARCOS. It has the account number of 506-6432. It is identified on internet as "0005066432@MCIMAIL.COM" and it is also a telex number in which the three zeroes are changed to the number 650. The answerback is the telex number plus "MCI UW" so, for example, my telex number on MCI is: 6505066432 and the answerback is: 6505066432MCI UW Advise your correspondent to dial the telex number for the United States first. It's usually 21 or 021 but be sure they find this out first. So here's what you can do: ask your African correspondent to send *ME* a test telex to my number. I will forward the message to you. If this works, you could get an MCI mail number yourself and then let them send you messages to your telex number, then send faxes from your machine back to them. This will probably be the least costly way because faxes FROM the US to other countries are very expensive, on a character-for-character basis, about ten or twenty times as expensive as a typed letter faxed to someone. Oh yes, MCI Mail's rates are much cheaper than other companies. An MCI Mail box with incoming telex is $35 a year; AT&T Easylink charges $25 a *month*. ------------------------------ From: Bob_Frankston@frankston.com Subject: Telex to Connectivity Date: Wed 10 Feb 1993 09:25 -0400 For those who want to replace their Telex systems, remember that both Att/Easylink and MCI have telex numbers corresponding to mailboxes. You can autoforward the messages to another mailbox, including the Internet, if you wish. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Interesting Tricks You Can Do With Your Phone From: tcscs!zeta@src.honeywell.com (Gregory Youngblood) Reply-To: zeta%tcscs@src.honeywell.com Date: Wed, 10 Feb 93 12:06:50 CST Organization: TCS Consulting Services HARTTREE@vax1.elon.edu (Matthew Harttree) writes: > I have always wondered about the strange messages/events that I get > when I mis-dial a number. > The lighter side of telephony, I guess. Stupid things you do by > accident or find out somehow. > For example my Dad lives in Northern New Jersey in the 201 area code. > I muffed the digits on his phone number once and got a recording > telling me to "Please deposit twenty cents" ???? Going on with this type of thing, in Houston (SWB territory) I had a list of numbers which when called returned any one of a number of error messages. My favorite was to put the recording "The call you have made requires an initial deposit of 25 cents. Please hang up, deposit 25 cents, and try your call again." on my voice mail recording so when people called and got my voice mail they heard this message. Of course, at the end of the message, I added "or leave your message after the beep." Greg TCS Consulting Services P.O. Box 600008 St. Paul, MN 55106-0008 Mail-server requests to: mail-server%tcscs@idss.nwa.com zeta%tcscs@src.honeywell.com or zeta%tcscs@idss.nwa.com ..!srcsip!tcscs!zeta or ..!guppy!tcscs!zeta ------------------------------ From: mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us Subject: Re: Interesting Tricks You Can Do With Your Phone Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1993 17:48:12 GMT In article , HARTTREE@vax1.elon.edu (Matthew Harttree) writes: > I have always wondered about the strange messages/events that I get > when I mis-dial a number. > For example my Dad lives in Northern New Jersey in the 201 area code. > I muffed the digits on his phone number once and got a recording > telling me to "Please deposit twenty cents" ???? Well, I once called the _correct_ number from a NY Tel pay phone in Westchester County. (I don't recall the community, now; it was near the Saw Mill River Parkway and US Hwy 9). During the call, voice was interrupted by a voice mail prompt for CitiBank (apparently an internal prompt from a Centrex). The call was cut off a minute or so later, so I guess it was supposed to be the `additional cents for the next N minutes' message. I tried to report it, and I think I actually left a problem description with someone, but I never heard about action on it. (This man's opinions are his own.) From mole-end Mark Terribile mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us, Somewhere in Matawan, NJ ------------------------------ From: rees@pisa.citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Subject: Stupid Phone Tricks Date: 10 Feb 1993 15:14:04 GMT Organization: University of Michigan CITI Reply-To: Jim.Rees@umich.edu Our University has a DMS of some kind. Dialing 91072 gets you an intercept recording that states, "The number you have reached, 107-0000, has been changed. The new number is 000-0000." ------------------------------ From: thoth@uiuc.edu (Ben Cox) Subject: Re: Salesmen That Won't Quit Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1993 20:31:56 GMT Reply-To: thoth@uiuc.edu (Ben Cox) Organization: Ancient Illuminated Sears of Bavaria wagner@utoday.com (Mitch Wagner) writes: > I've always thought that if I ever had a salesman that just wouldn't > stop phoning, even when I asked them to stop, I would inform them that > if they didn't stop calling I would file harassment charges against > them with the police. > And then if they called back, I would do so. > Would this work? Yes, it did. He didn't call back. :) Ben Cox thoth@uiuc.edu ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1993 16:17:38 EST From: Peter M. Weiss Subject: Re: Salesmen That Won't Quit I wonder what happens when two telemarketers call one-another? Do they end up buying each others products? Do the COs freeze? This is intriguing. Pete [Moderator's Note: When two bill collectors call one-another they cancel each other out. Ancient wisdom teaches "never try to collect from another bill collector ... it won't work ... he knows all the ways to stall, all the delaying tactics, etc." PAT] ------------------------------ From: wagner@utoday.com (Mitch Wagner) Subject: Re: Salesmen That Won't Quit Organization: Open Systems Today Date: Wed, 10 Feb 93 11:55:39 GMT wagner@utoday.com (Mitch Wagner) writes: > ... if I ever had a salesman that just wouldn't stop phoning, even > when I asked them to stop, I would inform them that if they didn't > stop calling I would file harassment charges against them with the > police. > [Moderator's Note: Depending on where you live, perhaps the police > would come out and -- with a very straight look on their faces -- take > your complaint, then later on file it away.... > ... (Mitch to his secretary: "I am driving over to Kalamazoo and Timbuck, > too. I am going to look for that guy who called me twice last week > after I told him to stop and serve this court order on him. I hope he > gave me the right name when he called. I hope he decides to obey the > order so I don't have to go back to court again, wait in line for an > hour with the court clerk and file another complaint saying he did not > obey the first order ...").... Oh, well. Another good idea bites the dust. Although this notion of my having a secretary intrigues me ... -- mitch w. [Moderator's Note: Don't misunderstand: in instances of genuine harass- ment over the telephone -- serious threats, continued calls of a very obscene nature, ringing-silence-hangup calls, or as one reader said to me, "I would answer, there would be insane laughter followed by whispers I could not understand ... later she was judged to be mentally ill," -- in cases like that, telco and the police will trap the caller and assist in prosecution. But telemarketers or bill collectors who get obnoxious at least have one thing going for them: in theory at least, a legitimate business reason for having placed the call(s). It is not a criminal act to make a telephone call when there is some basis for doing so; and criminal activity is all the police are allowed to deal with. Police may not involve themselves or invoke their authority in *civil* disputes. That, plus their heavy case load causes their reluctance to bother with an obnoxious, but marginally legal telemarketer who called you. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Second Line Non-Pub/Unlisted? From: a_rubin%dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin) Date: 10 Feb 93 20:15:35 GMT Reply-To: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin) In ddl@burrhus.harvard.edu (Dan Lanciani) writes: > I recently ordered a second line in my name and at the same > address as my existing line. For some reason I thought one could get > non-published or unlisted (I forget) status at no extra charge for > each line beyond the first. Did I imagine this? The business office > was quite certain that I would have to pay extra. I suppose the > answer is specific to NET land ... Here in PacTel land, they claim that additional lines can be unlisted at no charge, but all I _know_ is that there is only one (monthly) unlisting charge for having two unlisted lines at the same location. 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. ------------------------------ From: dab@wiretap.spies.com (Dave Bonney) Subject: Re: Second Line Non-Pub/Unlisted? Organization: None At Present Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1993 19:44:31 GMT In article ddl@burrhus.harvard.edu (Dan Lanciani) writes: > I recently ordered a second line in my name and at the same > address as my existing line. For some reason I thought one could get > non-published or unlisted (I forget) status at no extra charge for > each line beyond the first. Did I imagine this? The business office > was quite certain that I would have to pay extra. I suppose the > answer is specific to NET land ... ... and in NET land you need to ask for 'SPECIAL NON-LISTED'. It's coded as 'SPNL' in their records. No Charge! :-) You >do not< want to ask for plain vanilla UNLISTED or NONPUBLISHED! These they charge for! Provided that your other line is listed in the same name and at the same address. If you get difficulties from the business office, give me a call. I'd be glad to straighten them out. dab A Telecommunications Professional Now Unemployed In Westford MA No Employer, No Disclaimer. Just My Own Thoughts. Inquiries To MCIMail 422-4552 Internet or a guest account at Telephone +1 (508) 692-4194 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 93 14:45:05 -0600 From: barnett@zeppelin.convex.com (Paul Barnett) Subject: Re: Second Line Non-Pub/Unlisted? This is indeed specific to the local telephone company. In Mpls-St. Paul, which is served by US West, you HAVE to publish the number, or pay an extra charge. However, you could specify a different name for the listing, and some people invent strange names. Others simply list it as "computer line", and they get plenty of unsolicited calls from people trying to sell them "computer stuff". On the other hand, here in Dallas, either in GTE-land or SWBT-land, there is no extra charge for a non-published secondary number, if there is already a primary LISTED number at that address. I would guess that this is somehow spelled out in the tariff. Press for a specific interpretation, and complain to your PUC, if you think it will do any good. Paul Barnett MPP OS Development (214)-497-4846 Convex Computer Corp. Richardson, TX ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Second Line Non-Pub/Unlisted? Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 10 Feb 93 22:47:45 EST (Wed) From: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) Here in Massachusetts it is indeed the case that second and subsequent lines at a single location can be unlisted at no charge. For some reason New England Tel sometimes insists otherwise. When I added RingMate (distinctive ringing) to my second line, NET wanted to charge to unlist each of the numbers on the second line, and I had to go to the state DPU to get NET to behave. If as seems to be the case there's a pattern here, I should get the state to tell NET to audit the records to see how many subscribers are paying an unwarranted charge to unlist their second lines. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #81 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08278; 11 Feb 93 5:27 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18873 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 10 Feb 1993 23:57:31 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28800 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 10 Feb 1993 23:56:31 -0600 Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1993 23:56:31 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302110556.AA28800@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #80 TELECOM Digest Wed, 10 Feb 93 23:56:30 CST Volume 13 : Issue 80 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Running Out of Area Codes (Los Angeles Times via Robert L. McMillin) Toll-Denial Also Blocks 911 Access; Why? (Marcus Leech) The Transatlantic Telecable (Karsten Lang Pedersen) Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State (David G. Lewis) Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State (Robert L. McMillin) Re: SS7 / CID Question (Al Varney) Re: SS7 / CID Question (John Higdon) Re: Alphanumeric Pagers Question (Brad S. Hicks) Re: Alphanumeric Pagers Question (Danny Turner) Re: Hilton Hotel Telephone Surcharge (Dave Niebuhr) Re: Hilton Hotel Telephone Surcharge (Javier Henderson) Re: Unhappy GTE Representatives (Javier Henderson) Re: Unhappy GTE Representatives (Brian D. McMahon) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 10 Feb 93 05:11:31 -0800 From: rlm@indigo1.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) Subject: Running Out of Area Codes Here is an article from the February 8, 1993 edition of the {Los Angeles Times}. Sorry about the {Times'} tendency for verbal diarrhea, but it's something we live with. PHONE NUMBERS GROW SCARCE IN INFORMATION AGE By Jube Shiver, Jr. WASHINGTON -- As the information age fuels an explosion of fax machines, cellular phones, and other high-tech communications devices, government regulators and industry officials are scrambling to preserve an increasingly precious resource: the phone number. A looming problem of telephone-number-gridlock threatens to retard business growth and the development of new technologies. And it will also introduce new wrinkles in the dialing habits of millions of phone users now served by the North American dialing system, experts say. The day of reckoning is fast approaching. The supply of three-digit North American telephone area codes -- all of which have "0" or "1" as the middle number -- will be exhausted within two years unless augmented by new kinds of three-digit area codes, phone company officials and telecommunications experts say. While the public generally takes the telephone system for granted, there are fierce battles going on behind the scenes over who will control one of the communication industry's most important functions -- the allocation of telephone numbers. The winner will play a central role in determining how fast rapidly emerging new technologies can be accomodated. Some cellular phone subscribers in the United States are already reporting delays in getting phone service as the rapidly expanding industry gobbles up an estimated 7,500 new telephone numbers a day. Likewise, an explosion of home offices -- with their attendant fax machines and computer modems -- is fueling demand for extra phone lines. Some 14% of Pacific Bell's residential customers now have two phone lines -- a number that has risen sharply in the past five years. With so much at stake, upstart communication service companies are already facing off against Bellcore, an arm of the seven regional phone companies that currently administers long distance area codes. A growing number of firms want the Federal Communications Commission to mediate the dispute -- a request that could delay Bellcore's planned expansion of area codes as regulators weigh the issue. The FCC so far has stayed largely aloof, though it has sought advice from the communications industry on how best to administer telephone numbers. Many industry experts say that hundreds of millions of dollars in new equipment will be needed to make the transition from the current numbering system, first established in 1947, to a new one. While the obstacles are technical in nature, the fundamentals are not hard to grasp: The current system relies on a limited pool of three-digit area codes that need the "0" or "1" as the middle digit to help telephone switching equipment to distinguish between area codes and the first three digits of a local exchange. That limitation restricts the number of available area codes to about 150, each of which can support about 7.8 million seven-digit phone numbers. With the proliferation of multiple lines, cellular phones and new communications services, the available universe of numbers is being rapidly depleted. By 1995, Bellcore plans to introduce about 640 new area codes using middle digits other than 0 and 1 that will roughly quadruple the current telephone number capacity and hopefully meet rising demand for another three decades. But doing so will require a massive overhaul of the North American telephone infrastructure, including the reprogramming of telephone- company switching software and hardware. Businesses -- many of which have old telephone switchboards that only recognize current long distance codes -- may be especially hard hit, while consumers will likely have a much harder time finding phone numbers through long-distance directory assistance because of the proliferation of area codes. Callers will have to closely pinpoint neighborhoods in making directory assistance requests because of the area-code proliferation. That's already a problem in Southern California, which now has seven area codes and is likely to get many more. Critics want to wrest control of area codes from Bellcore. Providers of new communications services -- such as cellular phones -- are especially angry, claiming Bellcore is trying to protect the lucrative cellular business of the regional Bells by making it tough for other competitors to get phone numbers. But Ron Conners, who heads the numbering system for Bellcore in its Livingston, N.J., office, defends the company's performance. "We've done a good job of administering a phone numbering plan that has been the envy of the world ... the [phone number] assignments we make are public and subject ot the oversight of the FCC. If anyone doesn't like what we do, they can complain," Conners said. Still, Conners conceded, the telephone system will be in "real difficulty" if industry disputes over Bellcore's administration of area codes delays the introduction of the 640 additional new numbers beyond 1995. Even if a timely transition is made, it will not come cheap. Few, if any, suppliers currently make equipment capable of recognizing area codes with middle digits other than 0 or 1. Frustrated by its inability to find phone equipment able to handle the new codes, Wall Street Merrill Lynch recently issued an ultimatum to one manufacturer: Either make a switchboard that recognizes the new number combinations, or the brokerage would take its business elsewhere. "We've got to kick companies in the butt" to get them to deal with the problem, said Raymond Liuzzo, an assistant vice president at the New York investment house. Equipment makers have told Merrill Lynch that it will have to wait months -- and spend thousands of additional dollars -- to acquire a new private branch exchange (PBX) system that will recognize the new area codes, Liuzzo said. (PBX equipment allows communications both within a company and with the outside world.) Even the regional phone companies are scrambling. As Pacific Telesis recently told the FCC, it is spending about $84 million to upgrade its switching and billing support systems in order to avoid exhausting the internal numerical codes needed to determine how to route calls to the proper long-distance carrier. Yet, with communications technology evolving so fast, some experts say even 640 more area codes would be little more than a temporary solution. They are urging the industry to develop more expansive efforts -- to avoid a recurrance of telephone number gridlock a few years down the road. The expansion also won't ease the squeeze on many telecommunication services now served by a single, "non-geographic" area code -- such as toll-free 800-exchanges or 900-prefix information lines. These numbers have grown in popularity in recent years and become an important business marketing tool, said Mike Hirsch, a vice president at the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Assn., a Washington trade group. But as demand for such numbers grows in popularity, toll-free 800 exchanges or 900-prefix exchanges could quickly fill to capacity and Bellcore would have to find equally unusual code combinations to maintain the marketing value of these special telephone services, experts say. Other new technologies are also certain to tax the available pool of phone numbers. The FCC recently approved the development of a global satellite paging system that would let people send brief messages nearly anywhere around the world. Down the road, even more numbers will be needed for futuristic services such as wireless personal communications technologies. One such system, called PCS, will permit users to communicate or perform computer functions with a device as portable and unobtrusive as a wristwatch. Pressure is also building on local phone companies to designate three- digut local numbers -- similar to the 911 emergency or 411 telephone directory service numbers -- for new information service providers. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1993 05:52:19 +0000 From: Marcus (M.D.) Leech Subject: Toll-Denial Also Blocks 911 Access; Why? My sister volunteers for a women's shelter in Squamish, B.C. They've been having problems with unauthorized long-distance calling, so they had B.C. Tel put toll-denial on the line. The problem is that B.C. Tel says this also blocks 911 access. I can't think of any technical reason for this, and it seems unreasonable. Is anyone familiar with the CO equipment they use in B.C., and why there would be this restriction? Marcus Leech, 4Y11 Bell-Northern Research |opinions expressed mleech@bnr.ca P.O. Box 3511, Stn. C |are my own, and not ml@ve3mdl.ampr.org Ottawa, ON, CAN K1Y 4H7 |necessarily BNRs ------------------------------ From: klang@daimi.aau.dk (Karsten Lang Pedersen) Subject: The Transatlantic Telecable Organization: DAIMI: Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, Denmark Date: Wed, 10 Feb 93 07:34:46 GMT Does anyone have info about the transatlantic telecable? It was used before the satelites where put into the game! Please E-mail me on : klang@daimi.aau.dk Greetings from, Karsten Lang ------------------------------ From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) Subject: Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State Organization: AT&T Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1993 13:51:55 GMT In article kgdykes@Thinkage.On.CA (Ken Dykes) writes: > Recently I received a call from the Glendale area of Los Angeles. I > live in southern Ontario CANADA. My Caller-ID box instead of showing > out-of-area showed PRIVACY. The call to me was made (and answered) > twice in the same night; both times PRIVACY ... some sort of > call-blocking was enabled by PacBell. > PacBell is being far too kind to the zealots :-) It might be the PSC's doing. The NY PSC, for example, has mandated that New York Tel must not permit delivery of CPN for customers in Manhattan until they have completed an education campaign (which I expect means bill inserts) on how to restrict delivery on a per-call basis. (I don't know the exact wording of the ruling, but this is the sense I get from my friends in regulatory affairs.) As a result, all calls outbound from Manhattan using SS7 have the CPN marked as "presentation restricted", resulting in the PRIVACY indication on the display. The Cal PSC may have made a similar ruling. > And ... I'm impressed that SS7 is so well connected throughout North > America. (And just a month ago I was impressed with getting Ottawa > numbers in my area, about 300 miles away :-).) Thank 800 Number Portability and the FCC's call setup time requirements connected therewith, which require a fairly widespread deployment of SS7, at least at 800 SSPs (Signaling Service Point - where the 800 number query is launched from in the LEC network). I know our folks have been working like crazy turning up SS7/ISUP-signaled trunks, like thousands per day. David G Lewis AT&T Bell Laboratories david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!goofy!deej Switching & ISDN Implementation ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 93 06:45:20 -0800 From: rlm@indigo2.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) Subject: Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State kgdykes@Thinkage.On.CA (Ken Dykes) writes: > Recently I received a call from the Glendale area of Los Angeles. I > live in southern Ontario CANADA. My Caller-ID box instead of showing > out-of-area showed PRIVACY. The call to me was made (and answered) > twice in the same night; both times PRIVACY ... some sort of > call-blocking was enabled by PacBell. Which probably means that the switch was SS7-connected, but thanks to the California Public fUtilities Commission, EVERYBODY's phone number will show up as PRIVACY-enabled. After all, privacy is the same thing as anonymity ... NOT! > PacBell is being far too kind to the zealots :-) It's not Pac*Hell's fault, really. Robert L. McMillin | Voice: (310) 568-3555 Hughes Aircraft/Hughes Training, Inc. | Fax: (310) 568-3574 Los Angeles, CA | Internet: rlm@indigo2.hac.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 93 12:12:44 CST From: varney@ihlpl.att.com Subject: Re: SS7 / CID Question Organization: AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL In article DREUBEN@EAGLE.WESLEYAN.EDU (Douglas Scott Reuben) writes: > 1. Can a 1ESS switch display CID? Are there any software upgrades/hardware > upgrades which allow it to do so? No CID on 1 ESS(tm) switches -- sorry. The only upgrade that would permit CID is called "1A ESS Processor Conversion" {a "brain transplant"} But then it would be called a 1A ESS switch! :-) > 2. ... can the 1ESS send out the CID information? No. > That is, what does it take for a switch to send out CID over SS7? Can't speak for other vendors, but Bellcore suggests (in TR-NWT-000317) Calling Party Number be included in all applicable intra-LATA SS7 calls. On AT&T SS7-capable switches, "sending" CID depends on: SS7 signaling (Q.71x/T1.111 standards) and SS7 trunking (Q.76x/T1.113 standards) >3. Can a 1ESS support SS7? I THINK they can, so ... Incorrect assumption -- 1 ESS switches DO NOT support SS7 OR CID. > ... or is it more of a technical reason why one can't get CID from a > 1ESS? The support of SS7 and CID (CLASS features) would take more resources than are available in a 1 ESS switch. Same for 2B ESS switches, 3 ESS switches, cross-bar, SXS, panel, ... AT&T's SS7-capable switches are the 1A ESS, 4ESS(tm) and 5ESS(rg.tm) switching systems. Al Varney - just my opinion, of course. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 93 09:28 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: SS7 / CID Question Douglas Scott Reuben writes: > 1. Can a 1ESS switch display CID? Are there any software upgrades/hardware > upgrades which allow it to do so? No. There are no upgrades that can make this possible. The switch cannot support SS7 or CLASS from either end of the call. There is no upgrade possible, since the program-store capacity of the switch is too limited. With the usual custom calling package loaded, it does not even have room for "cancel call-waiting". > Can a 1ESS support this "send out" package, if such a thing > exists? There is no such thing as a "send out" package. SS7 requires a constant two-way data stream between participating switches. > 3. Can a 1ESS support SS7? I THINK they can, so the reason that you > can't get CID from a 1ESS isn't because it can't handle SS7, right? Huh? A 1ESS CANNOT support SS7, period. > Every 1ESS that I've tried to get CID info from fails (ie, you call > from the 1ESS to a 5ESS that has CID). Now you know why. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@mhs.attmail.com Date: 10 Feb 93 12:28:23 GMT Subject: Re: Alphanumeric Pagers Question bwherry@nyx.cs.du.edu (Colorado Cyberpunk) asked: > Do alphanumeric pagers all use the same protocol between the terminal > and whatever system to which you are connected? Generally, yes. It's called (depending on who you ask) either the IXO or the TAP protocol. > Are the protocol(s) published/documented anywhere? If so how do I > go about getting them? I only know of one place ... as appendices to the manuals for the computers that run major paging services. If you run into another source for that spec, let me know; people ask so often that if there were a good answer, it'd be in the FAQ. > if someone has already written something and it is available (source > code) on the internet then a pointer to it would be appreciated. I put the source code for a very, very crude implementation into the public domain. There's a copy of it in the Telecom Digest archive site, but I'm at a total loss to remember what it's called or what directory it's in, and I don't have ftp access to look it up. Pat? J. Brad Hicks Internet: mc!Brad_Hicks@mhs.attmail.com X.400: c=US admd=ATTMail prmd=MasterCard sn=Hicks gn=Brad [Moderator's Note: The Telecom Archives is available using anonymous ftp lcs.mit.edu. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dan@compnews.co.uk (Danny Turner) Subject: Re: Alphanumeric Pagers Question Date: 10 Feb 1993 09:24:52 GMT Organization: Computer Newspaper Services, Howden, UK. bwherry@nyx.cs.du.edu (Colorado Cyberpunk) writes: > Do alphanumeric pagers all use the same protocol between the terminal > and whatever system to which you are connected? Are the protocol(s) > published/documented anywhere? If so how do I go about getting them? > Obviously this is leading to writing some software to do automated > monitoring of some systems. Since it isn't for resale if someone has > already written something and it is available (source code) on the > internet then a pointer to it would be appreciated. Most pagers use the TAP (Telocator Alphanumeric Input) protocol this is freely available, unfortunately I only have a hard copy, but I am quite willing to fax it to you if you want. We are currently developing code to run on Sparc's but I have now idea when it will be in place :-) Danny Turner Computer Newspaper Services The Bishop's Manor Howden North Humberside, DN14 7BL e-mail: dan@compnews.co.uk Voice: +44 (0)430 431100 Fax: +44 (0)430 432022 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 93 07:13:45 EST From: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr) Subject: Re: Hilton Hotel Telephone Surcharge In a recent issue of the TELECOM Digest dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson) writes: > I regularly stay at the Hilton in Pikesville, MD. I routinely call my > own 800 number to `phone home' the inexpensive way. The hotel imposes > what they call a `nominal' charge of 75 cents to handle this call. The Best Western Maryland Inn in Laurel, Md. also tacks on surcharges but I can't remember off-hand what they are ($0.25US for one type of call (800, calling card, etc. and $0.50 for another (local, I think)) I posted the correct info back in late Sept. 92 or early Oct. 92. Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ From: jav@crash.cts.com Subject: Re: Hilton Hotel Telephone Surcharge Organization: CTS Network Services (crash, ctsnet), El Cajon, CA Date: 09 Feb 93 17:41:41 PST Dave Levenson (dave@westmark.com) wrote: > I regularly stay at the Hilton in Pikesville, MD. I routinely call my > own 800 number to `phone home' the inexpensive way. The hotel imposes > what they call a `nominal' charge of 75 cents to handle this call. (rest of the message deleted) The few times that I encountered these 'nominal' charges, I disputed them upon checkout, and every time they removed them from the bill. Only once they had to call the manager. His argument: "well it's only 50 cents per call, and I'm sure you're on an expense account". My response: I will call Amex to refuse the entire hotel bill. He proceeded to drop the four or five bucks worth of 800 calls. Javier Henderson jav@crash.cts.com ------------------------------ From: jav@crash.cts.com Subject: Re: Unhappy GTE Representatives (was "Secret" Phone Codes) Organization: CTS Network Services (crash, ctsnet), El Cajon, CA Date: 10 Feb 93 07:44:54 PST In regards to the original poster's message about GTE customer service moving from Virginia to Florida ... I heard that most customer service reps in southern California are moving to Texas. Apparently GTE is consolidating the customer service offices into one big one. Has anyone else heard this rumors? Javier Henderson jav@crash.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 93 11:04:29 cdt From: McMahon, Brian D Subject: Re: Unhappy GTE Representatives Jeff Wasilko writes: > In speaking to the various reps, I heard that GTE had just moved them > from an office in Southern VA to the Northern VA office six months > ago. They just found out that GTE was now planning to close the VA > office altogether and move the Customer dis-service operation to > Florida. This does seem to be a corporate habit. GTE re-"organizes" so often, I seriously doubt anyone is completely sure of where the corporation is at any given time. Some of the reorgs not only shaft the employees, they shaft communities, too. They used to have a fairly sizable presence in Grinnell. During one round of cutbacks, I asked a friend of mine who worked for GTE if those letters stood for "General Turmoil and Excitement." He laughed, sort of. A few months later, he was looking for work. Let's see now, where do I send my bill THIS month ...? Brian McMahon (BDM13) Postmaster / Acad. Software Support Grinnell College Computer Services Grinnell, Iowa 50112 USA Voice: +1 515 269 4901 Fax: +1 515 269 4936 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #80 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08778; 11 Feb 93 5:38 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05131 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 11 Feb 1993 03:04:05 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05795 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 11 Feb 1993 03:03:45 -0600 Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1993 03:03:45 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302110903.AA05795@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu Subject: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphone Transmissions The file attached here was received today and is too long for inclusion in a regular issue of the Digest. It is submitted for your comments and consideration. You might want to send your comments to the FCC as well. PAT From: raisch@ora.com (Rob Raisch) Subject: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphone Transmissions Organization: O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1993 05:10:24 GMT --------------NOTICE-------------- This information is provided as a public service by the: Internet Federal Register Project of Counterpoint Publishing and The Internet Company (internet.com). For more information on the availability of this data, please send mail to: fedreg-info@internet.com Redistribution of this information is unlimited as long as this notice is included and not modified in any fashion. ------------- 47 CFR Parts 2 and 15 [ET Docket No. 93-1; FCC 93-1] Radio Scanners That Receive Cellular Telephone Transmissions AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This Notice of Proposed Rule Making proposes to deny equipment authorization to radio scanners capable of receiving transmissions in the Domestic Public Cellular Radio Telecommunications Service. This action is taken in response to the Telephone Disclosure and Dispute Resolution Act (Pub. L. 102-556). The intended effect of this action is to help ensure the privacy of cellular telephone conversations. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before February 22, 1993, and reply comments on or before March 8, 1993. ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20554. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Wilson, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 653-8138. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making in ET Docket No. 93-1, FCC 93- 1, adopted January 4, 1993, and released January 13, 1993. The full text of this decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Dockets Branch (room 230), 1919 M Street, NW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision also may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Downtown Copy Center, at (202) 659-8657 or 1990 M Street, NW., suite 640, Washington, DC 20036. Paperwork Reduction The following collection of information contained in this proposed rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review under section 3504(h) of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3504(h)). Copies of this submission may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Downtown Copy Center, at (202) 659-8657 or 1990 M Street, NW., suite 640, Washington, DC 20036. Persons wishing to comment on this collection of information should direct their comments to Mr. Jonas Neihardt, Office of Management and Budget, room 3235 NEOB, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 395-4814. A copy of any comments filed with the Office of Management and Budget should also be sent to the following address at the Federal Communications Commission: Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Managing Director, Paperwork Reduction Project, Washington, DC 20554. For further information contact Ms. Judy Boley, (202) 632-7513. OMB Number: None. Title: Scanning Receiver Compliance Exhibit. Respondents: Businesses or other for profit, small businesses/organizations Action: New collection. Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting. Estimated Annual Burden: Number of respondents: 40. Annual hours per respondent: 0.25. Total annual burden: 10. Needs and Uses: An exhibit accompanying a Form 731 Application for Equipment Authorization will determine compliance of applicants requesting authorization to market scanning receivers and frequency converters with Congressionally mandated regulations. The regulations prohibit the marketing of radio scanners capable of intercepting, or being modified to intercept, cellular telephone conversations. Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rule Making: 1. By this action, the Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 2 and 15 to prohibit the manufacture or importation of radio scanners capable of receiving frequencies allocated to the Domestic Public Cellular Radio Telecommunications Service. This action is in response to the Telephone Disclosure and Dispute Resolution Act (Act), Pub. L. 102-556. 2. The Domestic Public Cellular Radio Telecommunications Service ("Cellular Radio Service") provides telephone service to mobile customers. Cellular telephones use frequencies in the bands 824-849 MHz and 869-894 MHz to connect their users to other cellular system users and to the Public Switched Telephone Network. 3. As defined in 47 CFR part 15 scanning receivers, or "scanners," are radio receivers that automatically switch between four or more frequencies anywhere within the 30-960 MHz band. In order to control their potential to cause harmful interference to authorized radio communications, the rules require that scanners receive an equipment authorization (certification) from the Commission prior to marketing. 4. In the past five years, 22 different models of scanning receivers capable of receiving cellular telephone transmissions have been issued grants of equipment authorization. During this same period, ten other models capable of tuning frequencies between 806 and 900 MHz except for the cellular bands have also been authorized. Several publications currently on the market describe relatively simple modifications that users can make to many of the latter scanning receivers to enable that equipment to receive cellular telephone transmissions. 5. The Telephone Disclosure and Dispute Resolution Act requires that the Commission, by April 26, 1993, prescribe and make effective regulations denying equipment authorization for any scanning receiver capable of: Receiving transmissions in the frequencies allocated to the domestic cellular radio service, Readily being altered by the user to receive transmissions in such frequencies, or Being equipped with decoders that convert digital cellular transmissions to analog voice audio. The Act also stipulates that, beginning one year after the effective date of the regulations adopted to satisfy the above requirements, no receiver having the above capabilities shall be manufactured in the United States or imported for use in the United States. 6. In accordance with the Act, we are proposing to deny equipment authorization to scanning receivers that tune frequencies used by cellular telephones. We are also proposing to require applicants for the authorization of scanning receivers to include in their applications a statement declaring that their receivers cannot be tuned to receive cellular telephone transmissions. 7. Also in accordance with the Act, we are proposing to require that scanning receivers be incapable of being readily altered by the user to operate within the cellular bands. To assist us in determining whether a scanner complies with this requirement, we propose to require applicants for scanning receiver equipment authorization to include in their applications a statement pledging that their receivers cannot be readily altered to receive cellular telephone transmissions. We also propose to prohibit the authorization of any scanning receiver for which cellular coverage can be readily restored by the user. We solicit comment on this proposed reporting requirement and on the definition of "readily altered." We also seek comment on whether additional information, such as why the receiver cannot be readily altered, should be required. 8. In further compliance with the Act, we propose to deny equipment authorization to any scanning receiver that can be equipped with decoders that convert digital cellular transmissions to analog voice audio. We invite comment on the potential impact of this requirement on existing models of scanning receivers. 9. There currently are a number of frequency converters on the market that can be used in conjunction with scanners that receive frequencies below 800 MHz to enable the reception of cellular telephone transmissions. We are proposing to deny equipment authorization to converters that tune, or can be readily altered by the user to tune, cellular telephone frequencies. We will require that applicants for FCC equipment authorization of frequency converters used with scanners include in their applications a statement pledging that the converters cannot be easily altered to enable a scanner to receive cellular transmissions. We seek comment on whether this statement should also include evidence indicating why the converter cannot be easily modified. 10. The Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is contained in the text of the Notice. 11. Comment Dates Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before February 22, 1993, and reply comments on or before March 8, 1993. In order to comply with the requirement of the Telephone Disclosure and Dispute Resolution Act that FCC rules be promulgated within 180 days of enactment, we will proceed with this Notice without furnishing a prior text as provided by Article 607 of the United States-Canada Free-Trade Implementation Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-499, 102 Stat. 1851). To do so would frustrate achievement of a legitimate domestic objective. In addition, the Commission is not likely to be able to accommodate requests for extension of the comment periods. To file formally in this proceeding, you must file an original and five copies of all comments, reply comments, and supporting comments. If you want each Commissioner to receive a copy of your comments, you must file an original plus nine copies. You should send comments and reply comments to Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. Comments and reply comments will be available for public inspection during normal business hours in the Dockets Reference Room of the Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20554. 12. Ex-Parte Rules-Non-Restricted Proceeding This is a non-restricted notice and comment rule making proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed as provided in Commission rules. See generally 47 CFR 1.1202, 1.1203 and 1.1206(a). 13. For further information on this proceeding contact David Wilson, Technical Standards Branch, Office of Engineering and Technology, 202-653-8138. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 2 and 15: Communications equipment, Wiretapping and electronic surveillance. Federal Communications Commission. Donna R. Searcy, Secretary. Parts 2 and 15 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations are proposed to be amended as follows: PART 2-FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 4, 302, 303 and 307 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154, 154(i), 302, 303, 303(r) and 307. 2. Section 2.975 is amended by adding a new paragraph (a)(8) to read as follows: 2.975 Application for notification. (a) * * * (8) Applications for the notification of receivers contained in frequency converters used with scanning receivers shall be accompanied by an exhibit indicating compliance with the provisions of 15.121 of this chapter. * * * * * 3. Section 2.1033 is amended by adding a new paragraph (b)(12) to read as follows: 2.1033 Application for certification. * * * * * (b) * * * (12) Applications for the certification of scanning receivers under part 15 shall be accompanied by an exhibit indicating compliance with the provisions of 15.122 of this chapter. * * * * * PART 15-RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES 1. The authority citation for part 15 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 4, 302, 303 and 307 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154, 302, 303 and 307. 2. Section 15.37 is amended by adding a last sentence to paragraph (b), and adding a new paragraph (f), to read as follows: 15.37 Transition provisions for compliance with the rules. * * * * * (b) * * * In addition, receivers are subject to the provisions in paragraph (f) of this section. * * * * * (f) The manufacture or importation of scanning receivers, and frequency converters used with scanning receivers, that do not comply with the provisions of 15.121 shall cease on or before April 26, 1994. Effective April 26, 1993, the Commission will not accept applications for equipment authorization for receivers that do not comply with the provisions of 15.121. This paragraph does not prohibit the sale or use of authorized receivers manufactured in the United States, or imported into the United States, prior to April 26, 1994. 3. Section 15.121 is added to read as follows: 15.121 Scanning receivers and frequency converters used with scanning receivers. Scanning receivers, and frequency converters used with scanning receivers, must be incapable of operating (tuning), or readily being altered by the user to operate, within the frequency bands allocated to the Domestic Public Cellular Radio Telecommunications Service. Receivers capable of "readily being altered by the user" include, but are not limited to, those for which the ability to receive transmissions in the restricted bands can be added by clipping the leads of, or installing, a diode, resistor and/or jumper wire; or replacing a plug-in semiconductor chip. Scanning receivers, and frequency converters used with scanning receivers, must also be incapable of converting digital cellular transmissions to analog voice audio.   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09325; 11 Feb 93 5:52 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25790 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 11 Feb 1993 02:31:43 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06783 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 11 Feb 1993 02:31:02 -0600 Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1993 02:31:02 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302110831.AA06783@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #82 TELECOM Digest Thu, 11 Feb 93 02:30:45 CST Volume 13 : Issue 82 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Exchange Scanning - Enough Already! (Russell Kroll) Re: Exchange Scanning - Enough Already! (Nigel Allen) Re: Inside AppleTalk/LocalTalk (Rob Bailey) Re: AppleTalk Docs Wanted (Matt Healy) Re: National Data Superhighways - Access? (Robert L. McMillin) Re: National Data Superhighways - Access? (Jon Krueger) Re: Modems For LEGAL Use in Germany (Steve Pershing) Re: N.E. Telephone Admits Ripoff - Refuses Restitution (Bruce Albrecht) Re: Bell Canada Applies to Hike Local Rates (Mark Brader) Re: Proposed 511 Service (Carl Moore) Cellular Phones Power Control (Lauren Weinstein) Clinton and the New Telephone System (Richard Thomsen) Re: Differences Between ANI and Caller-ID (Brent Capps) Re: ANI on 800 Line w/o T1? (John Higdon) Re: "phONEday" Area Code Changes in UK (Tony Harminc) Re: Low Cost Access to Network (Brad S. Hicks) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Exchange Scanning - Enough Already! From: rkroll@unkaphaed.jpunix.com (Russell Kroll) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 93 22:42:55 GMT Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX > [Moderator's Note: It is a little hard to yell at hackers for doing this > when 'legitimate companies' do it and get away with it. Are any of your > (in service) lines equipped with Caller-ID? Operating on the assumption > So, put Caller-ID on a few of the lines in sequence; let's say put it > on extensions 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. Observe the Caller-ID unit > for a few days and see if the same number shows up on all of them. Unfortunately, we have not been granted the privelege of being able to have Caller-ID down here. It went before the PUC some time back, and failed. If and when it does arrive, things like this will (hopefully) become uncommon. rkroll@unkaphaed.jpunix.com (Russell Kroll) Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 481-3763 1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis ------------------------------ From: Nigel Allen Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1993 19:00:00 -0500 Subject: Re: Exchange Scanning - Enough Already! Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto bill.garfield@yob.sccsi.com complains that someone appears to be calling all the phone numbers assigned to his employer in sequence. Maybe it's not a hacker. Maybe it's a company using an automatic dialing-announcing machine to sell carpet cleaning or health club memberships. There is a particularly obnoxious company in Toronto that uses dialing-announcing machines to get people to call its 976 numbers. But doesn't the U.S. have federal legislation dealing with automatic dialing-announcing machines, in addition to any legislation that Bill Garfield's state may have passed? Nigel Allen nigel.allen@canrem.com Canada Remote Systems - Toronto, Ontario 416-629-7000/629-7044 [Moderator's Note: What is wrong with your theory, Nigel, is that a carpet cleaning company or health club -- or even a persistent bill collector -- would not call (was it?) 165 times each night. You don't sell memberships or cleaning services at midnight. In any event, I don't think there is legislation at the federal level. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 10 Feb 93 21:54:52 EST From: Rob Bailey <74007.303@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Inside AppleTalk/LocalTalk Thanks to the coupla dozen folks who responded to my question about AppleTalk and LocalTalk docs. Unfortunately, I am not one of these guys that asks questions w/o doing at least a LITTLE research. I already knew of the popular _Inside xxx_ series and have it; the documentation I said I was waiting on is the (rumored? I know nothing about Macs) consolidated documentation that addresses all networking rather than spread it out over several versions of the OS and hardware. Anyway ... what I really wanted anyway was documentation on the hardware protocols (the low-level OSI stuff) -- right down to level 1 (volts, et al). I'm still looking ... If this stuff is in the _Inside xxx_ series, don't bother responding, since I'm acting as a go-between the Net and my Mac programmer, who actually has those doc's on order already. Rob Bailey, WM8S, or 74007.303@compuserve.com I just own Bailey-Hudson - I don't speak for it. ------------------------------ From: matt@wardsgi.med.yale.edu (Matt Healy) Subject: Re: AppleTalk Docs Wanted Organization: Yale University--Genetics Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1993 02:21:10 GMT Be sure to get the _SECOND_ edition; 1st is obsolete! Following is from my copy: {Inside AppleTalk (r), Second Edition} by Gursaran S. Sidhu, {et al} ISBN 0-201-55021-0 $34.95 FPT USA (c) 1990 Addison-Wesley or APDA Apple Computer, Inc. 20525 Mariani Avenue, Mailstop 33-G Cupertino, CA 95014, USA If you are responsible for administering an AppleTalk network, or write software for it, you should have a copy of this book. It gives complete, detailed info on all the AppleTalk and related protocols. Matt Healy matt@wardsgi.med.yale.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 93 10:35:11 -0800 From: rlm@indigo2.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) Subject: Re: National Data Superhighways - Access? Will Martin writes: > There's been recent news coverage of the new administration's plan to > set up a data network for general public access that has been referred > to as "National Data Superhighways". Publicized examples of the way > such a network would be used include such things as letting school > students run programs on NASA supercomputers that model weather and > other such computing-intensive tasks. What nobody ever mentions in > these news items is just what sort of access control and/or security > is planned for this environment. What I want to know is, why aren't the telcos pushing for this? I think I know the answer: they're too focused on providing POTS (only when they have to) and CENTREX and high-speed data services (which they would rather do) to worry about providing universal digital services which gain them no new, interesting businesses (like providing "video dial tone"). But what bothers me even more than the telcos lack of initiative in this matter are the implications of the Feds running such a network. Based on the way the FCC has behaved itself in matters of free speech on the broadcast airwaves, it seems an easy step for the datacops to come along and shut you off the net if you don't profess politically correct ideology under the "limited resource" doctrine. In speech- restricted California, we now have a law that will enable the PC-minded to arrest fourth graders for calling other kids ugly names. What's to prevent a similar law against puerile morons doing so on the digital highway? A state-controlled "data superhighway" smells like an ingenious way for the U.S. government to do to two-way digital communications what the U.K. did to one-way radio broadcasting with the BBC: maintain control over access, and thus, content. It would be an excellent tool for snooping on individuals. As with driving privileges, no one is guaranteed access to the net, but if you sign this form handing over certain rights to the state, we'll let you on. Networking has so far been a tool for decentralization and democratization, but it could just as easily become a device allowing the state even further encroachments into our lives. GTE may offer terrible service, but at least they don't come into the houses of teenage hacking suspects, guns cocked. Robert L. McMillin | Voice: (310) 568-3555 Hughes Aircraft/Hughes Training, Inc. | Fax: (310) 568-3574 Los Angeles, CA | Internet: rlm@indigo2.hac.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1993 03:51:05 -0800 Subject: Re: National Data Superhighways - Access? Reply-To: jpk@Ingres.COM Organization: Ingres Corporation, a subsidiary of The ASK Group, Inc. From: jpk@ingres.com (Jon Krueger) Will Martin writes: > administration's plan to set up..."National Data Superhighways" > ...network for general public access The idea is hardly new with Clinton or his administration. Proponents hope he'll come up with the cash. > Publicized examples of the way such a network would be used include > such things as letting school students run programs on NASA > supercomputers that model weather...[but] NASA can't even afford > to store its existing magtape inventory in controlled conditions, > much less copy the data to newer-format storage media. Now they're > expected to have extra Crays for kids to play on?) A reasonable point. In fact any hard look at the proposed uses reveals the usual quota of silly ideas. NASA giving away its cycles to a world filled with cheap commodity cycles closer to the kids is laughable enough. To hear it offered as a justification for building an expensive high performance data network takes the cake. It would in fact make more sense to use the net to link the kids' forty million PCs together to provide "community supercomputing" for NASA. However, technology history is filled with lots of equally amusing examples of cost justification that missed the mark. The interstate highway system was justified by military uses. Really. Two generations later, we know that ordinary citizens have used it a hell of a lot more than the military, not to mention trucking, tourism, and migration. But at the time, the bean counters were impressed by "military mobilization". > What nobody ever mentions in these news items is just what sort of > access control and/or security is planned for this environment. What sort of access control and/or security do we have for highways? After all, someone could drive fifty miles, break into your house, and be fifty miles away in an hour. In other words, these are not new problems, either to systems or highways. It is true that high speed generally accessible nets will reveal weaknesses of current systems in a glaring light. However, I tend to think the more interesting issues are how a national net could enable us to work and play together better. Certainly access and demonstrably secure interoperation will be required before it's anything but a toy. But once that's accomplished, and indeed becomes part of the cost, what would an affordable megabit per second connecting you to the world, and the world to you, enable? If universality of access to this were as widespread as access to POTS, what would that make possible? What's the potential if anyone could open a digital channel to any other consenting party? What would you do with it? What would you like to connect to? Jon Krueger jpk@ingres.com ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Modems For LEGAL Use in Germany From: sp@questor.org (Steve Pershing) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 93 10:42:27 PST Organization: Questor|Free Usenet News|Vancouver, BC: +1 604 681 0670 alizard@gentoo.com (James R. Perry III) writes: > I'm looking for a AT-bus compatible 1/2 card modem that can be legally > used in Germany (modems that do NOT pass German telecomm regulations > result in VERY high fines)... as in manufactured in the US, Taiwan, > South Korea, etc. ... CCITT, not Bell standard, anything from 2400 > baud upwards. It is my understanding that CHEAP modems available in > Germany start at $300 and upwards. This is for a friend of mine who > lives there and has to live with German regulatory standards. ZyXEL modems are approved for use in Germany, and are sold there. We will also sell them to almost anyone anywhere in the world, at about a 10% profit. (The profit goes to support the free aspects of the Questor site.) Their internal card is, unfortunately, full-length but it does 16.8kbps as a proprietary speed (soon 19.2kbps), 14.4kbps class 2 FAX, and 9600bps voice. (It sells for around USD345.) NEW SPEC SHEETS are now available from our mail-server, including specs on ZyXEL's "Cellular" option. The spec-sheets have been scanned in at 300x300dpi as TIFF images, then ZOO-compressed. The mail-server will automatically uuencode them (or optionally xxencode). For information on how to use the mail-server (and for a directory of available files), send e-mail to: mail-server@questor.org and enter the following at the left margin of an otherwise blank message body: help dir end Good luck in your search for a 1/2-length card! Steve Pershing, SysAdmin The QUESTOR Project FREE access to Environ, Sci, Med, & AIDS news, and more. [also UUCP] on a ZyXEL-U1496S+ => v.42bis, v.32bis, v.33, up to 16,800bps. -=- -=- -=- -=- Fones: (+1 604) Data: 681-0670 Telefax: 682-6160 Voice: 682-6659 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 93 19:23:57 CST From: bruce@zuhause.MN.ORG (Bruce Albrecht) Subject: Re: N.E. Telephone Admits Ripoff - Refuses Restitution > Yeah, New England Telephone is pretty awful, all right -- it's in the > same league as some third-world countries you hear about. In May, I > moved up here to take a job telecommuting out of my home, and tried to > get them to install four phone lines for a business in my apartment, > in addition to one personal line. Whooee, this taxed their tiny little > brains beyond the limit. First I couldn't get a straight answer out of > them whether this was possible given existing wiring in the building. A classmate of mine once attempted to get a phone line into his dorm room at Harvard, and was told by NET that they were out of connections for the dorm, but if he was willing to get a business line, and pay for connection to the Telco office (at some outrageous amount), they could install a line within a few days. Being a good Harvard law student, he contacted the Massachusetts PUC to complain, and shortly thereafter, NET contacted him to about setting up his personal line. bruce@zuhause.mn.org ------------------------------ From: msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) Subject: Re: Bell Canada Applies to Hike Local Rates Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada Date: Wed, 10 Feb 93 13:20:17 GMT > In Phase II, effective September 1, a Community Calling Plan (CCP) > would eliminate toll charges between many suburban exchanges that are > local to the same major city (such as Toronto, Ottawa-Hull or Montreal > [except that the Montreal CCP would not be implemented until November > 1) but long distance from each other. But local phone rates would > rise sharply: [in addition to the other increase also requested] ... Why is that? The policy here has been that local phone rates are based on how many telephones *you* can call locally [note to those in less civilized :-) areas: this means free]. I think that a large local calling area makes sense in the neighborhood of a big city, so it's probably a good idea for different Toronto suburbs to become local to each other. But why should my rates in Toronto go up because people in nearby cities are getting this service? Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 93 13:51:18 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Proposed 511 Service It was West Palm Beach, Fla., and the newspaper was the {Palm Beach Post} (parent company is Cox Enterprises). ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 93 12:03 PST From: lauren@cv.vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: Cellular Phones Power Control Greetings. I see that a message of mine from RISKS migrated over here, so I wanted to very briefly mention two issues I've been discussing with various folks since my original posting. 1) The primary reason CDMA does tight power control is not to conserve battery power, but rather so that the spread spectrum system being used will work at all. Battery conservation and radiation reductions are nice side-effects. 2) A couple of people wrote me saying that ordinary analog (AMPS) cellular service also has power control. While it is true that a power control system is defined in the spec, it appears that in actual use most cells keep their mobile units set to full power (for whatever class of mobile it is, either 3W or 600mw) virtually all of the time. In fact, I've gotten notes from a couple of cell experts who say they know of no AMPS systems that actively run power control (I cannot verify this, however). The AMPS power control spec utilizes a small number of steps and was designed to control inter-cell interference. In practice, however, I'm told that fading is usually so significant that just running at full power is the norm. Further questions on the operational aspects of these systems, as opposed to the specifications, would probably best be directed to the manufacturers and operators of the systems. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 93 13:23:20 -0700 From: rgt@beta.lanl.gov (Richard Thomsen) Subject: Clinton and the New Telephone System I thought Clinton's team was against discrimination, including age discrimination. Yet I saw this on the Digest: > Some of this work is falling to Jeff Eller, Clinton's director of > media affairs, a moustachioed fellow who lives and breathes computer > software, electronic mail, satellite uplinks and the like. > "What I'm talking about is that we are for the most part younger, ------- > computer literate, comfortable with computers and understand their > value in moving information," Eller said. Just because someone is older does *not* mean computer illiterate! I understand that someone in Delco once got fired for making similar remarks about needing "young blood" in the organization. Richard Thomsen rgt@lanl.gov [Moderator's Note: I did not get the impression he was saying that younger people are more computer-literate. I got the impression he was merely describing the staff he works with. ('we are younger'). If I were to describe myself, I might say 'I know about computers, I work for some lawyers, and I am 50 years old.' That would not be saying that younger/older people do not work for lawyers or that younger/ older people do/do not 'know about computers'. PAT] ------------------------------ From: bcapps@atlastele.com (Brent Capps) Subject: Re: Differences Between ANI and Caller-ID Organization: Atlas Telecom Inc. Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1993 18:13:14 GMT In article goldstein@carafe.dnet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) writes: > In article , bcapps@atlastele.com (Brent > Capps) writes: >> CompuCall has a long and checkered history within BNR. > It's a bit longer than that. Way back in 1982, we at Digital did an > advanced development with Northern on a "Command and Status Link" to > the SL-1. CSL used a protocol that vaguely sort of resembled early > snapshots of ISDN (this was before Q.931 was finished). In 1986, we > actively began to build products to this and similar links, under the > generic term Computer Integrated Telephony. NT renamed CSL to > "ISDN/AP" when it was actually released as a product (around 1987). > Later, they decided to introduce a gratuitous processor in between the > SL-1 and the user's CIT server, which converts the protocol to a > different one, which might be (I'm confused myself) called Meridian > Link. Yeah, I left out a lot of the details like the CSL name. The CSL was designed to be very tightly coupled around the SL-1 architecture, in part because it was designed by the SL-1 engineers at BNR/Mountain View, a very separate group from the DMS family designers in Ottawa Richardson TX and Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. There were two attempts to adapt the CSL to the DMS architecture, both were failures because of the way its designers had built the CSL around the SL-1's terminal node numbering mechanism, which can't be easily converted to the DMS's frame/bay/shelf/slot heirarchy. To my knowledge it STILL won't work with DMS and, having been a member of the second porting team on the SL-100, I'd say it never will. CSL became ISDN/AP became Meridian Link. However, you're getting CIT mixed up with the CSL. CIT was a cooperative thing between DEC and NT designed from the get-go to work with DMS switches. It's an entirely separate and fairly primitive protocol. I believe CIT is now called SCAI. > SCAI is on the DMS-100 and SL-100 product lines, while Meridian Link > is on the SL-1 product line. Both lines, of course, are now called > Meridian 1. They do love to keep the terminology from being clear ... Well now you know why. From a technological and historical standpoint SCAI and Meridian Link have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. Yet they're sold as an integrated product line -- just like Meridian. Brent Capps bcapps@agora.rain.com (gay stuff) bcapps@atlastele.com (telecom stuff) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 93 15:59 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: ANI on 800 Line w/o T1? Tas Dienes writes: > Does anybody know if it is possible to get ANI on an 800 line without > having to get T1 service? I just have a couple of regular (actually, > Centranet) lines - local service is GTE, 800 is Sprint. Sprint says > no, but I was wondering if anybody else can? In order to receive realtime ANI from a long distance carrier, you must have a "trunk-side connection". All connections from your telco's switch are "line-side connections". So the answer is no, you cannot get realtime ANI without having a direct trunk connection to a carrier's switch. There is a way around this however. Stay tuned. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 93 23:19:32 EST From: Tony Harminc Subject: Re: "phONEday" Area Code Changes in UK Linc Madison wrote: > * All UK geographic area codes will have a 1 inserted after the > initial 0. For example, the Dundee code changes from 0382 to 01382; > the London codes from 071 to 0171 and 081 to 0181; and so on. I have cousins in Bedford, where the current area code is 0234. So presumably it will become 01234. Bedford has six digit numbers, but unfortunately the 567 range is not allocated, so no one will have 01234 567890 unless that range is opened up. Still, people living in Bedford are going to get some suspicious looks when they first start giving out their new phone numbers. Tony Harminc ------------------------------ From: mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@mhs.attmail.com Date: 10 Feb 93 22:57:33 GMT Subject: Re: Low Cost Access to Network lars@spike.CMC.COM (Lars Poulsen) said: > The new low end in turnkey packages is the Rockwell NetHopper. You > attach one to your ethernet at home** and the other to the ethernet at > work; ... Doesn't that assume that the ethernet at work is gatewayed into the ethernet? We no got that. I doubt that most people have that. J. Brad Hicks Internet: mc!Brad_Hicks@mhs.attmail.com X.400: c=US admd=ATTMail prmd=MasterCard sn=Hicks gn=Brad ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #82 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27493; 11 Feb 93 14:10 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31409 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 11 Feb 1993 10:48:39 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04555 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 11 Feb 1993 10:47:48 -0600 Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1993 10:47:48 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302111647.AA04555@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #83 TELECOM Digest Thu, 11 Feb 93 10:47:45 CST Volume 13 : Issue 83 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Southwestern Bell to Buy Cable Systems (Washington Post via Karl Johnson) ANI on 800 Line w/o T1? (Tim Gorman) Re: TCP Time-to-Live (TTL) Field (Matt Healy) Meaning of TTL in TCP/IP (was Jack Decker's FTP Problem) (Matti Aarnio) Re: Jack Decker's FTP Problem (Ehud Gavron) Motorola Date Codes (Leroy Donnelly) Re: AT&T Public Phone 2000 Illegal (Mike Riddle) Re: Frame Relay Congestion Question (Fred R. Goldstein) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 Feb 93 18:39:08 EST From: karl.johnson@office.wang.com (Karl Johnson) Subject: Southwestern Bell to Buy Cable Systems According to {The Washingotn Post} on Wednesday, February 10 Southwestern Bell will buy the cable TV franchises for Montgomery County, MD and Arlington County, VA for $650 Million from Hauser Communications. This would be the first Baby Bell to own a Cable Company, and could according to The Post "alter the debate surrounding federal telecommunications policy." This would be another area where SWB does business in the Washington area. SWB owns the local Cellular One franchise and the "One Book" Yellow Pages for Washington. The sale should be compleated by mid summer according to SWB. The combined systems would amount to the 12th largest cable system in the nation, and would allow SWB use the existing wires to luanch the next generation of cellular telephone service, according to observers. Several (unmentioned) cable companies are attempting to adapt their cable system to form the backbone for Personal Comminications Service. PCS on the cable systems here would put SWB into competion with C&P (Bell Atlantic), which is testing an experimental TV system in Arlington that uses phone wires which would conpete with SWB. The article also mentions that SWB would need a waiver to make this purchase the cable companies, as this technically is a violation of the restrictions on long-distance service. SWB said it thought the waiver would be granted. The article mentions that Pacific Telesis has been attempting to get one since 1989 so it may buy the cable system in Chicago. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Feb 93 10:30:44 EST From: tim gorman <71336.1270@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: ANI on 800 Line w/o T1? In TELECOM Digest V13 #82 john@zygot.ati.com writes the following: > Tas Dienes writes: >> Does anybody know if it is possible to get ANI on an 800 line without >> having to get T1 service? I just have a couple of regular (actually, >> Centranet) lines - local service is GTE, 800 is Sprint. Sprint says >> no, but I was wondering if anybody else can? > In order to receive realtime ANI from a long distance carrier, you > must have a "trunk-side connection". All connections from your telco's > switch are "line-side connections". So the answer is no, you cannot > get realtime ANI without having a direct trunk connection to a > carrier's switch. > There is a way around this however. Stay tuned. First, there are ways to get ANI over 800 lines without T1 service. It depends entirely on what your long distance provider offers. If the only method for providing the ANI is over a Primary Rate or Basic Rate ISDN line, the T1 route *may* be the only way to go (I say may because, dependent upon your geographical relationship with the carriers switch, it may be possible to provide Basic Rate ISDN over copper pairs). If the carrier can offer standard trunking with the ANI sent as an MF (or possible DTMF) digit stream and your PBX can handle the specific format, then a T1 is not a requirement. If your 800 number is in the Sprint assigned 800-NNX ranges then you may have to wait until May 1 to move your service to another carrier that can provide you ANI over something other than a T1. Second, all connections from your telco's switch are not "line-side connections", at least in SWBT in Kansas. Maybe we are somehow more progressive than other areas but I doubt it. The connection you get to the telco switch should be dependent upon your requirements for operation. These may not always meet tariffed offerings, but a "special arrangement request" type offering should be available from all LEC's. Third, having said trunk side connections are available from the telco's switch, it is also necessary to point out that this probably won't help you in getting your ANI in any way. No switch I am aware of that is in use in the LEC networks will accept ANI from a carrier so the telco switches couldn't tandem ANI to you anyway. The telco switches aren't setup to pass ANI on the trunk side unless you are the billing office for a toll call, are a 911 PSAP, or are a Feature Group D interLATA carrier. If your PBX can handle Feature Group D signaling formats, you want to go through the process of being designated as an interLATA carrier, want to get an 800 NXX assigned (or wait until May 1 when 800 portability comes into play), and provide trunks into every sector where you may receive calls from then this may be a viable solution. Although not even close to being all inclusive, perhaps the following picture may give a better understanding than the prose above. LINE SIDE TRUNK SIDE ____________/ \ | |----------------- Feature Grp B | |\ / FG D (ani sent) | | O--O | |/ (TL) \ /\ ---------------| |----------------- Centrex Tie lines /--\ | |\ / | | ATION SET | |/ (DO) | |----------------- PBX (see line side) (SVC CODE) | |\ ______ | | |/ (TK) \| | (DI) \ |-------------| |----------------- PBX (DID trks) PBX |\ /| | / | | | | (DO) \| | \ |-------------| |----------------- CAMA (ani sent) -----| /| | / (carries intraLATA | | toll) | | / \| | \ RI ISDN -----------| |----------------- E911 (ani sent) \ /| | / | | | |/ \ | |----------------- PRI ISDN |-----------|\ / Tim Gorman - SWBT *Opnions are mine, any resemblance to official policy is coincidence* ------------------------------ From: matt@wardsgi.med.yale.edu (Matt Healy) Subject: Re: TCP Time-to-Live (TTL) Field Organization: Yale U. - Genetics Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1993 00:38:19 GMT In article , booloo@framsparc.ocf.llnl. gov (Mark Boolootian) wrote: > add@philabs.philips.com (Aninda Dasgupta) writes: >> What can be done to rectify this problem? The most obvious, though >> often impossible, thing to do is to change the default of 60 seconds >> for the TCP TTL that is compiled into the UNIX (or other OS) TCP >> software. > Thought I'd mention the following because it wasn't entirely clear in > the post: > While the TTL is supposed to be the amount of time a packet is > allowed to live in the network, in general, it is used as a hop count. > Each router the packet passes through typically will decrement the TTL > field by one. If a router has excessively long queues and the packet > has to hang around for some time, the router may elect to decrement > the TTL field by some larger amount. > Although I didn't see the original post, I find it very hard to > believe the user has a path with so many hops that the TTL is > expiring. The Internet is broad, but not that broad. By the way, > most implemenations of traceroute use a TTL of 30. Use of the TTL field is far from consistent. The following is from my SGI's on-line documentation for the ping command (man ping): TTL DETAILS The TTL value of an IP packet represents the maximum number of IP routers that the packet can go through before being thrown away. In current practice you can expect each router in the Internet to decrement the TTL field by exactly one. The TCP/IP specification says that the TTL field for TCP packets should be set to 60, but many systems use smaller values (IRIX and 4.3BSD use 30, 4.2BSD used 15). The maximum possible value of this field is 255, and most Unix systems set the TTL field of ICMP ECHO_REQUEST packets to 255. This is why you will find you can "ping" some hosts, but not reach them with telnet or ftp. In normal operation ping prints the ttl value from the packet it receives. When a remote system receives a ping packet, it can do one of three things with the TTL field in its response: + Not change it; this is what Berkeley Unix systems did before the 4.3BSD-tahoe release. In this case the TTL value in the received packet will be 255 minus the number of routers in the round-trip path. + Set it to 255; this is what IRIX and current Berkeley Unix systems do. In this case the TTL value in the received packet will be 255 minus the number of routers in the path from the remote system to the pinging host. + Set it to some other value. Some machines use the same value for the ICMP packets that they use for TCP packets, for example either 30 or 60. Others may use completely wild values. Matt Healy matt@wardsgi.med.yale.edu ------------------------------ From: Matti Aarnio Subject: Meaning of TTL in TCP/IP (was Jack Decker's FTP Problem) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1993 12:29:27 +0200 Lately I have seen this "TTL is time in seconds" dream on many places. Who originated that idea? Current IP version 4 does not contain an absolute time stamp in each datagram, rather it has a hop-count. In comp.dcom.telecom Aninda Dasgupta wrote: > By looking at Jack Decker's traceroute output, it seems that his TCP > packets are going through too many gateways. Nope, 30 is quite normal amount of router hops from one edge to another of the present Internet network. Even 50 is not that unusual. > Though these gateways (the ones run by ANS and MERIT) are fast boxes > (often RS/6000 boxes), and though they are for the most part connected > by T3 links, his TCP packets are just not getting to mintaka in time. Now Dasgupta sounds like talking about time as wall-clock time! However that route report showed max times to be under five seconds. > You see, every TCP packet has a "Time-to-live" field. As the packet > goes through each gateway, or "hop," as they are called in TCP > parlance, the Time-to-live (TTL) field is decremented. As is shown by > traceroute, Yep, decremented by one per each router HOP on one way. When router detects a TTL value 0, it sends back an ICMP-TTL-exceeded notification which has TTL set to max value (at least if router software is not faulty at that ... most SunOSes prior to 4.1.2 were using unfixed BSD 4.2 TCP/IP, which had a fault there.) > when the packet reaches a node that sees a value of 0 in the TTL > field, it simply discards the packet and echoes back to the original > sender that the packet's TTL has expired. [For further reading on this > topic, see Douglas Comer's excellent book "Internetworking with > TCP/IP"] It is interesting to note that often, Jack's packets seems to > reach very close to mintaka. > What can be done to rectify this problem? The most obvious, though > often impossible, thing to do is to change the default of 60 seconds > for the TCP TTL that is compiled into the UNIX (or other OS) TCP > software. Nope, it is not SECONDS, it is HOPS. (Gomer does explain it well) (And it is explained well in the original RFCs too, see RFC 791). Most commonly this problem is with network routers goofing their routes to given target (sub)network. Usually this is a configuration problem, which has created a black-hole on the routing. > In case root access to the dialup host is not available, Jack might > try connecting to a different host, preferably in a different part of > the country than from where he is trying. As I said, it is simply a > matter of getting to mintaka with a few less hops on the Internet. This may or may not solve the problem in case it is a routing black-hole in the network. Finding out whose routers are last ones that are reachable, and then reaching for their management with questions about unrechable networks further out will be a more efficient way. > Often, trying ftp from a "larger" host helps. By larger, I mean a > host that is directly on the 35.1 domain. That way, he will save the > two hops that he has on the 35.214 domain. These are not "domains", you are referring to a subnetted class A IP network, which has a 8 bit network number (1..63) and a 24 bit host-number within that network with first 8 bits of host-number being used as subnet identity at the level where encountered routers reside (and what is presented above.) > I suspect, a saving of just two hops is all he needs, since he has > been able to get to radole.lcs.mit.edu. Moreover, he should try to > ftp late at night, when the other usual TCP traffic will be less and > therefore, his TCP packets will get to mintaka faster, hopefully > before the 60 sec. TTL. Two hops out of 15 used ones would help? No, I don't think so. Matti Aarnio OH1MQK IP-(Inter-)networker since 1989 ------------------------------ From: gavron@spades.aces.com (Ehud Gavron 602-570-2000 x. 2546) Subject: Re: Jack Decker's FTP Problem Date: 10 Feb 93 17:41:00 GMT Reply-To: gavron@ACES.COM Organization: ACES Consulting Inc. In article , add@philabs.philips.com (Aninda Dasgupta) writes: > By looking at Jack Decker's traceroute output, it seems that his TCP > packets are going through too many gateways. Those gateways are on the route between him and his destination. > and though they are for the most part connected by T3 links, his TCP > packets are just not getting to mintaka in time. Not true. Time is NOT a factor. > You see, every TCP packet has a "Time-to-live" field. And when they first created gateways they realized it would be too much hassle to decrement TTL by one every second, so instead they decrement it by one EVERY GATEWAY. > What can be done to rectify this problem? The most obvious, though > often impossible, thing to do is to change the default of 60 seconds > for the TCP TTL that is compiled into the UNIX (or other OS) TCP 60 hops (for now TTL means hop-count-maximum) is enough to reach any destination in the universe connected to our Internet. It is not 60 seconds. Most likely it's 15 (AT&T 3B2s have this as default) and should be modified up to 40 or so. > software. I have done this in UNIX so I will describe that. Editing > the file in_proto.c and changing the default of 60 assigned to the > variable named tcp_ttl, to something like 120, should work. After the > editing, the kernel will have to be rebuilt (using make). This is probably true although I suspect the number he Jack had was not 60. > two hops that he has on the 35.214 domain. I suspect, a saving of > just two hops is all he needs, since he has been able to get to > radole.lcs.mit.edu. This part is EXCELLENT ADVICE for a quick workaround with little effort. > Moreover, he should try to ftp late at night, when the other usual > TCP traffic will be less and therefore, his TCP packets will get to > mintaka faster, hopefully before the 60 sec. TTL. This is totally bogus. Ehud Gavron (EG76) gavron@aces.com The research thinktank of the southwest. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 93 19:26:42 CST From: Leroy.Donnelly@axolotl.omahug.org (Leroy Donnelly) Subject: Motorola Date Codes Reply-To: leroy.donnelly%drbbs@axolotl.omahug.org Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha For those who own Motorola phones the following will tell you when it was made. YEAR CODE MONTH CODE 1984 J January A or B 1985 K February C or D EXAMPLE: 1986 L March E or F SERIAL NUMBER: 289CLW4321 1987 M April G or H ^^ 1988 N May J or K || 1989 P June L or M YEAR ----+| 1990 Q July N or P | 1991 R August Q or R MONTH -----+ 1992 S September S or T 1993 T October U or V November 1986 1994 U November W or X 1995 V December Y or Z ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 93 16:11:28 CST From: Mike.Riddle@axolotl.omahug.org (Mike Riddle) Subject: Re: AT&T Public Phone 2000 Illegal Reply-To: mike.riddle%inns@axolotl.omahug.org Organization: Inns of Court, Papillion, NE Ken Jongsma ) writes: > Does anyone know what the deal is on this ruling? I suppose that > someone thinks tying an unregulated rental offering of a terminal to a > regulated long distance offering is a "bad thing." A correspondent on the Compuserve Telecommunications forum confirms that the problem seems to be bundling an untariffed service (the keyboard,etc.) with tariffed services. He also noted that virtually only AT&T can get "dinged" by the FCC over this kind of "violation." From another post from an individual who works for Mother, I'm presuming that AT&T is pursuing a regulatory solution. I, for one, am going to keep my eye out for the right reference number so I can meaningfully add my "two cents" worth. <<<< insert standard disclaimer here >>>> mike.riddle@rlaw.omahug.org | Riddle Law Office bc335@cleveland.freenet.edu | +1 402 339-2327 (Data/Fax) Sysop of 1:285/28@Fidonet | V.32bis/V.42bis/Gp III V.17 Maximus 2.01wb Riddle Law Office (1:285/28) ------------------------------ From: goldstein@carafe.dnet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) Subject: Re: Frame Relay Congestion Question Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1993 05:32:59 GMT In article , zhang@sce.carleton.ca (Shu Zhang) writes: > Is it possible to make some modifications on the address field of the > CLLM messages? for example, use the same address value as that of the > ordinary data frames in the backward direction. I think this will > allow the intermediate nodes to relay CLLM messages in the same way > they relay the data frames, without adding any specific processing to > CLLM messages. Am I right? No. The CLLM has a single, defined address. All other possible Q.922 address values are somebody else's, either user virtual circuits or network-reserved virtual circuits. It's consolidated! And they have to be processed. Remember, user DLCIs are bidirectional, so the user owns the DLCI value in both directions, whether the user traffic is really bidirectional or not. Fred R. Goldstein goldstein@carafe.tay2.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 V13 #83 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12621; 12 Feb 93 12:39 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04325 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 12 Feb 1993 01:02:54 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10364 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 12 Feb 1993 01:02:05 -0600 Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 01:02:05 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302120702.AA10364@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #84 TELECOM Digest Fri, 12 Feb 93 01:02:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 84 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: German PCN License (E1) Given to VEBA and Thyssen (Lutz Albers) Re: Prodigy <> Internet Gateway Almost Finished (Kauto Huopio) Re: 1ESS and CNID (Arnette Schultz) Re: PacBell IntraLATA Rate Ripoffs (Glenn McComb) Re: Meet Me at the Power Line (John Nagle) Re: Using Fax Machine + Fax Modem as a Scanner (Jarom Hagen) Re: SS7 / CID Question (Mark Baker) Re: AT&T Are You Listening? (John Higdon) Re: Human Factors For Speech Recognition Systems (Charles Hoequist) Re: What The Heck is 4,941,976.667 Hz Good For? (Bob Clements) Followup: Rochester Tel Wants to Split (Phillip Dampier) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 11 Feb 93 15:44:58 EST From: Lutz Albers <100022.1102@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: German PCN License (E1) Given to VEBA and Thyssen In shri@unreal.cs.umass.edu (H. Shrikumar) wrote: > I wonder what the competitive environment is? > Would E-plus and E-star compete? What about D1 and D2? If not > today, are there plans? Or is there a zonal split? [stuff deleted] > PS: Wow! The services and companies providing them are also named > so methodically!! An admittedly irrational conclusion re. the > possible "non"-competitiveness springs in my mind ! :-) Or is it just > the fabled German perfection at work ?? Well, I think an explanation of the German celluar networks is in place here. The oldest working celluar network is the B/B2 network, which is operated by the DBP Telekom (DBPT) (our dear beloved telecom service provider ;-). This is an analogue network with no roaming (you need to know the zone where the called party is located). This network is to be dismantled around the end of 1994. The successor of the B network is the C network, which is also operated by the DBPT. Again this is an analogue network. For this network you don't need to know the exact location of the called party, just calling 0161 + number will get you through. According to information of the DBPT this network uses cells with a radius of approximatly 20 km and can serve up to 800.000 customers. A few years ago the German Ministry for Telecommunications decided to give licenses for a new digital celluar network (based on the new European GSM standard) to the DBPT (D1) as well as to the private consostium Mannesmann Mobilfunk (D2). Both networks went into service last year (at least in the metropolitan areas and along the freeways). To understand the additional introduction of the E network one needs to know that both provide plans to cover nearly all areas of Germany. BTW, this network will provide international roaming in countries with GSM networks. Last year the German Ministry decided to give an additional license for an additional digital network which will base also on the GSM standard, but will use smaller units with less power. The DBPT was barred from building such a network so two consortiums names E-plus (Veba, Thyssen et al) and E-star (BMW et al) were bidding for the license which was given finally to E-plus. This network will not cover all of Germany. So there will be now four celluar networks competing (two of them run by the DBPT). Lutz Albers InterNet: 100022.1102@compuserve.com Reginfriedstr. 10 CompuServe: 100022.1102 8000 - Muenchen 90 Phone: +49 89 651 71 85 Germany Fax: +49 89 651 71 88 ------------------------------ From: Kauto.Huopio@lut.fi (Kauto Huopio) Subject: Re: Prodigy <> Internet Gateway Almost Finished Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 05:31:32 GMT Organization: Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland In article I wrote: > So, it might be even possible to get a telnet connection to BIX? I got an answer from Sarat Vemuri (cvemuri@hubcap.clemson.edu) that x25.bix.com is the way to telnet to BIX. The DNS (Domain Name Service) gives these addresses to x25.bix.com: x25.bix.com internet address = 192.80.63.1 x25.bix.com internet address = 192.80.63.2 x25.bix.com internet address = 192.80.63.3 x25.bix.com internet address = 192.80.63.4 x25.bix.com internet address = 192.80.63.6 So, there seems to be plenty of capacity. Someone with a BIX account, give x25.bix.com a try and report to comp.dcom.telecom the results!! Sarat notes the charge: "Charges are $1/hr billed to your BIX account." Kauto Huopio (huopio@kannel.lut.fi) Mail: Kauto Huopio, Laserkatu 3 CD 363, SF-53850 Lappeenranta,Finland ------------------------------ From: kityss@ihlpe.att.com Date: Thu, 11 Feb 93 18:01 CST Subject: Re: 1ESS and CNID In Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 76, Message 11 of 16 DREUBEN@ EAGLE.WESLEYAN.EDU (Douglas Scott Reuben) writes: > A number of question have come up regarding SS7 and CID: > 1. Can a 1ESS switch display CID? Are there any software upgrades/hardware > upgrades which allow it to do so? Nope. 1ESS does not support SS7 or LASS features in any form. This includes Caller Identification features such as Calling Number Delivery or Calling Name Delivery. The poor old 1ESS just doesn't have the memory space to support the extensive software for these advanced features. The 1ESS does not support SS7. Never has, never will. The 1A ESS is a different story. It does fully support LASS and SS7. Since a 1ESS can not support SS7, Calling Party Number (a.k.a. caller identification) is never sent from a 1ESS. A 1ESS will of course signal ANI (billing number) information using the (older) Equal Access Multi-frequency signaling protocol. (See FAQ to understand the differences between CPN and ANI.) > Every 1ESS that I've tried to get CID info from fails (ie, you call > from the 1ESS to a 5ESS that has CID). Is the Telco doing this > intentionally, ie, so that customers on the 1ESS who can't hit *67 to > make their calls private will not have to show their number to > EVERYONE they call, or is it more of a technical reason why one can't > get CID from a 1ESS? I assume you receive an "Out of Area" or "Number unavailable" indication. Technical reason. 1ESS does not support SS7 or LASS (including the "privacy" features). It doesn't need the privacy features, because an originating party's number (CPN) is never transmitted from a 1ESS. Another reader from Canada remarked on what they assumed was Pacific Bell blocking Caller Identification because their display for calls originating from California was "Private" not "Out of Area" (or number unavailable, etc). It is possible. Several switches support an "all numbers private" indication. I'm not sure if this is a Bellcore requirement, or simply a fact of Calling Number Delivery evolution. (Some states that don't permit calling number/name delivery wanting to insure that numbers are "never" delivered, even out of state.) Arnette Schultz kityss@ihlpe.att.com (Opinions and inaccuracies are all mine!) ------------------------------ From: gmccomb@netcom.com (Glenn McComb) Subject: Re: PacBell IntraLATA Rate Ripoffs Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 06:38:58 GMT Oops. Sorry to hear that your credit card call got hit for an additional 0.75 When I originally posted this a while back, I wanted to be able to access MCI from my primary number, not just credit card access. I mean: 10222+ dialling. BTW, Execuline, which I now use for 415/510 calls from 408 charges 0.12/min no matter what time of day. Thank you speed dial! Glenn A. McComb (408) 725-1448 ofc * 725-0222 fax McComb Research PO Box 220 * Cupertino, CA 95015 gmccomb @ netcom.com MHS: glenn @ mccomb ------------------------------ From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) Subject: Re: Meet Me at the Power Line Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 02:02:42 GMT gls@windmill.att.com writes: In , jack_decker@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org writes: > The inverse-square law holds only for point sources. For a line, the > corresponding law is straight reciprocal: inversely proportional to > the distance from the line. However, for a multiconductor power line, there is a cancellation effect from the return current, so the geometry is more complicated. The ratio of the distance between the conductors and the distance to the conductors is key. When you are far away from a pair of wires near each other (like an ordinary power cord) the effects of the two conductors cancel out. Twisted pairs cancel even better. So an analysis based on a single-line model isn't valid. Three-phase lines require more analysis, but I think that the effects of all three lines cancel similarly, since there's no net electron flow (the current in all three lines instantaneously sums to 0). John Nagle ------------------------------ From: jhagen@npri6.npri.com (Jarom Hagen) Subject: Re: Using Fax Machine + Fax Modem as a Scanner Date: 11 Feb 93 18:37:14 GMT Organization: NPRI, Alexandria VA rob@sound.demon.co.uk (Robert J Barth) writes: > nHow can I use a standalone fax machine as a scanner? > I would like to be able to plug my fax machine into my pc fax/modem, > and press a few buttons, and end up with a fax format file of whatever > was on the sheet of paper ... All you need to do is to connect the fax and the modem with phone line cable, have the fax dial a number to make it look for a fax and then put your fax modem on manual receive (from the software). It works for me. Jarom *Not paid for and/or endorsed by NPRI. 602 Cameron St, Alexandria VA 22314 (UUCP: ...uunet!uupsi!npri6!jhagen) (Internet: jhagen@npri.com) ------------------------------ From: mcb@ihlpl.att.com Date: Thu, 11 Feb 93 07:59 CST Subject: Re: SS7 / CID Question > A number of question have come up regarding SS7 and CID: > 1. Can a 1ESS switch display CID? Are there any software upgrades/hardware > upgrades which allow it to do so? The 1 ESS(tm) Switch simply exhausted its available address spectrum several years ago to allow new capabilities such as SS7 and CLASS to be implemented on it. The 1 ESS processor was designed in the early 60's and has a maximum on 768K words of magnetic card storage for generic program and office data (both equipment configuration and line/trunks/routing type translation information.) The 1A ESS switch does support SS7 and CLASS services. The 1A ESS is a 1 ESS with a 1A processor which was designed in the mid 70's and has a 12Mbyte memory spectrum. > 2. Assuming a 1ESS can't offer CID to its local subscribers, if it is > connected with SS7 to a 5ESS or a DMS or in general some CID-capable > switch, can the 1ESS send out the CID information? 1 ESS can't do SS7 therefore it can not send out CID. > Every 1ESS that I've tried to get CID info from fails (ie, you call > from the 1ESS to a 5ESS that has CID). Is the Telco doing this > intentionally, ie, so that customers on the 1ESS who can't hit *67 to > make their calls private will not have to show their number to > EVERYONE they call, or is it more of a technical reason why one can't > get CID from a 1ESS? Since 1 ESS does not support SS7 or CLASS it does not even support the ability for customers to dial *67. Almost all calls are carried via MF signaling in and out of 1 ESS switches. Mark Baker AT&T Network Systems ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Feb 93 10:41 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: AT&T Are You Listening? LCHIU@HOLONET.NET writes: > I am thinking about MCI instead. > I don't want to switch carriers. Then don't. Use AT&T for whatever AT&T does well, and use MCI for whatever you perceive to be the better deal from that company. The concept of "switching" is a matter of brainwashing from the long distance carriers. Yes, you can only have one PIC or "dial 1" provider, but you can have as many accounts with as many companies as you like. For instance, keep AT&T as your PIC and then sign up with MCI for the international plan, keeping your MCI account secondary. Then when you call China (or whereever), prepend '10222' to the call. Frontline salesslime will tell you that you have to "switch" to take advantage of a particular plan, but that is 99.9% hogwash. > So if there are any AT&T people out there who can pass on these > comments to the powers that be, please do so. You may be losing > another customer to the opposition. I have used various plans offered by Sprint and MCI, but I have never "left" AT&T. There is no need. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1993 15:08:00 +0000 From: Charles (C.A.) Hoequist Subject: Re: Human Factors For Speech Recognition Systems This is just to add a few bits and pieces to Norm Tiedemann's response on this topic. While it is true, as he wrote, that large-vocabulary systems (say, > 1000 words) by and large haven't been trained for telephony speech, this isn't because vendors are perverse. The data gathering necessary to do the training even for small-vocabulary systems requires considerable time and money, and it's not clear what the return would be. Dragon Systems, for example, focuses on applications like spoken input to a word processor. That's not something people want to do over the telephone very often. I suspect these hurdles are even more daunting for vendors than the problems of telephony speech, nasty as that is. Some additional sources of information: _IEEE Computing_ Magazine for August, 1990 was devoted to "Voice in Computers", or something similar, and I seem to remember some articles there on speech recognition in the public network. Norm Tiedemann mentioned one set of ICASSP proceedings. I would expand that and say pretty much all of them in the last five or six years have something on telephony ASR. More human-factors oriented work is in the ACM CHI (Computer-Human Interaction) Journal. They also have a yearly convention which publishes proceedings. In fact, there's a good article in the 1991 proceedings of CHI. That's the name of it, incidentally: 'Proceedings of CHI'. Sounds like a conference on Eastern philosophy. The article is "Should we or shouldn't we use spoken commands in voice interfaces?" Good luck. Since this is a topic I'm following, I'm interested in whatever gets turned up. Charles Hoequist |Internet: hoequist@bnr.ca BNR Inc. | 919-991-8642 PO Box 13478, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3478 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: What The Heck is 4,941,976.667 Hz Good For? Date: Thu, 11 Feb 93 15:20:51 -0500 From: clements@BBN.COM In TELECOM Digest, "John R. Ackermann" wrote: [An explanation of what he thought that frequency, 4,941,976.667 Hz, was all about.] In private email, we have determined that he was wrong, basing his response on a mis-remembered but similar number used in some frequency standards. So my question still stands: What would AT&T have wanted that rather oddball frequency for, so precisely that they bought special customized atomic standards to generate it? Repeating: It really is a special for AT&T, not a consequence of the rubidium standard's internal workings. Thanks for any wisdom. Bob Clements, K1BC, clements@bbn.com ------------------------------ From: phil@rochgte.fidonet.org (Phillip Dampier) Reply-To: phil@rochgte.fidonet.org Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1993 13:03:46 -0500 Subject: Followup: Rochester Tel Wants to Split Here are further details on Rochester Tel's proposal, courtesy of a trade publication for the cable television industry ... ROCHESTER TEL WANTS TO SPLIT By Rachel W. Thompson Multichannel News February 8, 1993 Anticipating competition, Rochester Tel last week proposed breaking its New York operations into two pieces. Under a plan filed with the New York State Public Service Commission last Wednesday, rate-regulated R-Net would take over the assets and personnel that support basic switching and transmission functions in the six-county Rochester area and deregulated R-Com would market both wholesale and retail services using R-Net's network, which would also be available to competitors. Time Warner, Inc. is part owner of FiberNet, Inc., an alternate-access telephone company that operates in Rochester alongside Time Warner's Greater Rochester Cablevision. FiberNet vice president Jim Geiger called Rochester Telephone's proposal "a structure that the pro-competitive regulators have hinted at," and "commendable." But if the company believes it can prevent a physical overbuild of its facilities through the restructuring, that's "faulty logic, considering that [the cable company is] about 1,400 miles into [a] fiber overbuild." GRC, some of whose fiber belongs to FiberNet under a condominium arrangement, passes 300,000 of the 360,000 homes in Rochester Telephone's local-access telephone area (LATA) "with a broadband plant, and 200,000 of them are customers," Geiger said. "By the time that [Rochester Telephone's plan] could conceivably become effective," FiberNet will be ready to offer a full range of telecommunications services, he said. Asked whether FiberNet would be ready to start offering basic residential services, he answered, "I would say that as the rest of the local exchange becomes deregulated, we're certainly interested in exploring those niches." FiberNet is a joint venture of Time Warner, Petrocelli Industries and three individuals, including Geiger, and was founded in April 1990. Petrocelli Industries is a privately held electric and communications contracting firm based in New York City that does construction for cable and telephone companies, including Teleport Communications Group. Time Warner is a minority partner in FiberNet, Geiger said. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #84 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14462; 12 Feb 93 13:37 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30626 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 12 Feb 1993 02:08:55 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22865 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 12 Feb 1993 02:08:01 -0600 Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 02:08:01 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302120808.AA22865@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #85 TELECOM Digest Fri, 12 Feb 93 02:08:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 85 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State (Ken Dykes) Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State (Dave Niebuhr) Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones (Robert Loeber) Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones (G. Waigh) Re: Running Out of Area Codes (Tony Harminc) Re: Running Out of Area Codes (Carl Moore) Re: Running Out of Area Codes (John Adams) Re: Second Line Non-Pub/Unlisted? (Dave Niebuhr) Re: Second Line Non-Pub/Unlisted? (Henry Mensch) Re: AT&T Are You Listening? (Laurence Chiu) AT&T vs. MCI, China, etc. (was AT&T Are You Listening?) (C Pedregal-Martin) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1993 19:49:13 -0500 From: kgdykes@Thinkage.On.CA (Ken Dykes) Subject: Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State In Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 76, Message 10 of 16: > live in southern Ontario CANADA. My Caller-ID box instead of showing > out-of-area showed PRIVACY. The call to me was made (and answered) > twice in the same night; both times PRIVACY ... some sort of > call-blocking was enabled by PacBell. > [Moderator's Note: Are you certain this was PacBell's doing, or was it > your caller who entered the privacy mode? PAT] I asked him during the phone conversation. he did not do it himself. and he seemed to be perplexed by my amusement :-) Also, *can* California residents enter the blocking code even though Caller-ID as a service doesnt exist? Seems unlikely. The more I think about this, the more sneaky PacBell is being. Instead of being a "kind service" to the privacy zealots, they are really trying to build up demand for the service to be allowed under favourable terms. ie: If enough out-of-state relatives and friends refuse to pick up the phone because of *PRIVACY* (I answer out-of-area, or -not available- in this case I answered because of screening via answering machine) eventually people will start COMPLAINING they cannot successfully call anyone anymore. Things that make you go Hummmmmmmmmmm. Ken Dykes, Thinkage Ltd., Kitchener, Ontario, Canada [43.47N 80.52W] kgdykes@thinkage.on.ca postmaster@thinkage.com thinkage!kgdykes harley-request@thinkage.on.ca kgdykes@math.uwaterloo.ca [Moderator's Note: Yes, people in California -- at least in the Bay Area and San Jose -- *can* enter the privacy *67 code. Tests have been done to demonstrate this. JH has done it, and gets the three spurts of tone in response, for whatever good it does. And get this: I've gotten calls from the Bay Area which show up on my display as 'outside' one time, and 'private' the next ... from the same caller! PacBell is doing something with the ID, that's for sure. *What* they are doing is not clear yet. The deployment of SS-7 seems to be moving rapidly now. I am seeing the number from more and more interstate places than ever before. I estimate within three or four months it will be very commonplace on an interstate/interlata basis, at least in major cities around the USA. What I think is fascinating is how I can use Call Screening across LATA boundaries now. When I try to screen someone who is not in this LATA, there will be a delay while the CO actually makes contact with the distant office to ask 'are you capable of doing this, and if so, is there such a number as xxx-yyyy?' Instead of the immediate response I get to a screening request locally, it may take fifteen seconds or so for the Rogers Park CO to get back to me. Sometimes the answer will be the number has been added to my directory of screened calls; other times the answer will be 'sorry, cannot add this number' and still other times the reply will be 'sorry, cannot add this number *right now* -- try again in a few minutes' !! I assume this last reply means the attempt to contact the distant CO timed out with no response to the query from my CO. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Feb 93 09:18:36 EST From: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr) Subject: Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State In TELECOM Digest V13 #80 deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) said: > In article kgdykes@Thinkage.On.CA (Ken > Dykes) writes: >> Recently I received a call from the Glendale area of Los Angeles. I >> live in southern Ontario CANADA. My Caller-ID box instead of showing >> out-of-area showed PRIVACY. The call to me was made (and answered) >> twice in the same night; both times PRIVACY ... some sort of >> call-blocking was enabled by PacBell. >> PacBell is being far too kind to the zealots :-) > It might be the PSC's doing. The NY PSC, for example, has mandated > that New York Tel must not permit delivery of CPN for customers in > Manhattan until they have completed an education campaign (which I > expect means bill inserts) on how to restrict delivery on a per-call > basis. I don't understand why Manhattan would be singled out for non-Caller ID when the rest of NYC (area code 718 has it; 917 doesn't count since it's for pagers/cell phones/special services, etc.) In fact, the rest of the NY LATA (area codes 516, 718, 914) already have full CLASS service (I don't know about the tiny bit of area code 203 that is in the NY LATA. Public education started about three months before the introduction of each part of CLASS and is continuing today. There has to be another reason for Manhattan not having CLASS service. Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ From: bloeber@ecst.csuchico.edu (Robert Paul Loeber) Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones Date: 11 Feb 1993 19:59:21 GMT Organization: California State University, Chico > 3. As defined in 47 CFR part 15 scanning receivers, or "scanners," > are radio receivers that automatically switch between four or more > frequencies anywhere within the 30-960 Mhz band.... I know this may sound like a dumb question ... but what is the FCCs definition of a "radio receiver"? If it is "something which is intented to receive radio frequencies"... then transceivers would fall into that definition. If that's the case ... this legistation would be forced to deny authorization to the manufacturers of cellular phones. If this isn't the case, people (in the future) who would want to take part in monitoring cellular conversations would be best off to get a cellular phone (instead of a scanner) [assuming they could get the phone to act as a receiver -- but of course, no one would do that since monitoring cell-fone conversations is against the law]. "Enquiring minds want to know...." Bob Loeber bloeber@cscihp.ecst.csuchico.edu ------------------------------ From: g9gwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Geoffrey P Waigh) Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones Organization: University of Toronto Computing Disciplines Facility Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1993 17:48:12 GMT In article <93.02.11.1@eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Moderator writes: [Text of proposed amendments] Whenever I have heard of this plan, I have wondered how Americans will continue to design radio equipment. Is there some clause that I missed that will allow RF engineers to continue purchasing spectrum analyzers, mixers and other simple to connect gadgets for the purpose of testing their equipment? If so, what is going to stop these devices from being used to scan cellular communications? It would be amusing if spectrum analyzers had to be kept under lock-and-key to prevent use by anyone other than a "certified, responsible entity." Geoffrey Waigh g9gwaigh@cdf.utoronto.ca ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Feb 93 21:03:27 EST From: Tony Harminc Subject: Re: Running Out of Area Codes Robert L. McMillin posts from the {Los Angeles Times}: > The day of reckoning is fast approaching. The supply of three-digit > North American telephone area codes -- all of which have "0" or "1" as > the middle number -- will be exhausted within two years unless > augmented by new kinds of three-digit area codes, phone company > officials and telecommunications experts say. > A growing number of firms want the Federal Communications Commission to > mediate the dispute -- a request that could delay Bellcore's planned > expansion of area codes as regulators weigh the issue. It's not at all clear how the FCC, a US government agency, could have any jurisdiction over the NANP, which is an international arrangement. Telcos in Canada, Bermuda, and the Caribbean do not answer to the FCC. > Many industry experts say that hundreds of millions of dollars in new > equipment will be needed to make the transition from the current > numbering system, first established in 1947, to a new one. > Businesses -- many of which have old telephone switchboards that only > recognize current long distance codes -- may be especially hard hit, > while consumers will likely have a much harder time finding phone > numbers through long-distance directory assistance because of the > proliferation of area codes. > Callers will have to closely pinpoint neighborhoods in making > directory assistance requests because of the area-code proliferation. > That's already a problem in Southern California, which now has seven > area codes and is likely to get many more. This sounds like nonsense. Telcos do not divide DA bureaus up strictly by area code in most cases. If a city has several area codes, a call to any one should be enough to find out a number in that city. And locally, 411 should do. > Equipment makers have told Merrill Lynch that it will have to wait > months -- and spend thousands of additional dollars -- to acquire a new > private branch exchange (PBX) system that will recognize the new area > codes, Liuzzo said. (PBX equipment allows communications both within a > company and with the outside world.) I have absolutely no sympathy! The transition to interchangeable codes has been known and planned for since the early 1970s. Where have these vendors been for the last twenty years ? Tony Harminc ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Feb 93 12:50:58 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Running Out of Area Codes The article, if anything, tends to sensationalize. After what happened with divestiture (COCOTs etc.), is there some make-a-fast-buck scenario in going up against what we heard from Bellcore? It has been apparent here for a long time that the easiest way to relieve the area code shortage is to generalize area codes from N0X/N1X to NXX, and even that method will require reprogramming a lot of equipment (including overseas). The archive file "history.of.area. splits" discusses the dialing changes that were made for N0X/N1X prefixes and which would also accommodate the NXX area codes. Of course, when a code generalizes, be mindful of the poor souls who get the first of the previously-forbidden forms. This happened with the N0X/N1X prefixes in area 213 (for example, explaining your phone number to an operator on the U.S. East Coast), and the lengthy discussions here in telecom will help to mitigate such problem for the people who get the first NNX area code. ------------------------------ From: jadams@vixen.cc.bellcore.com (adams,john) Subject: Re: Running Out of Area Codes Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ Date: Thu, 11 Feb 93 13:28:21 GMT In article rlm@indigo1.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) quotes the {Los Angeles Times}: > With so much at stake, upstart communication service companies are > already facing off against Bellcore, an arm of the seven regional > phone companies that currently administers long distance area codes. SURPRISE! (At least I was!) In yesterday's "New Yawk Times" appeared an article stating that SPRINT is now an *owner* (along with the seven RECs) of BELLCORE. I'm personally convinced that this will have little to do with me, although I can see a couple of legions of attorneys lining up on either side of this issue. God, I love this industry! Jack (John) Adams Bellcore NVC 2Z-220 (908) 758-5372 {Voice} (908) 758-4389 {Facsimile} jadams@vixen.cc.bellcore.com kahuna@attmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Feb 93 09:12:27 EST From: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr) Subject: Re: Second Line Non-Pub/Unlisted? In TELECOM Digest V13 #81 johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes: > Here in Massachusetts it is indeed the case that second and subsequent > lines at a single location can be unlisted at no charge. For some > reason New England Tel sometimes insists otherwise. When I added > RingMate (distinctive ringing) to my second line, NET wanted to charge > to unlist each of the numbers on the second line, and I had to go to > the state DPU to get NET to behave. > If as seems to be the case there's a pattern here, I should get the > state to tell NET to audit the records to see how many subscribers are > paying an unwarranted charge to unlist their second lines. In NYTel land, a second line is provided with no listing whatsoever. I could have either a *true* listed name/number, *fake* name/true number, or be totally unlisted. It wouldn't make one difference. And in addition to that there is no unlisted charge for the second line regardless of the listing/non-listing of the first number. Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 [Moderator's Note: This is ditto for Illinois Bell. As long as you have *something* -- at least one line -- listed, there is no non-pub charge regardless of how other lines are handled. Likewise, as long as you pay for *one* non-pub arrangement, you can have all your lines non-pub for all they care at no extra charge. PAT] ------------------------------ From: henry@ads.com (Henry Mensch) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 93 16:35:14 -0800 Subject: Second Line Non-Pub/Unlisted? Reply-To: henry@ads.com On Wed, 10 Feb 93 03:08:59 -0500 ddl@burrhus.harvard.edu (Dan Lanciani) wrote: > I recently ordered a second line in my name and at the same > address as my existing line. For some reason I thought one could get > non-published or unlisted (I forget) status at no extra charge for > each line beyond the first. Did I imagine this? I don't think so; when I lived in NET-land (I left two years ago), I had a second line which was unlisted this way at no extra charge. # henry mensch / booz, allen & hamilton, inc. / ------------------------------ From: LCHIU@HOLONET.NET Subject: Re: AT&T Are You Listening? Organization: HoloNet National Internet Access BBS: 510-704-1058/modem Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 05:41:54 GMT [Some comments on AT&T and MCI international calling plans deleted here for brevity's sake.] > [Moderator's Note: Are you sure this is AT&T's fault or that of the > local telco which does AT&T's billing? For some six or eight months > after AT&T started Reach Out World with the additional ten percent > discount on domestic calls granted in that program, IBT customers > could not have it since IBT was unable to get the billing correct. > What had to happen was each month I was told by AT&T that they would > get a copy of my bill, examine it and manually correct it, issuing > credits as required. You might want to specifically inquire if AT&T is > saying they do not offer the arrangement you are seeking *or* if they > do but your local telco (if that is who bills your AT&T calls) is not > up to speed on it, and if so, can you have it with AT&T issuing the > required credits manually. They might say yes! PAT] Actually I had problems setting up ROW. When I called AT&T they contacted PacBell who is my local telco. They advised AT&T that my number was invalid! Granted it was a new prefix 510-988-xxxx but it was working and therefore perfectly valid. Anyway I had to stay on the line with a three-way between AT&T, PacBell and me for over 20 minutes before the whole mess was straightened out. Then I got my first bill and sure enough I was not getting my ROW discounts. I called AT&T who promised to give me a credit on my next bill. They did and all my ROW discounts showed up as well as the 5% discount for calls within CA since I also joined up with their Anytime Saver plan (is that what it's called?). I have been impressed with AT&T customer service and the quality of their lines seem to be good. So I am loathe to switch. BTW I called MCI based on a message from someone else who suggested I use AT&T as my 1+ carrier but setup an account with MCI and use their International Plans. After some prodding I was told I could enroll with MCI's plans via 10xxx but I guess I would have to be billed separately for that. The respondent suggested that this kind of billing was iffy at best. I still don't know what to do! Laurence Chiu ------------------------------ From: pedregal@unreal.cs.umass.edu (Cris Pedregal-Martin) Subject: AT&T vs. MCI, China, etc (was AT&T Are You Listening?) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 93 16:18:27 EST Reply-To: pedregal@cs.umass.edu Greetings. Some remarks on AT&T and MCI's calling plans ... Background: Laurence Chiu can't get discounts from AT&T to both China and other foreign countries: China is not in "Reach Out World", and "Special Country" is incompatible with ROW. He is thinking about switching carriers (to MCI). Our esteemed Moderator suggests this may be a problem with the billing at the local telco. My current housemates have gone through this (with China). They switched to MCI to be able to use "Friends & Family" and get 20% off. They are back with AT&T: too many lost connections, and too much time waiting for customer service to answer the phone. (Just a data point, no flames please). I had a similar situation too (calling Europe and Canada with ROW, but wanting to call Argentina and Paraguay, which are not in ROW). You may want to try what I did. I opened an account with MCI, while keeping AT&T as my default IXC (i.e., my "dial-1" company). I put the Paraguay number and the Argentina number as my two foreign F&Fs. And I kept ROW with AT&T. When calling Paraguay and Argentina I had to prefix the call with 10-222, of course. Front line "reps" at MCI will try to get you to switch; they may even tell you you can't use F&F if you are not a dial-1 customer (as discussed in c.d.t. in the past, this is *not* true); you may need to go up one level or two of supervisors. The other thing is that their billing software (at least in the Northeast they bill directly unless you don't have an account with them) is obviously not prepared for this, so it took me four months to get this working. They would close my account "automatically" and I'd get billed by my Baby-Bell (with no discounts); I would call them and they would refund the money and start billing me themselves again. After the second month, a very nice supervisor gave me her 800 number and I'd call her and get it all straightened out (the bills did say I was dial-1 so it was a kludge). Of course, it all depends on the amounts involved. And, given the experience of my friends, you may want to do things the other way around: drop ROW, put China as SC with AT&T, and buy MCI's world-plan to call NZ and AU; you may even save more (by putting two numbers on F&F) as I am fairly sure that MCI's world plan doesn't include China. As I said before, this is independent of who you want to keep as your dial-1 company (and whose customer service you expect to have to deal with). Usual disclaimer: no relation with the companies involved except as a customer. Regards, Cristobal Pedregal Martin pedregal@cs.umass.edu Computer Science Department UMass / Amherst, MA 01003 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #85 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00259; 13 Feb 93 13:48 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05986 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 13 Feb 1993 11:34:32 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17542 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 13 Feb 1993 11:34:03 -0600 Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1993 11:34:03 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302131734.AA17542@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #86 TELECOM Digest Sat, 13 Feb 93 11:34:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 86 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson N.E.T. and the Phantom Phone Exchange (Tom Arnold) 150th Anniversary of FAX (Bill St.Arnaud/com-priv via J. Philip Miller) Book Review "America Calling" (Jim Haynes) ADSL Asymetrical Digital Subscriber Line/Request For Info (Ed Pimentel) Canadian Telecom Conference in April (Nigel Allen) AT&T Conversant System (Justin Leavens) New Zealand Telephone Public System (Pete Lancashire) Completion Rates For Calling Centers (Steve Brack) AT&T Automated Access To Operator Services (Alan Toscano) ZyXEL Modem Voice/Fax Software Wanted (Russell Nelson) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: arnold@isis1.bxb.dec.com (Tom Arnold) Subject: N.E.T. and the Phantom Phone Exchange Reply-To: arnold@isis1.bxb.dec.com (Tom Arnold) Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 23:04:15 GMT Perhaps one of the TELECOM readers can shed light on the recent weird behavior up here in New England Telephone land on the part of exchange 264 in the 508 area code (Eastern to Mid-Massachusetts.) This exchange serves two Digital Equipment Corporation engineering facilities in Boxborough. It no doubt serves other things as well. All told, there are on the order of 800 lines in both buildings. Yesterday (Wed., Feb 10,) around noon I was trying to dial into my building's modem lines from my home in Brighton (Boston,) in the 617 area code, and I was getting a relentless busy indication from my modem (Scholar.) I put a phone on the line and tried several numbers that way. Each one returned fast busy, both modem lines, the main desk, voicemail, etc. All this was from my business line, so I also tried it from my home line (served by a different exchange,) with the same results. So I called the N.E.T. operator and described the problem. She tried it, and also couldn't get through. At first she just said that the 'circuits were busy' -- and I told her that the problem was persistent and unusual. Then she asked me if I was sure about the number, because her console indicated that the exchange (264) was not a valid exchange(!) She also asked me if I had ever called the number before. We have used these numbers since 1986, and I told her that. I provided her with the town, street address, and name of the facility, but she still said that the numbers were invalid. So I asked to log a problem report, whereon she switched me to the repair service, where I more or less repeated the previous conversation. I then asked, if I dialed an invalid exchange, shouldn't I get a SIT message of some sort? She said no, not always; sometimes an invalid number returns fast busy. This suprised me, but phones are more of a hobby for me than a profession. Does anyone know if this is true, and if so, under what circumstances? She didn't seem convinced when I rang off, but I assume that the problem log really happened. I then phoned DEC's main number in Maynard, Mass, and talked with the operator there. She agreed that the numbers I tried were the correct ones. She then switched me to DEC's internal telecom help desk. I described the problem to the fellow there, and told him that I thought that telecom into those two buildings was completely down. Mercifully, he took my problem report seriously, and assigned it a problem incident number right away. As it turned out, at 5 PM, the foreign exchange line in Watertown opens for inward access, and I was able to get to the numbers in question using DEC's internal telephone network. Thus, the problem was not in DEC's phone switch for that area, nor in DEC-leased trunk lines feeding it. At 10:30 this morning (nearly 24 hours later,) I again tried dialing voicemail at my building, but still got that old fast busy. We also got a flurry of Email from the telecom people telling us that N.E.T. had been notified. This, naturally, inspired great confidence in me ... the problem was finally cleared sometime this afternoon. The fellow from DEC telecom called me back to let me know that the problem was fixed. It appears DEC telecom has more weight with N.E.T. than simple customers. And the DEC telecom folk certainly deserve kudos for a quick and professional response. The problem turned out to be in the routing tables in the switch at the central office, presumably the one serving the buildings in question. But, how could such an error occur? Can a technician really delete a whole exchange from a telephone switch by accident without realizing it? Could the routing algorithm in use (I have no idea what kind of switch N.E.T. is using for the 264 exchange,) somehow drop 800 lines by mistake? If so, wouldn't this be a serious and scary software problem? If it was a hardware problem, wouldn't something wrong enough to bring down an exchange (or a reasonable hunk of it) cause lots of alarms which would be noticed by alert telco employees? And, since I gave the original operator the name, street address, etc., of my building, is there any reason why they couldn't look up the main number for the building on their console, and at least see that the number wasn't mistaken? Or is all this yet another ominous sign of the rotting of our once glorious phone system?? Inquiring minds want to know! Peace, tom arnold (no, *another* tom arnold) Digital Equipment Corporation | arnold@isis1.bxb.dec.com -or- Boxborough Technology Center | arnold@lando.enet.dec.com [Moderator's Note: There are lots of kinks a regular customer cannot get cleared short of lodging several reports and working their way up to an assistant to the Chairman ... sad but true. *No one* taking the complaints will listen. I am sorry to say the people you spoke with at telco probably put you down as some sort of crank caller and let it go at that. That's the way they operate. Consider the latest screwup here in Chicago to catch my eye: Remote Activation/Deactivation of the Call Forwarding feature is accomplished by dialing 312-274-9923 for lines in the Rogers Park CO. (Caution, kiddies, this number is *closely* watched; calling number captured, the whole bit.) It answers, you punch in the number to be forwarded (or upon which to cancel forwarding), your personal PIN, *72 and the number to which calls are to be forwarded, or *73 to cancel forwarding. If forwarding, the number you forward to is read back to you for confirmation and you confirm it or enter the correct number. A great way to get around the old, old problem of having to return to the phone in question in order to turn off the call forwarding or turn it on, right? It would be, *if it worked*. For some time now, the number has been busied out from coin phones in the Rogers Park CO. Coin phones elsewhere can reach it, as can regular lines. From a Rogers Park coin phone you can zero plus it to your calling card (with the usual surcharge, of course) or the operator can connect you; neither of which function (operator services or calling card) is out of Rogers (the operators are out of the Irving CO I think). Telling Repair Service about this is like talking to a parrot. This has been this way for at least a month, but it has not interested me that much. Maybe next week I will call the office of the Chairman and raise a stink. Repair even had the audacity one day to ask if I was talking about Bell payphones or private ones. Do they think I would be that stupid? To answer your question, sure they can lose whole offices at one time. You've seen it happen! PAT] ------------------------------ From: phil@wubios.wustl.edu (J. Philip Miller) Subject: 150th Anniversary of FAX Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 18:59:56 -0600 (CST) Although there is a semi-ad at the end of this posting, it presents some interesting information for readers of the Digest. I suspect few others are also subscribed to com-priv. -phil Forwarded message: From: wcsv2k@ccs.carleton.ca (Bill St. Arnaud) Subject: 150th Anniversary of FAX Date: Fri, 12 Feb 93 14:31:05 EST 150th Anniversary of FAX ======================== Yes, believe it or not, 1993 is the 150th anniversary of FAX! FAX is even older than the telephone and is probably the oldest telecomm- unications technology after the telegraph. The original FAX machine was invented by a Scottish physicist Alexander Bain in 1843. Incredibly, Bain had to use jaw bones and heather in his experiments to build the first FAX machine! Although Bain's machine was sound in principle, we don't know if it actually worked in practice. It wasn't until 1861, when a Frenchman named Caselli, built the first FAX network from Paris to Lyons, that FAX became a working communications tool. Caselli's FAX machines were seven feet tall and used gigantic pendulums to synchronize the horizontal scan line transmission, a far cry from today's all digital FAX machines. However, Caselli's FAX machines so alarmed the US Postmaster General, that in his report to Congress in 1872, he made this prescient statement: " ...the probable amplification of the facsimile system of Caselli, by which an exact copy of anything that can be drawn or written my be instantaneously made to appear at a distance of hundreds of miles from the original; and the countless other applications of electricity to the *transmission of intelligence* yet to be made, --- must sooner or later most seriously interfere with the transportation of letters by the slower means of the post." For more information on the past, present and future of FAX there is an excellent article in this month's issue of {New Scientist} by Tim Hunkin. Mr. Hunkin has built a replica of Bain's first FAX machine which is now on display at the British Science Museum. Mr. Hunkin will also be talking about the past and future of FAX on the television show "The Secret Life of Machines" on the Discovery Channel, Tuesday night, February 23 at 9:30 PM EST. VISION 2000, is a Communications Canada and industry initiative to accelerate and foster the development of personal communications in Canada. VISION 2000, in association with its consortium members, is developing "Future FAX" as a key personal communications technology. Video FAX, multimedia FAX, voice FAX, e-mail FAX, wireless FAX, and personal communicators are key FAX technologies that will revolutionize the way we will communicate with each other in the next decade. For a copy of our free report on FUTURE FAX, please call or FAX, Bill St. Arnaud, VISION 2000, Voice: +1 613.567.2000 or +1 613.238.8912, Fax: +1 613.567.4730 Special thanks to George Pajari of FAXIMUM Software for researching the quotation from the US PostMaster General. Bill St. Arnaud Internet: wcsv2k@ccs.carleton.ca VISION 2000 INC. X.400: C=CA; A=TELECOM.CANADA; 203-294 Albert St. O=VISION2000; DDA:ID=V2K.EMS Ottawa CANADA Voice: +1 613 567-2000 K1P 6E6 Fax: +1 613 567-4730 VISION 2000 INC: A Department of Communications and industry initiative to foster and accelerate the development of personal communications in Canada. --------- J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067 Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110 phil@wubios.WUstl.edu - (314) 362-3617 [362-2694(FAX)] ------------------------------ From: haynes@cats.UCSC.EDU (Jim Haynes) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 93 16:38:38 -0800 Subject: Book Review "America Calling" "America Calling: A Social History of the Telephone to 1940" is the complete title of the book. In {Science} magazine Vol 259, 29 Jan 1993, page 699 is a review of the above book. The author of the book is Claude S. Fischer of U. C. Berkeley. (University of California Press, 1992, xvi, 424 pp. illus. $25). The author of the review is Glenn Porter, Hagley Museum and Library, Wilmington, DE. It's quite a long review, and has some nice old pictures. "Fischer is interested in what uses ordinary people made of the new technology of telephony. Who called whom, for what purposes, and what difference did it make in their lives?" says the reviewer. "The book explicitly omits the business use of the telephone. ... The author freely mixes bits of data, theory, and speculations from many places and time periods. This is not a book notable for its analytical or methodological rigor. Here social science meets journalism, and the dress is casual. The results are often fascinating and sometimes surprising, if not altogether satisfying." ------------------------------ Subject: ADSL Asymetrical Digital Subscriber Line/Request For Info From: edimg@willard.atl.ga.us (Ed pimentel) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 93 17:47:20 EST Organization: Willard's House BBS, Atlanta, GA -- +1 (404) 664 8814 I would like to know more about ASDL, its format, its capabilities, and how it may be incorporated in other ONLINE SERVICES such video on demand. Can it be interface to EIA/TIA562? BTW, please also supply more info on the EIA/TIA 562 interface that use 64k baud over regular tel lines. Are there any APIs, SDKs, Toolkits that allow one to develop apps such as distant learning use all of the above? edimg@willard.atl.ga.us (Ed pimentel) gatech!kd4nc!vdbsan!willard!edimg emory!uumind!willard!edimg Willard's House BBS, Atlanta, GA -- +1 (404) 664 8814 ------------------------------ From: Nigel Allen Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 19:00:00 -0500 Subject: Canadian Telecom Conference in April Organization: Echo Beach National Conference on the Future of Telecom in Canada, Toronto, April 1 and 2, 1993 The University of Toronto's Institute for Policy Analysis is sponsoring the National Conference on the Future of Telecommunications in Canada, in Toronto at the Four Seasons Hotel on April 1 and 2, 1993. Registration is $749.00 (Canadian funds, including GST) before March 15 and $802.50 (Canadian funds, including GST) after that date or at the door. For more information, contact: Ms. Erin Parfitt, Institute for Policy Analysis, University of Toronto, 140 St. George Street, Suite 325, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1A1 telephone (416) 978-5353, fax (416) 971-2071. No e-mail address is given. (Say that you heard about the conference through the TELECOM Digest.) The speakers and organizers are among the most influential telecommunications policy in Canada, including Hudson Janisch, a law professor at the University of Toronto and W.T. Stansbury, a professor at the University of British Columbia. Session titles include: Efficient Pricing of Telecommunications Services and the Ways to Get There; Necessary Changes in the Regulatory Structure and Processes to Promote Network Efficiency and Universal Service at Affordable Rates (with the top regulatory lawyers at Bell Canada and Unitel Communications Inc.); New Federal Telecommunications Legislation and Federal-Provincial Arrangements; Entry and Foreign Ownership in Canada and Opportunities in Foreign Markets; Changing Public Policy and Telecommunications in Canada (a dinner speech by Bud Sherman, vice-chair of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, Can Large Contribution Payments Be Maintained in Light of the CRTC's Competition Decision?, Emerging Competition in Local Networks and the Implications for Interconnection Rules; and Managing the Transition to Competitive Telecommunications Markets: The U.S. Experience (a luncheon speech by Richard Wiley, a U.S. lawyer who I think was once chair of the Federal Communications Commission). Nigel Allen nigel.allen@canrem.com Canada Remote Systems - Toronto, Ontario 416-629-7000/629-7044 ------------------------------ From: leavens@mizar.usc.edu (Justin Leavens) Subject: AT&T Conversant System Date: 12 Feb 1993 12:09:05 -0800 Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA I've got a couple of AT&T reps trying to sell me on an AT&T Conversant system, and I was curious to know if there's anyone out there who is familiar with this kind of system or can offer any feedback on what might be competing with it. Thanks in advance. Justin Leavens Microcomputer Specialist University of Southern California ------------------------------ From: petel@sequent.com (Pete Lancashire) Subject: New Zealand Telephone Public System Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc. Date: Fri, 12 Feb 93 17:48:06 GMT I'm considering moving to New Zealand and would like to 'talk' with anyone who familiar with the current state of and future plan for the public telephone system. Or would the group like to 'hear' my questions and join in? Pete Lancashire petel@sequent.com [Moderator's Note: Yes please, pass your questions along. We have readers of the Digest in New Zealand. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 13:32:38 -0500 (EST) From: sbrack@jupiter.cse.UTOLEDO.edu (Steve Brack) Subject: Completion Rates For Calling Centers I am currently working for a nonprofit organization that handles fundraising for the University of Toledo. One of our operations is an annual "Phone-a-thon" campaign where we contact alumni to ask for donations. I have been trying to find some figures on what we should be seeing in terms of: 1) calls/person/hour 2) Call completion rates 3) Required trunk capacity Some of the problems we've been having include a percieved lack of LD trunkage ("Try your call again later" on LD calls), what my boss has termed low throughput (20 calls/person/hour), and a low contact rate (not home, busy, no answer, etc.) If someone could e-mail me with some idea of what numbers are considered average, and some suggestions to alleviate the problems my supervisoor has brought to my attention, I would be much obliged. Note, however, that I have not been authorized to represent the University in these matters, but that I am attempting to get some information so that my supervisor can make a more informed decision. Thank you. Steve Brack University of Toledo Foundation Steven S. Brack sbrack@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu Toledo, OH 43613-1605 STU0061@UOFT01.BITNET MY OWN OPINIONS sbrack@nyx.cs.du.edu ------------------------------ From: atoscano@attmail.com Date: 12 Feb 93 20:41:05 GMT Subject: AT&T Automated Access To Operator Services AT&T has implemented a new 800 number for reaching its Automated Access To Operator Services (AATOS) interface -- which is used to place Calling Card calls and Operated Assisted calls from "blocked" telephones. The new number is: 1 800 321-0288, or, if you wish: 1 800 3210-ATT. Previously, AATOS was accessable via prompts on 1 800 CALL-ATT, as well as on 1 800 882-CARD. These prompts will no longer be available as of April 1. (For various reasons, including cost and trunking/traffic considera- tions, AT&T would still prefer calls to be dialed 0+ or 10ATT-0+ when possible.) Disclaimer: I do not work for AT&T. I'm just a customer. A Alan Toscano -- Houston, TX -- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 16:03:56 EST From: Russell Nelson Organization: Crynwr Software Subject: ZyXEL Modem Voice/Fax Software Wanted I'm willing to pay a bounty for a ZyXEL voice/fax program. The bounty is a ZyXEL 1496E+ (or cash equivalent). The program must: o Be freely copyable with source and use the GNU General Public License. o Be written in C. o Run on Linux, MS-Windows, and/or DOS (in that order). o Support distinctive ringing. Should answer voice on "RING", and FAX on "RING 1". o Preview FAXes on the screen. o Under MS-Windows, print FAXes to the current printer. o Under Linux or DOS, decode FAX format files into a NxM bitmap (I can add my own printer support). o Send FAXes (optimally from the output of Ghostscript, but text-only input is fine). o Play back a message when answering as voice. o Have an option on every playback message to chain to a selected message, or record a message. o Allow playback message or recording to be interruptible by a DTMF digit. o Chain to a selected playback message when a DTMF digit is received. o Be interruptible at the keyboard. o Play back recorded messages, either by DTMF commands or by keyboard commands. Because the volume of the speaker playback is so low this should be done over the phone, not the internal speaker. Perhaps this program would be useful to you also, and you'd like to increase the bounty by some amount? Please contact me if so. russ Crynwr Software Crynwr Software sells packet driver support. 11 Grant St. 315-268-1925 Voice | LPF member - ask me about Potsdam, NY 13676 315-268-9201 FAX | the harm software patents do. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #86 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05904; 13 Feb 93 16:43 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14652 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 13 Feb 1993 14:15:46 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27527 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 13 Feb 1993 14:15:16 -0600 Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1993 14:15:16 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302132015.AA27527@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #87 TELECOM Digest Sat, 13 Feb 93 14:15:15 CST Volume 13 : Issue 87 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson AT&T Sues MCI, Sprint, Wiltel (Paul Robinson) Cheap Way to Get Incoming SDMR From DID? (James Deibele) Phone Extension Problem (Ossian Smyth) RFI: Device to Restrict LD Access on Phone (Gerry George) What Could Cause Jitter in a Voice Channel Over Fiber? (Tracy Ching) Looking For One-Way A/B Switch For Two-Line Phone System (Joseph Chan) Local Cellular Channel Distribution (Eric E. Snyder) That's Easy For YOU to Say ... (William Degnan) Sharing One FAX Card Among Several Voice Lines (Elizabeth Fong Wah Chan) General Magic's Telescript?? (Keith Bechard) Ma Bell Calling (Robert L. Stinnett) Questions Ahout Uniden CP-1200 Cellular Phone (Joe Smooth) 1-800-CALL-ATT 'ext. 21' to be Discontinued (Paul Robinson) Listing of Telecom Magazines Wanted (Eric Pearce) What is 'Los Angeles'? (Paul Robinson) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: tdarcos@mcimail.com From: Paul Robinson Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 19:55:46 EST Subject: AT&T Sues MCI, Sprint, Wiltel Over Tariff Schedules In a report on page B11 in the 2/11 {Washington Post}, AT&T wants a District Court to award it damages for $1 billion in lost business since 1991 due to MCI, Sprint, and Wiltel Commnications (Tulsa OK) not filing tariff schedules of their rates. AT&T says its competitors have negotiated "secret contracts" with business customers over the last three years. Its competitors claim that because they are not dominant carriers, they do not have to file tariff schedules. Wiltel said "This frivolous lawsuit is the latest example of AT&T's unfortunate practice of using its huge size and market dominance" to punish competitors. AT&T had asked the FCC to require all of its competitors to file tariff schedules of rates, but the FCC said this was not required because they aren't dominant. AT&T said the FCC was wrong and filed a challenge. On Nov. 13, 1992, a three-judge Federal Appeals court said AT&T was right and 5,000 telephone companies are supposed to file tariff schedules. AT&T also doesn't like the current tariff that MCI has filed, saying "The writing down of pen on paper does not constitute a tariff." MCI says the tariffs are allowed to be in plain language. The FCC says only 40 companies have filed tariff schedules since the ruling. MCI has gotten very recent large contracts from Citibank and the FAA for voice and data transmission services and said the legal action was "camoflage for AT&T's marketplace shortcomings" and its "difficult time rationalizing why it is losing customers." ------------------------------ From: jamesd@techbook.com (James Deibele) Subject: Cheap Way to Get Incoming SDMR From DID? Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636 Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1993 09:09:52 GMT We need to have direct inward dialing (DID) for phone lines that will be plugged into modems. We don't care what number the sender is calling from (we're not interested in caller ID, which looks like it will be available in Oregon soon), but we must know what number is called, the time of the call, the duration of the call, and either the DID trunk line (first trunk is #1, etc.) or preferably the analog line selected by the PBX or key switch unit or whatever. We need this via a standard RS-232 serial port. Or we can handle PC cards under several different operating systems and handle SBUS on SUNs. We've been told by US West that we need a "box" (KSU or PBX or something) to convert DID trunk to analog - DID doesn't do rings in the traditional sense, so there's no way for a modem to know it's supposed to answer. We have no need for phones on this at all. We haven't actually purchased the modems yet, so we're willing to consider a combined DID/modem unit -- if there is such a thing. We will not be making outgoing calls through this unit, it just needs to handle inward traffic. We estimate that we'll need eight simultaneous lines at most, though it would be nice to be able to expand beyond that by adding more cards. For a PC based solution, we'd want it to be networked via ethernet without causing the modems any problems. We've been quoted $7000 for a PBX from local companies, with capacity for four or eight lines. That's installed, programmed, and tested, but we think we should be able to do better than that. We've been told that most KSUs are cheaper, but not as expandable. We don't think that matters a lot at this stage. We've heard lots of rumors of future products, but we'd prefer something available now and would really like something that's been tested extensively in the field. I've talked to a dozen local telephone equipment companies, including the local Graybar office. I've also talked to AT&T, NCR, GTE, "Hello Direct", and extensively with US West. I plan to talk to most of the rest of the local equipment companies and as many PBX and KSU manufacturers as I can reach next week. If anybody has any information on a product like this, I'd like to hear about it. I've got a list of people who are interested in something similar, and I'll mail them the info I receive. Thanks! jamesd@techbook.COM PDaXs gives free access to news & mail. (503) 220-0636 - 1200/2400, N81 Full internet (ftp, telnet, irc) access available. Voice: (503) 223-4245 ------------------------------ From: ofsmyth@unix1.tcd.ie (Ossian Smyth) Subject: Phone Extension Problem Organization: Trinity College, Dublin Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1993 12:54:20 GMT Every time my one of my parents picks up the main phone in our house, the extension line to my room cuts off. Does anyone know what this could be? Ossian Smyth [Moderator's Note: It could be one of the contacts in the main phone is being used like an exclusion key to provide privacy to that phone when it is in use. Are your parents aware of this and know it is happening? There is a certain contact (at least in Bell phones in the USA) which functions the opposite of the other contacts. Most are open when the phone is on hook and closed when the phone is off hook. The one in there which is the other way around (closed on hook, open when off hook) can be used for various special purposes. Using a two pair modular cord, bring the phone line from outside into your premises up to that phone *first, before it goes to any other extension* on one pair. Connect the two pairs together in the phone with one side of pair two going through the 'open when phone is off hook' contact. Then use the second pair from that phone to take the phone line back to the main demarc from whence it is distributed normally to all other phones on the premises. This phone now serves as a master, or front-end to all the phones on your premises. When that phone is on hook, the circuit to all the other phones is completed and they operate. When the master phone on the front end goes off hook, all other phones go dead since the circuit to them is now broken. PAT] ------------------------------ From: ggeorge@acs.bu.edu (Gerry George) Subject: RFI: Device to Restrict LD Access on Phone Date: Sat, 13 Feb 93 11:02:59 EST Reply-To: ggeorge@acs.bu.edu I am interested in obtaining one of those devices which restrict or prevent someone from dialing a 1 + areacode on a phone line without a proper access code. Alternatively, are there any options with the long-distance carriers where this same thing (access code required) can be achieved? If such info already exists in the archives, I will be happy to search for it. Otherwise, feel free to mail replies. Thanks, Gerry George School of Management, Boston Univ. Internet: ggeorge@acs.bu.edu Compu$erve: 72607.2560@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: tching@target.uucp (Tracy Ching ) Subject: What Could Cause Jitter in a Voice Channel Over Fiber? Organization: California State University, Sacramento Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1993 16:45:47 GMT While sending a 1KHz tone over that voice channel, the other end is jittering (changing phase constantly) and also slightly changing amplitude. The "gurus" who administer the thing say there is nothing that can be done to fix it. I just want my clear channel. What could cause such a problem? Be as technical as you want. Thanks for any info. I'm quite sure my 1KHz tone is pure, i.e. no jitter from the source. tching@water.ca.gov OR tching@target.water.ca.gov ------------------------------ From: joseph@bofur.bioeng.washington.edu (Joseph Chan 3-5418) Subject: Looking For One-Way A/B Switch For Two-Line Phone System Date: 13 Feb 1993 06:08:10 GMT Organization: University of Washington, Bioengineering If I have two phone lines come to my house (our house was wired with two-pair wire) the simplest way is to use two regular telephones (I already have) to connect to the two lines. (First phone connect to green and red pair, and second connnect to black and yellow pair). Is there a one-way A-B switch so that incoming phone calls, either line one or line two, would ring can ring both phones, and outgoing phone calls can switch to either line one or line two? Since I already have single phone line phone sets, we do not wish to buy special two-line telephone sets. I am thinking to buy a simple and cheap one-way A-B switch instead of two-line telephone sets. Thank you for any information. Joseph Chan INTERNET: joseph@nsr.bioeng.washington.edu UUCP: uunet!uw-beaver!uw-nsr!joseph [Moderator's Note: Radio Shack has a device like this. You plug both incoming lines into it and it feeds out to a single line phone. You press a key for the desired outgoing line and it automatically will switch either incoming line into the phone when it senses ringing. You'd need one of these for each phone. An incoming call would cause both phones to ring (unless one phone was in use on one of the lines already) and you could answer from either phone. This device does not allow calls to be held while you switch lines. Another solution is to modify the existing phones yourself. Mount a double-pole toggle switch on the phone (if you take the shell off, you will see in the plastic mold on the underside a place to punch out for this purpose). Bring both phone pairs (r/g and y/b) up to the phone connected through the toggle switch (r/g one side; y/b to the other side and center out to the phone network). Then, whichever way you have the switch thrown is the pair which will connect to the phone. You will only get the bell on that line however. To avoid the possibility that all phones will have their switch set the same way thus entirely killing the bell on the other line, what you do is get a little buzzer of the right voltage (there are lots of them which will work) and you install it in the phone. *Important* -- disconnect the bell from the network in the phone. Send the r/g to it separately as well as to the switch you mounted. Unscrew one of the bell clappers and take it off, mounting your buzzer where the clapper had been. Run the y/b wires to the buzzer as well as to the toggle switch. Now a call on line one will ring the bell regardless of switch setting, and a call on line two will make the buzzer sound, regardless of switch setting. The difference in sounds identifies the line to be (switched to) and answered. Even if you are off hook on line two, the bell will ring if a call comes in on line one. Variations on a Theme: Adding a mechanical (as opposed to electronic) hold circuit ... just as you ran parallel to the switch and the bell/buzzer run parallel to another toggle switch with a center-off position where you cause a dead-short of red to green or yellow to black (or neither, in the center position). That's all the old Bell System two-line turn button phones did; when you pulled up the left plunger, the line not being used was shorted out to keep it from disconnecting the other party. Of course, it was idiot-proof; you could not hang up and forget to release the hold. If you add a hold circuit via a toggle switch, figure out some way to remind yourself to release it when finished ... maybe a little light bulb which illuminates as a reminder or something? PAT] ------------------------------ From: eesnyder@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Eric E. Snyder) Subject: Local Cellular Channel Distribution Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder Date: 13 Feb 93 16:57:52 GMT Someone mentioned the other day that of the 800 odd cellular channels available, only one sixth of these would be in use in a given area (at least, per cell carrier). Is it then possible to deduce from the frequency of a single channel verified to be in use exactly which 100 or so channels would be active? This would be useful since one could key in these frequencies and 'scan' them instead of frequency searching. Ideas? Eric E. Snyder Department of MCD Biology University of Colorado, Boulder Boulder, Colorado 80309-0347 ------------------------------ From: William.Degnan@f10.n382.z1.mdf.FidoNet.org (William Degnan) Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1993 10:41:42 -0500 Subject: That's Easy For YOU to Say ... According to a story which appeared in {USA Today Decisionline}, NYNEX Corp has introduced a network-based voice-dialing service that permits callers to dial by speaking the name of the party they wish to reach. The story quotes NYNEX Science & Technology president Casimir Skrzypczak, who I don't expect will get too many calls via this method. NYNEX, said they plan to file tariffs for VoiceDialing with the New York PSC on Feb. 26 and expect a decision by May. They expect to charge $4 - 6 per month for the feature. ----------- "Well-informed people know it is impossible to transmit the voice over wires. Even if it were, it would be of no practical value." -- Boston Post 1865 ---------- William Degnan, Communications Network Solutions -Independent Consultants in Telecommunications and Technology- P.O. Drawer 9530 | wdegnan@mdf.fidonet.org | mfwic@mdf.fidonet.org Austin, TX 78766-9530 | Voice +1 512 323 9383 [Moderator's Note: Gee, we had 'voice dialing' for the first half century of the telephone ... they want to go back to that system? PAT] ------------------------------ From: elizabec@sfu.ca (Elizabeth Fong Wah Chan) Subject: Sharing One FAX Card Among Several Voice Lines Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 22:18:51 GMT I am absolutely new to the field of telecom. Presently, my company plans to install a voice processing system to do voice mail, audiotex, and faxing. We have purchased a four-line voice processing board and a software development package. Since we want to allow callers to be able to send and receive faxes in addition to voice processing. One known solution is that we can purchase four Intel SatisFAXtion model, each one connected to one of the four phone lines to the voice processing board. However, this solution is too expensive, and besides we don't need that many fax boards. I wonder if there is some kind of simple switching equipment that allows sharing of one fax board among all four phone lines. What I am thinking of is that when a caller dial up to a particular line and is greeted by voice prompts and menus, he may choose to do faxing and our software will send a special DTMF command that is recognised by the switching equipment. The switching equipment will then switch the fax board over to that particular line. Then the caller can start faxing. Certainly, only one caller can do faxing at a time. Access control can be done by programming. What we need is the piece of switching equipment that can accept DTMF as commands and do the switching automatically. Could anyone please advise what kinds of equipment we need, preferably specific product information? Thanks in advance. ------------------------------ From: keithb@advtech.uswest.com (Keith Bechard) Subject: General Magic's Telescript?? Organization: U S WEST/Advanced Technologies Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 20:08:58 GMT Does anyone know where information can be obtained on General Magic's Telescript language? Thanks, Keith Bechard U S WEST/Advanced Technologies keithb@advtech.uswest.com (303) 541-6766 ------------------------------ From: C592073@mizzou1.missouri.edu (Robert L. Stinnett) Subject: Ma Bell Calling Organization: University of Missouri Date: Fri, 12 Feb 93 19:02:55 CST GTE is raising rates in this area again as well. As I think back over the years, it seems that phone-use and phone charges were more simpler and less costly in the AT&T (Ma Bell) days. Everything was right there, no worrying about all these different companies, one straight-forward bill. What has happened to our communication society? I think the line is down and the repairman is on vacation. [Moderator's Note: Don't get me started :). PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joe Smooth Subject: Questions Ahout Uniden CP-1200 Cellular Phone Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 23:02:36 GMT I have a Uniden CP-1200 mobile phone, and have a few questions about it. I noticed that in order to reprogram the NAM, etc., you need a "diagnostics" handset or a "NAM programming" handset. Does anybody know if there is a way to convert a normal, standard handset into one of the above? The tech I talked to at Uniden said that he couldn't sell me one, because I am not an authorized service center. Also, does anybody know where I can pick up an Oki-900 portable phone CHEAP, or a battery for a Novatel 8320 transportable phone? Please let me know. Thanks a lot! ------------------------------ Reply-To: TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM From: Paul Robinson Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 17:56:29 EST Subject: 1-800-CALL-ATT 'ext. 21' to be Discontinued Effective April 1, dialing 1-800-CALL-ATT, then dialing extension 21 will no longer be available for getting direct access to AT&T's switch. Oh horrors! What will we do, what will we do? Fortunately, AT&T has an answer. They have a new number which is *exclusively* for connecting to their switch. The new number is: 1-800-321-0-ATT Paul Robinson -- TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM This is my opinion only. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 23:24:28 -0800 From: eap@ora.com (Eric Pearce) Subject: List of Telecom Magazines Wanted I poked around on lcs.mit.edu and didn't see any listing of telecom magazines ... is there a list somewhere? I'm interested in subscription info, content and quality. Thanks, -e ------------------------------ Reply-To: TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM From: Paul Robinson Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 23:14:41 EST Subject: What is 'Los Angeles'? RUDHOLM@AIMLA.COM spoke about the fact that the San Fernando Valley, except for three towns, is all in the "City of Los Angeles" even though they are identified as other places. This is because some places get known by alternate names, and these names become so common that they get used differently even though the "official" name is something else. A lot of people who got arrested in Los Angeles used to tell people that they were staying at the "Graybar Hotel" instead of admitting they were in the County Jail. Until it was torn down a few years ago, the post office would forward mail addressed to the "Graybar Hotel" to the Los Angeles County Jail. (This is where life imitates art.) In case you are unaware, there is no such "city" as Hollywood; it is also part of the "City of Los Angeles." (There is, however, an incorporated city called "West Hollywood.") Right next to where I used to live in the incorporated city of Long Beach, is "San Pedro". The Police Department building says it is in "San Pedro, CA." What does it say on the police cars? "Los Angeles Police Department." Not county; City of Los Angeles. I heard they wanted to put a "Los Angeles City Limits" sign in the Ukraine but that country is too small ... [Moderator's Note: Did they tear down the post office, or the County Jail? PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #87 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22303; 14 Feb 93 1:01 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25566 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 13 Feb 1993 22:29:32 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09979 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 13 Feb 1993 22:28:59 -0600 Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1993 22:28:59 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302140428.AA09979@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #88 TELECOM Digest Sat, 13 Feb 93 22:29:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 88 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Running Out of Area Codes (Ken Stox) Re: Running Out of Area Codes (Robert L. McMillin) Re: Running Out of Area Codes (Fred R. Goldstein) Number Shortage ... What About "#" Sign? (Elana Beach) Re: SMDS Question (Fred R. Goldstein) Re: SMDS Question (Lars Poulsen) Re: SMDS Question (Pushpendra Mohta) Re: Second Line Non-Pub/Unlisted? (John Higdon) Re: Second Line Non-Pub/Unlisted? (David Lesher) Re: Second Line Non-Pub/Unlisted? (Richard Lucas) Re: Second Line Non-Pub/Unlisted? (Joel Upchurch) Re: Overseas Directory Assistance (Jim Gottlieb) Re: Overseas Directory Assistance (Sven Echternach) Re: Exchange Scanning - Enough Already! (Ed Greenberg) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: kstox@admips2.naitc.com (Ken Stox) Subject: Re: Running Out of Area Codes Reply-To: kstox@admips2.naitc.com (Ken Stox) Organization: AC Nielsen Co. Date: Sat, 13 Feb 93 18:14:16 GMT In article , Tony Harminc writes: > This sounds like nonsense. Telcos do not divide DA bureaus up > strictly by area code in most cases. If a city has several area > codes, a call to any one should be enough to find out a number in that > city. And locally, 411 should do. I can vouch for that, here in Chicago, the DA bureaus serve the 312 and 708 area codes. I lived in the city for many years and moved to the burb's some two years ago. An old friend called 312 DA, and was rather insistent that they must have my listing ( My name is, as far as I know, unique in North America). DA replied that, in fact, they did have a listing , but in 708. Needless, thanks to DA, I heard from an old friend. #include Ken Stox Consultant to A.C. Nielsen kstox@naitc.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Feb 93 12:00:18 -0800 From: rlm@indigo2.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) Subject: Re: Running Out of Area Codes Tony Harminc writes: >> Callers will have to closely pinpoint neighborhoods in making >> directory assistance requests because of the area-code proliferation. >> That's already a problem in Southern California, which now has seven >> area codes and is likely to get many more. > This sounds like nonsense. Telcos do not divide DA bureaus up > strictly by area code in most cases. They do in LA. The 213/310 split has been a mess in terms of figuring out which area code serves which city. Luckily for most people, 310 covers the coastal areas, so if the city you want to call is near the beach, it's probably 310. Inglewood? Beverly Hills? Those cities are roughly halved by the 213/310 area code split. True, the DA bureaus aren't split up physically, but a 310 operator will tell you "that city is in 310, sir" if you ask for a Long Beach number from a 213 operator. So it is a bit worse, particularly if you're calling long distance and have to pay for both calls. ------------------------------ From: goldstein@carafe.dnet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) Subject: Re: Running Out of Area Codes Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1993 23:44:25 GMT In article , jadams@vixen.cc.bellcore.com (adams,john) writes: > SURPRISE! (At least I was!) In yesterday's "New Yawk Times" appeared > an article stating that SPRINT is now an *owner* (along with the seven > RECs) of BELLCORE. I'm personally convinced that this will have > little to do with me, although I can see a couple of legions of > attorneys lining up on either side of this issue. Recall, however, that Sprint Corp. does business as "United Telephone System", and is the phone company in many parts of the country. I think they're trying to by Centel, another big local telco. (United Telephone changed its name to that of the long distance company they bought from GTE.) Fred R. Goldstein goldstein@carafe.tay2.dec.com k1io or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice:+1 508 952 3274 Standard Disclaimer: Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission. ------------------------------ From: elana@agora.rain.com (Elana Beach) Subject: Number Shortage ... What About "#" Sign? Organization: Open Communications Forum Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1993 14:06:04 GMT Extreme newbie talking here ... I hope this is an interesting thought for discussion, because it isn't easy being green! :-) ANYWAY ... in the various discussions of the number shortage, I never have seen this possibility I am about to discuss, and I wonder if it's because it's not workable, or just because no one thought of it yet. Could the # sign be used in any permutation to help alleviate the number shortage ... i.e. have it replace the leading "1" for long-distance phone calls or whatever? The * is already used as a leading character for things like *67, etc, so that is out. However it seems to me that the #, being so utterly unused, could be used in SOME interesting fashion to rethink our way through the number shortage problem. To my non-tech mind, it seems for example that to replace the leading 1 with the # will at LEAST free up the leading one for something else. Then there's combinations of #* (#N*, #*N, etc.) that could mean different things when used with the regular numbers. With any luck, this attempt at an idea just might be a creative spark to get your minds going on a new line of thought. Maybe it will help someone out there to come up with a creative solution they would not have thought of otherwise. E. Moderator's Note: The problem lies in your statement about '# is so utterly unused ...'; this is not true. It is frequently used. There are many switches which handle 'custom calling features' the opposite of the way you describe, for example using 72#, 73# and so forth, rather than with an asterisk on the front. The # -- sometimes known as an octothorpe -- is also used to indicate the end of a dialing string, or carriage return when the number entered is shorter or longer than the expected seven or eleven digits. The use of # at the end of such non-standard dialing strings avoids the need for the caller to wait while the equipment times out. For example, 0# gets the operator much faster than just 0, since before fetching the operator, the equipment is going to wait several seconds to see if you intend to go further with your dialing, such as 0 + area code + number. Your use of # tells it not to wait any longer. When calling the number to which a calling card is assigned, one need only enter the four digit PIN rather than the entire calling card number. The equipment knows how to interpret what you have entered (first four digits of fourteen, wait for ten more, or four of four proceed with processing now) because you insert the # at the end. This is ditto on international calling, since the number of digits we dial varies from one country to the next, depending on the length of the country code (one, two, or three digits usually), city code (one, two or three digits) and the local number (four to seven digits usually). Typically you can cut 20-30 seconds off the dialing time on an international call by hitting # at the end of your dialing. So the 'mostly unused' # really has a big job. PAT] ------------------------------ From: goldstein@carafe.dnet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) Subject: Re: SMDS Question Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1993 23:11:12 GMT In article , scm3775@tamsun.tamu.edu (Sean Malloy) writes ... > He was talking about applications, and mentioned that one would be the > interconnection of LANs within a metropolitan area. I thought about > it for a while, and alarm bells started to go off in my head. Putting > LANs on a public-switched network? Doesn't that open up all sorts of > security issues? No. > I asked the speaker about this, and he danced around the issue. I got > frustrated, and decided that security wasn't his bag. But the > question remains. What sort of precautions are taken to prevent > unauthorized users from getting into the LAN? Passwords? That's > proven to be incredibly effective on the net (heh). Besides, it'd add > overhead. Some sort of callback? That reduces the advantages of > being switched ... SMDS is a packet-switched service. No more, no less. Unlike X.25, it's connectionless, so it actually melds more easily with LAN traffic (LANs are connectionless) than X.25 or Frame Relay, both of which of course involve connections. But the SMDS network only delivers packets to the destination address (E.164 format) in each packet. So if anybody on the same SMDS sends you a packet, you might receive it, but you don't have to return the favor. You will not receive anybody else's traffic, and they won't get yours. If you're really paranoid about somebody else maliciously addressing packets to you, then I suppose you could set up a Closed User Group too. Think of it as being like a shared LAN in which the phone company provides bridges that block all traffic UNLESS it's addressed to the destination. (That's the opposite of 802.1 bridges which assume it's all private and thus pass everything unless they know not to.) Fred R. Goldstein goldstein@carafe.tay2.dec.com k1io or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice:+1 508 952 3274 Standard Disclaimer: Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission. ------------------------------ From: lars@spectrum.CMC.COM (Lars Poulsen) Subject: Re: SMDS Question Organization: CMC Network Systems (Rockwell DCD), Santa Barbara, CA, USA Date: Sat, 13 Feb 93 07:35:20 GMT In article scm3775@tamsun.tamu.edu (Sean Malloy) writes: > I was at the symposium for Broadband Networks last week, and watched > with some interest a presentation by a gentleman from GTE on SMDS. This is turning out to be the surprise of the decade. GTE actually is going seriously after SMDS, and they have even installed a GTE-to-PacBell SMDS gateway. I hear that they are way ahead of the Baby Bells in this effort. > He was talking about applications, and mentioned that one would be the > interconnection of LANs within a metropolitan area. I thought about > it for a while, and alarm bells started to go off in my head. Putting > LANs on a public-switched network? Doesn't that open up all sorts of > security issues? Attaching to a public network, inherently is a security issue. Fortunately, we have tools to address this issue and set a security policy adequate to our needs for each site. Lots of people attach over phone wires, and many routers let you install packet filters to implement your policy. Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer Internet E-mail: lars@CMC.COM CMC Network Products / Rockwell Int'l Telephone: +1-805-968-4262 Santa Barbara, CA 93117-3083 TeleFAX: +1-805-968-8256 ------------------------------ From: pushp@nic.cerf.net (Pushpendra Mohta) Subject: Re: SMDS Question Date: 13 Feb 1993 18:12:12 GMT Organization: CERFnet Dial n' CERF Customer Group In article scm3775@tamsun.tamu.edu (Sean Malloy) writes: > I was at the symposium for Broadband Networks last week, and watched > with some interest a presentation by a gentleman from GTE on SMDS. > He was talking about applications, and mentioned that one would be the > interconnection of LANs within a metropolitan area. I thought about > it for a while, and alarm bells started to go off in my head. Putting > LANs on a public-switched network? Doesn't that open up all sorts of > security issues? You take standard precautions: You secure your gateways and you secure your hosts. You may get firewall machines or encryption devices. There is a plethora of literature on this. SMDS solves some of this problem by creating "closed groups" At your request, the access points to the SMDS network can have filters designed to exchange traffic with selected SMDS hosts only. (PacBell does this, I am sure GTE does the same.) The access points also check to see the source SMDS address coming in to the network is the same as one preassigned to that port, so it is difficult for people to fake their SMDS addresses. However, your data is with the phone company .... :-) So, if you are forced to be paranoid: Encrypt. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Feb 93 10:19 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Second Line Non-Pub/Unlisted? barnett@zeppelin.convex.com (Paul Barnett) writes: > This is indeed specific to the local telephone company. In Mpls-St. > Paul, which is served by US West, you HAVE to publish the number, or > pay an extra charge. That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard of. So, if I wanted to avoid paying unlisting charges on my residence lines, the phone book would look something like this (?): Higdon John ------------- 264-4115 (the number I normally list) Higdon John ------------- 266-4400 Higdon John ------------- 266-4401 Higdon John ------------- 266-4402 Higdon John ------------- 266-4403 Higdon John ------------- 266-4404 [etc., etc., and on and on for sixteen lines] Some of the businesses in town might take up an entire page! Just how thick is the phone book for Mpls-St. Paul? > However, you could specify a different name for the listing, and > some people invent strange names. So is there an entire page of 'Rover'? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Re: Second Line Non-Pub/Unlisted? Date: Sat, 13 Feb 93 19:09:05 EST Reply-To: wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu (David Lesher) Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex I've always found it interesting that second through n-th lines can be non-pub for free. After all, it exposes one of the BOC's "BIG LIES". Years ago, The Seven Dwarfs claimed that non-pub cost extra because they suffered under the weight of those 411 calls; all caused by your n.p. number. Then they succeeded in getting DA charges tariffed -- Bingo -- another profit center! So the tripe they now peddle is that n.p. numbers cause them oh_so_much trouble. The classic explanation was the comedian who said it's "because they have to push the rest of the numbers in the book up one place ..." Of course the REAL reason that additional unlistings are free is simple. To do otherwise would REALLY cost Ma's kids. Consider: EVERY number in every Centrex would have to be listed. Think about your local megacorporation or worse, state university. The #1 largest user of n.p. numbers is, of course, not NSA or even teleslime. Rather, it's the BOC's! Think how zealously She guards those "secret" numbers to reach someone who understands something and might help you out! [re: PAT's recent story about CNID and calling the switch back ...] Now just suppose your local directory listed them all. Hmmm, maybe I should petition the PSC....... wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu (301) 56-LINUX ------------------------------ From: rlucas@bvsd.Co.EDU (Richard Lucas) Subject: Re: Second Line Non-Pub/Unlisted? Organization: Boulder Valley School District Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 01:08:08 GMT In article ddl@burrhus.harvard.edu (Dan Lanciani) writes: > I recently ordered a second line in my name and at the same > address as my existing line. For some reason I thought one could get > non-published or unlisted (I forget) status at no extra charge for > each line beyond the first. Did I imagine this? The business office > was quite certain that I would have to pay extra. I suppose the > answer is specific to NET land ... There are two possible ways of requesting the second line. If you requested that it be billed with the main number, the service order would need to contain a line specifying the AML (Additional Main Listing) details. Omit that and the second line won't be listed. There should be no charge to omit the AML. The second option is to bill the line by itself. In that case the USOC would be NP3 rather than NPU, and would generate no charge. At least in Colorado we had the rule you remember. The basic procedures date back to pre-Divestiture days and as such may not be NET-specific. Rick Lucas (rlucas@bvsd.co.edu, and former USW service rep) Debate Coach, Fairview HS, Boulder, CO ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Second Line Non-Pub/Unlisted? From: upchrch!joel@peora.sdc.ccur.com (Joel Upchurch ) Date: Sat, 13 Feb 93 18:06:53 EST Organization: Upchurch Computer Consulting, Orlando FL ddl@burrhus.harvard.edu (Dan Lanciani) writes: > I recently ordered a second line in my name and at the same > address as my existing line. For some reason I thought one could get > non-published or unlisted (I forget) status at no extra charge for > each line beyond the first. Did I imagine this? The business office > was quite certain that I would have to pay extra. I suppose the > answer is specific to NET land ... My first line is published. When I got my second line it wasn't required to be listed. For all I know I might have to pay extra to have it listed. I notice there are a lot less sales calls coming in on the second line. I've entertained the notion of using the second number as my primary contact with people I know and putting my modem and fax on the first line and have a answering machine take calls on that line. The nice part was that since both numbers are billed together AT&T didn't charge any extra to have Any Hour Saver on both lines. (If your mail bounces use the address below.) Joel Upchurch/Upchurch Computer Consulting/718 Galsworthy/Orlando, FL 32809 joel@peora.ccur.com {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd,ucf-cs}!peora!joel (407) 859-0982 ------------------------------ From: jimmy@tokyo07.info.com (Jim Gottlieb) Subject: Re: Overseas Directory Assistance Reply-To: jimmy@denwa.info.com (Jim Gottlieb) Organization: Info Connections, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1993 13:55:14 GMT jrichert@krefcom.GUN.de (Jan Richert) writes: > Sometimes you can reach the US directory assistance from Germany by > dialing +1 XXX 555 1212 ... but sometimes you get a message "Your call > cannot completed as dialed" I believe this is because your call may be carried on any of a number of carriers to the U.S. For example, I sometimes try to call California 976 numbers from here in Japan. Regardless of what carrier I pick to handle the call on this side, I enter the U.S. via AT&T, MCI, or Sprint on a seemingly random basis. If I land on AT&T, my calls to 976 go through. Otherwise I might hear "MCI does not complete calls to 976 ..." or a similar one from Sprint. This could be rather confusing to a casual caller. I suspect that certain carrier(s) pass overseas calls to DA while others don't. Jim Gottlieb Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan In Japan: Fax: +81 3 3865 9424 Voice Mail: +81 3 3865 3548 ------------------------------ From: echterna@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Sven Echternach) Subject: Worldwide Directory Assistance Organization: Technische Universitaet Muenchen, Germany Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1993 14:24:34 +0100 > [Moderator's Note: Yes and no. No, you are not supposed to dial > international DA direct (no, people in other countries cannot dial > 555-1212 in this country -- I don't think), and yes, it can be done in > ...] Yes, you can reach 555-1212 from most countries in the world! It is just one of these undocumented features AT&T doesn't tell us. Just call up the AT&T USA Direct Access Number from most countries. AT&T publishes them daily in {USA Today} and other newspapers. If you get an operator, like from Germany, tell her you want (npa) 555-1212, where npa is the NPA of the number you want to have. They won't ask you for your calling card because it is a toll free call. Unfortunately, some AT&T Operators don't know about this, but keep on asking for your Calling Card (in 20% of the cases), so hang up and try again then. Regards, Sven [Moderator's Note: First of all, 'USA Direct' is a different matter than simply calling from some other country to the USA. With USA Direct you actually get an AT&T operator in the USA. In the latter case, the local telecom operator handles the call according to the rules in that country. And in any event, if they (AT&T operators or the operators in your country) are giving it to you for free, that is a much better deal than we who are stateside get: we have to pay about 60-65 cents for each call to npa-555-1212. PAT] ------------------------------ From: edg@netcom.com (Ed Greenberg) Subject: Re: Exchange Scanning - Enough Already! Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1993 13:06:02 GMT > [Moderator's Note: What is wrong with your theory, Nigel, is that a > carpet cleaning company or health club -- or even a persistent bill > collector -- would not call (was it?) 165 times each night. You don't > sell memberships or cleaning services at midnight. In any event, I > don't think there is legislation at the federal level. PAT] Actually, the way I read the scenario, they might. Consider that if the business has the entire prefix assigned to it, but is using only, let's say, 5,000 out of the 10,000 numbers assigned, and somebody scanned the whole exchange, then they would get 5,000 calls on their DID trunks that would result in intercept from their switch. Now, typically, the company holding onto so many empty DIDs doesn't get them all turned on, but enables them by the 1000s group. As long as the telco has numbers to spare, this works, but eventually growth in the area puts pressure on this and you need to either pay for your numbers to reserve them, or give 'em up. Edward W. Greenberg | Home: +1 408 283 0511 | edg@netcom.com 1600 Stokes St. #24 | Work: +1 408 764 5305 | DoD#: 0357 San Jose, CA 95126 | Fax: +1 408 764 5003 | KM6CG (ex WB2GOH) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #88 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25919; 14 Feb 93 2:13 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22666 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 13 Feb 1993 23:49:14 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13368 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 13 Feb 1993 23:48:31 -0600 Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1993 23:48:31 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302140548.AA13368@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #89 TELECOM Digest Sat, 13 Feb 93 23:48:30 CST Volume 13 : Issue 89 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson The Definitive Word on TTL Fields (Mark Boolootian) Re: Meaning of TTL in TCP/IP (Eric M. Carroll) Re: AT&T Are You Listening? (Jack Decker) Re: AT&T Are You Listening? (Ed Greenberg) Re: ANI on 800 Line w/o T1? (John Llorens) Re: ANI on 800 Line w/o T1? (John Higdon) Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones (Ken Stox) Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones (John Higdon) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: booloo@framsparc.ocf.llnl.gov (Mark Boolootian) Subject: The Definitive Word on TTL Fields Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1993 13:01:45 -0800 (PST) I don't want to drag this on ad infinitum, but it is important to get the correct information out and that doesn't seem to be happening here. Matti Aarnio writes: > Lately I have seen this "TTL is time in seconds" dream on many places. > Who originated that idea? Current IP version 4 does not contain an > absolute time stamp in each datagram, rather it has a hop-count. and, referring to TTL, again writes: > Nope, it is not SECONDS, it is HOPS. (Gomer does explain it well) > (And it is explained well in the original RFCs too, see RFC 791). While it is a minor point, the TTL field is in fact specified as being in seconds in RFC 791 (and also in RFC 1122 - Host Requirements). Here is the salient passage from 791: Time to Live: The time to live is set by the sender to the maximum time the datagram is allowed to be in the internet system. If the datagram is in the internet system longer than the time to live, then the datagram must be destroyed. This field must be decreased at each point that the internet header is processed to reflect the time spent processing the datagram. Even if no local information is available on the time actually spent, the field must be decremented by 1. The time is measured in units of seconds (i.e. the value 1 means one second). Thus, the maximum time to live is 255 seconds or 4.25 minutes. Since every module that processes a datagram must decrease the TTL by at least one even if it process the datagram in less than a second, the TTL must be thought of only as an upper bound on the time a datagram may exist. The intention is to cause undeliverable datagrams to be discarded, and to bound the maximum datagram lifetime. Since routers typically decrement the TTL by one, the TTL is typically referred to as a hop count. But according to the spec, it is acceptable for a router to decrement the TTL by some larger value. I am unaware of any cases where this occurs, but it is within the realm of possibilty. >> By looking at Jack Decker's traceroute output, it seems that his TCP >> packets are going through too many gateways. > Nope, 30 is quite normal amount of router hops from one edge to > another of the present Internet network. Even 50 is not that unusual. I would like to challenge you to produce a traceroute for me with 30 hops in it (and no routing loops!). My understanding of why a TTL of 60 is commonly used in TCP is that it virtually guarantees a packet can move from one edge of the Internet to the other and back again without being discarded (i.e. the maximum width of the Internet is < 30 hops). 50 hops is unbelievable. I want to correct something *I* wrote in my last post. I said: > By the way, most implemenations of traceroute use a TTL of 30. I should have said, most implementations of traceroute use a maximum default TTL of 30 (the reason being is that is usually sufficient to get where you need to go). Mark Boolootian booloo@llnl.gov +1 510 423 1948 Disclaimer: booloo speaks for booloo and no other. ------------------------------ From: eric@cathaus.utcs.utoronto.ca (Eric M. Carroll) Subject: Re: Meaning of TTL in TCP/IP Organization: UTCS Campus Access Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1993 16:21:14 -0500 > Nope, it is not SECONDS, it is HOPS. ... > (And it is explained well in the original RFCs too, see RFC 791). The TTL is in seconds. But a router is required to decrement it by at least one. Thus it has hop-count properties. RFC791 defines it, and RFC1122 clarifies it. From RFC791: Time to Live: 8 bits [Moderator's Note: This message quoted the very same text and has been omitted here, since he repeats what the first message in this issue said quoted from the same source by Mark B. PAT] From Host Requirements RFC1122: 3.2.1.7 Time-to-Live: RFC-791 Section 3.2 DISCUSSION: The TTL field has two functions: limit the lifetime of TCP segments (see RFC-793 [TCP:1], p. 28), and terminate Internet routing loops. Although TTL is a time in seconds, it also has some attributes of a hop- count, since each gateway is required to reduce the TTL field by at least one. Eric Carroll University of Toronto Computing & Communications Network & Operations Services, Network Development ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Feb 93 15:02:50 EST From: jack.decker@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org (Jack Decker) Subject: Re: AT&T Are You Listening? In message , lchiu@holonet.net (Laurence Chiu) wrote: > I am thinking about MCI instead. They have a similar plan to ROW > (don't remember the name) with similar rates but also they have > Friends and Family. I can denote two international numbers F&F (China > is allowed) and thus get savings to all the international destinations > I call. > I don't want to switch carriers. I like AT&T. Their lines are good > (I've made consistent 14.4 connects all over the country using my > cheap Supra modem), their customer service very friendly etc. But they > just don't offer the calling plans I want. Anyway MCI advertise all > the time on our local channel which carries Chinese broadcasting, in > both Cantonese and Mandarin with toll-free numbers you can call which > are answered by Chinese speaking operators so my wife is always asking > me why I don't use MCI! I cannot explain modems to her that easily! Why not use both carriers? I would suggest you do this: Switch your line to MCI and use them for all your voice calls. You might want to try your modem calls at least once; you may well be surprised to find that the line quality to the places you call is perfectly acceptable. However, should you find a place that you cannot call via MCI, simply force the call to go via AT&T, by dialing 10288, then 1, the area code and number. If there is a location that you have consistent problems calling via MCI, by all means call up MCI's customer service and complain! But honestly, you should not have that many problems. All three of the major carriers use digital fiber optic circuits now so you really should not notice a difference in the quality of your modem connects, unless you are calling some place out in the hinterlands. But remember, as long as your phone line has been converted for "equal access" (MOST lines in the U.S. have by now), you can ALWAYS force a call to go by the carrier of your choice, simply by prefixing whatever you'd normally dial with the carrier's "10xxx" code. Thus, if you'd normally dial 1-(xxx) xxx-xxxx, you'd instead dial 10xxx-1 (xxx) xxx-xxxx. The "10xxx" codes for the "big three" carriers are: 10222 - MCI 10288 - AT&T 10333 - Sprint (I know this is all "common knowledge" for regular readers of the TELECOM Digest, but I have to imagine that new folks stumble through here at least once in a while!) :-) AT&T spends a LOT of money on advertising to convince you that their quality is better. In my mind, this is just about as valid as the advertising that oil companies used to run to convince you that one brand of gasoline was better than another. In many cases, all the gas stations in a town got their gas from the same source! It was the same gas, yet they all tried to convince the public that theirs was better! And we see a similar situation here, in that in many cases if you are going to have trouble on a call, the trouble is most likely to be in the local telco's lines from their point-of-presence (of which there is often only one per LATA) to their local exchange, and ALL the carriers use those same lines to complete calls. If you try a call over MCI and it doesn't work, and you then try to complete it over AT&T and it does, that doesn't necessarily mean that AT&T is better, it just means you got a different circuit from the local telco. Had you tried your second attempt on MCI again, you would probably have been just as satisfied with the result. Mind you, I can find things to complain about regarding all the carriers, but with AT&T my biggest complaint is that AT&T tries to make it sound as though their lines are so vastly superior to that of their competitors when the truth is that there really isn't any perceptible difference in most cases (certainly nothing you could hear on a voice call ... and in the past I have seen a few cases where you couldn't make a modem connect over AT&T, while using MCI produced a near-perfect connection. Still, that could also have been a local telco problem). AT&T's new fax commercials really get me ... they talk about their fax guarantee but insofar as I can determine from the short amount of time that the fine print remains on the screen, they only guarantee to credit your bill for the cost of any failed fax call. Have the other carriers refused to do that? I rather doubt it, since essentially we are talking a "poor connection" and the major carriers have all issued credits for those for quite some time! Jack Decker | Internet: jack.decker@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org | Fidonet: 1:154/8 ------------------------------ From: edg@netcom.com (Ed Greenberg) Subject: Re: AT&T Are You Listening? Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1993 13:22:39 GMT In article John Higdon writes: > For instance, keep AT&T as your PIC and then sign up with MCI for the > international plan, keeping your MCI account secondary. Then when you > call China (or whereever), prepend '10222' to the call. Frontline > salesslime will tell you that you have to "switch" to take advantage > of a particular plan, but that is 99.9% hogwash. > I have used various plans offered by Sprint and MCI, but I have never > "left" AT&T. There is no need. I can second this. I have an MCI personal 800 number. Even though my PIC is AT&T, I have a "Friends and Family" account with one number on it -- mine. I discount the cost of my 800 calls home by 20% this way. The whole thing was set up for me by a courteous, respectful, _telecom_ literate_ MCI rep who understood me perfectly when I said that I had no intention of switching PICs but wanted an MCI 800 number. She explained that I could add F&F to a secondary account and set it up. I checked and checked, waiting to be slammed, and imagine my surprise when I wasn't! Edward W. Greenberg | Home: +1 408 283 0511 | edg@netcom.com 1600 Stokes St. #24 | Work: +1 408 764 5305 | DoD#: 0357 San Jose, CA 95126 | Fax: +1 408 764 5003 | KM6CG (ex WB2GOH) ------------------------------ From: johnl@cpqhou.se.hou.compaq.com (John Llorens) Subject: Re: ANI on 800 Line w/o T1? Organization: Compaq Computer Corp. Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1993 17:34:17 GMT In article John Higdon writes: > Tas Dienes writes: >> Does anybody know if it is possible to get ANI on an 800 line without >> having to get T1 service? I just have a couple of regular (actually, >> Centranet) lines - local service is GTE, 800 is Sprint. Sprint says >> no, but I was wondering if anybody else can? > In order to receive realtime ANI from a long distance carrier, you > must have a "trunk-side connection". All connections from your telco's > switch are "line-side connections". So the answer is no, you cannot > get realtime ANI without having a direct trunk connection to a > carrier's switch. > There is a way around this however. Stay tuned. You can recieve realtime ANI and DNIS on reqular voice lines via a DTMF header that begins the call. While this information is being transfered to the called, the caller is receiving a ring back tone. When you (called) have processed the ANI/DNIS (database lookup, operator available, etc ...) you send a special DTMF to the switch to connect the voice path. This method requires a Dialogic or equivalent tone detection/generation equipment at the receiver's end. Who offers this service? Arch Telecom Houston TX (713) 222-1995 or 1-800-882-2947 How much does it cost? ATT Readyline rates! Who is the carrier? ATT (ISDN inbound and outbound for extremely fast call setup times) Features in addition to ANI/DNIS delivery? ANI Blocking/Passing can be programmed via touchtone. Takes effect immediately. Destination number redirect to any domestic number. Can be programmed via touchtone. Takes effect immediately. Can be used as a calling card. Speed dial codes I think they also offer this service in combination with ATT's new Vari-a-bill 900 service. etc ... I don't remember all the services/features... I don't know of anyone else using this method for switched long distance service. I hope the info is useful to those in need of this service. John Llorens Compaq Computer Corporation johnl@cpqhou.compaq.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Feb 93 13:32 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: ANI on 800 Line w/o T1? tim gorman <71336.1270@CompuServe.COM> writes: > First, there are ways to get ANI over 800 lines without T1 service. > It depends entirely on what your long distance provider offers. > If the carrier can offer standard trunking with the ANI sent as an MF > (or possible DTMF) digit stream and your PBX can handle the specific > format, then a T1 is not a requirement. > If your PBX can handle Feature Group D signaling formats, Were you responding to the same post I was? The original poster said that he had ordinary POTS (well Centrex anyway) from GTE and no special equipment. I assumed he was asking if he could casually get ANI from a carrier without T1. All POTS circuits are "line side". I never claimed that you could not get trunk connections from telco (I have them in certain applications), but the question was not about PBXes, complex alternatives to IXC direct trunking or anything else. It was about ANI on POTS. Of course, it is certainly possible for a carrier to provide ANI using DTMF after a call has been answered, but to my knowledge there is no such offering at this time. There is even a rumored service from AT&T that provides ANI via the CNID mechanism to customers. Only problem with that (and why I did not mention it) is that the poster is from California, the land of politically correct, anonymous thinking. (An aside: the pest who called me fifteen times this morning, hanging up each time I answered will have no worry about HIS identity being discovered. Only in California!) John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: kstox@admips2.naitc.com (Ken Stox) Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones Reply-To: kstox@admips2.naitc.com (Ken Stox) Organization: Ministry of Extremely Silly Walks Date: Sat, 13 Feb 93 17:55:41 GMT > 3. As defined in 47 CFR part 15 scanning receivers, or "scanners," > are radio receivers that automatically switch between four or more > frequencies anywhere within the 30-960 Mhz band.... I guess my TV set will become illegal too!! It has a mode which "scans" all channels to see if they are transmitting, and then when you hit the channel up or down buttons only "active" stations will be shown. You know, that may not be such a bad idea... :-> #include Ken Stox Consultant to A.C. Nielsen kstox@naitc.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Feb 93 12:57 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones bloeber@ecst.csuchico.edu (Robert Paul Loeber) writes: > I know this may sound like a dumb question ... but what is the FCCs > definition of a "radio receiver"? > get a cellular phone (instead of a scanner) ... Also, what is the FCC's definition of "easily modified"? I happen to know someone who has rewritten the firmware for a very popular handheld phone to allow it to act as a powerful monitor of cellular communications. Unlike an ordinary scanner, this modified product has the ability to follow a conversation after a handoff. Believe me, if I wanted to listen in on cellular traffic I would not waste any time or effort with my venerable Yaesu. The [name withheld] "Special Edition" cellular phone would be my weapon of choice! Scanner laws will be just about as effective as gun laws -- only much sillier. The FCC is seriously deluded if it thinks it can win a technological war with anyone. The below-average moron outguns the FCC in the brain cell department. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #89 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17662; 14 Feb 93 14:54 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14480 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 14 Feb 1993 12:26:24 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17200 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 14 Feb 1993 12:25:47 -0600 Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 12:25:47 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302141825.AA17200@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #90 TELECOM Digest Sun, 14 Feb 93 12:25:45 CST Volume 13 : Issue 90 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: N.E.T. and the Phantom Phone Exchange (John K. Scoggin Jr) Re: N.E.T. and the Phantom Phone Exchange (Fred R. Goldstein) Pacific Bell, Caller ID, and PRIVATE (Steve Forrette) Re: Cellular Phones Power Control (Samir Soliman) Re: Cellular Phones Power Control (Wilson Mohr) Re: Cellular Phones Power Control (John Gilbert) Re: What Could Cause Jitter in a Voice Channel Over Fiber (John Scoggin Jr) Re: What Could Cause Jitter in a Voice Channel Over Fiber (D. Greenwood) Re: Text of MFJ Wanted (Jeff Sicherman) Re: Number Identifier Attempts From Canada (Graham Toal) Re: Source For Telephone Headsets Wanted (A.J. Harvey-Perry) Re: BIX Gateway (Seng-Poh Lee) Re: Calling a Roaming Cellular Customer (John Higdon) Re: A Whole New Ball Game - Sport Broadcasts via Phone (Stewart Clamen) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John K Scoggin Jr Subject: Re: N.E.T. and the Phantom Phone Exchange Date: 13 Feb 1993 18:19:40 GMT Organization: Delmarva Power & Light Company Reply-To: scoggin@delmarva.COM YES! This is the not the first time that a telco has hosed their routing tables. One Saturday morning I got a call from our Southern Division Energy Control Center in Salisbury MD that they could not get any calls from Southern Delaware. I tried it myself -- Delmarva has an extensive private fiber net and I have a bunch of OPX lines in various counties terminating on the sets in the Network Operations Center here. Sure enough, Kent and Sussex Counties had NO long-distance access through MCI -- AT&T worked fine. Talked to the folks at MCI -- they had several open problem reports on the same thing. They were getting nowhere with Bell of Pennsylvania (MCI has two big DMS250's in Philadelphia that apparently handle Delaware, as well as eastern PA). Anyhow, I raised enough hell that I finally spoke to a switchman in Bell's Market St CO. Finally found that they had installed a new generic the night before and had forgotten to load some of the translation tables! John K. Scoggin, Jr. Email: scoggin@delmarva.com Supervisor, Network Operations Phone: (302) 451-5200 Delmarva Power & Light Company Fax: (302) 451-5321 500 N. Wakefield Drive NOC: (800) 388-7076 Newark, DE 19714-6066 The opinions expressed are not those of Delmarva Power, simply the product of an over-active imagination... ------------------------------ From: goldstein@carafe.dnet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) Subject: Re: N.E.T. and the Phantom Phone Exchange Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1993 23:49:16 GMT In article , arnold@isis1.bxb.dec.com (Tom Arnold) writes: > Perhaps one of the TELECOM readers can shed light on the recent weird > behavior up here in New England Telephone land on the part of exchange > 264 in the 508 area code (Eastern to Mid-Massachusetts.) > This exchange serves two Digital Equipment Corporation engineering > facilities in Boxborough. It no doubt serves other things as well. The answer is obvious: You should always report these things to internal telecom people FIRST! We know how to diagnose them. The DEC Boxborough sites are served via a PBX with some Direct Inward Dialing trunks. The Acton sites are served via the same CO, with other numbers. If the DID trunks are down, callers will get fast busy. DID trunks can fail inside the central office, or inside the PBX, or the wire in between them can fail. Any of these will cause fast busy. The phone company doesn't have lines with these numbers; rather, there are large blocks of numbers pointed at a few lines whose numbers may not even be dialable (sometimes they're alphanumeric). Of course, enough of the telecomm support people understand this. > But, how could such an error occur? Can a technician really delete a > whole exchange from a telephone switch by accident without realizing > it? Could the routing algorithm in use (I have no idea what kind of > switch N.E.T. is using for the 264 exchange,) somehow drop 800 lines > by mistake? It's not an "exchange", and it's not even a prefix code. It's a trunk group. And yes, they drop pretty easily. DID trunks use an analog protocol that is terribly difficult to maintain. (The 264 prefix is an analog switch, a 2BESS.) The lines are probably multiplexed at the CO onto one or two T1 carriers, so if the T1 drops, the group is down, and all calls to those numbers get fast busy! Fred R. Goldstein goldstein@carafe.tay2.dec.com (Digital equipment Corp, Corporate Telecom Engineering) k1io or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice:+1 508 952 3274 Standard Disclaimer: Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 93 02:54:59 -0800 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Pacific Bell, Caller ID, and PRIVATE It seems that telcos (such as Pacific Bell) which do not yet offer Caller ID in their regions, and are marking all calls that leave the LATA as PRIVATE so that they don't show up in other areas, are creating a major impediment for the usefulness of Caller ID. What if a users in another area subscribes to "block blocking," whereby their telco will reject any call that's market PRIVATE. This will prevent any incoming calls from anyone in California! Similarly, I would imagine that a great deal more people who have Caller ID boxes choose to ignore calls that come in as PRIVATE. How are you supposed to differentiate between people who have specifically requested that their numbers be blocked (who I most certainly DON'T want to talk to) from those who just happen to live in a state who's PUC knows what's best for its citizens (many of whom I do want to talk to)? And just having Pacific Bell not include the calling number at all would prevent the proper functioning of Call Return, Call Block, and other CLASS services which rely on knowing the calling number but don't reveal it to the customer. Is this going to be a growing problem? Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 09:01:37 -0800 From: Samir Soliman Subject: Re: Cellular Phones Power Control > 1) The primary reason CDMA does tight power control is not to conserve > battery power, but rather so that the spread spectrum system > being used will work at all. Battery conservation and radiation > reductions are nice side-effects. CDMA is an interference limited system while other systems (FM and TDMA) are thermal noise limited (receiver sensitivity determines the coverage). Tight power control is used to control intrinsic interference (interference due to other users in the same cell as well as users in the adjacent cells). Keep in mind that in CDMA there is no frequency reuse (no need for frequency planning). All users on one CDMA radio channel use the same 1.25 MHz band. A by product of tight power control is battery conversation and radiation reductions (hence the term portable friendly). > 2) A couple of people wrote me saying that ordinary analog (AMPS) cellular > service also has power control. While it is true that a power control > system is defined in the spec, it appears that in actual use most cells > keep their mobile units set to full power (for whatever class of mobile > it is, either 3W or 600mw) virtually all of the time. In fact, I've > gotten notes from a couple of cell experts who say they know of no AMPS > systems that actively run power control (I cannot verify this, however). > The AMPS power control spec utilizes a small number of steps and was > designed to control inter-cell interference. In practice, however, I'm > told that fading is usually so significant that just running at full > power is the norm. On the CDMA reverse (up) link there are 3 power control loops. An open loop (mobile responsibility) which has 80 dB dynamic range and is used to mitigate near-end far-end problems. The closed loop which has a resoulation of 1 dB and is used to compensate for fast fading problems (mobile-base station). The outer loop (Selector-Base station-mobile) is used to achieve a target voice quality. On the forward (down) link, the power control is used to reduce interference and mitigate the corner problem. Samir S. Soliman QUALCOMM Incorporated 10555 Sorrento Valley Rd. San Diego, CA 92121 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 93 02:01:25 CST From: mohr@orange.rtsg.mot.com (Wilson Mohr) Subject: Re: Cellular Phones Power Control This is true in most "small" systems. "small" meaning they have not got a large enough subscriber penetration to necessitate a system that utilizes frequency reuse. However, if you take a city like Chicago or LA you will find power control not only on the uplink (mobile to cell), but also on the downlink ( cell to mobile ). This implementation allows greater reuse density within the given spectrum. As a mtter of record, most large systems do not even let the mobile get much beyond half-power when operating in the densest portions of the system. But remember, mobiles are capable of 3W and portables are only .6W. The power stepping capability allows mobiles and portables to peacefully co-existent in dense regions. Portables by definition always run at (full) .6W. There is a parameter within your phone that is passed to the system telling the system that it is a portable and should always run at full power. Combining this with other system admin features allows very complex traffic patterns without compromising call quality (hopefully). If anyone wants the nitty-gritty, I can elobaorate, but I will save bandwidth for now. ------------------------------ From: johng@comm.mot.com (John Gilbert) Subject: Re: Cellular Phones Power Control Organization: Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1993 19:49:48 GMT In article lauren@cv.vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein) writes: > ... While it is true that a power control system is defined in the > spec, it appears that in actual use most cells keep their mobile units > set to full power (for whatever class of mobile it is, either 3W or > 600mw) virtually all of the time. In fact, I've gotten notes from a > couple of cell experts who say they know of no AMPS systems that > actively run power control (I cannot verify this, however). Here in Chicago on the Ameritech system I very seldom see my mobile go above level 3 or 4 while I am making a call. Adaptive power is very much in use here. Level Power 00 3.0 W 34.8 dBm (+2/-4 dB) 01 1.2 W 30.8 dBm (+2/-4 dB) 02 0.478 W 26.8 dBm (+2/-4 dB) 03 0.190 W 22.8 dBm (+2/-4 dB) 04 0.076 W 18.8 dBm (+2/-4 dB) 05 0.030 W 14.8 dBm (+2/-4 dB) 06 0.012 W 10.8 dBm (+2/-4 dB) 07 0.005 W 6.8 dBm (+2/-4 dB) John Gilbert johng@ecs.comm.mot.com ------------------------------ From: John K Scoggin Jr Subject: Re: What Could Cause Jitter in a Voice Channel Date: 13 Feb 1993 21:18:21 GMT Organization: Delmarva Power & Light Company Reply-To: scoggin@delmarva.COM In article 5@eecs.nwu.edu, tching@target.uucp (Tracy Ching ) writes: > While sending a 1KHz tone over that voice channel, the other end is > jittering (changing phase constantly) and also slightly changing > amplitude. The "gurus" who administer the thing say there is nothing > that can be done to fix it. I just want my clear channel. > What could cause such a problem? Be as technical as you want. > Thanks for any info. > I'm quite sure my 1KHz tone is pure, i.e. no jitter from the source. Digital systems experience an impairment known as timing jitter. This is caused by the accumulation of variations in timing of a digital signal. A string of repeaters adds small timing errors due to the clocks in each repeater and the addition/removal of 'stuffing bits' in async muxes (like most M13's). It is possible to add buffers to retime the signal at each end, de-jitterizing the signal, but they are pretty expensive. John K. Scoggin, Jr. Email: scoggin@delmarva.com Supervisor, Network Operations Phone: (302) 451-5200 Delmarva Power & Light Company Fax: (302) 451-5321 500 N. Wakefield Drive NOC: (800) 388-7076 Newark, DE 19714-6066 The opinions expressed are not those of Delmarva Power, simply the product of an over-active imagination... ------------------------------ From: Darrell_Greenwood@edgeway.wimsey.bc.ca Organization: EdgeWays! InfoLink - A FirstClass GUI BBS N. Vancouver, BC Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1993 13:32:11 PST Subject: Re: What Could Cause Jitter in a Voice Channel Over Fiber In my experience in the operation and maintenance of a 960 channel communications system, mainly microwave radio, but also including some fibre optic and digital communications, the main contributor to phase jitter is the voice channel multiplexing equipment. The medium, (fibre optic, microwave radio or wire line), relatively speaking, is a negligible contributor to phase or amplitude transmission impairments. Have a look at the specifications of the voice channel multiplexing equipment your 1 kHz tone is going through and I think you may find your culprit. Darrell_Greenwood@edgeway.wimsey.bc.ca EdgeWays! InfoLink name@edgeway.wimsey.bc.ca GUI BBS: (604) 984-2777 * Voice: (604) 984-6860 The views expressed here are of the individual author only. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 00:39:18 -0800 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: Re: Text of MFJ Wanted Organization: Cal State Long Beach In article GHADSAL@AMERICAN.EDU writes: > Doesn't anyone have a full text copy of the Modified Final Judgement > (MFJ) from divestiture? Sorry, it's still being modified ... Jeff Sicherman ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Feb 93 22:02:59 GMT From: Graham Toal Subject: Re: Number Identifier Attempts From Canada Just out of interest, is there *any* way to dial this from Britain? (Still trying to find out for sure if CLID is passed out of our exchanges - the best answer we have so far is 'probably, on some transatlantic routes', but no-one on uk.telecom has *ever* reported anyone in the US identifying their line ...) Graham ------------------------------ From: aharveyp@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (A.J.Harvey-Perry) Subject: Re: Source For Telephone Headsets Wanted Organization: AT&T Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 11:01:45 GMT In article dmr@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Daniel M. Rosenberg) writes: > Does anyone know where I could procure a reasonably priced (< $100) > telephone headset? It'd be for a plain old telephone, not a key > system. Places like Hello Direct sell these things for way too much -- > like $200. All I can add to this is that I have tried one or two headsets, including Panasonics. Currently I have a Plantronics headset which I have been told is very cheap, but good. I would recommend that you try and get one of these. Regards, Adrian Harvey-Perry AT&T Network Systems UK Ltd. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are that of my own and not of my company. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Feb 93 19:09:40 EST From: splee@pd.org (Seng-Poh Lee, Speedy) Subject: Re: BIX Gateway Organization: Public Domain Inc. In article is written: >> So, it might be even possible to get a telnet connection to BIX? > Probably, sooner or later. The address genvid.com is actually the It already exists. Telnet to x25.bix.com and login as BIX. It appears to cost $1/hour anytime of the day. Seng-Poh Lee ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Feb 93 17:34 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Calling a Roaming Cellular Customer Bob_Frankston@frankston.com writes: > When I call from a coin phone to a local roaming port, I notice that I > get my money back if the called party doesn't answer but don't if > either they answer or I get the recorded message telling me that the > other party is out of range. You neglected to mention if it was a COCOT. If it was, then it "guessed" if the call was answered by listening for voice from the other end. No voice = no answer, as far as the phone is concerned (the recorded message counts as "voice"). Now if cellular providers would put the SIT in front of that announcement, then you would get your money back from COCOTs. I will bet that if you had been using a utility pay phone, it would keep your money when calling the roamer port no matter what. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen) Subject: Re: A Whole New Ball Game - Sport Broadcasts via Phone Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 04:03:50 GMT In article Don.Kimberlin@f730.n250. z1.FIDONET.ORG (Don Kimberlin) writes: > One of the more common limitations suffered by smaller radio > broadcasters is maintaining carriage of local sports teams when their > town's team is on the road. When economically possible, the small > station has classically ordered a "Schedule D program transmission > channel" from the phoneco, and aired a remote broadcast from as far > away as the broadcaster could afford. (The "Schedule D channel" is > one common name for an ordinary telephone message channel of 3 kHz > bandwidth supplied for program use.) Donald Sutherland, the movie actor, is a great Expos fan, and has season tickets right behind first base. However, his job makes it hard be in Montreal the entire baseball season. I don't know if it is still true, but in the early 1980s, it was reported that the baseball team had a special phone number set up for him so he could call from anywhere and listen to play-by-play radio coverage. Stewart M. Clamen Internet: clamen@cs.cmu.edu School of Computer Science UUCP: uunet!"clamen@cs.cmu.edu" Carnegie Mellon University Phone: +1 412 268 2145 5000 Forbes Avenue Fax: +1 412 681 5739 Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3891, USA ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #90 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20217; 14 Feb 93 16:02 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23635 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 14 Feb 1993 13:39:43 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18743 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 14 Feb 1993 13:39:03 -0600 Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 13:39:03 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302141939.AA18743@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #91 TELECOM Digest Sun, 14 Feb 93 13:39:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 91 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Hilton Hotel Telephone Surcharge (Jerry Leichter) Re: Wiring For Multi-Lines on One Jack (Pat Turner) Re: Differences Between ANI and Caller-ID (Fred R. Goldstein) Re: Salesmen That Won't Quit (Henry E. Schaffer) Re: Ma Bell Calling (John Higdon) Re: Second Line Non-Pub/Unlisted? (Dave Levenson) Re: Cheap Way to Get Incoming SDMR From DID? (Ed Greenberg) Re: Second Line Non-Pub/Unlisted? (Paul Barnett) Re: Telex to Internet Gateway Question (Donald R. Newcomb) Telex to USA (was Telex to Internet Gateway Question) (Richard Cox) Re: Standard Dialing Plan (Bob Goudreau) Re: Alphanumeric Pagers Question (Shawn Nunley) Re: GTE Does It Again (Rusty Hodge) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 14 Feb 93 10:06:51 EDT From: Jerry Leichter Subject: Re: Hilton Hotel Telephone Surcharge I recently ran across a personal record for additional hotel charges, at a location our Moderator may appreciate: The O'Hare Hilton. According to the rate card in the room - at least they provide that now! - the charges are as follows: Local call $1.00 In-state toll call $1.00 + Illinois Bell charges Direct dial LD and $1.00 + AT&T operator-assisted full rate. International That is, pay $1.00 to direct-dial your late- night call, and STILL pay for an operator- assisted day call. Operator-assisted LD $1.00 surcharge Operator-assisted International $1.50 surcharge 1-800 FREE but Other carriers $1.00 surcharge. The card specifically listed 1-800 access to other carriers as subject to the surcharge. It's of course no problem for a modern system to have a list of carrier-access 800 numbers and treat them differently. (Those carriers with a 7-digit access number are subject to the same charge since these are treated as local calls.) Credit card calls $1.00 Directory assistance $1.00 I made my calls from the lobby, which actually had a couple of the new AT&T model 2000 phones. (The ones in the lobby don't have keyboards, but the ones on the second floor, where the conference rooms are, do.) ------------------------------ From: turner@Dixie.Com Date: Sat, 13 Feb 93 13:50 EST From: rsiatl!turner@rsiatl.UUCP Reply-To: turner@dixie.com Subject: Re: Wiring For Multi-Lines on One Jack Conrad Kimball writes: >> 4) Any damn way the installer wants it. :-) Listed above are two ways >> of pairing pins. With four pins there are 4! or 24 different ways to ^^^^ >> number the pairs, resulting in 48 different combinations. > Not quite right. If all four pins are considered to be distinct then > there are 4! or 24 permutations of four pins. There is no need for > your final multiplication by two, If that was intended to account for > swapping polarity in each pair then you've already accounted for that I meant to say *with four PAIRS* there are 4! ways of numbering four distinct pairs. I presented two ways of pairing pins in an eight pin jack. There are others of course. Three other configurations I can think of include the high speed over TP plan using the outside four conductors, the eight pin version of a RJ1DC (T&R, T1&R1, E&M, SB, SG), and 10BASET ethernet. I mentioned those two because of their intended use in a building wiring scheme. Sorry for the confusion. Pat Turner KB4GRZ turner@dixie.com ------------------------------ From: goldstein@carafe.dnet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) Subject: Re: Differences Between ANI and Caller-ID Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1993 23:28:05 GMT In article , bcapps@atlastele.com (Brent Capps) writes: > However, you're getting CIT mixed up with the CSL. CIT was a > cooperative thing between DEC and NT designed from the get-go to work > with DMS switches. It's an entirely separate and fairly primitive > protocol. I believe CIT is now called SCAI. Just for you history buffs out there ... that's not quite it. The term "Computer Integrated Telephony" was coined by yours truly, in 1986, for the express purpose of being a "generic" term; the canonical definition (if anybody asks me, as the coiner) is: "The functional integration of telephone switching with end-user computer applications." Digital makes a number of "CIT" products, and has product names that include "CIT" within it. I had to coin a generic term because our group was expanding beyond NT/CSL into a multi-vendor project. The first DEC CIT link to actually ship as a product was to the Mitel (UK version) SX-200A; the second was the SL-1. Now, of course, there are numerous PBXs that cooperate, some via the "CSTA standard" that the European Computer Manufacturers' Association has released. CSTA is the ECMA standard, while SCAI is the ANSI standard. A different SCAI is the DMS-100 link; it still doesn't talk to DEC CIT products (if it's even shipping; I don't think it's beyond SOAK (beta) yet). Fred R. Goldstein goldstein@carafe.tay2.dec.com k1io or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice:+1 508 952 3274 Standard Disclaimer: Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission. ------------------------------ From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) Subject: Re: Salesmen That Won't Quit Organization: North Carolina State University Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 03:19:07 GMT In article TELECOM Moderator notes: > [Moderator's Note: Don't misunderstand: in instances of genuine > harassment over the telephone -- serious threats, continued calls of > a very obscene nature, ringing-silence-hangup calls -- in cases > like that, telco and the police will trap the caller and assist in > prosecution. In the one case when it happened to me the police (Raleigh PD) said that the telco (Southern Bell) would handle it and the telco said that the PD would handle it. It took me several dozen calls before I found out about the division of the telco which handled harassment, and was able to get them to start trapping (sort of "oh, we hoped it had stopped so we didn't start") and then several weeks of keeping a phone log (when the only wee hours calls we were getting were this harassment -- mostly incoherent mumbling, with a few obscenities and death threats mixed in) and reporting all this to the telco. After these weeks of reporting, the harassment division told me that they would confront the caller and threaten cutting off his phone service and that they wouldn't get involved in prosecution. It must have worked -- the calls stopped right after that. henry schaffer ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Feb 93 19:23 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Ma Bell Calling C592073@mizzou1.missouri.edu (Robert L. Stinnett) writes: > GTE is raising rates in this area again as well. As I think back over > the years, it seems that phone-use and phone charges were more simpler > and less costly in the AT&T (Ma Bell) days. Everything was right > there, no worrying about all these different companies, one > straight-forward bill. At least with GTE nothing has changed (service gets worse, rates go up). But ah, yes, the "good old days". I remember playing with the family phone circa 1957. I used to love dialing various numbers and listening to the sounds of the connections being completed. One time I dialed "212 990 1111" and was greeted with a Manhattan traffic report. As soon as I realized what it was, I hung up. The charge? $2.00! And those were 1957 dollars. (Today it would be what? $.20? Terrible!) Yes, one-stop shopping was great. No nasty choices to make. No worrying about what features might be useful. No worry about calling plans. It really was easier. All you needed was considerably more money. Choices? What was there to choose between? Features? There were none. Calling plans? Simple: make the call and pay whatever Ma Bell wanted to charge. Much better system. Want to connect special equipment to your lines? Not allowed. Want to find out what type of equipment served your telephone? Just utter such words as "central office" or "crossbar" or "tandem office" or "ANI" or even "battery", "reversal", or "supervision", and you might expect a visit from the FBI. After all, telecommunications was something only the telephone company was supposed to know about. Need a phone? Call the phone company. Do what it says; pay what it demands. Simplicity itself. Divestiture happened a scant nine years ago. In that time, costs have plummeted, available services have increased exponentially, and the overall service level and telco responsiveness have increased to a level never before dreamed of in history. The last nine years make the previous 100 years look like a bunch of losers standing around the water cooler. > What has happened to our communication society? I think the line is > down and the repairman is on vacation. You are joking, right? > [Moderator's Note: Don't get me started :). PAT] If the choice is between then and now, give me now--in spades. Spare me the nostalgia for telecom's wretched past. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: Second Line Non-Pub/Unlisted? Organization: Westmark, Inc. Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1993 22:28:33 GMT In article , barnett@zeppelin.convex.com (Paul Barnett) writes: > On the other hand, here in Dallas, either in GTE-land or SWBT-land, > there is no extra charge for a non-published secondary number, if > there is already a primary LISTED number at that address. And now for something completely different: In New Jersey, a second line billed to the same name and address carries a lower monthly charge than the first, and is not listed. A second listing costs _extra_, but still less than the cost of two lines billed separately. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Stirling, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 93 00:23:25 -0800 From: edg@netcom.com (Ed Greenberg) Subject: Re: Cheap Way to Get Incoming SDMR From DID? Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Just a thought in defense of the $7,000 quote: You're asking for a combination of product selection, engineering, programming, maintenance, troubleshooting, etc. The engineered solution that will do the job, pass the traffic, make the records, etc., carries both costs and risks, which justify a modicum of profit. Certainly you could order the lines, buy the PBX, send somebody to PBX school, install it, program it, debug it, maintain it, and have no recourse to anybody when it doesn't do what you need. In the long run, my own humble opinion is that you'd spend more than the $7,000 quoted, plus ongoing maintenance. Looking back on your message, I see that you run a public access Unix. This may explain your interest in doing this on the cheap. If you're a profit-making organization with a high commitment to customer service (and uptime) the cost of bringing in professionals should not be dismissed out of hand. If you're non-profit, low-budget and casually operated, you'll probably have lots of fun doing it yourself. One last thought: You sound like you want to use DID for accountability, and SMDR for either accountability or backup usage records. I question whether you'll get much accountability out of the system you desire, since the number group you will be assigned will be a consecutive block, and nothing stops a user, legit or unauthorized, from just selecting a line. On the other hand, I seem to have assumed that you're associated with the public access system, but you may just be using it, representing another organization entirely. If so, please disregard the last two paragraphs above. Best, Edward W. Greenberg | Home: +1 408 283 0511 | edg@netcom.com 1600 Stokes St. #24 | Work: +1 408 764 5305 | DoD#: 0357 San Jose, CA 95126 | Fax: +1 408 764 5003 | KM6CG (ex WB2GOH) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 93 11:13:31 -0600 From: barnett@zeppelin.convex.com (Paul Barnett) Subject: Re: Second Line Non-Pub/Unlisted? > That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard of. So, if I wanted to > avoid paying unlisting charges on my residence lines, the phone book > would look something like this (?): I agree. I tried to reason with them, but got nowhere. I finally gave up and abandoned the whole thing. However, I will clarify that this was a number of years ago, when US West was still Northwestern Bell (at least in MN). > Some of the businesses in town might take up an entire page! Just how > thick is the phone book for Mpls-St. Paul? Apparently, this policy didn't apply to businesses. Go figure. > So is there an entire page of 'Rover'? No, but I know one person that listed his as "Professor Plato", after a fictitious character in Control Data's ill-fated CAI system. I always wondered how many of those listings on the last page of the phone book (starting with "Zzzyxxx"... you get the idea) were second lines that people didn't want to list. A current resident of Mpls-St. Paul has informed me that US West is not currently charging him for a non-published second line. I wonder if this was always the case, and it was a matter of convincing whoever answered your call to customer service that day. I will also note that they did not charge extra for a non-published number that utilized the distinctive-ringing feature, but that is a fairly recent offering. Paul Barnett MPP OS Development (214)-497-4846 Convex Computer Corp. Richardson, TX [Moderator's Note: Here in Chicago, a lady is in the business of supplying short-term furnished rental apartments to business exec- utives, including telephone service. Since each apartment has a phone and each is billed separately, and they are all in separate premises, she would have to pay a non-pub fee for each phone unless she chose to have them listed, which is what she did. The Chicago phone directory has about a half-column of listings of her name over and over again, each with a different number and address. She apparently finds that preferable to paying over a hundred dollars in fees for non-pub service at her various locations. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dnewcomb@whale.st.usm.edu (Donald R. Newcomb) Subject: Re: Telex to Internet Gateway Question Organization: University of Southern Mississippi Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 14:25:39 GMT In article schmidt@auvax1.adelphi.edu (JOHN SCHMIDT) writes: > Some time ago I read something posted here which seemed to imply that > there was a gateway between the telex "system" and Internet. Is this > true? Can I receive telexes here sent by someone with telex service? > What about sending them? (I assume this can't be done, because they > would have no way to bill for them.) > If receiving is possible, how would the sender address the telex? I recently had a discussion with the "Help Desk" at ATT-EasyLink Services about a number of X.400 internetworking topics. One point that I'm still not clear on is that it seems that "Western Union" "real time" (hard wired) Telex machines all have a shadow EasyLink number. It is possible, given a WU Telex number, to obtain this EasyLink number and use the Internet <-> EasyLink to send to this account. I have not had an opportunity to test this theory. At one time, I had an account on the Omnet Service, which is a branch of SprintMail (Telemail). Omnet is mostly used by Oceanographers, Geologists and Meteorologists. These people have some strange com- munications needs and Omnet trys to accomodate them. They published a method for using any switched-circuit Telex to access an Omnet mailbox. It involved calling a Telex number in the US which was linked via computer to a packet-switch PAD. From this PAD you could request the PSN address of the Omnet machine and log onto their service. To do this your password could not contain lower case or other characters not found in 5 level Baudot code. I'm sure the international Telex call could be quite expensive. Donald R. Newcomb University of Southern Mississippi dnewcomb@whale.st.usm.edu "Hattiesburg, Mississippi: newcomb@usmcp6.bitnet Where tomorrow is yesterday." Jimmy Buffett ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 93 15:55 GMT From: Richard Cox Subject: Telex to USA (was Telex to Internet Gateway Question) Reply-To: mandarin@cix.compulink.co.uk FZC@CU.NIH.GOV (Paul Robinson) said: > Advise your correspondent to dial the telex number for the United > States first. It's usually 21 or 021 but be sure they find this out > first. The different US Telex networks have *different* access codes from outside the US. It's quite a while since I had to telex the USA but I do remember using 023 or 0230 most of the time. The code for MCImail telex was quite different to most of the others. Richard D G Cox Mandarin Technology, Cardiff Business Park, Llanishen, CARDIFF, Wales CF4 5WF Voice: +44 222 747111 Fax: +44 222 711111 VoiceMail: +44 399 870101 E-mail: mandarin@cix.compulink.co.uk Not diallable on 511 in mainland USA ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 06:23:54 -0500 From: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Subject: Re: Standard Dialing Plan John Higdon reports about PacBell's new "Standard Dialing Plan": > ALL ten-digit calls (area code + seven digit number) will be prefixed > by the access code '1'. > ALL 0+ calls will require ten digits. Even a call within the area code > will require the area code to be dialed as part of the number. Does the plan say anything about always *allowing* 1 + 10D dialing, even for local numbers (which could also be dialed as 7D)? There's nothing more annoying than a telco switch that says "It is not necessary to dial 1 and the area code for this number". If telco knows what number is intended, why doesn't it just go ahead and complete the call?! Being able to always rely on the same nationally-dialable number would be an awfully useful feature for many business travelers who use laptop computers, etc. that have preprogrammed numbers. > This means that the last stronghold of "one not required", Greater > > San Jose, will fall to the "dial 1" monster. This plan is in antici- > pation for the new "phoney" area code numbering system currently > being advanced by Bellcore. John, do I detect a little antipathy :-) toward interchangeable area codes? Seriously, what other dialing plan would you propose instead? Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive +1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ From: shawnn@Novell.COM (Shawn Nunley) Subject: Re: Alphanumeric Pagers Question Organization: Novell Inc., San Jose, Califonia Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 00:40:10 GMT In article dan@compnews.co.uk (Danny Turner) writes: > Most pagers use the TAP (Telocator Alphanumeric Input) protocol this > is freely available, unfortunately I only have a hard copy, but I am > quite willing to fax it to you if you want. We are currently > developing code to run on Sparc's but I have now idea when it will be > in place :-) If someone is wlling to email me the spec for IXO pagers, I would be willing to create some Procomm scripts for sending pages to alpha pagers. All I really need is the process for calculating the checksum, because I have already figured out the rest. Using Procomm and some creative use of the directory, it would be easy to create a simple message sending utility. Internet: Shawn_Nunley@novell.com UUCP: {ames,sun,apple,mtxinu,cae780,sco} !novell!shawn Shawn Nunley Tel: (408) 473-8630 ------------------------------ From: Rusty Hodge Subject: Re: GTE Does It Again Organization: Amgen Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 02:47:06 GMT Sounds like a problem I had about five years ago when PacTel switched to a DMS in my local CO. Basically, there was a timing error between the switch internally and the trunks feedig it. Voice sounded fine, but fax and modem transmission was terribly disrupted. (I think they called it "Slip Rate Error"?) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #91 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21447; 14 Feb 93 16:40 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17461 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 14 Feb 1993 14:24:01 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28286 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 14 Feb 1993 14:23:23 -0600 Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 14:23:23 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302142023.AA28286@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #92 TELECOM Digest Sun, 14 Feb 93 14:23:20 CST Volume 13 : Issue 92 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Meaning of TTL in TCP/IP (was Jack Decker's FTP Problem) (A. Dasgupta) Re: Meaning of TTL in TCP/IP (was Jack Decker's FTP Problem) (Rick Duggan) Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones (Willaim Sohl) Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones (Marc Kaufman) Re: Salesmen That Won't Quit (Bill Campbell) Re: PacBell IntraLATA Rate Ripoffs (Glenn McComb) Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State (Justin Leavens) Re: SS7 / CID Question (Tony Harminc) Re: CLID Long Distance (John McHarry) Re: 1ESS and CNID (John Higdon) Re: Current Switched 56 (tm) DSU/CSU Vendors Needed (Curtis Sanford) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: add@philabs.philips.com (Aninda Dasgupta) Subject: Re: Meaning of TTL in TCP/IP (was Jack Decker's FTP Problem) Organization: Philips Laboratories, Briarcliff, New York Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 13:25:14 GMT In article Matti Aarnio writes: > Lately I have seen this "TTL is time in seconds" dream on many places. > Who originated that idea? Current IP version 4 does not contain an > absolute time stamp in each datagram, rather it has a hop-count. Ok, ok, I guess I shouldn't be so presumptuous and be more explicit in my messages. Some people took me to task about the TCP TTL field. In my original message, I didn't want to be more detailed and verbose than I already was, and therefore didn't go into too many details. My original post that has caused a deluge of (sometimes angry) mail into my mailbox (lighten up folks :-) To clarify: The TTL field in TCP packets is decremented by (usually) 1 on every hop (and to my angry critics, I was and am aware of that :-)). The original designers of TCP and IP realized that it would be too painful to accurately measure the amount the time that a packet spends in transit from one gateway to another, so they simply decremented the TTL by one instead of by the clocked time. In my message, I didn't want to go into all that detail and thought that interested people would read about it in Comer's book. > Now Dasgupta sounds like talking about time as wall-clock time! > However that route report showed max times to be under five seconds. My suggestions to Jack Decker indicated a time factor in his TCP packets reaching the destination host. I still contend there is a time factor, and here's why. The TCP code is known to use the TTL field and decrement it by one on each gateway. However, I suspected (and still do) that the client programs like telnet and ftp also maintain their own timers. Thus, if the application to app. timers expire, the programs croak. I haven`t played with the client source code as much as I have messed around with UNIX kernels and TCP code, so I can't vouch for such an application layer timer. I have found some evidence of it in telnet'ing to an obscure host deep inside the unomaha.edu domain (Univ. of Nebraska, Omaha) from a host deep inside rpi.edu (Rensselaer Poly. Inst.) In daytime, my telnets would often fail and show similar symptoms as Jack Decker's ftp problems. I, most often, had no problem logging in at night. This lead me to believe that the telnet client program was timing out. Traceroute clearly comes out and says that the TTL has expired, but the telnet client simply says "connection timed out." Also, when I changed my TTL field to 120 in the telnet source code, things improved. >> What can be done to rectify this problem? The most obvious, though >> often impossible, thing to do is to change the default of 60 seconds >> for the TCP TTL that is compiled into the UNIX (or other OS) TCP >> software. > Nope, it is not SECONDS, it is HOPS. (Gomer does explain it well) > (And it is explained well in the original RFCs too, see RFC 791). Well, I know it is not seconds, but that is what it is "called" in the source code and documentation. I (perhaps wrongly?) assumed that I was leading someone to a point in the source code and in order for that someone to be able to correctly locate the place and not get confused about the issue of seconds and hop-counts, I simply chose to call it seconds, as does the comment next to the line in the source code. >> In case root access to the dialup host is not available, Jack might >> try connecting to a different host, preferably in a different part of >> the country than from where he is trying. As I said, it is simply a >> matter of getting to mintaka with a few less hops on the Internet. > This may or may not solve the problem in case it is a routing > black-hole in the network. Finding out whose routers are last ones > that are reachable, and then reaching for their management with > questions about unrechable networks further out will be a more efficient > way. In my aforementioned problem in reaching a host at Omaha, I got my girlfriend to give me an account on a host that was closer to unomah's internet gateway. That made it easier to telnet during daytime. >> I suspect, a saving of just two hops is all he needs, since he has >> been able to get to radole.lcs.mit.edu. Moreover, he should try to >> ftp late at night, when the other usual TCP traffic will be less and >> therefore, his TCP packets will get to mintaka faster, hopefully >> before the 60 sec. TTL. > Two hops out of 15 used ones would help? No, I don't think so. Well, if my memory serves me right, Jack had deleted part of his traceroute dump from his message to the Digest. I don't see how you could count 15. Perhaps I didn't read his post very carefully ... > IP-(Inter-)networker since 1989 Good for you, Matti. Perhaps Jack Decker will let us know whether he finally succeeded in his attempts to ftp to mintaka. Aninda DasGupta (add@philabs.philips.com) Ph:(914)945-6071 Fax:(914)945-6552 Philips Labs\n 345 Scarborough Rd\n Briarcliff Manor\n NY 10510 ------------------------------ From: duggan@cc.gatech.edu (Rick Duggan) Subject: Re: Meaning of TTL in TCP/IP (was Jack Decker's FTP Problem) Reply-To: duggan@cc.gatech.edu (Rick Duggan) Organization: College of Computing Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 03:10:38 GMT In article Matti Aarnio writes: > Lately I have seen this "TTL is time in seconds" dream on many places. > Who originated that idea? Current IP version 4 does not contain an > absolute time stamp in each datagram, rather it has a hop-count. > However that route report showed max times to be under five seconds. Quoting from {Computer Networks}, Second Edition, by Andrew Tanenbaum, "The [DoD IP] {Time to live} field is a counter used to limit packet lifetimes. When it becomes zero, the packet is destroyed. The unit of time is the second, allowing a maximum lifetime of 255 sec." Perhaps that's not the way it's implemented, but it is conceptually the correct way to think about it (so long as you realize it is *implemented* as hops). Quoting now from {Telecommunications: Protocols and Design} by John D. Spragins, et. al., "[DoD IP] {Time to Live} (8 bits): Measured in gateway hops and decremented at each gateway. Ensures that datagrams or fragments do not loop indefinitely." This makes no mention of real clock time and seems to be implementation driven. However, the ISO IP has a similar field, called the PDU Lifetime. It's described as "{PDU Lifetime} (8 bits): Specifies lifetime of Data Unit as a multiple of 500 msec. It is determined and set by the source station, then decremented by each gateway the data units visits by each 500 msec of estimated delay for that hop (transmission time to gateway plus processing time)." So no one is crazy for conceptualizing the TTL or PDU Lifetime in real clock time. Rick Duggan - duggan@cc.gatech.edu ------------------------------ From: whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (sohl,william h) Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 93 18:56:43 GMT In article John Higdon writes: > Scanner laws will be just about as effective as gun laws -- only much > sillier. The FCC is seriously deluded if it thinks it can win a > technological war with anyone. The below-average moron outguns the FCC > in the brain cell department. As I pointed out in another reply, don't blame the FCC. I seriously doubt any competent FCC person belives for a second that this scanner ban will be effective. It is the congresscritters that have been "conned" into passing the law so cellular manufacturers can now say that the equipment that can listen to cellular is now illegal to produce. I also doubt that any of them will point out that all existing cellular capable scanners are not illegal to own. Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's. Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.) Morristown, NJ email via UUCP bcr!cc!whs70 201-829-2879 Weekdays email via Internet whs70@cc.bellcore.com ------------------------------ From: kaufman@xenon.stanford.edu (Marc T. Kaufman) Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones Reply-To: kaufman@cs.stanford.edu Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA Date: 14 Feb 93 19:08:33 GMT john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > Scanner laws will be just about as effective as gun laws -- only much > sillier. The FCC is seriously deluded if it thinks it can win a > technological war with anyone. The below-average moron outguns the FCC > in the brain cell department. Actually, it's not the FCC by itself in this. In fact, they have declined to attempt to regulate scanners in the past. If you read the NPRM, you will see that the FCC is only attempting to set a rule in accordance with legislation passed by Congress. It's the dummies in Congress who are short in the brain cell department. Marc Kaufman (kaufman@CS.Stanford.EDU) ------------------------------ From: bill@Celestial.COM (Bill Campbell) Subject: Re: Salesmen That Won't Quit Organization: Celestial Software, Mercer Island, WA Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 18:39:19 GMT In wagner@utoday.com (Mitch Wagner) writes: > wagner@utoday.com (Mitch Wagner) writes: >> ... if I ever had a salesman that just wouldn't stop phoning, even >> when I asked them to stop, I would inform them that if they didn't >> stop calling I would file harassment charges against them with the >> police. I had one satisfying experience recently. I received a telemarketing call on a Saturday morning from Aurora Nissan and I told the salesman that I didn't appreciate being called at home and hung up. He then called me back and started giving me a bunch of crap " ... why do you have a telephone if you don't want to take calls". I hung up again. The satisfaction came a couple of months later when I got a mailing from the same dealer with the president's signature on it. I wrote a letter to him directly describing the incredibly rude behaviour of his sales staff, and that I would never consider buying anything from Aurora Nissan. He responded with a personal letter saying that they had identified the caller and "taken appropriate action". I can only hope that this action involved great discomfort :-). Bill INTERNET: bill@Celestial.COM Bill Campbell; Celestial Software UUCP: ...!thebes!camco!bill 6641 East Mercer Way uunet!camco!bill Mercer Island, WA 98040; (206) 947-5591 ------------------------------ From: gmccomb@netcom.com (Glenn McComb) Subject: Re: PacBell IntraLATA Rate Ripoffs Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 03:30:13 GMT I've been getting a lot of mail regarding my post about Execuline and their Intra-Lata rate of a flat 0.12/min, 6-sec billing within 450 mile radius in California. Also, 0.15/min for anywhere else in US. Their phone number is (916) 557-5460, or (800) 655-0440, ask for Floyd McKeighen ... and it wouldn't hurt to give me a plug for referring you. They CAN change your phone to their system as primary carrier (1 + dial), but I opted to stay with MCI until I got some experience with them. Glenn A. McComb (408) 725-1448 ofc * 725-0222 fax McComb Research PO Box 220 * Cupertino, CA 95015 gmccomb @ netcom.com MHS: glenn @ mccomb ------------------------------ From: leavens@mizar.usc.edu (Justin Leavens) Subject: Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State Date: 14 Feb 1993 12:28:13 -0800 Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA In article rlm@indigo2.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) writes: > Which probably means that the switch was SS7-connected, but thanks to > the California Public fUtilities Commission, EVERYBODY's phone number > will show up as PRIVACY-enabled. After all, privacy is the same thing > as anonymity ... NOT! But the CPUC *approved* CNID with its guidelines. So shouldn't PacBell (and GTE for that matter) be delivering CNID information where appropriate (on any line that is not unlisted)? Or are they not required to do anything that doesn't result in a profit? Justin Leavens Microcomputer Specialist University of Southern California ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 93 00:45:37 EST From: Tony Harminc Subject: Re: SS7 / CID Question Douglas Scott Reuben asked: >> 2. ... can the 1ESS send out the CID information? Al Varney replied: > No. >> That is, what does it take for a switch to send out CID over SS7? >> Can a 1ESS support this "send out" package, if such a thing >> exists? John Higdon replied: > There is no such thing as a "send out" package. SS7 requires a > constant two-way data stream between participating switches. Well ... yes and no. My house is served by a 1ESS and it is quite happy to send my number out via SS7 so that it appears on people's displays. Bell Canada added a box that they call an 'analogue adjunct' to all of its 1ESSs in Toronto and Montreal, and most of the SP1s in those and several other cities as well. I have no idea how the box is implemented, but it is in a sense a "send out" only box -- it does not equip the 1ESS to receive inbound CNID. (Obviously at the lower SS7 levels it must be bidirectional, but it implements only outgoing CNID.) Perhaps one of our Northern Telecom readers would care to comment on this box. (I assume NT designed and built it for Bell.) My switch is scheduled to be replaced by a DMS100 this weekend (13 Feb) so perhaps Bell would be happy to sell the box to a US telco that has a slower upgrade program. :-) Tony Harminc ------------------------------ From: mcharry@freedom.otra.com (McHarry) Subject: Re: CLID Long Distance Date: Sun, 14 Feb 93 10:07:39 EST SS7 by itself won't necessarily deliver it, CPUC or no. The local exchange carriers are selling the information and they have to make some sort of arrangements with the interexchange carriers to deliver it. Last I knew, they were unwilling to share any of the revenue from the service. Why should an interexchange carrier that sells ANI to directly connected customers give approximately the same information to the LEC gratis to sell in competition with it? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 93 10:40 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: 1ESS and CNID kityss@ihlpe.att.com writes: > (Some states that don't permit calling number/name delivery wanting to > insure that numbers are "never" delivered, even out of state.) Remember, California does NOT prohibit CNID. It has merely placed conditions on its offering TO CALIFORNIANS that Pacific Bell feels makes the service undesireable (hence unprofitable). What Pac*Bell does with regard to interstate commerce is beyond the control of the CPUC (and the activists). Therefore, it is under absolutely no obligation to block any information going out of state. As long as Pac*Bell is not delivering any CNID data to persons WITHIN CALIFORNIA, it is not offering the service and is therefore under no restrictions. I encourage Pac*Bell to not send blocked status on interstate calls. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: sanford@ascend.com (Curtis Sanford) Subject: Re: Current Switched56 (tm) DSU/CSU Vendors Needed Date: 14 Feb 93 19:55:26 GMT Organization: Ascend Communications, Alameda CA In article ronal@telebit.com (Ronal Thompson) writes: > I am currently in search of vendors that carry Switched56 DSU/CSU > products. We are expanding our evaluation and compatibility process > and require information of current vendors. Our list now includes: We also produce Switched-56 CSU/DSU products. Our products feature multiple network interfaces (up to 7) and provide inverse multiplexing to the BONDING specification, as well as various proprietary features. For information, we may be contacted at: (510) 769-6001, or info@ascend.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #92 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23231; 14 Feb 93 17:31 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24932 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 14 Feb 1993 15:09:36 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23461 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 14 Feb 1993 15:09:03 -0600 Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 15:09:03 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302142109.AA23461@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #93 TELECOM Digest Sun, 14 Feb 93 15:09:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 93 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: AT&T Are You Listening? (John Higdon) Re: Rochester Tel Wants to Split (Eli Mantel) Re: Using Fax Machine + Fax Modem as a Scanner (Gordon Grant) Re: Southwestern Bell to Buy Cable Systems (J. Philip Miller) Re: Running Out of Area Codes (Steven H. Lichter) Re: Pacific Bell, Caller ID, and PRIVATE (Steven H. Lichter) Re: What Could Happen! (Tony Pelliccio) Re: Telex <=> RS-232 (Nino Margetic) Some Discounts REQUIRE You to Change Your Dial-1 Carrier (Marc Kozam) Re: Stupid Phone Tricks (Bruce Sullivan) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 14 Feb 93 02:17 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: AT&T Are You Listening? jack.decker@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org (Jack Decker) writes: > Why not use both carriers? I would suggest you do this: Switch your > line to MCI and use them for all your voice calls. As previously stated, I would suggest the opposite. Keep AT&T as your PIC. That way you have much easier access to AT&T's vastly superior operator services. I really hate it when I pick up a phone, dial an operator assisted call and have one of the "brand X" operators answer. MY guests never have to deal with that. > If there is a location that you have consistent problems calling via > MCI, by all means call up MCI's customer service and complain! Good luck. MCI droids are worthless. You will never reach a resolution on the first try. You will be lucky to even ever speak to anyone who even knows what you are talking about. You should see the hell we go through ANYtime we have to deal with even the slightest technical matter with MCI. > AT&T spends a LOT of money on advertising to convince you that their > quality is better. If your definition of quality is "does the call (eventually) go through and can I hear the person at the other end?", then I would agree that such an advertising statement is probably meaningless. But AT&T is still the only company where you can actually speak to a knowledgeable technician on the first call and speak to a rep who actually knows about the service in question and can give you real answers. > If you try a call over MCI and it doesn't work, and you then try to > complete it over AT&T and it does, that doesn't necessarily mean that > AT&T is better, it just means you got a different circuit from the > local telco. Had you tried your second attempt on MCI again, you > would probably have been just as satisfied with the result. Not necessarily true. MCI and Sprint outages are legion and legendary. Sprint is constantly suffering from local outages here in the Bay Area and MCI's answer to a complaint about calls not going through is for the caller to dial '10288' before the number. Sure is a good thing AT&T is there when you REALLY need to call. > AT&T's new fax commercials really get me ... Yes, they annoy me as well. But since I do not use media advertising as a basis upon which to select a carrier (pro or con), AT&T's commercials do not send me into a tailspin, ignoring reality and the facts. And the fact is that AT&T remains the most responsive, comprehensive, and consistently the highest quality IEC in the world. Its operator services are not even in the same universe as the pretenders. Yes, MCI, Sprint and a host of other carriers have some specific services and plans that MAY (but not necessarily) be incrementally cheaper than AT&T, but for most purposes involving FGD long distance, the company's services are hard to beat. MCI and Sprint are slowly (very slowly) getting better and better. But the truth is that AT&T is also beginning to smell the coffee. Right now Sprint is hawking its "digital network with the most modern signaling", etc., etc. The thrust is that it was the leader in digital telephony. What a laugh. Who do you supposed invented it? AT&T did misread the importance of "digital quality", and lagged in giving digital connections to customers. But when Sprint started making hay with it, AT&T became fully digital in very short order (the network WAS already in place, long before Sprint even thought about it). And advanced signaling? Calls on AT&T complete in a split second; in about eight seconds with Sprint. Yes, it is because AT&T is connected via SS7 to my telco and Sprint (for whatever reason) is not. But it goes to illustrate the stupidity of the advertising and how intelligence is not to be gained by listening to it. Both MCI and Sprint have experienced major billing problems and then demonstrated a serious lack of ability to handle them. Yes, I had a billing problem with AT&T that turned out to be Pac*Bell's problem. But AT&T did not attempt to ruin my credit and turn me over to a collection agency as Sprint did. (Sprint ended up giving me a $50 credit over and above all of the disputed amounts as a "good will" gesture, but I really prefer having it done right to begin with.) I have no stock or interest in AT&T. But every time I have used MCI or Sprint for whatever reason, some monster rears its head and a major inadequacy is revealed. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: Eli.Mantel@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Eli Mantel) Subject: Re: Rochester Tel Wants to Split Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 19:49:59 GMT Rochester Telephone is being lauded for its plan to provide competition for local telephone services, but I wonder whether what's best for Rochester Telephone is also best for its customers. As I understand the proposal, the bulk of the capital investment that Rochester Telephone owns will remain in the regulated portion of the company. Telephone customers will purchase telephone service through companies that are essentially aggregators. These aggregators will be free to design different packages of telephone services to offer potential customers. From the viewpoint of public policy, it is almost always best that services be priced as closely as possible to their true (incremental) cost. Achieving this goal is rather problematic when the bulk of the costs are in fixed plant and equipment, whether pricing is done through competition or regulation. Whereas regulation provides at least some tie-in between the cost of providing service and the pricing of that service, the proposed solution will most likely result in offerings that tie prices to a perception of value. Simply put, for the residential user, flat-rate telephone service is likely to be priced substantially higher than it is now, because there will be some significant portion of customers for whom flat-rate service will still be a better *value*, even at a much higher price. Bear in mind that these aggregators will not be adding any significant value to the telephone services. All they will offer will be what's available thorugh the existing telephone switches. They will pay one (regulated) price for these features, and resell them for a higher price. This is pretty much what cable companies do with premium services. They buy HBO for, say, $3.00 per month for each subscriber signed up, and then resell it to us at $10.00 per month. While they have "added value" by virtue of providing a physical cable connection (which is already covered by the costs of basic cable service), their main contribution is "marketing". Why is Rochester Telephone supporting this plan? Well, the regulated portion will retain the bulk of the assets. That ensures that they continue to receive the same level of profitability on those assets. They certainly hope that the unregulated portion will get a good portion of the market share. Short of an outright gouging of their customer base, they can expect to succeed at retaining the bulk of their customers. I'm no expert on this topic. Some of my facts may be wrong, and the resulting conclusions may therefore be unwarranted. I would love to hear convincing evidence that Rochester Telephone's proposal is really going to be in the public interest. Eli Mantel (eli.mantel@launchpad.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: laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80 ------------------------------ From: gg@jet.uk (Gordon Grant) Subject: Re: Using Fax Machine + Fax Modem as a Scanner Organization: Joint European Torus Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 13:20:17 GMT In rob@sound.demon.co.uk (Robert J Barth) writes: > How can I use a standalone fax machine as a scanner? > I would like to be able to plug my fax machine into my pc fax/modem, > and press a few buttons, and end up with a fax format file of whatever > was on the sheet of paper ... > Has anyone managed this? I've tried with not much success so far ... I have succeeded with this using my Samsung sf1000 Fax machine and my ZyXEL 1496e modem. The modem was driven with ZyXEL's Zfax software. The technique is to plug both units into the same phone line, using a plug-in adaptor. The Zfax software is run up and the cursor set on the Manual receive fax option. On the fax machine lift the hand set and dial a single digit to fool the machine that a number has been dialed, then press send. Remove the adaptor from the wall socket and start the Zfax software to receive the fax. I needed to remove the adaptor from the wall socket to stop Miss " bossy boots" BT from injecting " you have dialed incorrectly -- please replace the handset and try again" I needed it there initially to give a dial tone to the Fax M/C. I suspect that this may be more difficult with a cleverer Fax machine. Sometimes that well known brand "THE CHEAPEST" does have some advantages. I must credit this method to my son James who wanted to include some maps into his GCSE Geography Project. It works very well and Zfax can convert the results to several bitmapped file formats. Now who knows how to convert a Word-for-Windows document into a format that Zfax can send as a fax? gg@jet.uk Gordon Grant Jet Abingdon OX14 3EA UK Fidonet: (2:253/170) Voice +44 235 464792 Fax +44 235 464404 ------------------------------ From: phil@wubios.wustl.edu (J. Philip Miller) Subject: Re: Southwestern Bell to Buy Cable Systems Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 12:56:30 -0600 (CST) karl.johnson@office.wang.com (Karl Johnson) writes: > This would be the first Baby Bell to own a Cable > Company, and could according to The Post "alter the debate surrounding > federal telecommunications policy." Actually the {St. Louis Post Dispatch} points out that SWBT already owns cable companies in the UK and has interests in ones in Israel. This would just be the first by any of the Baby Bells in the US. Bell Atlantic is challenging restrictions on providing video services within its telephone service. Art Bushkin, president of Bell Atlantic Information Services is quoted as saying "It is time for the obsolete restrictions of the AT&T Consent Decree and the Cable Act of 1984 to fall." Jim Krekeler, a securities analyst with Edward D. Jones & Co is quoted as saying "It's no accident that [buying a cable system in] Washington DC happens to be a tremendous way to lobby the House and the Senate. If you put all the bells and whistles on the system, you could impress Congress on the [telephone industry's] ability to run the system and have it benefit the consumer." J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067 Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110 phil@wubios.WUstl.edu - (314) 362-3617 [362-2694(FAX)] ------------------------------ From: co057@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steven H. Lichter) Subject: Re: Running Out of Area Codes Date: 14 Feb 1993 20:08:43 GMT Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA) It is my understanding that only the areas that are in the City of Los Angeles; downtown only remained 213 and the others went to 310. Those areas are West LA and such. At least that is the way it was meant to be and explained to us. ------------------------------ From: co057@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steven H. Lichter) Subject: Re: Pacific Bell, Caller ID, and PRIVATE Date: 14 Feb 1993 20:12:35 GMT Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA) We just were notified that PacBell will be offering Call Trace, last number call back. You will not know the number in either case, but that would mean to me that they are not blocking the calls ID. It maybe a SS7 problem or lack of. Steven H. Lichter GTECalif COEI ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 93 15:16:32 EST From: Tony Pelliccio Subject: Re: What Could Happen! (Bangkok, Thailand Telecom Uprising) Similar things happen here in the US. A few years ago New England Telephone went on strike and lo and behold, a few of the key fiber trunks got cut. Additionally, telecom facilities are pretty well marked here in the US, and if you wanted, you could knock out communications to a small residential area, or halt ALL long distance traffic from a city. Besides, I really don't think something like that would happen here since the service isn't all that bad. Granted, we do pay a fairly good chunk but in comparison to other countries, we're not doing too badly here in the U.S. Tony Pelliccio n1mpq @ garlic.sbs.com pjj125 @ uriacc.uri.edu ------------------------------ From: n.margetic@ucl.ac.uk (Nino Margetic) Subject: Re: Telex <=> RS-232 Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 19:38:56 GMT Reply-To: nino@mph.sm.ucl.ac.uk (Nino Margetic) Organization: University College London In antenna@well.sf.ca.us (Robert Horvitz) writes: > We have this big old and very loud telex machine in our office. We'd > like to get rid of it and integrate telex with our LAN. Surely we're > not the first to have this idea. Assuming the wheel has already been > invented, can someone explain how to do this? Is there a particular > kind of modem designed for interfacing DOS machines with telex > circuits? I opted for a follow-up rather than reply for two reasons. Firstly, someone will probably know more than I do, and secondly, I have also a question regarding telex usage on PCs. Here goes: ad 1) there are a number of telex cards for PCs, which you simply plug into an expansion port of your PC, and off you go. The price range (here in the UK) is from, say, 700GBP to 3000-4000GBP. It works quite well, in general. In particular, you get what you pay for. Namely, a friend of mine bought a 700GBP card from an UK company, and now he is stuck with good card, and *absolutely* abysmal software which runs it. And, now we come to the second thing, i.i. the question. Does anyone know, if there is a "standard" (say, like class 2 in fax/modems, or CAS -- *please* let us *not* engage now in the war about whether two mentioned really *are* standards), for talking to telex boards, or, are we at the mercy of the manufacturer of each board (i.e. everything is propriatory)?? I have now spent three days trying to fix/improve the original software for the telex board (if it matters to anyone, it's called PROCOM 20), but without much luck. I would very much like to sit down and write my own software for sneding and receiving telexes. It shouldn't be to hard, since there is a TSR (called PROBACK), which does all the dirty work, but I do not know how to talk to it ... Any suggestions/info are *very* welcome. BTW, we *did* talk to the company about improvements, but they are not interested in fixing it, or making a new version ... Nino Janet: n.margetic@uk.ac.ucl Earn/Bitnet/Internet: n.margetic@ucl.ac.uk University College London, UK Bang: ...!mcvax!uknet!ucl!n.margetic +44 71 387 9300 x 53 13 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 93 10:26:43 EST From: mlksoft!kozam@mimsy.cs.umd.edu Subject: Some Discounts REQUIRE You to Change Your Dial-1 Carrier john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > Frontline salesslime will tell you that you have to "switch" to take > advantage of a particular plan, but that is 99.9% hogwash. This is true. I used to have Sprint as my dial-1 carrier, but almost exclusively used AT&T's ROA program to make calls (prepending 10288 before each call). Setting it up caused the usual confusion. I suspect the other 0.1% refers to the many offers I receive in the mail, e.g. "Make AT&T your long distance company and get $ 50." In the fine print, it REQUIRES that they be your dial-1 carrier. Marc Kozam UUCP: {media,mimsy}!mlksoft!kozam Internet: mlksoft!kozam@cs.umd.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 93 19:46 GMT From: Bruce Sullivan Subject: Re: Stupid Phone Tricks Here in our data center, we have several dozen flat business lines which are used solely for dial backup purposes (outbound only). They are unlisted. The bottom line is, any calls that would come in on them would be wrong numbers. Typically, a phone ends up being left plugged into one of the lines and, of course, the phone occasionally rings. The normal approach would be to pick it up and answer in a business-like fashion ("XYZ Data Processing, may I help you?"), whereupon you would typically be hung up upon. One day, in a fit of whimsy, I instead picked it up and said, in my best telco monotone, "I'm sorry, the number you have reached has been disconnected or is no longer in service. If you feel ..." They hung up. Less than five seconds later, it rang AGAIN. This time, I picked it up and said, "I SAID, the number you have reached has been disconnected or is no longer in service ..." They still hung up, but didn't call back. [Moderator's Note: Clever response. Since you only make outgoing calls on those lines occassionally, and never have incoming calls, you should ask telco to set the lines up as one-way outgoing service only. Then you'd never see any wrong numbers at all. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #93 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27487; 14 Feb 93 19:28 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16512 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 14 Feb 1993 17:04:32 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14988 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 14 Feb 1993 17:03:58 -0600 Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 17:03:58 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302142303.AA14988@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #94 TELECOM Digest Sun, 14 Feb 93 17:04:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 94 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Press Release - Ontario Telecommunications Strategy (Nigel Allen) Strange Long Distance Problem (Ken Jongsma) White House Phone Factoids (Rob Knauerhase) 976 Parking Ticket Scam (Dave Leibold) BBS Tax Passes Florida Senate (Joel Upchurch) Dialup Access to TELECOM Digest and Files (Mark Earle) Subscriber Equipment to Turn a T1 Into Analog Lines (Marc Unangst) CTI: Electronic Telephone Line Switch Wanted (Elizabeth Fong Wah Chan) Wanted: 'NPA' Shareware Program (Sven Echternach) An Explanation of NAMPS (Russell E. Sorberv) 'Secure' Motorola CT2 Silverlink (Juha Veijalainen) Sprint and Bellcore Sign Pact (Washington Post via Paul Robinson) 800 Numbers That Charge (Greg Volk) Telephone Surcharges in Hotels (Dennis G. Rears) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 10:31:00 -0500 From: ndallen@r-node.pci.on.ca (Nigel Allen) Subject: Press Release - Ontario Telecommunications Strategy Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto Here is a press release from the Ontario government. It was originally posted by nakonem@gov.on.ca (Mary Nakoneczny). FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE February 12, 1993 TELECOMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY WILL HELP SHAPE ONTARIO'S ECONOMIC FUTURE TORONTO - Premier Bob Rae and Economic Development and Trade Minister Francis Lankin today outlined a comprehensive, multi-year strategy for telecommunications that will invest $100 million jobsOntario funding in this key sector, provide access for telecom projects to the governments $150 million Sector Partnership Fund and shape the government's telecom policy. "Telecommunications is a key sector and a critical infrastructure that will be a driving force in securing Ontario"s economic future and our competitiveness in the global marketplace," said Minister Lankin. "Based on a compelling vision statement -- Through telecommunications, Ontario and Canada, the best place in the world to live, work, learn and do business -- Ontario's telecommunications strategy points to our future.". The Premier announced $100 million in jobsOntario funding for the delivery of the Ontario Network Infrastructure Program (ONIP) -- a program designed to accelerate the development of telecommunications- based information networks in partnership with the private sector. "This is a strategic investment in Ontario's future," said the Premier. "The information networks supported under this program will foster business competitiveness, strengthen Ontario's research capability, provide opportunities for life-long education and training, support community development -- and create jobs now and in the future." The government is now open for business for telecommunications projects through the government's $150 million Sector Partnership Fund (SPF). A Telecommunications Sector Framework has been approved under the SPF to focus on four priority areas: developing new telecomm applications; forming innovative business enterprises; establishing specialized sectoral infrastructure; and enhancing market development and promotion. The multi-year strategy is based on the strategic priorities and vision statement recommended in Telecommunications - Enabling Ontario's Future, a report prepared for the province by a 22-member advisory committee with representatives from the telecom sector, business, government, labour and community-based interests. The strategy is a government-wide commitment, she said. Management Board will lead the way for the Ontario government to become a model user of telecommunications and other information technologies. The Ministry of Education and Training will lead the development of an education and training strategy for telecommunications. Minister Lankin also announced that the province will take a strong advocacy role before the industry, the federal government and the CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommuncations Commission) in Ontario's interests. A new telecommunications council will work with Lankin to recommend priorities, initiatives and timetables for the future growth of telecommunications in the province. Partnership will be crucial in building an information infrastructure for Ontario, Lankin said. Jim Coombs, a former President and CEO of SaskTel, will serve as council Chair. Serving as Vice-Chairs are Sheelagh Whittaker, President and CEO of Canadian Satellite Communications Inc., (Cancon) and Don Tapscott, Vice-President, Technology, DMR Group Inc., and Chair of the former advisory committee. "The strategy is a plan of action that will require all of us in government, business, labour and the community to work together. The council will be a champion for the ongoing strategy and will work with government as we move forward," said Minister Lankin. Media Contact: Russell Drago Marketing and Information Services (416) 314-7232 Anna Larson Ministry of Economic Development and Trade (416) 325-6686 Ce texte est disponible en francais. -------------- Nigel Allen, Toronto, Ontario, Canada ndallen@r-node.pci.on.ca [Moderator's Note: Thanks also go to David Leibold who submitted the identical text in a message to the Digest over the weekend. In his message, Dave also made these additional comments: "Today (12th February), the Ontario provincial government announced details of its telecommunications strategy. I had the privilege of attending the briefing session in Toronto and thus picked up an information kit with the relevant documents. The kit even had a diskette containing word-processor documents such as the press release and details of the strategy initiatives. Many thanks to Allan Kennedy of the Ontario government who let me know about the briefing session. He is Internet-reachable via kenneda@gov.on.ca and can provide more details regarding Ontario's telecom strategy." PAT] ------------------------------ From: jongsma@esseye.si.com (Ken Jongsma) Subject: Strange Long Distance Problem Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 15:28:12 -0500 (EST) I've been having an interesting problem over the past two days. The symptoms are as follows: - All calls made from my home phone, PIC'd to Sprint for the last seven years. - Calls to 1 805 395 xxxx get an immediate fast (trunk) busy, with no recording. - Calls to 1 319 277 xxxx go through just fine. - Calls to 1 800 877 8000 get two rings, a single tone, followed by the message "All Circuits Busy... 49-530" (This is the Sprint credit card access number. It should not ring, but give an immediate computer tone. The recording is a Sprint recording, according to the Sprint repair tech.) - Prefacing the call to 1 805 395 xxxx with 10288, 10333, 10222 makes no difference, I still get a fast (trunk) busy. - Attempting to 0+ 805 395 XXXX gets a fast busy immediately. No card tone or operator intercept. Likewise, 10288 0+, etc. - Calls placed through a Sprint operator to 1 805 395 xxxx go through with no problem. - Just to confuse things further, Mi Bell told the Sprint tech that my PIC was AT&T. This even though 1 700 555 4141 gets a nice Sprint recording. A call to Michigan Bell repair yesterday generated the suggestion that I call Sprint repair. Sprint repair has been working on it for 24 hours, but has been unable to discover the problem. Sprint did say there was a cable cut in California yesterday, but that it was unlikely that that was related to my problem. Sprint is presently waiting for Michigan Bell to investigate and call back. I suspect a problem with Michigan Bell and my local switch, but getting through to them is a lost cause. Sprint will have better luck getting them to do something, I think. Maybe by the time I get back from a business trip in three weeks, they'll work it all out. Ken Jongsma Smiths Industries jongsma@benzie.si.com Grand Rapids, Michigan 73115.1041@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: knauer@columbus.slip.uiuc.edu (Rob Knauerhase) Subject: White House Phone Factoids Date: Sat, 13 Feb 93 18:29:06 CST Reply-To: knauer@cs.uiuc.edu This is excerpted without permission from Helen Thomas' "Backstairs at the White House" column of 2/13/93. " The president has complained about the telephone system in the White House and was concerned that he could not put in a call without someone tuning in. But he sold the operators and the operations short since all he needed was a few tips on how the system works. "He could have pressed a ``private'' line and no one could listen in unless he allowed it. He could also arrange to have his calls scrambled. "Contrary to widespread belief the old "hotline" between Washington and Moscow was not a telephone to warn against an impending doomsday attack, but rather a teletype manned at the Pentagon." ---------- Interesting questions: 1. How is a "private" line enforced w.r.t. extensions and/or taps? By what mechanism does one allow "tuning in"? 2. Does all the FBI's no-scrambling-in-telecommuniations noise apply to the President (probably not)? Who can receive his scrambled calls? 3. What's the speed of the "hotline teletype"? At 300 baud, it could take hours (well, almost :) to determine that the missiles are en route ... Rob Knauerhase, University of Illinois @ Urbana, Dept. of Computer Science [Note: 'columbus.slip.uiuc.edu' is not a 24-hour connection. Send correspondence to knauer@cs.uiuc.edu for guaranteed delivery.] [Moderator's Note: An issue of the Digest on Saturday discussed the use of 'exclusion keys' to prevent other extensions on the same line from overhearing what was being said. Bear in mind also the president is NOT confined to 'an extension on the White House switchboard' with its cordboard and plug characteristics when making calls. The centrex system in the Executive Office Building has numerous extensions which terminate in the White House, including a couple for the president which can be answered by his secretary and one which comes direct to the multi-line phone on his desk without a secretarial pickup on it. I am advised there are also direct ring-downs to certain individuals, a direct 'outside line' enabling calls to be made anywhere without going through a centrex or PBX (and likewise, enabling calls to be received if someone knows what number to dial). The president's personal quarters include much of the above plus personal phone lines for the family's use. It is not true that to cut back on expenses Billary is going to yank out the switchboard and install COCOTS for all the Clintonistas to use when making personal calls on company time. :) Does anyone remember several years ago during Nixon's tenure when a counter-culture magazine printed a few pages from the EOB internal phone directory listing the direct-dial centrex numbers on Nixon's desk and a few other top White House staffers of that era? :) Cute. Wish I had thought of it first. Now, the White House and EOB phone directories are as scarce as hen's teeth where the general public is concerned. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1993 21:46:02 -0500 From: Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Dave Leibold) Subject: 976 Parking Ticket Scam {The Toronto Star} reports that there is a 976 number which claims to give information on how to fight parking ticket charges ... for $24 (CAD$) a call. The 976 number is publicised via flyers which include such phrases as "Important Notice" and "Available seven days a week 24.00-call" (no dollar sign!). The dubious recorded message was set up by a private company seeking to cash in on a current traffic fines crackdown. Meanwhile, free calls (800 or Toronto local) may be placed to official provincial offices which deal with traffic ticket matters. The company with the 976 number has no connection with the municipal or provincial agencies which deal with traffic infractions. This incident prompted the federal Communications Minister, Perrin Beatty, to advise consumers to claim a refund from Bell Canada for any unauthorised 976 charges. Of the 170 Bell Canada 976 service numbers, half of these are phone sex lines while the rest are for features such as horoscopes, sport scores, and of course the aforementioned cash grab. Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:250/98 INTERNET: Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ Subject: BBS Tax Passes Florida Senate From: upchrch!joel@peora.sdc.ccur.com (Joel Upchurch ) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 93 13:48:38 EST Organization: Upchurch Computer Consulting, Orlando FL I just noticed in the paper today that a six percent tax on information services passed the Florida Senate Thursday. The newspaper article ({Orlando Sentinel}, Feb. 12, pg B-5) says that the sales tax would effect those stocks, news and other data, electronic shopping, electronic bulletin boards, systems analysis, bank funs transfers such as automatic teller cards and even 900-number telephone calls and many more. (If your mail bounces use the address below.) Joel Upchurch/Upchurch Computer Consulting/718 Galsworthy/Orlando, FL 32809 joel@peora.ccur.com {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd,ucf-cs}!peora!joel (407) 859-0982 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1993 21:16:02 -0600 From: mearle@falcon.ccsu.edu (Mark Earle) Subject: Dialup Access to Digest and Files This is just a reminder that for folks with modems, issues of the digest are available at my FidoNet bbs 1:160/50 +1 512 855 7248 FidoNet system operators may file - request files for the most recent list and then get specific files as desired. Modem is a US Robotics HST, which will give 9600 to similar modems, and 2400 w/mnp5 to most error correcting modems of other brands. "Regular" callers may download on the first call, no hassle. Here's the list of the telecom files area: ----- Files Listing ----- ADAACT.ZIP American Disability Act, telecom related BANNED.ZIP List of banned text, newsgroups, etc. BOOKREV1.ZIP Book Review of Early Telegraphers CALLERID.ZIP Caller ID review - by area, hardware, etc. CONSTI.ZIP Constitutional notes CRACKDWN.ZIP Review of crackdown - new book CUD451.ZIP Computer Underground Digest 4 51 CUD451.ZIP through cud462 online Use r cud45*.* CUD501.ZIP through cud510.ZIP D12IG767.ZIP Telecom Digest 12 767 D12IG767.ZIP Use r d12ig*.* to see exact file names. D12IG767.ZIP Vol 12 767-917 online. D13IG01.ZIP Vol 13 01 through Vol 13 80 online DFP1V5.ZIP Digital Freedom Press 1 5 EFF289.ZIP Electronic Freedom Foundation news day 289 EFF314.ZIP Clinton's Plan for infrastructure EFF314.ZIP Electronic Freedom Foundatoin news day 314 EFF315A.ZIP EFF news day 315 EFFC405.ZIP Effector 4 05 major changes at EFF announced EFFOP.ZIP EFF Open Platform proposal GOPHER.ZIP Cable backhoe fades? How about gophers? GOPHER.ZIP Informative article on cable protection IRIDIUM.ZIP As of Jan 29, new $$ for this project NEIDORF.ZIP Craig's side of story, as Steve Jackson NEIDORF.ZIP games goes to trial in Austin this week NEWAC210.ZIP Info on ac 210 split from 512 (TX) NYSNOW.ZIP Snow storm effects on telecom RFLINK.ZIP Reference rf lan solutions SPRNTOUT.ZIP Sprint outage day 289 (October 14/15 1992) TELLLOSE.ZIP Telecom losers and winners USLSUIT.ZIP Unix System Labs suit re: BSD/AT&T mearle@falcon.ccsu.edu Mark Earle Fidonet 1:160/50 73117.351@compuserve.com HST 24 hrs <-- +1 512 855 7248 mearle@pro-party.cts.com WA2MCT@KA5LZG.TX.NA.USA [Moderator's Note: My thanks to Mark Earle for making this valuable resource available. I strongly encourage our many readers without FTP access at their site to pick up a big variety (see above list!) of telecom-related files as well as back issues of TELECOM Digest by calling Mark's BBS at 512-855-7248. If you *do* have anonymous ftp at your site, then of course you can ftp lcs.mit.edu, and 'cd telecom- archives' once connected. PAT] ------------------------------ From: mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst) Subject: Subscriber Equipment to Turn a T1 Into Analog Lines Date: 14 Feb 1993 12:25:22 -0500 Organization: The Programmers' Pit Stop, Ann Arbor MI I'm one of the members of the hardware staff of Cyberspace Communications, a non-profit group that operates a public-access Unix conferencing system here in Ann Arbor, MI. Currently, our system is a Sun-2/170 (don't laugh, it was free) with a Systech 16-port serial board and six dialin lines. Five of the lines are connected to 2400bps modems which go to ports on the Systech board; the sixth goes into a V.32bis modem and is attached to a PC running PCRoute, which in turn is on an Ethernet with the Sun. While talking (informally) to a Michigan Bell rep earlier this week, he suggested that we look into getting a T1 line if we plan to expand the number of phone lines any further. He said that he was unsure what the break-even point would be between a T1 and multiple POTS lines, but that he was fairly sure it was a dozen or less POTS lines. This sounded like a great idea to me, since it not only means we may save money on our phone bills, but it also means that line noise will be much less common, since the path will be digital between our building and the CO. (Right?) However, no one on the technical staff has any experience with T1 lines, so the question came up: How would we take the T1, as delivered by Michigan Bell to our premises, and split it up into 24 analog POTS-style lines that we could connect modems to? I presume that some sort of multiplexor/demultiplexor would be involved, but as I said, no one involved has any experience with this sort of thing. What are the names of some of the vendors that sell this sort of equipment? What would a low-end mux/demux unit cost? In addition, is there a better way to accomplish what we want to do? It seems somewhat pointless to take the digital path provided by the phone company, split it up into 24 analog paths, only to digitize those analog paths 20 feet down the line with modems. Keep in mind that our user base is mostly home users with PCs and modems; not many of the people using the system have access to the Internet, so leasing a T1 to our local IP service provider and just getting on the Internet isn't really an option, since the home users would have no way of accessing us. Marc Unangst, N8VRH mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us ------------------------------ From: elizabec@sfu.ca (Elizabeth Fong Wah Chan) Subject: CTI: Electronic Telephone Line Switch Wanted Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 09:20:03 GMT I am a novice in the field of telecom. Presently, my company plans to automate the call answering and faxing systems. We have purchased a four-line voice processing board, a one-line fax modem, and a software development package. We want to allow callers to do faxing (send and receive) on demand by pressing certain touch-tone keys, yet we want to install only one fax modem that is to be shared among the four phone lines. I wonder if anyone could advise some specific telephone line switches that can accept and recognise special DTMF sequences as commands and do the switching to connect the requesting caller's line and the fax modem. Note that concurrent access to the fax modem can be prevented by software. All we need is a very simple switch as described. A PBX will be too sophisticated for our applications. Thanks in advance for any helpful information. Louie ------------------------------ From: echterna@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Sven Echternach) Subject: Wanted: 'NPA' Shareware Program Organization: Technische Universitaet Muenchen, Germany Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 15:04:41 +0100 There used to be a quite useful shareware program out there for MS DOS Computers, named NPA. It knows all valid Exchanges for all US NPA's, and can tell you all Exchanges for a City, the Cityname for a certain NPA and Exchanges, etc. I just have an old version, dated September, 14, 1991, and wonder if there are any newer releases out there, preferably available via FTP or on a BBS. Thanks in advance! Sven ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 93 18:48:09 GMT From: sorbrrse@sand.rtsg.mot.com (Russell E. Sorberv) Subject: An Explanation of NAMPS rdippold@qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes: > The methods being looked at right now are mostly geared at making > better use of the current bandwidth. There's NAMPS from Motorola - I > have absolutely no idea what this is about, although it's supposed to > get a small capacity increase -- sort of an interim thing. Narrowband AMPS (NAMPS) has a 10KHz bandwidth, not 30KHz as in AMPS. This is a 300% capacity increase within the same allocated frequencies. While not as good as a 20 times increase as promised by CDMA, 300% is more than "small"! NAMPS was recently named a EIA/TIA standard. While it was pioneered by Motorola, other companies besides Motorola make NAMPS equipment (e.g. Panasonic). Russ ------------------------------ From: FNAHA!JVE@TRENGA.tredydev.unisys.com Date: 14 FEB 93 10:32 Subject: 'Secure' Motorola CT2 Silverlink Motorola CT2 Silverlink cordless / TelePoint phones are supposedly digital and transmit data over a 38400 bit/s link to your base station or Telepoint cell. Salespersons also tell that 'conversations cannot be eavesdropped'. What they could not tell me is whether digital transmission itself is considered 'secure' or is the actual data crypted or scrambled. Does anyone out there know? Juha Veijalainen 4ge system analyst, tel. +358 0 4528 426 Unisys Finland Internet: JVE%FNAHA@trenga.tredydev.unisys.com >> Mielipiteet omiani ** Opinions are PERSONAL, facts are suspect << ------------------------------ Reply-To: TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM From: Paul Robinson Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 23:19:43 EST Subject: Sprint and Bellcore Sign Pact From page C2 of the Feb 10 {Washington Post}: Bellcore and Sprint signed a two-year agreement that lets Sprint's local telecommunications companies gain access to projects at the research company. Terms were not disclosed. ------------------------------ From: gvolk@nyx.cs.du.edu (Greg Volk) Subject: 800 Numbers That Charge Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept. Date: Sun, 14 Feb 93 05:16:51 GMT A few days back, some messages came over that dealt with 800 numbers that charge a fee. Well, call 1800-555-4578 from a payphone and it'll ask you for 75 cents. I've never put in the 75, so I don't know what it does after that. Probably not much. [Moderator's Note: I get "You call cannot be completed as dialed, please check the number, etc ..." Some COCOTS charge for calls to 800 numbers, so you might want to find out if it was the COCOT talking to you or a switch somewhere. I do not think the subscriber at 800-555-4578 (if there is one) is asking for the money. There would be no way for him to collect it in any event. I suggest either a switch programming error somewhere or a greedy COCOT is giving you the back-talk. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 93 12:36:21 EST From: Dennis G. Rears Subject: Telephone Surcharges in Hotels The topic "Hilton Hotel Telephone Surcharge" reminds of something I been meaning to suggest for years. The subject of hotels charging extra for use of 800 numbers or calling cards has graced the TELECOM Digest several times. The discussions generally leads to the following points: 1) There is no real (variable) cost to the Hotel for providing the service. The hotel must have their system anyway; 2) Generally only the high price hotels charge (Hilton vs LaQuinta); 3) Telephone service should be part of the room. They don't charge extra for towels or TV; 4) Most users are business travelers who put everything on expense account anyway; My suggestion is this: Boycott all facilities (bar, restaurant, etc) and encourage other members of your group to boycott them too. When leaving (or arriving) at the hotel present the manager a form letter of what you are doing and why you are doing it. Comments? dennis ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #94 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02842; 14 Feb 93 22:02 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26959 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 14 Feb 1993 19:32:17 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06910 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 14 Feb 1993 19:31:29 -0600 Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 19:31:29 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302150131.AA06910@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #95 TELECOM Digest Sun, 14 Feb 93 19:31:15 CST Volume 13 : Issue 95 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson 900 Numbers Tarnished Beyond Repair? (James Deibele) We Have it Good in California ... NOT (Rich Greenberg) GTE Payphone With Sprint LD: Who Makes Refunds? (Gerrold T. Sithe) RJ-11 Jack on French Modem (Lars Poulsen) How Does Video Phone Work? What Software is Used On-line? (Danial Ho) Handheld AMPS Cellular - Never Below Full Power (600mw)? (Lauren Weinstein) Looking For Cheap Used Dialogic Boards (John V. Jaskolski) Great Magazine Article About FAX (Jim Haynes) IXO.TAP.protocol in Archive (Brad S. Hicks) What Number do I Dial From My Phone to Get My Phone to Ring? (J. Jaskolski) DS0 Portion of a T1 (Fred R. Stearns) V & H to Latitude/Longitude? (Tom Libert) Does Anyone Know Tellab's Phone Number? (John V. Jaskolski) Bell Canada Charging for 411 (Tony Pelliccio) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jamesd@techbook.com (James Deibele) Subject: 900 Numbers Tarnished Beyond Repair? Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636 Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 22:43:51 GMT I suppose that legally there may have been reasons for accepting anything and everything to put on a 900 number -- the big long-distance carriers had to do it to keep their "common carrier" status. But it seems to have been really short-sighted. I was talking to a developer friend, and he was interested in 900 numbers as a way of selling his shareware: I'd set up a normal DOS-based BBS for him, and people could call up and download the program. He'd only make a few dollars per download, but he'd have the money without having to take phone orders or mail out floppies. Say he got a steady number of calls, five or ten a day at a profit of $5-10 each call. He'd be making a little over $1000 month after deducting the price of 900 setup charges and usage charges. He'd be happy with that, his customers would be looking at $15-$20 for his program, and the phone company would make its chunk, too. We figured that uncollectibles would be small -- it'd be hard to argue with a straight face that "I called that 900 number by mistake and stayed on for an hour. And then I called back the next day for another hour (to get some of his add-ons) by mistake too". So I've poked around a little bit, and it's been interesting: 900 number service providers are not listed in the local directory, nor do any of the long distance carriers advertise that they do 900 service. They're not listed in the telecom archives, at least not under any obvious file name. Calling Sprint, I got a package of information showing page after page of restrictions on what could and could not be done. One of the restrictions was a maximum of $15 a call, which figures out to $.25/minute. Problem is, they charge .19, .24, or .22 cents a minute depending on how much you use -- starts low, jumps at 50,000 minutes, drops a bit at 250,000 minutes. He'd almost certainly always be in the low end, so if someone could download all of his program in a few minutes (say they were using V.32bis), he'd be able to make more money than if somebody were to download at 2400. 1200 would be close to break-even, and 300 simply couldn't be supported. I'm glad to see that Sprint does some kinds of restrictions on 900 numbers. I know that when I hear "900" I immediately start thinking "sleaze, sleaze". It's just too bad that with Sprint he can't charge $25 for a call, get the customer's name and address, and mail out a disk and printed manual. Or do whatever it is he'd like to in terms of charging X price for Y benefits. Locally, the State of Oregon uses a 976 number to give road conditions. But mostly I see this type of stuff subsidizing the local newspapers, which use 976 numbers for "personals", or on the cable channels in "psychic" ads. ("It's like a vacation for your mind." goes one ad.) This is really too bad -- there've been times that I've wanted a transcript of a show, but it's a pain to get out the checkbook and mail off a check and letter. Will 900/976 numbers ever be "cleaned up?" is my general, philosophical question? And more specifically, is there a 900 service provider aimed at people like my friend, who's selling a tangible product? One where he won't have to subsidize all the chargebacks from people pissed at being charged $4/minute for IQ tests (another ad that runs frequently)? jamesd@techbook.COM "2091 newsgroups & nothing on ..." PDaXs gives free access to news & mail. (503) 220-0636 - 1200/2400, N81 Full internet (ftp, telnet, irc) access available. Voice: (503) 223-4245 [Moderator's Note: Even 900 sex lines are not necessarily bad. The good or bad comes from the way the operator of the service wishes to handle it. It is true there are far more ripoffs than there are good 900 services (sex or otherwise), but there are information providers giving value for the money via 900. There are premium lines charging as little as a dollar for a minute or two, and many people doing what your friend is doing; selling books, software, technical support and more over a 900 line. Done properly, it can be profitable without being a ripoff in the process. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun 14 Feb 93 12:19:16 PST From: richg@hatch.socal.com (Rich Greenberg) Reply-To: richg@hatch.socal.com Subject: We Have it Good in California ... NOT From today's (2/12) {L A Times}, an item in the "Only In LA" column by Steve Harvey: Another Cellular Phone Scare Story: You've heard the reports that those trendy high-tech gadgets could be dangerous to your health. But what about to your pocketbook? During a federal drug trial in L.A., a rep for a cellular company produced the suspects' phone records -- including calls that didn't go through. She pointed out that the lucky prosecutors had unusually extensive records because users of such phones in the L.A. area are billed even for calls that aren't answered. Out of curiousity, Judge Dickran M. Tevrizian Jr. asked wether there were any areas where users are not charged for uncompleted calls. "Just about anywhere else," the rep answered. Rich Greenberg Work: rmg50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com 310-417-8999 N6LRT Play: richg@hatch.socal.com 310-649-0238 What? Me speak for Amdahl? Surely you jest.... ------------------------------ From: cc935@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Gerrold T. Sithe) Subject: GTE Payphone With Sprint LD: Who Makes Refunds? Date: 14 Feb 1993 12:55:16 GMT Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA) I once called long distance on a GTE payphone with Sprint for its default carrier. The call was abnormally cut off as was a second attempt. I called the GTE operator about a refund. She said since Sprint was the long distance carrier, I had to call them for a refund. So I called the Sprint operator. She said it was a GTE payphone that took my coins, so only GTE could make the refund. I again called a GTE operator who again insisted Sprint was responsible. So I again called a Sprint operator who again insisted GTE was responsible. At this point I stomped away from the payphone, unable to make my call, unable to get a refund, and pretty damn mad. Anyone know which company was responsible for the refund in this case? [Moderator's Note: All telephone companies act as collection agents for all other telephone companies. That is, you deposit coins in the phone of one company and internally they pay the other companies involved. You use your calling card from one telco to originate a call via another telco and the second telco bills the first one who in turn bills your account. Whoever collected your money should refund your money and reverse any transactions generated as a result back to wherever they came from; then that telco accepts the chargeback and reverses it back to whoever originally got the credit from them, etc. Since you put coins in the coin box, the only mechanism for refunding coins collected in error is by either returning the coins in the mail to the customer or issuing credit to a telephone bill (with some telco somewhere). GTE would then bill the offsetting charge to the inter- telco account for Sprint -- to the same place they had previously billed the credit for the coins they had colleted from you. I doubt anyone would investigate to see *whose* facilities caused the abnormal termination of your call. I suppose Sprint could refuse to accept the chargeback saying it was GTE facilities at fault and reverse the chargeback to GTE, but even the $5 per hour clerk at either end handling the paperwork (no actual *money* ever changes hands between telcos -- just an unending series of IOUs passed back and forth every day) would soon realize there was a limited return for the time involved in handing IOUs back and forth and would find it within his authorization to write it off to customer goodwill. Prior to divesti- ture, AT&T had a department called "Separations and Settlements" which employed a few hundred people who handed IOU's back and forth between the various Bell companies, AT&T, GTE and all the independent telcos. Actual money would change hands between the bunch of them maybe once a year or so as needed to zero things out. The rest of the time all that they passed among themselves were slips of paper. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 93 17:38:21 PST From: lars@CMC.COM (Lars Poulsen) Subject: RJ-11 Jack on French Modem A French built modem showed up on my desk today for evaluation of software compatibility. I need to see if I can get it to speak to the PBX in my lab (a KXT-30810). The modem came with an RJ-11 like jack on the back, and an interesting adapter cable with an RJ-11-like plug on one end, and a six-pin art-deco 25 mm wide by 50 mm high plug with a spade with six contact ribbons sticking out the back. My first hope was that I could just attach to the RJ-11, but no such luck. Visual inspection of the PCB reveals that if we number the pins 1 2 3 4 from left to right, pins 1 and 3 are connected together, and 4 is connected separately, while 2 seems not to be connected. I connected tip and ring to 1 and 4, and managed to receive RING RING RING, but I do not get a "voice" path established. I also have failed to make outgoing calls. The PBX provides 26V of battery and 90V of ringing voltage. This has been enough for everything else that has been through here. Does anybody have specific information on French wiring habits? Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer Internet E-mail: lars@CMC.COM CMC Network Products / Rockwell Int'l Telephone: +1-805-968-4262 Santa Barbara, CA 93117-3083 TeleFAX: +1-805-968-8256 ------------------------------ From: danielh@hadar.fai.com (Danial Ho) Subject: How Does Video Phone Work? What Software is Used On-line? Organization: Fujitsu NTS Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 22:45:43 GMT I have basically two questions. 1) How does AT&T's video phone work? AT&T phone can transmit video signal and voice signal at the same time. Does the phone transmit two signal frequencies over the same phone line, or does it merge the two types of data into one byte stream down the phone line? Also, if I want to build a video phone that can talk to AT&T's phone, what standard or protocol should I follow? 2) If I want to provide on-line services, are there any software libraries that I can purchase to help me write the program? The libraries should provide high level functions so I can call them instead of setting bits and bytes directly in the program. If you know of the answers or can tell me where I can find the appropriate reference material, I would really appreciate it. Thank you, Daniel Ho ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 93 11:50 PST From: lauren@cv.vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: Handheld AMPS Cellular -- Never Below Full Power (600mw)? Greetings. We've now seen a variety of conflicting reports regarding AMPS power control. I have messages from three different people working in the industry each describing contrary situations, and all of them claiming to base their information on power control message statistics. It's starting to look like geographic and administrative decisions may result in different use or non-use of AMPS power control in different areas. But ... we've now strayed from the original reason for this discussion. We were talking about radiation from handheld cellular phones. We've recently seen messages (including in this Digest) from cell folk saying that even in areas where AMPS car phones are power controlled, handheld phones are still being held at their full power of 600mw at all times. It would be interesting if somebody could address this issue directly. Are there systems where handheld AMPS phones are routinely being ordered down below their max of 600mw? Obviously, if power control isn't being *used* for handheld AMPS phones, it effectively doesn't exist for those users. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ From: jasko@park.bu.edu (John V. Jaskolski) Subject: Looking For Cheap Used Dialogic Boards Date: 14 Feb 93 19:20:43 GMT Reply-To: jasko@park.bu.edu Organization: Boston University Dept. of Cognitive and Neural Systems I am looking for CHEAP USED (old) Dialogic boards. Specifically, I am interested in Dialogic's D121 Voice Boards (12-line voice processing board) older versions are fine; Dialogic's LSI120 Loop Start Interface (used to interface D121's with analog installations). I want at least two of each. Also of interest is the MSI baseboard and any other used boards. Anyone who has any of these USED and wants to get rid of them (or if you know of anyone who might have them) please let me know. Thank you very much, John V. Jaskolski ------------------------------ From: haynes@cats.UCSC.EDU (Jim Haynes) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 93 17:52:30 -0800 Subject: Great Magazine Article About FAX The February, 1993 issue of {IEEE Spectrum}, page 46, has an article about Fax by Jonathan Coopersmith of Texas A&M. It's a summary of 150 years of history. The author is writing a book on the history of the facsimile machine. [Moderator's Note: Readers should see an issue of the Digest issued earlier this weekend for a more detailed review of this article. PAT] ------------------------------ From: mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@mhs.attmail.com Date: 14 Feb 93 16:20:12 GMT Subject: IXO.TAP.protocol in Archives Apparently, the only way to get a copy of the IXO/TAP protocol specification is to own a paging company and read it out of your paging system's central computer's manual. Some companies' technical support staff will provide you with a copy, but most won't. This finally offended me enough to do something about it. Someone from Telebit faxed me a copy; I'm paying that debt forward by rekeying it into a plain ASCII document, which I've sent to Pat to include in the Telecom Archives as file IXO.TAP.protocol. Enjoy! DISCLAIMER: Rekeying this document may be bending the Fair Use doctrine; I'm not enough of a lawyer to know. The IXO.TAP.protocol document is closely adapted from chapter 7 of Glenayre Electronics' publication GLP-3000-180 issue 5, and is Copyright Jan 30, 1991 by them; I won't bother asserting copyright on my annotations at the end of it. Since it's a small portion of the overall work and I'm making zero dollars and zero cents off of it, and since I consider this distribution to be both educational and informal, I think my rekeying of it is legal. If you (or Glenayre) think otherwise, take it up with me, not with my employer. J. Brad Hicks Internet: mc!Brad_Hicks@mhs.attmail.com X.400: c=US admd=ATTMail prmd=MasterCard sn=Hicks gn=Brad [Moderator's Note: Brad's file will be available in the Archives as of Monday morning, to be grabbed using anonymous ftp cs.mit.edu. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jasko@park.bu.edu (John V. Jaskolski) Subject: What Number do I Dial From My Phone to Get My Phone to Ring? Date: 14 Feb 93 19:27:18 GMT Reply-To: jasko@park.bu.edu Organization: Boston University Dept. of Cognitive and Neural Systems I presently live in Boston. When I used to live in Milwaukee, WI, I could dial "97" and the last five digits of my telephone number, push down and release the hook, hear a tone come over the line, hang up, and my phone would ring. Does anyone know what I can dial from Boston to do the same thing? In other words What number do I dial from my phone to get my phone to ring? (From Boston) Thank You, John V. Jaskolski [Moderator's Note: Please reply direct to Mr. Jaskolski. PAT] ------------------------------ From: ddssuprs!fred@uunet.UU.NET (Fred R Stearns) Organization: Dickens Data Systems, Inc. Subject: DS0 Portion of a T1 Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 19:40:15 GMT Organization: Dickens Data Systems, Inc. How is the A/D and D/A conversion performed to create the digital data from and analog voice circuit to the 1/24 digital circuits of a T1 service? Is it CVSD, or seven-bit samples at 8KHz, or something else? Fred R. Stearns -- fred@dickens.com ------------------------------ From: Tom Libert Date: Sun, 14 Feb 93 14:13:05 EST Subject: V & H to Latitude/Longitude? FCC Tariff 4 (available from Bellcore and NECA) provides "vertical and horizontal" (V & H) coordinates for all wire centers in the US. There is a simple way to determine the distance between wire centers using the V & H coordinates. Some sort of map projection must have been used to convert latitude and longitude to V & H; I'd like to invert that mapping (i.e. convert V & H to lat/long). Does anyone have details? As an incentive, I'll provide a free copy of the latest isue of NECA Tariff 4 to anyone who provides the anwer. ------------------------------ From: jasko@park.bu.edu (John V. Jaskolski) Subject: Does Anyone Know Tellab's Phone Number? Date: 14 Feb 93 19:29:42 GMT Reply-To: jasko@park.bu.edu Organization: Boston University Dept. of Cognitive and Neural Systems Does anyone know Tellab's phone number? Thank you, John V. Jaskolski ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 93 15:21:46 EST From: Tony Pelliccio Subject: Bell Canada Charging For 411 In most parts of the US it's a fact of life. You're allowed roughly five free calls, and then after that it's around 25 cents a pop. Besides, that's why you get a directory every year ... so YOU can look it up. Now they've given you an incentive. :) Tony ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #95 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05579; 14 Feb 93 23:13 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07098 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 14 Feb 1993 20:34:38 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27026 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 14 Feb 1993 20:34:00 -0600 Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 20:34:00 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302150234.AA27026@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu Subject: Cable's Future Role in Telephony This article was too long for a regular issue of the Digest and is being submitted FYI. It will also be filed in the Telecom Archives. PAT Date: Thu, 11 Feb 93 14:22:40 -0500 From: matt lucas Subject: Feb. TS Insight: CABLE'S FUTURE ROLE IN TELEPHONY This is the lead article in the February 1993 issue of TeleStrategies Insight. Information about TeleStrategies, Inc., and TeleStrategies Insight appears at the end of the article. Matt. ---------------------- CABLE'S FUTURE ROLE IN TELEPHONY or how cable MSOs can eat the RBOCs' lunch! By Dr. Jerry Lucas, President, TeleStrategies, Inc. and Publisher, TeleStrategies Insight This year the biggest question in the cable TV industry isn't whether cable should get into the telco world -- they're already in it. It's what future role they should play in next-generation telephony. This analysis covers (1) where cable is today regarding the telephony world, (2) why they must partner and who they must partner with to succeed and (3) how the cable industry should define their business to establish a winning vision for the 21st century. THE FIBER WAVE Prior to 1989 there was virtually no fiber in a cable TV system. This situation was much like the telephony world in 1979 -- no fiber in the network. And just as the '80s saw a technology revolution with the advent of almost total fiber connectivity between central office switches, within the next several years you'll see a similar revolution in cable TV. Companies like TCI, the largest multiple system operator (MSO), state that within two years 80 percent of their subscribers will be served via a fiber backbone system. The industry as a whole will average 70 percent. All of this plunge into fiber is totally cost justifiable in serving the entertainment marketplace alone. To the cable industry, fiber to the neighborhood means better quality, higher reliability and more capacity (500 channels or more). These are exactly the kind of things that will help keep a franchise at renewal time or beat the direct broadcast satellite people, both of which will become important in the post-1994 time frame. During the initial front (1989-91) of the fiber wave, cable companies weren't sure they should take the plunge (using this fiber backbone architecture) to compete with the LECs in the telco world. But TeleStrategies, industry consultants, cable equipment vendors and others kept delivering one message: there are big dollars to be made if you do. But along with the good news there is bad news. First the good news: cable is a $20 billion per year business with over 90 percent of households passed by and an overall subscriber rate of 60 percent nationally. Future growth from video services is likely to be only in pay per view and interactive TV. My view is that, when you factor in competition and price regulation, these new services will not be enough to sustain the growth rates cable had in the '80s. The only alternative yielding strong growth will be in the telco area. And here local exchange carriers' (including cellular) revenues are more than $90 billion, with over 50 percent open to competition with the right regulatory changes. (See TeleStrategies Insight, September 1991) That's nearly a $50 billion market and it's two and a half times bigger than cables' market! That's the "lunch" the cable companies can go after. Then there's the bad news: telcos want to get into your business, and given the right set of circumstances, they, too, could have a subsidized backbone network and favorable regulatory rulings allowing them to eat cable's lunch (as discussed later). CABLE'S PLUNGE INTO TELCO 1992 saw the cable industry and RBOCs enter into a battle that shows every sign of becoming a full-scale war. Four of the six largest MSOs (TCI, Cox, Continental and Comcast) own one of the two largest CAPs (Competitive Access Providers), Teleport. If you take out the other large CAP, Metropolitan Fiber Systems, cable controls over 80 percent of the CAP market. Almost every MSO today has CAP activity underway. Again, this is good news and bad news for the cable industry. The good news is that they have a business vehicle (the CAPs) that is a start in their quest to capture the $50 billion telco prize. The bad news is that the cable-dominated CAP business as it is now cannot maintain its competitive edge over present and future competitors without a change in strategy. Why? First, the CAPs' business represents an investment of a little over $500 million and had service revenues via its fiber optic plant of roughly $200 million in 1992. A number of players could easily duplicate what the CAPs have in place today. An RBOC, for example, has the resources, with no regulatory barriers, to establish a CAP-only business outside its serving area. Second, the CAPs' major customer set is the IXCs. Note that AT&T spends 50 percent of its revenue for access ($18 billion per year) and the other LECs pay roughly the same percentage for access, a big part of the $50 billion telco lunch. Today CAPs' revenues are IXC expenses that are targets for cost reduction. Third, the CAPs' principal resource after its fiber is their contracts: contracts for rights-of-way for their fiber, carrier interconnection agreements and, more importantly, future collocation agreements with the LECs. Within a year's time, these agreements could be obtained by anyone with resources and patience including IXCs and large end users. Does this mean the CAP business is a loser and that cable shouldn't go surging into that market? No. Does this mean cable has to do more to succeed as a CAP? Yes. They need to have a clear vision of where they're going as CAPs, they need a partner and they have to redefine their overall business. CABLE'S PROBLEM The cable industry has a major problem or challenge when it comes to taking charge of an infant industry like the CAPs'. There are three reasons for this. First, the cable industry has a lot of diversity; it is not a unified industry. Take the two largest MSOs; TCI, the largest, has strong, centralized management with a fairly uniform approach to the CAP business. The second largest, Time Warner, is highly decentralized with regional managers having a lot of autonomy. The sixth largest MSO, Comcast, is heavily involved in cellular. All three are in the CAP business but with different resources and strategies. The net result of this diversity is that no one company can serve as a model for the rest of the cable industry and lead by example. Second, the cable industry is small potatoes compared to the telephony industry in which it wishes to establish itself. Cable's annual revenues, $20 billion, are less than 13 percent of the telephony market's $160 billion. As Lee Iacocca says, in this business you either lead, follow or get out of the way. Cable is going to have to follow in the telco world and structure its CAP business strategy accordingly. Third, cable has entered the telco business largely by acquiring CAPs already in the business. Almost to an operation the following statement holds true. The CAP people know a lot about the telco world and little about the cable business, and vice versa. CAPs and cable are two different businesses with the only thing in common being ownership and some fiber plant carrying hub-to- hub traffic. Because of a yet to be established synergy between CAP and cable businesses there is a lack of vision in the cable industry as to what cable's role will be as telco and entertainment merge. Without a clear vision of cable's role in telco and a clear business definition of what a cable company is to be in the 21st century as it enters the telco world, today's entree via the CAP business, I believe, will fail. Without a clear vision of the business, it will be impossible for vendors to identify a broad, lucrative market for which to build equipment, business users to understand the role cable will play in the future, investors to understand business plans, etc. PARTNERING For these reasons and others, the cable industry must select partners to move into the telco world. While there are several leading candidates, one industry stand out: the interexchange carriers. First, lets look at why the others don't have as much to offer. 1. RBOCs as partners -- At first glance the RBOCs should be natural partners of the cable industry. At one time, as early as six months ago, this was the case and together venturing had been mutually beneficial. The telcos (See TeleStrategies Insight, March, 1992) could have made peace with cable by agreeing to stay out of entertainment in return for infrastructure services rendered (billing, service provisioning, switching, IXC interconnection, etc.). Today, however, in many regions cable and RBOCs have declared war. Bell Atlantic, in particular, has made it clear they plan to be a major player in the video business. Over the last two months they have inked a $1.5 billion deal with the state of New Jersey to bring fiber to the curb along with cable TV service in the 1996-99 time frame; they initiated a video dial tone field trial in the Washington, DC area with Blockbuster Video as a potential partner; and, they petitioned the courts to strike down the prohibition that keeps telcos from being full-fledged cable operators in their regions. Again, if you're going to be in this business you lead, follow or get out of the way. For the RBOCs, leading is certainly the fun way to go even if the approach fails. But there's another option in partnering with RBOCs -- forming ventures that are geographically located outside their serving areas (the extra-territorial strategy). Last summer, the U. S. Court of Appeals overturned Judge Greene's prohibition on RBOCs entering the information service business. Now, if Bell Atlantic wants to be a cable operator, they can do so as long as they don't operate within their six-state/Washington, DC serving area. The cable industry should forget this partnering option unless you're a cable operator with franchise "dogs" looking for a sucker willing to bail you out. Why? The RBOCs cannot hold themselves out to the public as long distance carriers. That mean no interLATA facility ownership, interLATA resale, joint venturing with long distance companies to provide service, etc. Take note of Pac Tel's recent announcement that they're splitting off their cellular and international divisions away from their regulated business. Why? The leading reason for doing this is their desire to expand their cellular venture into Personal Communications Services (PCS) and this means an interLATA operation. Besides, if US WEST and TCI, partners in European cable TV and telco activities, haven't ventured here at home it probably means their lawyers haven't figured out how to do it without violating the interLATA restriction. 2. Other partners -- What about cellular companies, computer and/or central office switch vendors as partners? No, they're not strong partnering candidates. First, cellular: unless you own the local franchise, like Comcast, it's better to go after the new PCS licenses rather than act in a supporting role to cellular. A cable company would probably have to choose between being a wholesaler to a cellular company or a PCS license holder and PCS appears to be more lucrative (more on this later). Regarding the computer industry, the only players with technology and clout are IBM and DEC. I don't think IBM has the bucks today to make two-way cable a profitable venture anytime soon. (They lost $5 billion in 1992.) DEC is also hurting. Finally, the two big switch vendors, AT&T and NTI, are not the door to knock on. AT&T will very likely venture with cable but it will do so through its Communications Services Division rather than through Network Systems (its manufacturing arm), taking the lead much as in the McCaw deal. As for NTI, I don't think they could afford to alienate their largest customer set, the RBOCs, by promoting a technology strategy to eat the telcos' lunch. 3. IXCs as partners -- I saved the best for last. There are three reasons why cable should partner with the IXCs. First, as mentioned above, they are the CAPs' best customer today. Second, they provide a means to get into PCS with relatively low risk (to be discussed). Third, they can provide the technology expertise and the infrastructure (SS7, ATM, SONET, etc.) required to capture all emerging opportunities in the telco world. You might be asking why an IXC would want to partner with cable. First, a cable company does not have the restrictions of the RBOCs. It can enter into joint service arrangements that are exclusive. Regulated LECs can't do this in their serving areas. It's a mechanism to gain a competitive advantage in this marketplace. Second, the IXCs will be entering the PCS arena and challenging the RBOCs and cellular companies. PCS traffic carried over the fiber/coax backbone of a cable company makes the economies right (See TeleStrategies Insight, July 1992). Finally, from a strategic perspective, it's not in the IXCs' interest to see the RBOCs get stronger. Sometime down the road, the RBOCs will enter the long distance market. It's not likely anytime soon, if ever, that a cable company will move into the IXC business. In the era of the pending LEC level playing field, who would you trust with the last-mile connection to your customer? My assessment: cable will be a better bet than an RBOC for IXC partnering. A CABLE STRATEGY IN TELEPHONY With the IXC industry at its side, here's how cable should enter the telco world and here's its role. Step One: Be a CAP -- With friendly IXCs, the CAP business is a winner. If a cable company isn't a CAP in their serving area, they should go ahead ASAP under the following two conditions. First, If there isn't a CAP in town, be the first one. Note that the first CAP in a market generally gets the majority of business from corporations that want either access redundancy or a second (non-LEC) competitor in the local loop. Just as the early bird gets the worm, it's hard for later entrants to challenge the first CAP. The second condition is to buy into or invest in an existing CAP. The reason it's important to enter the CAP business, in addition to longer- term benefits, is that it prepares cable for the real action, PCS. The resources you put in place as a CAP can be used in PCS. The interconnection and collocation agreements with the LECs, SS7 and soon to be added digital switching, and the fiber backbone in the business area will be required for PCS. If you have those resources, you will be a stronger partner for an IXC when the PCS opportunity opens up. Step Two: PCS Entree -- The FCC has yet to establish the rules on who gets what in the pending reallocation of spectrum for PCS. The rules are expected sometime this year after the new FCC chairman is in place, probably in May or June. The plan most talked about is MCI's proposal, which calls for PCS licenses to be awarded to three national consortia. These consortia would not be controlled by any one company; a consortium would be owned by an IXC and regional license holders (probably serving areas much like those that were defined for cellular -- 305 metro and 425 rural areas). In addition, present cellular license holders and LECs could not get licenses in their serving areas but could get regional licenses outside those areas, heavy LEC participation in a consortium would count against applicants, and all license applicants would go through the comparative hearing process. This approach has merit. The FCC would be in hot water with Congress if it gave large spectrum awards to a few companies. Three national licenses would likely involve individually the top three IXCs (AT&T, MCI and Sprint). An idea all three can agree with! A consortium headed by an IXC other than those three would not be in a good position to win in a comparative hearing because of the lack of resources needed to win. Finally, the FCC staff likes the idea of national licenses. It eliminates the massive effort and resources that individual cellular franchises needed to create the big systems. Note that McCaw, the largest cellular carrier with over 100 licenses, never won a lottery. The big three IXCs will head up the structuring of PCS consortia if the MCI plan is adopted as expected here. The strongest player to partner with in a market will be a cable company with a CAP business up and running. This is the trump card the cable companies have to play when dealing with the IXCs. Step Three: Fiber to the Home -- The next development will be the cable industry knock-out punch to the telcos. Although the technology isn't quite right for 45 Mbps, two-way multimedia communication to the home via cable TV, the environment for hype is. Step three calls for hyping what cable can do to solve the nation's ills. Hype much like this was used in the franchise war days during the late '70s and early '80s when the institutional cable networks promised the local governments that they would improve communications for public safety, education, health, etc. Why? Because starting on January 20, 1993 the Clinton-Gore team had to begin working on keeping their campaign promises. Except for the pledge to reduce the deficit, no promise sticks out more than the one to bring down the high cost of health care (nearly $90 billion last year). Then there's the pledge to improve education and the one to create jobs. You can make the case, as the consulting firm Arthur D. Little did in a recent study, that with improved telecommunications and information processing you can improve access to health care, improve quality of care and save $40 billion a year right off the top. Big bucks are going to be spent on a fiber optic infrastructure to solve the health, education and employment problems. The bad news for the cable industry is that the RBOCs are going to make the case they're in the best position to do this with fiber optics to the home, and, by the way, if the government lets them into cable TV, it will require less government resources to achieve this goal. The good news for the cable industry, on the other hand, is that the bulk of newly available funds for an improved infrastructure will be administered at the community level by the same government jurisdictions (city, county, etc.) that issue cable franchises. The cable industry is going to have to get on the "save the nation with a new fiber optic/telecommunications infrastructure" band wagon and stake out its piece of the action. Why? Because government actions can totally change a market. For example, after World War II, Vice President Gore's father, former Senator Albert Gore, Sr., sponsored the National Highway Act. When enacted, the bill did more than anything else to destroy the railroad monopoly in movement of goods and passengers. It literally crippled the railroad industry. Trucks, buses and cars could move as swiftly as trains at a lower cost and it was good for the country. Vice President Gore is the champion of the National Research and Education Network (NREN). This network will have a dramatic effect on the Information Age and our nation's telecommunications network as we know them today. (See TeleStrategies Insight, June 1992). Note that almost every RBOC is involved in an NREN gigabit networking project, and to my knowledge, not one cable MSO is. Step three in summary: the cable industry should call its favorite IXC and its local government and start working on an approach to solve problems in health care, distance learning, education and work-at-home. Field trials and demonstrations of cable technologies to provide telemedicine to the home would be a good start. In short, cable people, put on a helmet and get into the game. If not, the cable industry under Vice President Gore could witness the creation of an infrastructure plan that takes the wind out of their sails -- just like Senator Gore, Sr. did to the railroads 45 years ago. Additionally, step four would be to follow up the hype with two-way multimedia service to the home when the technology is ready. THE CABLE VISION The cable industry has to broaden its definition of its business. The old definition was "we are an information service company providing entertainment video. Our customers are residential users and the community governments who gave us the franchise." The new definition proposed here is that cable should be full service providers (voice, data and video) with its customers consisting of residential users, local governments and interexchange carriers. Copyright CC 1993 TeleStrategies Inc. No part of this publication may be reproduced or re-transmitted in any form without written permission of the publisher. TeleStrategies Inc. 1355 Beverly Road, Ste. 110 McLean, VA 22101 ____________________________ If you have comments about this article, please contact Lynn Stern, editor of TeleStrategies Insight, by email (lynn@telestrat.com) or by telephone at 703- 734-7050. About TeleStrategies Founded in 1980 by Dr. Jerry Lucas, TeleStrategies Inc. is the leading producer of telecommunications industry conferences in the U. S. Every year the company sponsors approximately 60 programs, which attract decision makers from every segment of the telecommunications industry. TeleStrategies Insight is the company's monthly newsletter on telecommunications industry directions and market opportunities. For a FREE subscription and/or a current conference schedule complete the form below and email it to insight@telestrat.com. Subscription Form -- TeleStrategies Insight Email address: Name: Title: Company: Address: Room No./Mail Stop: City/State/Zip: Phone Number: Telecommunications technology, business and regulatory areas of interest: We're always looking for new conference ideas. If you have an idea for a day-and-a-half-long telecom conference, please contact Lynn Stern by email (lynn@telestrat.com) or by phone at 703-734-7050. Please be prepared to discuss topics and suggestions for speakers. If we use your idea and you assist us in structuring the program, you will be given a free pass to attend the conference.   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06196; 14 Feb 93 23:28 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15897 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 14 Feb 1993 21:13:01 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14004 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 14 Feb 1993 21:12:31 -0600 Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 21:12:31 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302150312.AA14004@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #96 TELECOM Digest Sun, 14 Feb 93 21:12:30 CST Volume 13 : Issue 96 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Pacific Bell, Caller ID, and PRIVATE (Graham Toal) Re: Pacific Bell, Caller ID, and PRIVATE (Henry Mensch) Re: Overseas Directory Assistance (Steve Brack) Re: Yellow Pages Data on Disk Wanted (James Deibele) Re: Hilton Hotel Telephone Surcharge (Carl Oppedahl) GTE On the "Move" (Paul Barnett) Re: PacBell IntraLATA Rate Ripoffs (John Higdon) Re: White House Phone Factoids (Kenneth Herron) Re: Ma Bell Calling (Donald E. Kimberlin) Local Calling Area Re-Organization in SE-WI (acct069@carroll1.cc.edu) Alphanumeric Pagers Question (Samuelson S. Rehman) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 14 Feb 93 21:43:50 GMT From: Graham Toal Subject: Re: Pacific Bell, Caller ID, and PRIVATE Definitely sounds like guerrilla tactics from the California telco. Couldn't they have supplied partial information like the area code for California but with the exchange/telephone no blanked in some way? eg 415 xxx xxxx or whatever it is? Perhaps if here *is* a technical alternative, you should all call your PUCs to get it implemented? G ------------------------------ From: henry@ads.com (Henry Mensch) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 93 15:11:44 -0800 Subject: Pacific Bell, Caller ID, and PRIVATE Reply-To: henry@ads.com co057@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steven H. Lichter) wrote: > We just were notified that PacBell will be offering Call Trace, last > number call back. You will not know the number in either case ... Does this mean the number won't appear on my bill, either (and that, potentially, I won't know in advance that I'm making a toll call)? I got the enclosure in this month's bill, also, and haven't called them on it yet. # henry mensch / booz, allen & hamilton, inc. / ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 14:07:25 -0500 (EST) From: sbrack@jupiter.cse.UTOLEDO.edu (Steve Brack) Subject: Re: Overseas Directory Assistance In article hhallika@zeus.calpoly.edu writes: > I recently found the "invite to stay on the line" to cause a > problem. Since the "called party" had not disconnected, I could not > use the # to place another call without rekeying my credit card > number. Slowed me down a bit ... One of the telecom jobs I've held involved working with headset phones where dropping a call was inconvenient, invloving physically disconnecting the phone. When calling DA, all I would do is ask the DA operator to drop the call when (s)he finished. If I forgot to ask, I'd have to wait to get reanswered, then ask to be dropped. Usually, the operator would manually recite the number instead of passing me off to the recording, as would normally be done. Steven S. Brack sbrack@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu Toledo, OH 43613-1605 STU0061@UOFT01.BITNET MY OWN OPINIONS sbrack@nyx.cs.du.edu ------------------------------ From: jamesd@techbook.com (James Deibele) Subject: Re: Yellow Pages Data on Disk Wanted Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636 Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 22:13:00 GMT 70540.232@CompuServe.COM (Lynne Gregg) writes: > Anyone have ideas for sources for Yellow Page data on disk? I'm > looking for YP's for most major cities. DAK regularly lists one of the Yellow Pages on CD-ROM in their catalog, which I just received a few days ago. Unfortunately, they restrict it to people who are buying one of their CD-ROM drives, but at $69 for the disc and around $200 for the drive, it's not such a bad deal. I think the name is "PhoneDisc USA" or something like that. I don't have DAK's phone number in front of me, but you should be able to get it from 800-555-1212. Or you might be on Drew's mailing list, too. There's supposed to be at least one competitor in that price range, but I don't have any more information on them. Note that it will only let you print out 25 names at a time, so it's not very good for slurping up whole cities at a time. jamesd@techbook.COM "2091 newsgroups & nothing on ..." PDaXs gives free access to news & mail. (503) 220-0636 - 1200/2400, N81 Full internet (ftp, telnet, irc) access available. Voice: (503) 223-4245 ------------------------------ From: oppedahl@Panix.Com (Carl Oppedahl) Subject: Re: Hilton Hotel Telephone Surcharge Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 23:01:39 GMT In leichter@lrw.com (Jerry Leichter) writes: > I recently ran across a personal record for additional hotel charges, > at a location our Moderator may appreciate: The O'Hare Hilton. > According to the rate card in the room - at least they provide that > now! - the charges are as follows: (Charges deleted here for brevity; see original posting.) > I made my calls from the lobby, which actually had a couple of the new > AT&T model 2000 phones. (The ones in the lobby don't have keyboards, > but the ones on the second floor, where the conference rooms are, do.) The hotel's policy is, of course, an outrage. When I encounter this I always write a letter to complain. The idea that they would charge $1 for me to call an 800 number (who cares whether it is to a long-distance carrier or not) galls me. I, too, take my business to the lobby. But think -- wouldn't we all be smart, when we are making our hotel reservations in the first place, to ask what the policy is for local calls and 800 number calls? And take that into account when choosing where to stay? I like the way it is when I stay in a ski condo in Vail ... There is a card on the phone, that says something like this: Please use your calling card for all calls. Local calls are free. Please do not direct-dial any toll calls. If you do, we will charge $20 extra for the hassle of going back and posting it to your charge card later. I have set up 800 numbers to ring to each of the four or so phone numbers I call most often (home, office, etc.) and when I dial those, I get several benefits: No first-minute surcharge as there would be for a calling card call; the hotels, some of them at least, do not charge for it as they do not recognize the number as a calling-card access number; I can call from pay phones etc. and dial fewer digits, and do not have to worry about someone looking over my shoulder and seeing my calling-card number. Carl Oppedahl AA2KW (intellectual property lawyer) 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10112-0228 voice 212-408-2578 fax 212-765-2519 [Moderator's Note: Have you ever considered having a call-extender type of device put on a line -- with a complex security code -- and an 800 number in to it to be used for ALL outgoing long distance calls? That way you would get the direct dial rate on all your long distance calls no matter where you are when you need to make a call. The 'surcharge' would be whatever you pay per minute on the 800 line, but the combination of charges would often times still be less than making a call via the hotel switchboard with its surcharge, or the surcharge your calling card requires. Your biggest savings would come on very short calls where there is no oppotunity to spread the surcharge over several minutes. PAT] ------------------------------ From: barnett@zeppelin.convex.com (Paul Barnett) Subject: GTE On the "Move" Date: Sun, 14 Feb 93 17:24:15 CST From the {Dallas Morning News}, Sunday, 2/14/93. Front page, upper left hand corner "Moving fast on all fronts" Key GTE unit gears up for mass re-engineering First in an occasional series By Diana Kunde, Staff Writer of the Dallas Morning News The executive on the videotape strides to some empty office cubicles and delivers a stark message to GTE employees: "To be honest, this isn't the last empty cubicle you're going to see." But with the threat comes a challenge: "In a sense, these careers weren't ended by GTE," he continues. "They were ended by other companies, by competition." This is the new reality at GTE Telephone Operations, based in Irving, where management wants nothing short of a complete culture change -- from bureaucratic to lean and creative, from a regulated utility to a telecommunications services company. In a considerably more competive world, GTE believes that its Telephone Operations unit must adapt to a fast-moving environment, and it must do so quickly. Conscious of troubles at industry giants such as General Motors Corp. and IBM, the relatively prosperous company wants to move before crisis hits. ---------------------------- That's just the front page. The rest of the article fills up an entire page in the interior of the first section. There's an sidebar with a sampling of the goals of GTE Telephone Operations, extracted from an employee handbook. I'll follow up with it later if there is any interest. I'm not an apologist for GTE: I'm simply a residential customer that has experienced many of the frustrations detailed by other readers of this newsgroup. The whole article reads more like marketing propaganda than anything else, but I thought it was interesting to see "The Phone Company" admit that they might be doing something wrong. Paul Barnett MPP OS Development (214)-497-4846 Convex Computer Corp. Richardson, TX ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 93 15:22 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: PacBell IntraLATA Rate Ripoffs gmccomb@netcom.com (Glenn McComb) writes: > I've been getting a lot of mail regarding my post about Execuline > They CAN change your phone to their system as primary carrier (1 + > dial), but I opted to stay with MCI until I got some experience with > them. But what is the mechanism for offering intraLATA bypass? This CANNOT, repeat CANNOT be done via FGD ("1+" or "10XXX" dialing). Pac*Bell will not complete the call in this manner. Does Execuline offer 950 service? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: kherron@ms.uky.edu (Kenneth Herron) Subject: Re: White House Phone Factoids Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 23:44:30 GMT knauer@columbus.slip.uiuc.edu (Rob Knauerhase) writes: > "Contrary to widespread belief the old "hotline" between Washington > and Moscow was not a telephone to warn against an impending doomsday > attack, but rather a teletype manned at the Pentagon." Tom Clancy's latest book, _The Sum of All Fears_, makes several references to this hotline. It's a work of fiction, but knowing Mr. Clancy it's probably pretty accurate. A very good book overall. Kenneth Herron kherron@ms.uky.edu University of Kentucky +1 606 257 2975 Dept. of Mathematics ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 93 23:54 GMT From: Donald E. Kimberlin <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Ma Bell Calling In one of his typically insightful commentaries, John Higdon replied to But ah, yes, the "good old days". I remember playing with the > family phone circa 1957. I used to love dialing various numbers and > listening to the sounds of the connections being completed. One time I > dialed "212 990 1111" and was greeted with a Manhattan traffic report. > As soon as I realized what it was, I hung up. The charge? $2.00! And > those were 1957 dollars. (Today it would be what? $.20? Terrible!) That prompted me to get out a shareware program that's stowed around here, and see what the current dollar cost of $2.00 expended in 1957 was. Well, my shareware program is only updated to 1990, but it said that what John ran up on his parent's phone bill in 1957 would have amounted to $9.29 in 1990. Conversely, if John was thinking about a 20 cent first minute in 1990, its equivalent on Mom and Pop's 1957 bill would have been four cents! I think Mom and Pop would get rather more concerned today about Little Johnny blowing nine bucks as they would have about him doing it with four cents back in 1957 ... ------------------------------ From: Ron Subject: Local Calling Area Re-Organization in SE-WI Date: Sun, 14 Feb 93 10:56:44 CST Many months ago, early last year, it was announced to the public that the Local Calling Area in Southeastern Wisconsin was going to be changed to be equal for all parties. The proposal was for the local calling area to be a 25 mile radius from your CO. So everyone's calling area would be different depending on where they are calling from. A decision on this proposal was due late last year if I recall correctly, but nothing has been announced. Does anyone know anything more on this? Thanks, Ron Lightning Systems, INC. acct069@carroll1.cc.edu (414) 363-4282 ------------------------------ From: sam@ssr.nca.com (Samuelson S. Rehman) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 17:39:46 -0800 Subject: Alphanumeric Pagers Question Shawn Nunley wrote... > If someone is willing to email me the spec for IXO pagers, I would be > willing to create some Procomm scripts for sending pages to alpha > pagers. All I really need is the process for calculating the > checksum, because I have already figured out the rest. I've extracted this small portion of code from my IXO/TAP com. stack. Hope this helps: --------------------------------------------- s.snd.c:ixo:ixo_CalcCheckSum int i, sum, /* Local cardinal for dec checksum */ buflen; /* Length of packet buffer */ char cs_str[20]; /* Local string fro hex checksum */ /* ... parts of code truncated ...*/ /* Start calc checksum */ if (!ixo_sil) printf( "page: Calculate CS...\n" ); sum = 0; for( i=0; i= 'A' ) cs_str[i] -= 7; } /* Append checksum string at the end of packet buffer */ buflen += sprintf( &buf[buflen], "%.3s\r", &cs_str[cs_len-3] ); ---------------------------------- end of extract If you want the lastest specification of the IXO/TAP protocol, you might wanna write to British Telecom. One thing you might want to know, most paging terminals claims they support IXO but I have not seen two that works the same. I had write different modules to support five different modules. I think supporting Glenyare and Motorola terminals are quite enough. Also, different paging terminals support different transmission length and displayable charsets. P.S. A quick question: Is anyone here using EMBARC ? Good Luck! Best Regards... Samuelson S. Rehman {Systems Programmer - RnD.NCA, Director of NIS Systems} Newspager Corp. of America voice:(415)873-4422 | fax:(415)873-4424 | email:sam@nca.com,sam@netcom.com [Moderator's Note: I want to remind all readers of the new file in the Telecom Archives covering this very topic in detail. You should pull a copy if the topic is one of regular concern to you. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #96 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14391; 15 Feb 93 3:32 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13897 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 15 Feb 1993 01:17:18 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24506 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 15 Feb 1993 01:16:46 -0600 Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 01:16:46 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302150716.AA24506@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #97 TELECOM Digest Mon, 15 Feb 93 01:16:45 CST Volume 13 : Issue 97 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Touch Tone is no Extra Charge ... Maybe (Paul Robinson) Phoenix, AZ Has Caller ID (Kevin W. Reed) What Would Be Required to Compile "Secret #" FAQ? (Chris Taylor) Re: 1-800-CALL-ATT 'ext. 21' to be Discontinued (Paul Robinson) Re: 900 Numbers Tarnished Beyond Repair? (Richard B. Dervan) Re: Local Cellular Channel Distribution (Paul Robinson) Re: The Definitive Word on TTL Fields (Christopher Davis) Re: PacBell IntraLATA Rate Ripoffs (Glenn McComb) Re: Standard Dialing Plan (Mark Brader) Re: Running Out of Area Codes (Bob Denny) Graybar Hotel, Sorry (Paul Robinson) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 23:16:19 -0500 (EST) From: Paul Robinson Subject: Touch Tone is no Extra Charge ... Maybe I have two phone lines in my house. Because someone in the house wants one of them for their answering machine, I decided to have two more phone lines installed. Here's the details from C&P Telephone of Maryland: I live in a Maryland suburb of Washington, DC. The installation is $65 for the first line and $48 for each additional line, when these are added to an existing bill. The rates are slightly higher if the new lines were being separately added, and if someone wants to split off some of the phone numbers and take them to another area, then putting them on the same bill will end up costing both parties all of the savings by putting them on the original bill. Also, since the first line is listed, the other lines are issued unlisted (my computer line has never been listed even though the main number is). The clerk didn't ask me, and since I don't really care, I didn't ask for listing. When I moved in I saved the $65 because two lines were already installed. (I wouldn't even *think* of sharing the line my computer uses). Unlimited residential service is quoted as $20 a month. I note that because I already have unlimited local service, the new lines must also be installed that way; the sales clerk told me that this was the case. Her exact words were that it was "a violation of tariff schedules to install measured and unmeasured service at the same house." Also this clerk was honest: the base rate for unlimited service is $16.50 plus a $3.50 'subscriber line charge' She plainly stated the rate for phone service was 'twenty dollars per line'. She also stated that of the measured plans, she herself thought the stupidest one was the one that sets local calls instead of 10c each untimed, to be 3.3c each plus 1 1/2c per minute. They do give one advantage: if I was taking the 65 calls per month plan ($8.50 plus the usual $3.50 subscriber charge and taxes) if the lines are billed on one bill the metering is combined, which meant with four measured lines the subscriber can use a total of 260 calls in total over all the lines, meaning if you used 100 calls one one line and 100 on another, you would not go over the limit. Note this 'spreading' of call counts does not apply to directory assistance calls. Residential lines get six free calls per month (down from 12) and the calls are assigned to each line; use eight on one line and none on another and you owe them for two DA calls at 25c each. Of the *145* 'long distance carriers' who provide service in this area, you can sign up for any one of *53* of them that want subscruibers, and you can select #54, 'none' as the default carrier. They allow you one month from start of service to choose a carrier without charge. If you don't choose, you get left 'undecided' which means 'AT&T'. What she means by 'carriers' may mean companies taking Feature Group B or F.G. D (10XXX access or 950 codes.) In that case, one of the 'telephone companies' in the area is the Maryland Department of Motor Vehicles at 950-1MVA (this gets them the equivalent of a local toll-free number), and 'Fairfax Cable' (Fairfax VA) which operates a code at 10-xxx-00 for people to call in to order pay per view movies. The installation charge noted above is to put a DEMARC box on the ground or some easily accessible place as close to the telco 'point of presence' (or 'POP' -- usually a waist-high post but in our neighborhood is the telephone pole across the street). In my house the lines run from that POP to the second floor, to a tension adjustment clip, then run down the side of the house around to a drilled hole in the basement cinder block. There is an old-fashioned weather resistant covered outdoor telephone jack using a four-plug socket on the back of the house. By my express action with a screwdriver on the network block, the wire to that jack sits unconnected. Thus my lines are protected against any local fraud short of someone with wire cutters. If I want the demarc box anyplace else, or if I want additional jacks installed, I have to pay Time and Materials at $16/15 minutes, unless the place where the demarc is moved to is shorter than where they would put it and is accessible. They will bill the installation charge in one, two, three or four month installments. I asked for three months. If I can, I will probably have the demarc box installed inside in my upstairs bedroom along with the jacks. While the demarc box has a 'dual access' slot, one side with a lock secured by the telephone company, and the other side which can be locked by the customer, I've seen demarc boxes and they are usually cheap plastic and probably easily broken. It might be cheaper my way; he has to run the line past my room to get down to ground level. While I can do the jack wiring, I don't really have the patience nor the 'touch' to do nice, neat wiring like the stuff that's already here. Since this is a rented house, I'll let the phone company guy do the stapling. (Oh gee, what's a non-sexist term for the phone installer? And what does that do to Jimmy Webb's 'Wichita Lineman' song made famous by Glen Campbell)? I suspect phone service is heavily used here: my first two lines had a number in which the third digit of the exchange was a 5. The two new lines which they gave me the numbers (they won't be installed until 2/16) start with the same two digits (indicating the area I'm in) but the third digit for them is a 7. I could have, for an additional charge, been allowed to ask for a specific four digit number if it was available in one of the prefixes serving this area. I am fortunate that we still have telephone poles. If they were using buried cable (as most of Montgomery County, MD has) the rate to install more buried wire is 65c PER FOOT after the first 175 feet from the POP. Oh yes, about the 'no surcharge for touch tone'. When I originally moved in here two years ago, you had to ask to not have touch tone or it cost $30 to order it removed (sneaky, considering touchtone was $1.25 a month). Even sneakier: C&P Telephone has tariffed to eliminate the $1.25 a month surcharge for touch tone, by adding the surcharge to the base rate, then reduced the new 'base' charge by 33c. Nice way to 'decrease' the charge for the service. So it means that Touch-Tone is now standard with all lines and is not 'surcharged'. Or so they claim, when a $1.25 optional charge is 'removed' by raising the rates to that less 33c. Paul Robinson - TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM ------------------------------ From: kreed@telesys.tnet.com (Kevin W. Reed) Subject: Phoenix, AZ Has Caller ID Organization: Posted via TeleSys Development Systems (Mesa, AZ U.S.A.) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 02:08:35 GMT Caller ID just got turned on in Phoenix, AZ after a brief delay from the Corporations Commission. The delay was due to US West not properly notifying all its customers of the free ability to signup for line blocking. Also, apparently, many of the police departments in the area had not received adequate notice that the lines they use in undercover work had not been blocked properly. On the radio the other day, US West was reported to have signed up close to 5,000 subsribers to the Caller ID feature. It then went on to say that US West had also accepted more than 30,000 requests for full line blocking. TELESYS DEVELOPMENT SYSTEMS Kevin W. Reed Public *NIX Site and Newsfeed Source kreed@tnet.com UUCP: ...!ncar!noao!enuucp!telesys!kreed SCO Xenix/Unix Support Data/UUCP/BBS +1 602 649 9099 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 01:51:55 -0500 (EST) From: Chris Taylor Subject: What Would Be Required to Compile 'Secret #' FAQ? To the group: Let's say one of us were to volunteer his/her time to compile something with the commonly asked-about numbers to get a ringback, etc. If we did it for all the exchanges in all the major North American population centers, do you think it could be something a couple of people could manage? What would be an efficient way of soliciting tidbits of knowledge from the far-flung corners of the Net? Maybe just a questionaire to fill out: EXCHANGE: 556 CITY: Tin City, NJ RINGBACK: 445 HEAR YOUR NUMBER: 958 CANCEL CALL WAITING: *67 ETC,ETC I don't know. I'm curious to hear opinions on how hard it would be to initiate a project like this. Chris Taylor cht@panix.com 71201.3537@compuserve.com [Moderator's Note: One of the things you'd have to contend with is the frequency with with which 'ringback' and in particular 'hear your number' code numbers are changed. 'They' do not like people outside the telco to know these or use them, thus the routine varies from community to community, and sometimes from month to month. You would have a lot of changes in your list on a regular basis. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 22:50:16 -0500 (EST) From: Paul Robinson Subject: Re: 1-800-CALL-ATT 'ext. 21' to be Discontinued In TELECOM Digest 13-87, I wrote that the 1-800-CALL-ATT x 21 number was being discontinued. Enough people wrote to ask me what this number was for that I figured I should explain. In the United States a telephone customer has the right to use a competitive long distance company for telephone calls which are outside the same state or certain intra-state calls. The usual practice is for the customer to select the carrier they want. Or they can often dial 1-0 and the three digit code (usually called the '10XXX code') belonging to that carrier. Some telephones, especially private pay stations and hotels, have their lines connected to a specific carrier (because of commissions paid by the carrier) and even go so far as to block the '1-0-xxx' code (which is illegal, like 'red lining' some areas so that people can't use credit cards to some countries, but it's done anyway). Also, if you are calling from an office that cannot give you a dial tone to dial a long distance call, you may have to use an operator and pay more for the call. So AT&T, like its competitors, implemented a code off of one of its 800 numbers you could dial into, then when you got to AT&T's "welcome" message, you could punch in '21' on a touch-tone pad and be given to AT&T's switch and be able to dial a call directly over AT&T's facilities. So AT&T is getting so many calls on that 800 number that they've moved calls for their switch to that number. "And now you know, the rest of the story." - Paul Harvey Paul Robinson -- TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM ------------------------------ From: rdervan@orac.holonet.net (Richard B Dervan) Subject: Re: 900 Numbers Tarnished Beyond Repair? Organization: HoloNet National Internet Access BBS: 510-704-1058/modem Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 04:03:01 GMT jamesd@techbook.com (James Deibele) writes: > I was talking to a developer friend, and he was interested in 900 > numbers as a way of selling his shareware: I'd set up a normal > DOS-based BBS for him, and people could call up and download the > program. He'd only make a few dollars per download, but he'd have the > money without having to take phone orders or mail out floppies. Say > he got a steady number of calls, five or ten a day at a profit of > $5-10 each call. He'd be making a little over $1000 month after > deducting the price of 900 setup charges and usage charges. Well, why doesn't he just set up a 900 service so they can get a registration number? A local chat-line system here works like this ... 1) Call 900 number with modem and enter the 'system id'; 2) 900 number gives you a code; 3) You enter that code on the BBS; 4) Presto! Instant time! That might be easier. Just charge $15/call or something like that. The service is provided by another company so you only have to give that company it's cut. The person could call the 900 number, get the code, and then call your friend's BBS with the code and either get a registration key or access to a registered version of the program. That way people could still call and get the evaluation copies. Richard B Dervan rdervan@holonet.net System Support Programmer/Analyst 70007.6230@compuserve.com Information America, Inc ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 23:01:00 -0500 (EST) From: Paul Robinson Subject: Re: Local Cellular Channel Distribution ES> Someone mentioned the other day that of the 800 odd cellular channels ES> available, only one sixth of these would be in use in a given area (at ES> least, per cell carrier). If I remember, it's done in groups called "A" through "G" and set up similar to a honeycomb. There are some documents in the Telecom Digest archives that explain it, I think, and if not, there are some books you can look for in a good technical bookstore or library. This stuff isn't secret, and that's what's so stupid about ... ES> Is it then possible to deduce from the frequency of a single ES> channel verified to be in use exactly which 100 or so channels ES> would be active? I am not sure. I think so, but the objective is to prevent the same channel being used in adjacent cells, so it may be possible. The documents I've glanced tell all this. I wasn't very interested at the time to bother with it. But how would you know that a particular channel is 'verified to be in use'? You wouldn't be doing anything such as (gasp) *scanning* any of the cellular frequencies would you? That's illegal. And we all know that none of the readers of this TELECOM Digest would ever do anything illegal like that, wouldn't we? ES> This would be useful since one could key in these frequencies ES> and 'scan' them instead of frequency searching. Err, next time you want to ask a question like this, I suggest you use the 'double blind anonymous posting service' from Finland as it might be inconvenient if some men in dark suits were watching for you. Oh, I'm sorry; you're concerned about someone *else* scanning those frequencies: you don't have to worry about eavesdropping; it's illegal and that will stop people, right? :) Paul Robinson -- TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM ------------------------------ From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) Subject: Re: The Definitive Word on TTL Fields Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 04:14:55 GMT Mark Boolootian wrote: > I would like to challenge you to produce a traceroute for me with 30 > hops in it (and no routing loops!). I could have done it back when NEARNET was off of JvNC; JvNC added about 5-10 hops to *any* outgoing connection. Add the T3 backbone, a few internal hops at each end-site, and, say, a few bounces through BARRnet, and you've got 30. Now, of course, I'm on Alternet, so I get really low hopcounts to everywhere, or so it seems ... your machine is 17 hops away, and that's actually a bit high (Alter -> T3 -> ESnet). Bet it would have approached 30 from a "backwater NEARNET" site back in the JvNC days. Christopher Davis * * ------------------------------ From: gmccomb@netcom.com (Glenn McComb) Subject: Re: PacBell IntraLATA Rate Ripoffs Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 04:20:58 GMT Sorry, I forgot to mention that the access is via 950+. If I use them for my 1+ carrier, I believe PacHell will still trap the intra-lata calls unless I use my 950+ access number. The bypass also has 800+ access. I've been using the 950+ access on my speed dial, and it doesn't seem to mind that I pass them 1 + xxx + xxx + xxxx, so I can use the "950" button + regular button to dial via Execuline, or I can use my regular speed dial button alone to dial via my 1+ carrier (MCI). Rigth now, I'm only setup with a "credit card" access; they aren't my primary carrier. So far, I've been happy with the quality, so I might change in the future. They also offer accounting codes, so MCI doesn't sound like such a good deal anymore (to me). Glenn A. McComb (408) 725-1448 ofc * 725-0222 fax | McComb Research PO Box 220 * Cupertino, CA 95015 | gmccomb @ netcom.com MHS: glenn @ mccomb | ------------------------------ From: msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) Subject: Re: Standard Dialing Plan Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada Date: Mon, 15 Feb 93 04:55:50 GMT > There's nothing more annoying than a telco switch that says "It is > not necessary to dial 1 and the area code for this number". If telco > knows what number is intended, why doesn't it just go ahead and > complete the call?! It doesn't know what number is intended. It knows what number you dialed. The message is a polite way of saying "You were about to reach a wrong number! But luckily we noticed that the number you dialed would be a local (or in-area) call, while you dialed in a manner requesting a long-distance (or out-of-area) call. Since everyone knows the extent of their local calling area (or area code), you must have been calling the wrong number. Please try again and dial the right number now." Obviously there are people for whom this trap is a disservice, but there are others for whom it's a service. Maybe it would be a good compromise if this trap was retained, but 011-1-npa-xxx-xxxx was allowed for all calls within the NANP, even local ones, with the charging as if you'd dialed them the usual way. Nobody's likely to dial 011-1 by accident, are they? Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com ------------------------------ From: denny@alisa.com (Bob Denny) Subject: Re: Running Out of Area Codes Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 05:39:18 GMT Organization: Alisa Systems, Inc. My kid tells me that it is "in" to have a pager, whether you're a drug dealer or not. Each of those pagers have their own seven-digit phone number, and you can buy 'em at the local stationery store. The service is something like $15/mo. No wonder phone numbers are disappearing so fast!!! Robert B. Denny voice: (818) 792-9474 Alisa Systems, Inc. fax: (818) 792-4068 Pasadena, CA (denny@alisa.com, ..uunet!alisa.com!denny) [Moderator's Note: In the Chicago Public Schools, pagers are considered verbotin and are confiscated from students. This is part of the War on Drugs. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 23:13:07 -0500 (EST) From: Paul Robinson Subject: Graybar Hotel, Sorry. I wrote: > Until it was torn down a few years ago, the post office would forward > mail addressed to the "Graybar Hotel" to the Los Angeles County Jail. TELECOM Moderator queried: > [Moderator's Note: Did they tear down the post office, or the County > Jail? PAT] Sorry, the info was from an article about the end of the Graybar Hotel as the new County Jail was finished and the old 'Graybar Hotel' was torn down. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #97 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06343; 15 Feb 93 14:12 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20962 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 15 Feb 1993 11:32:30 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08469 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 15 Feb 1993 11:32:00 -0600 Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 11:32:00 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302151732.AA08469@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #98 TELECOM Digest Mon, 15 Feb 93 11:32:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 98 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Programs to Send Messages to Pagers Using IXO Protocol (TELECOM Moderator) Curious Local Exchange Problem (Daniel Burstein) Internet Access from Qatar? Anyone? (Bindy P. James) Searching For PPP Pointer RFC (Sam Houston) Procedure to Use 800-321-0ATT? (Curtis E. Reid) Re: Modems For LEGAL Use in Germany (Christian Weisgerber) Re: Modems For LEGAL Use in Germany (Wolfgang Zenker) Re: Second Line Non-Pub/Unlisted? (Daniel Burstein) Re: Pacific Bell, Caller ID, and PRIVATE (Steven H. Lichter) Re: GTE On the "Move" (Steven H. Lichter) Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State (Jack Decker) Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones (Ken Thompson) Re: Standard Dialing Plan (Al Varney) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 10:41:16 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Programs to Send Messages to Pagers Using IXO Protocol Monty Solomon has kindly provided the archives with a large file of programs which can be executed on your computer if you send a lot of alphanumeric messages to pagers. This file should complement the discussion going on here over the weekend regarding IXO protocol. Look for it in the Telecom Archives, using anonymous ftp lcs.mit.edu under the title 'ixo.program.scripts' Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: dannyb@Panix.Com (Daniel Burstein) Subject: Curious Local Exchange Problem Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 11:13:30 GMT All these postings about impossible phone problems reminded me of an episode I sufferred through about three years ago. At the time, I had a single phone in the 212-663 exchange. One day, when I started to dial a phone number, I got an IMMEDiATE busy after the first digit. On further experimentation, I discoverd that I only the numbers "6" and "8" would get through the first digit - all others, INCLUDING "0" and "9" (as in "911") immediately busied out. After a bit of thought and experimentation, I realized that I could only dial out to phone numbers in my physical central office (which was composed of three different numerical exchanges). Since these exchanges were 663, 666, and 865, any first digit other than 6 or 8, and then any second other than 6, etc., etc. got me a busy. Oh, yes, I couldn't call repair service either (611). As soon as I hit the secoond digit ("1") whoops, there went the busy. I -could-, however, make calls to any number in the three exchanges. So what I did: I called one of the telco test numbers in my exchange (xxx-99xx). I got a semi-literate person, and explaiend to them that I needed a call back from repair service. So far so good. BUT, for the next four or five days guess what happened. The techies would get a very abridged trouble report (i.e. unable to dial out), would grab my line in the CO, get a dial tone, call out to one of their test numbers (which, of course, was in the same exchange), and clear out the trouble report. FINALLY, after a LOT of screaming, ranting and raving (and being told, of course, that this whole problem was IMPOSSIBLE), I got a real techie to call back. He actually listened, and (after a bit of prodding) got someone to look up the routing and authorization tables assigned to my account. Yep, someone, somehow, had put that most curious restriction on my service. It was fixed shortly afterwards, but NY Tel still claims that this sort of thing just can't be done. Hmm, sounds like it would be an EXCELLENT service offering: A restriction on your line to ONLY let the person make calls to the CO itself (let's add in a "911" option for safety. dannyb@panix.com [Moderator's Note: The phones for inmate use at the Cook County Jail have many restrictions on them. The curious part of it to me is that they are all on the 312-890 centrex serving the entire circuit court and correctional center complex at 28th and California Avenues here. But the inmate phones can receive incoming calls only from another extension on the centrex (no incoming calls from outside the premises); they cannot call other extensions on the centrex; they can only make zero-plus calls on a collect basis anywhere. No third number billing, no credit card billing, no 700/800/900 numbers, etc. They cannot dial 411, 611 or 911. They cannot dial the operator inside or outside. All calls from those phones must be of the form 0 + AC + 7D, even for the local calling area. The IBT operator knows the calls are from the jail and announces them in this way, "I have a collect call from , an inmate at the Cook County Jail, will you accept charges?" None of the automated operator service on these lines. PAT] ------------------------------ From: bpj2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (BINOY P JAMES) Subject: Internet Access from Qatar? Anyone? Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 15:34:50 GMT Organization: Lehigh University Anybody know if I could access Internet from Qatar, in the Middle East? How about Bitnet at least? I'm heading back in a few months and I really want to stay on Internet and send e-mail to folks back in the States. Thanks in advance. Binoy P. James bpj2@ns3.cc.lehigh.edu ------------------------------ From: houston@eso.mc.xerox.com (Sam) Subject: Searching For PPP Pointer RFC Reply-To: houston@eso.mc.xerox.com Organization: Xerox Corporation, Webster NY Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 16:39:49 GMT Does anyone know if an RFC has been published for Point to Point Protocol, the updated synchronous/asynchronous SLIP? Thanks in advance. "sam" houston Xerox, Rochester, N.Y. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Feb 1993 09:32:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Curtis E. Reid Subject: Procedure to use 800-321-0ATT Can someone give us the procedure for using the AT&T's Switch at 800/321-0288? I'd like to know what steps is required to make the call go through? Thanks! Curtis E. Reid CER2520@ritvax.isc.rit.edu Rochester Institute of Technology/NTID REID@DECUS.org (DECUS) P.O. Box 9887 716.475.6089 TDD/TT 475.6895 Voice Rochester, NY 14623-0887 U.S.A. 716.475.6500 Fax (Business Use Only) [Moderator's Note: After dialing 800-321-0288, you hear the AT&T tones, and the robot operator announces, "AT&T ... please enter the number you are calling, or zero for an operator." After entering the number you are asked to enter your card number. It is basically the same as any other credit card call. Persons who have experiences with this are requested to write. PAT] ------------------------------ Organization: My Individual Private Site Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 01:58:06 +0100 From: naddy@mips.ruessel.sub.org (Christian Weisgerber) Reply-To: naddy@mips.ruessel.sub.org Subject: Re: Modems For LEGAL Use in Germany Steve Pershing writes: > ZyXEL modems are approved for use in Germany, and are sold there. We Indeed, ZyXEL modems are sold over here and actually they've become rather popular. However, they are NOT APPROVED by any means. I'm very concerned about the fact that a commercial vendor of these modems provides such blatant disinformation. Christian "naddy" Weisgerber, Germany naddy@mips.ruessel.sub.org ------------------------------ From: wolfgang@lyxys.ka.sub.org (Wolfgang Zenker) Subject: Re: Modems For LEGAL Use in Germany Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 12:54:54 +0100 sp@questor.org (Steve Pershing) writes: > ZyXEL modems are approved for use in Germany, and are sold there. We > will also sell them to almost anyone anywhere in the world, at about a > 10% profit. (The profit goes to support the free aspects of the > Questor site.) Sorry, but ZyXEL modems are NOT approved by the German BZT. But they work very reliable on the German phone system and almost nobody cares about an approval anymore. Wolfgang ------------------------------ From: dannyb@Panix.Com (Daniel Burstein) Subject: Re: Second Line Non-Pub/Unlisted? Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 10:44:47 GMT In ddl@burrhus.harvard.edu (Dan Lanciani) writes: > I recently ordered a second line in my name and at the same > address as my existing line. For some reason I thought one could get > non-published or unlisted (I forget) status at no extra charge for > each line beyond the first. Did I imagine this? The business office > was quite certain that I would have to pay extra. I suppose the > answer is specific to NET land ... In New York, if you order it as a SECOND (i.e., if busy then transfer) line on the MAIN account, then it is not listed. For example, think of your local dry cleaner - hoe many of phone numbers do they have listed? And ... for good measure, you DON't have to put in the "switch when busy"; (technically this is called a "hunt group"). dannyb@panix.com ------------------------------ From: co057@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steven H. Lichter) Subject: Re: Pacific Bell, Caller ID, and PRIVATE Date: 15 Feb 1993 14:36:56 GMT Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA) I would guess that if the return call is Toll or L/D it would appear as would any other one of that type. I had thought that PacBell was not even going offer those two services as they felt they could not make any money on it. Sure hope the Assembly and State Senate get going on those bills that over rule the PUC and I think the PUC should have the people vote on there appointments as we do for the State Surpreme Court, makes them more to what we want. Steven H. Lichter GTE Calif COEI ------------------------------ From: co057@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steven H. Lichter) Subject: Re: GTE On the "Move" Date: 15 Feb 1993 14:40:31 GMT Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA) There is a big shakeup in Telops. Some of it is good, but some will cause problems later on. But that is just my view as a 25+ year GTE employee who will have to try and do my job after the dust settles. Steven H. Lichter GTE Calif COEI ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Feb 93 10:12:34 EST From: jack.decker@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org (Jack Decker) Subject: Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State In message , rlm@indigo2.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) wrote: > kgdykes@Thinkage.On.CA (Ken Dykes) writes: >> Recently I received a call from the Glendale area of Los Angeles. I >> live in southern Ontario CANADA. My Caller-ID box instead of showing >> out-of-area showed PRIVACY. The call to me was made (and answered) >> twice in the same night; both times PRIVACY ... some sort of >> call-blocking was enabled by PacBell. > Which probably means that the switch was SS7-connected, but thanks to > the California Public fUtilities Commission, EVERYBODY's phone number > will show up as PRIVACY-enabled. After all, privacy is the same thing > as anonymity ... NOT! >> PacBell is being far too kind to the zealots :-) > It's not Pac*Hell's fault, really. I think I would take issue with both of these statements. First of all, it would seem that Pac*Bell would have the choice of not sending the number at all, rather than sending the number with a "privacy" flag attached. If Caller ID is not being offered in California, then there is no reason they should be sending the number out of state, particularly when they're sending it with the "private" flag, which means that Caller ID subscribers can't read it anyway. And in the second place, as I recall the discussion here, the California PUC did NOT say that Pac*Bell could not offer Caller ID. Rather, they imposed what I feel were quite reasonable restrictions to help protect the privacy of those who might not realize that their number was being made available to all and sundry. In particular, they said that per-line blocking was to be the default for anyone who is paying for an unlisted number. Is that so unreasonable? I think not ... after all, if a person is paying an extra monthly charge to keep their number from appearing in the directory, or being given out by directory asistance, then it's not unreasonable to assume that they are concerned enough about protecting the privacy of their phone number that they don't want it automatically going out to anyone who calls. Yet to hear Pac*Bell tell it, this was sufficient justification for NOT offering Caller ID. I'll tell you what, if I were on the California PUC and I were getting complaints about the lack of availability of Caller ID, I wouldn't cave in quite yet ... instead, I'd tell Pac*Bell "Don't even THINK about coming to us for another rate increase until you have at least test-marketed Caller ID under the terms we set forth!" I'd be real surprised if Pac*Bell could PROVE that there is strong customer resistance to Caller ID simply because potential users can't get unlisted numbers automatically. The fact remains that the California PUC set forth terms under which Caller ID could be offered, and Pac*Bell said, in effect, "I don't like your rules so I'm going to take my ball and go home!" Apparently the Caller ID software is already installed, so all they have to do is turn it on, yet apparently they'd rather do without the extra income from Caller ID than to even try it the way the PUC allowed it. That, to me, seems like a case of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. So if there is fault to be found, I think it rests SQUARELY on the shoulders of Pac*Bell. And yes, I realize that a few readers of this conference don't like the idea of Caller ID blocking at all, but some of us do see incoming telephone calls as (generally speaking) more of an intrusion than a benefit, particularly on our home phone lines, and would like to retain some control over who gets our phone number. And, as has been pointed out numerous times here, there are ways other than Caller ID to catch harassment callers (e.g. "Call Trace"). (Which brings up one other thought ... why don't states pass laws requiring harassment callers to compensate their victims and/or the telco for the actual costs involved in trapping and tracing them? It doesn't really seem fair that the VICTIM should have to pay for the trace feature, which seems to be the primary objection to the use of Call Trace ... maybe this one needs some more thought at the legislative level, so that the perpetrator pays, not the victim!). Jack Decker | Internet: jack.decker@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org | Fidonet: 1:154/8 ------------------------------ From: Ken Thompson Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones Date: 15 Feb 93 15:22:02 GMT Organization: NCR Corporation Wichita, KS This ruling appears to make even cell phones illegal. They scan the phone frequencies. It also will effect many amateur UHF receivers and transcievers. Our ability to experiment with transverters will be hindered too. Ken Thompson N0ITL NCR Corp. Peripheral Products Division Disk Array Development 3718 N. Rock Road Wichita KS 67226 (316)636-8783 Ken.Thompson@wichitaks.ncr.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Feb 93 11:18:32 CST From: varney@ihlpl.att.com Subject: Re: Standard Dialing Plan Organization: AT&T In article msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) writes: >> There's nothing more annoying than a telco switch that says "It is >> not necessary to dial 1 and the area code for this number". If telco >> knows what number is intended, why doesn't it just go ahead and >> complete the call?! > It doesn't know what number is intended. It knows what number you > dialed. Sorry, I disagree. How can you dial 1 + ten-digits and not have intended to dial a ten-digit number. How often do people really dial all ten digits and intend to only dial seven digits? And if they do dial ten digits by mistake, how often was the incorrect NPA dialed? > The message is a polite way of saying "You were about to reach a wrong > number! But luckily we noticed that the number you dialed would be a > local (or in-area) call, while you dialed in a manner requesting a > long-distance (or out-of-area) call. Since everyone knows the extent > of their local calling area (or area code), you must have been calling > the wrong number. Please try again and dial the right number now." Everyone doesn't know this info -- that's why UNIVERSAL ten-digit dialing is a favor for them, and almost no inconvenience to others. > Obviously there are people for whom this trap is a disservice, but > there are others for whom it's a service. Please name an instance of someone grateful to receive that intercept ... > Maybe it would be a good compromise if this trap was retained, but > 011-1-npa-xxx-xxxx was allowed for all calls within the NANP, even > local ones, with the charging as if you'd dialed them the usual way. > Nobody's likely to dial 011-1 by accident, are they? Some switches would have problems not routing such calls to an IXC, and they (and you) might not prefer the costs if the destination is fairly local to the caller. Other switches would have problems routing such a call to a local line without routing via a tandem, which adds expense to the TELCO. Why not just allow 1 + ten-digit regardless of NPA?? That's my humble opinion. Here's Bellcore's: (From "North American Numbering Plan Administrator's Proposal On The Future of Numbering In World Zone 1", Jan. 6, 1992 (draft for comment)) "... Failure to place a call in the appropriate format is now seen as a cause for call rejection in areas using toll alerting [that's "1+ means toll" areas -- ALV]. It follows that 7-digit dialing will be encountered both with and without toll alerting. Numbering planners have long considered it good practice for switches to accept and attempt to complete any call originated with a valid 10-digit address, INCLUDING HOME NPA CALLS FOR WHICH 7-DIGIT DIALING COULD SUFFICE. [Caps mine -- ALV]" Again, who is hurt by removal of this announcement? Note that the announcement is still appropriate for other circumstances, such as 1 + seven-digit where inappropriate. Al Varney - just my opinion, of course ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #98 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09114; 16 Feb 93 3:59 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15699 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 16 Feb 1993 01:32:47 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20428 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 16 Feb 1993 01:32:01 -0600 Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1993 01:32:01 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302160732.AA20428@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #99 TELECOM Digest Tue, 16 Feb 93 01:32:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 99 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cellular Phones Power Control (Gregory Youngblood) Re: Cellular Phones Power Control (Wilson Mohr) Re: PacBell IntraLATA Rate Ripoffs (Steve Forrette) Re: Pacific Bell, Caller ID, and PRIVATE (John Higdon) California Caller ID Blocking (Steve Forrette) Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State (David G. Lewis) Re: Hilton Hotel Telephone Surcharge (Steve Forrette) Re: Hilton Hotel Telephone Surcharge (Darren Ingram) Re: DS0 Portion of a T1 (Al Varney) Re: DS0 Portion of a T1 (Fred Goldstein) Re: Rochester Tel Wants to Split (olsen@xn.ll.mit.edu) Re: Bell Canada Charging For 411 (Charles Stephens) Re: Second Line Non-Pub/Unlisted? (Russ Kepler) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Cellular Phones Power Control From: tcscs!zeta@src.honeywell.com (Gregory Youngblood) Reply-To: zeta%tcscs@src.honeywell.com Date: Mon, 15 Feb 93 11:11:34 CST Organization: TCS Consulting Services mohr@orange.rtsg.mot.com (Wilson Mohr) writes: > This is true in most "small" systems. "small" meaning they have not > got a large enough subscriber penetration to necessitate a system that > utilizes frequency reuse. This is only one reason. I worked in several systems and frequently had to disable cell sites power control features. Why? Because of terrain and foilage conditions which changed during the year resulting in a large number of dropped calls. By disabling this we were able to get rid of that problem. We had to disable the power stepping in both directions. While this wasn't the solution of choice, it worked, and we were fortunate in that we didn't have to worry about reuse. TCS Consulting Services P.O. Box 600008 St. Paul, MN 55106-0008 Mail-server requests to: mail-server%tcscs@idss.nwa.com zeta%tcscs@src.honeywell.com or zeta%tcscs@idss.nwa.com ...!srcsip!tcscs!zeta or ..!guppy!tcscs!zeta ------------------------------ From: mohr@orange.rtsg.mot.com (Wilson Mohr) Date: 15 Feb 93 18:59:25 GMT Subject: Re: Cellular Phones Power Control mohr@orange.rtsg.mot.com (Wilson Mohr) irresponsibly writes: > Portables by definition always run at (full) .6W... Ooops. I have been corrected by my colleagues. That was the particular implementation at a place I used to work. For correct information please consult other postings in this group. Thanks! ------------------------------ From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: PacBell IntraLATA Rate Ripoffs Date: 15 Feb 1993 18:53:54 GMT Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA In article John Higdon writes: > But what is the mechanism for offering intraLATA bypass? This CANNOT, > repeat CANNOT be done via FGD ("1+" or "10XXX" dialing). Pac*Bell will > not complete the call in this manner. This IS possible for an enterprising long distance carrier to implement. They can take their version of the 700 number space and use it for this purpose. I believe there were stories of a company in Illinois that offered this service. Whenever you want to dial a long distance intra-LATA call that your LEC won't give to a long distance carrier, you dial it as 1 + 700 + number. The carrier knows that when it receives a call to the 700 NPA, the caller really means an intra-LATA call within their own area code. I guess this would only work well in places where the local LATA is in a single area code (which is the case for area code 916 where Execuline is located). You could even have a 'real' carrier as your PIC, then access the other carrier via 10XXX for just intra-LATA toll calls. I wonder why this not more widespread. Isn't AT&T the only carrier that is using 700 for another useful purpose? Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Feb 93 14:56 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Pacific Bell, Caller ID, and PRIVATE co057@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steven H. Lichter) writes: > I would guess that if the return call is Toll or L/D it would appear > as would any other one of that type. Pacific Bell has stated that a return call that is toll will appear on the bill with the last four digits converted to 'X's. Interestingly enough, that is very useful information. If I suspect that some known jerk in Hayward is calling me and I use "call return" on him and then the bill shows up with the Hayward prefix of this person, it would be strong circumstantial evidence of evil-doing. Imagine if I actually found out who was annoying me on the telephone. It drives the activists crazy to think that might be possible! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 [Moderator's Note: If they blocked out the number with XXXX on my bill, I would persist that since I was paying for the call, I was entitled to know the number; then not pay for it until they revealed it. I wonder how many write-offs they will tolerate from people who take this stance regularly? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Feb 93 22:07:41 -0800 From: Steve Forrette Subject: California Caller ID Blocking Regarding the Caller ID situation in California, I wanted to summarize what I've seen in the past few Digest issues and offer some observations. Apparently Pacific Bell is now tagging all calls that leave CA via an SS7- connected IXC as "private" so that call recipients in other states see "private" on their Caller ID screens. Although the CPUC has no jurisdiction to enforce this, Pacific Bell has apparently done this in order to avoid a big stink that our Socially Responsible friends would surely raise. In any event, this creates a problem for those who do not receive PRIVATE calls, either by subscribing to block blocking, or by not answering calls that show up as PRIVATE on the Caller ID display. This means that nobody from California can call them (at least using an IXC that uses SS7 interfaces to the LEC on each end of the call). Furthermore, it is not a good solution for Pacific Bell to just not include the information, as this would prevent the other CLASS features (such as Call Trace, Call Return, Call Screening, Selective Call Forwarding, etc) from functioning. And there currently is no provision in the SS7 protocol to deliver the number with a 'partial blocking' option to allow the NPA and possibly the prefix to be displayed, but not the whole number. Here are some technological solutions to the problem that I've thought of (these are of course secondary to the ideal solution of Caller ID being offered in California and/or Pacific Bell allowing out-of-state delivery): - Recipients could tell California callers in advance to call them on a non-SS7 long distance carrier so that the call always shows as OUT OF AREA. Then the recipient can still protect their privacy by not answering PRIVATE calls from the people who really want to call anonymously. A calling card call or operator assisted call is another option ("Gee, I just can't get through when I dial myself, can you try?") - Recipients could subscribe to Priority Ringing and add their frequent callers to the priority list. Then, if a call comes in as PRIVATE, but using the priority cadence, they recipient knows that it is someone they really want to talk to. - Callers from California could possibly use the unblocking code and prepend calls with *67 to turn ON number delivery, when they call an out-of-state person who refuses anonymous calls. Is this allowed? I know that for over a year Pacific Bell has accepted the *67 dialing code, even though it really didn't do anything. Have all California lines now been defaulted to "per-line blocking with per-call unblocking?" If so, this would be a much better interim solution that the above two choices. Can someone in California team up with a Caller ID subsciber to test this? These are just some thoughts from someone who thinks everyone should be able to decide privacy issues for themselves, either by using Caller ID for incoming calls, or blocking for outgoing calls, without having an outside force or special interest group make the decisions for them. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) Subject: Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State Organization: AT&T Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 21:39:57 GMT In article kgdykes@Thinkage.On.CA (Ken Dykes) writes: > In Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 76, Message 10 of 16: >> live in southern Ontario CANADA. My Caller-ID box instead of showing >> out-of-area showed PRIVACY. The call to me was made (and answered) >> twice in the same night; both times PRIVACY ... some sort of >> call-blocking was enabled by PacBell. > Also, *can* California residents enter the blocking code even though > Caller-ID as a service doesnt exist? Seems unlikely. > [Moderator's Note: Yes, people in California -- at least in the Bay > Area and San Jose -- *can* enter the privacy *67 code. Tests have been > done to demonstrate this. JH has done it, and gets the three spurts of > tone in response, for whatever good it does. "For whatever good it does" indeed; the confirmation tone doesn't *necessarily* mean that the request has been acted upon, although it may. > And get this: I've gotten calls from the Bay Area which show up on > my display as 'outside' one time, and 'private' the next ... from the > same caller! PacBell is doing something with the ID, that's for sure. > *What* they are doing is not clear yet. The behavior above is consistent with the hypothesis that PacBell is indicating "presentation restricted" on all calls going to an IXC via SS7. It is possible for two consecutive calls from the same calling station to the same called station to take different routes through the network. For one thing, the caller may have indicated a different IXC, and the IXCs may be at different stages in SS7 Network Interconnect deployment. If the same IXC is used, different paths may have been used from the EO to an Access Tandem due to overflow off a "High Use" group to an alternate trunk group, where the signaling may be different on the two TGs (SS7 in one case, MF in the other). Or, one call may direct route to the IXC from the End Office via MF trunks, and the other may route from the EO to an AT via SS7 trunks and from the AT to the IXC via SS7 NI trunks, again because of overflow. Or the SS7 NI trunks may be at the EO, and the MF signaling may be on the EO/AT trunks. Even if all calls from a given EO to a given IXC are directly routed, not all trunk groups will be cut over to SS7 at the same time, so one call may be routed over an SS7 signaled trunk and another call routed over an MF signaled trunk. In any of these cases, the call with end-to-end SS7 will result in "Private" being displayed, and the call with an MF signaled trunk somewhere in the path will result in "Out of area" being displayed. Disclaimer: I don't work on NI deployment. David G Lewis AT&T Bell Laboratories david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!goofy!deej Switching & ISDN Implementation ------------------------------ From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: Hilton Hotel Telephone Surcharge Date: 15 Feb 1993 18:32:38 GMT Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA I've found an effective way to get around the policy at hotels which charge a surcharge for 800 'calling card' access numbers, but not for 'regular' 800 numbers: get a calling card from one of the 'third banana' carriers. I have one from ITT/Metromedia which I use in various special circumstances, and I have yet to find a hotel which recognized its 800 number as a 'calling card' 800 number. The card also has no per-call surcharge of its own, so I can place a short long distance call from a hotel without paying a king's ransom. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Feb 93 07:48:12 GMT From: newsdesk@dims.demon.co.uk (Darren Ingram) Subject: Re: Hilton Hotel Telephone Surcharge At the Hilton National hotel in Wembley, North London, the in-room phones charged 30 pence (100p=$1.43) per charging unit, which is the same as a standard 5 pence (well 4.9x pence) BT charge unit. Darren DIMS (newsdesk mailbox)(newsdesk@dims.demon.co.uk) - Views expressed do - 184 Brookside Avenue, Whoberley, Coventry CV5 8AD UK - not automatically - Tel:+44 203 717 417/Fax:+44 203 717 418/Tlx 94026650 - represent those of - *News, features, PR, consultancy & network services* - DIMS or its clients - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Feb 93 23:46:20 CST From: varney@ihlpl.att.com Subject: Re: DS0 Portion of a T1 Organization: AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL In article ddssuprs!fred@uunet.UU.NET (Fred R Stearns) writes: > How is the A/D and D/A conversion performed to create the digital data > from and analog voice circuit to the 1/24 digital circuits of a T1 > service? Is it CVSD, or seven-bit samples at 8KHz, or something else? You need a reference on mu-law or A-law PCM encoding, or something that explains analog-digital CODECs (coder/decoders). Try almost any good book on digital transmission systems. CCITT recommendation G.711 covers A-law and mu-law encoding (aka "the Blue Books"). {Proceedings of IEEE}, Vol. 62, May 1974 contains an article called "Digital coding of speech waveforms: PCM, DPCM and DM quantizers". Or try the horses mouth: "The T1 Carrier System", {Bell System Technical Journal}, Vol. 44, No. 7, Sept. 1965. Very briefly, a CODEC works through the following steps: a) a low-pass FILTER limits the signal to about 3.3kHz and virtually no signal > 4kHz (per Nyquist). b) a SAMPLER takes a "snapshot" of the instantaneous voltage 8000 times per second. c) while the SAMPLER holds a particular "snapshot", a QUANTIZER converts the analog voltage to a digital representation of the measured voltage, a value between 0 and N ( >256 values). d) The digital representation is mapped by an ENCODER into one of 256 values (some values may not be used). This 8-bit value is one channel of a DS1/T1 signal. Since the samples are at 8000/second and are 8-bit units, you get 64000 bits/second for each voice channel. Various transmission systems can alter the low bit in each 6th sample for their own use (bit robbing), thus giving "almost 8-bit voice". When these signals run through various switches, more samples can be "robbed" as they are switched onto other transmission facilities. If you are VERY un-lucky, you can get an effective rate of 7 bits/sample. The A-law and mu-law encodings are just different forms of converting various points of input voltage into a non-linear digital representation. Both use a multi-segment approximation to a logarithmic curve, so that small variations of small voltage levels receive different representations, and larger variations of larger voltage levels are needed before the sample is assigned a new value. This is called "companding", and attempts to offer a constant signal/distortion ratio for normal speech signals. The receiving end, a DECODER converts the 8-bit values back to their original "snapshot" values and then uses a low-pass "reconstruction" filter to convert (almost) back to the analog signal. Real implementations can interchange steps c) and d), using a non-linear analog COMPRESSOR to modify the "snapshots" into the non-linear "companding" curve and then a linear QUANTIZER. Al Varney ------------------------------ From: goldstein@carafe.dnet.dec.com (Fred Goldstein [k1io; FN42jk]) Subject: Re: DS0 Portion of a T1 Reply-To: goldstein@carafe.dnet.dec.com (Fred Goldstein [k1io; FN42jk]) Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 21:22:53 GMT In article , ddssuprs!fred@uunet.UU.NET (Fred R Stearns) writes: > How is the A/D and D/A conversion performed to create the digital data > from and analog voice circuit to the 1/24 digital circuits of a T1 > service? Is it CVSD, or seven-bit samples at 8KHz, or something else? The standard method is Pulse Code Modulation (PCM), with 8000 samples per second and 8 bits transmitted per sample. In North America, the low order bit is sometimes "robbed" for signaling, (1/6 of the time) which limits data to 56 kbps. In North America, a 12-bit linear sample is compressed to 8 bits via a formula called mu-255 (note News won't pass Greek letters), while Europe compresses it using a formula called "A law". Europe also inverts alternate bits. So the two flavors of PCM are incompatible. Of course, some long-haul transmission systems use lower bit rate audio, like ADPCM. Fred R. Goldstein goldstein@carafe.tay2.dec.com k1io or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice:+1 508 952 3274 Standard Disclaimer: Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Feb 93 13:13:04 EST From: olsen@xn.ll.mit.edu Subject: Re: Rochester Tel Wants to Split Eli.Mantel@lambada.oit.unc.edu writes: > Whereas regulation provides at least some tie-in between the cost of > providing service and the pricing of that service, the proposed > solution will most likely result in offerings that tie prices to a > perception of value. But regulation is always imperfect, and will allow value-based pricing to some extent. A monopoly will always push for higher (value-based) prices, and regulators will invariably allow some such pricing. If the regulators are one step removed from setting the actual retail phone rates, they may be in a better (political) position to set cost-based rates for the 'wholesale' services the regulated network vendor will provide. If there is indeed cost-based pricing for the regulated network services, and if there is substantial competition among retail telephone service providers, then value-based pricing cannot prevail. As much as a provider would like to impose value-based pricing, it would be quickly undercut by its competitors if it attempted such a scheme. > Simply put, for the residential user, flat-rate telephone service is > likely to be priced substantially higher than it is now, because > there will be some significant portion of customers for whom > flat-rate service will still be a better *value*, even at a much > higher price. Only if the current flat-rate service is now priced below cost. A provider could get away with pricing substantially above cost only if: - there isn't any viable competition, or - it provides added value that its competitors do not. Hopefully, the restructuring can be done so that a healthy competition among telephone service providers ensues. If a provider can give such valuable service that customers are willing to pay extra, I say: Hurrah! Also, a hotly competitive environment will be more likely to produce rational pricing schemes, such as the (peak-hour measured)/(off-hour flat-rate) scheme which has been mentioned here before. I venture to guess that such a scheme might be cheaper than the current residential flat-rate plans. If properly structured, the Rochester Tel transformation could be a model for the rest of the country, and could usher in an era of plummeting local phone rates, similar to the precipitous fall in long-distance rates we have seen in the past decade. (Indeed, it might produce still lower long-distance rates: a competitive local telephone service provider might rebate some of its share of the long-distance access charge, to attract more subscribers.) ------------------------------ From: cfs@cowpas.atl.ga.us (Charles Stephens) Subject: Re: Bell Canada Charging For 411 Organization: COW Pastures Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 17:22:00 GMT Tony Pelliccio (PJJ125@URIACC.URI.EDU) wrote: > In most parts of the US it's a fact of life. You're allowed roughly > five free calls, and then after that it's around 25 cents a pop. > Besides, that's why you get a directory every year ... so YOU can look > it up. Now they've given you an incentive. :) Well Southern Bell only gives you three freebies before they charge you US$.30!!! But, with more phone lines you get more free DA calls. With my three phone lines, I get a total of nine free DA calls (of course I usually make about 15-20 calls a billing cycle). I would use the phone book, but not only are they inaccurate, they get destroyed pretty quick. Charles Stephens cfs@cowpas.atl.ga.us ------------------------------ From: russ@bbx.basis.com (Russ Kepler) Subject: Re: Second Line Non-Pub/Unlisted? Date: 15 Feb 93 18:28:09 GMT Organization: BASIS International, Ltd., Albuquerque NM USA In article barnett@zeppelin.convex.com (Paul Barnett) writes: > A current resident of Mpls-St. Paul has informed me that US West is > not currently charging him for a non-published second line. I wonder > if this was always the case, and it was a matter of convincing whoever > answered your call to customer service that day. When I was told that I'd have to pay for not listing the modem line to my house I simply started musing about possible names: "Freddy Phudpucker", "Telco Ripoff", "Ma Bellsux" etc. The service folks got the idea, and simply gave me the line unpublished. It could be that they were tired of me already -- it had been a tiresome series of their diconnecting one of two lines, one with a forward to the new, etc. I got on a first name basis with some of the service reps ... The modem line still has some trouble in the billing system -- I pay for the second line on my regular bill but still get occasional calls from the telco -- one asked where the LD was to be billed, and another asked where the line itself was billed. They were lucky that I even answered the line -- the modem doesn't and U usually don't, but after 40-50 rings I'll answer and that about how long it took. I have a suspicion that they have some sort of rule that allows them to reject an obscene name, but they'd have some real trouble rejecting a line that simply insulted their "service". Russ Kepler, Basis International Ltd. russ@bbx.basis.com phone: 505-345-5232 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #99 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11507; 16 Feb 93 5:10 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29323 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 16 Feb 1993 02:40:13 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04006 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 16 Feb 1993 02:39:26 -0600 Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1993 02:39:26 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302160839.AA04006@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #100 TELECOM Digest Tue, 16 Feb 93 02:39:20 CST Volume 13 : Issue 100 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Searching For PPP Pointer RFC (Paul Robinson) Re: AT&T Are You Listening? (David G. Lewis) Re: Strange Long Distance Problem (Carl Oppedahl) Re: Standard Dialing Plan (Garrett Wollman) Re: What Would Be Required to Compile 'Secret #' FAQ? (lvc@cbvox1.att.com) Re: Procedure to use 800-321-0ATT (Ben Cox) Re: What Could Cause Jitter in a Voice Channel (Al Varney) Re: What Number do I Dial From My Phone to Get My Phone to Ring? (Oppedahl) Re: Sharing One FAX Card Among Several Voice Lines (Mark James) Re: Internet Access From Qatar? Anyone? (Carl Oppedahl) Internet Access Wanted in Cedar Rapids, IA (Dave Fox) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 23:16:08 -0500 (EST) From: Paul Robinson Reply-To: Paul Robinson Subject: Re: Searching For PPP Pointer RFC In Telecom Digest 13-98 houston@eso.mc.xerox.com (Sam) wrote: > Does anyone know if an RFC has been published for Point to Point > Protocol, the updated synchronous/asynchronous SLIP? I got these from the copy of the RFC index I downloaded from NIC.DDN.MIL two days ago. Using a text editor, I looked up 'PPP' and 'point-to-point': 1378 The PPP AppleTalk Control Protocol (ATCP). 1992 November 1377 The PPP OSI Network Layer Control Protocol (OSINLCP). 1992 November 1376 The PPP DECnet Phase IV Control Protocol (DNCP). 1992 November 1333 PPP link quality monitoring. 1992 May 1332 PPP Internet Protocol Control Protocol (IPCP). 1992 May 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) for the transmission of multi-protocol datagrams over point-to-point links. 1992 May 1220 Point-to-Point Protocol extensions for bridging. 1991 April The following are all obsoleted by the above, but you may want to look at them: 1172 Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) initial configuration options. 1171 Point-to-Point Protocol for the transmission of multi-protocol datagrams over Point-to-Point links. 1134 Point-to-Point Protocol: A proposal for multi-protocol transmission of datagrams over Point-to-Point links. Anyone who will ever use the Internet RFCs should have a copy of the index. It is revised as new RFCs are issued. There is also a mailing list to receive notification when new RFCs are issued. The index (rfc-index.txt) and the RFCs (rfcxxxx.txt) can be obtained by anonymous ftp from NIC.DDN.MIL in subdirectory 'rfc'. To get it, or any of the RFCs, you send a message to: mail-server@nisc.sri.com with the following text: send rfc-index.txt send rfc1378.txt send rfc1377.txt etc. For those without Internet mail access, many of the Internet RFCs have been stored by me and others on a BBS called 'Brodmann's Place' at +1 301-843-5732 All of the above RFCs were either there before or have been uploaded before this message was posted. Paul Robinson -- TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM [Moderator's Note: My thanks also to Steven L. Johnson for supplying identical information from the index. PAT] ------------------------------ From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) Subject: Re: AT&T Are You Listening? Organization: AT&T Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 22:20:48 GMT In article jack.decker@f8.n154.z1. fidonet.org (Jack Decker) writes: > ... in many cases if you are going to have trouble on a call, the > trouble is most likely to be in the local telco's lines from their > point-of-presence (of which there is often only one per LATA) to their > local exchange, and ALL the carriers use those same lines to complete > calls. Not necessarily. Assume, for the moment, that all three major IXCs (heck, let's add WilTel, too -- the four largest IXCs) have 100% fiber optic transmission facilities. (Not true, but let's assume.) Therefore, differences in transmission quality can only come from three places: 1. The local loop from the premises to the End Office; 2. The LEC interoffice plant from the End Office to the Access Tandem, if any; 3. The (LEC-owned, IXC-purchased) access plant from the EO/AT to the IXC switch. The first, the loop plant, is going to be the same regardless of the IXC. However, other LEC facilities may differ depending on the IXC selected, *not* solely on the random chance of which trunk group is selected for routing on a given call. First, exchange access arrangements differ among IXCs. AT&T has a deep deployment of direct connection to the Equal Access End Office. MCI, Sprint, WilTel, and other IXCs have comparatively little connection to EAEOs, and concentrate most of their traffic through an IXC. (I use the word "comparitively" because I don't know the absolute magnitude; I know that several years ago it was little to none, but I don't know if that's current. Compared to AT&T, though, it is relatively low.) Therefore, a call using AT&T will often route directly from the EAEO to the AT&T network. A call using another IXC will usually route from the EO over LEC interoffice facilities to an AT, and then to the IXC switch. Adding the LEC interoffice facilities which are not present on the call being routed to AT&T will add some (perhaps small, perhaps large, depending on the type of facilities) degradation. Second, the facilities from the LEC switch (EO or AT) to the IXC switch are, obviously, different for different IXCs. They are provided by the LEC, and likely meet the same criteria for sound quality, but they are different because the selected IXC is different. Third, a not-insignificant number (I don't know the exact number; I'd guess it's more than one, less than one hundred ...) of AT&T's switches are located in buildings shared by AT&T and the local BOC, as a holdover from pre-divestiture days. The exchange access facilities from the BOC switch to the IXC switch, in this case, are intraoffice facilities which are inherently less subject to degradation than are interoffice facilities. That's probably not really fair to other IXCs, but if the FCC's NPR on colocation goes through, I suppose everyone could get into that biz. > If you try a call over MCI and it doesn't work, and you then try to > complete it over AT&T and it does, that doesn't necessarily mean that > AT&T is better, it just means you got a different circuit from the > local telco. My point is that you may have gotten a different circuit from the local telco *because* you used AT&T. Disclaimer: ("claimer"?) I work for AT&T and take a certain amount of pride in my employer; however, I have tried to limit my comments to factual descriptions of network access arrangements. David G Lewis AT&T Bell Laboratories david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!goofy!deej Switching & ISDN Implementation ------------------------------ From: oppedahl@Panix.Com (Carl Oppedahl) Subject: Re: Strange Long Distance Problem Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 21:44:04 GMT In jongsma@esseye.si.com (Ken Jongsma) writes: > I've been having an interesting problem over the past two days. The > symptoms are as follows: [stuff omitted] > - Prefacing the call to 1 805 395 xxxx with 10288, 10333, 10222 > makes no difference, I still get a fast (trunk) busy. Suggests it is the fault of your local telco, not the long-distance carrier. > A call to Michigan Bell repair yesterday generated the suggestion that > I call Sprint repair. Typical of the local telco to pass the buck. > I suspect a problem with Michigan Bell and my local switch, but > getting through to them is a lost cause. Maybe you could embarrass MI Bell into action by filing a complaint with the FCC, saying that MI Bell is being discriminatory in its provision of access to the long-distance network. Carl Oppedahl AA2KW (intellectual property lawyer) 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10112-0228 voice 212-408-2578 fax 212-765-2519 [Moderator's Note: The other thing he might try is to simply not pay the portion of the bill added on for 'connection to the network' -- you know, that $3-something charge they tack on every month to make up for what they no longer collect on long distance. When asked why, say "because Michigan Bell is not providing total access to the network," and that when they begin doing so, you will begin paying. Don't worry, they won't cut you off for non-payment; you'll cause a few snickers in the business office, and it will get fixed. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Garrett.Wollman@UVM.EDU (Garrett Wollman) Subject: Re: Standard Dialing Plan Organization: University of Vermont, EMBA Computer Facility Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 21:57:10 GMT In article varney@ihlpl.att.com writes: > Sorry, I disagree. How can you dial 1 + ten-digits and not have > intended to dial a ten-digit number. How often do people really dial > all ten digits and intend to only dial seven digits? And if they do > dial ten digits by mistake, how often was the incorrect NPA dialed? While I agree with Al's position in general, consider the following: I meant to dial: 1 803 793 xxxx I actually dial: 1 802 793 xxxx If 10D dialing within my NPA is not trapped, I end up making an expensive New England Tel. toll call, rather than a cheap AT&T call to South Carolina. (Now does anybody want to share stories of wrong area codes when calling into the NANP from outside? I can remember calling home (at the time, 802 434 xxxx) from Finland, and getting someone at 902 434 xxxx, which is in Nova Scotia, instead. "Hi!" "Who's this?". Note that this was a credit-card call, and the procedure was to call the international operator (92022 when I was there), and read out the destination number and calling card number to her. I soon learned of AT&T's USA Direct(tm) service, and decided to use that instead ...) Garrett A. Wollman wollman@emba.uvm.edu uvm-gen!wollman UVM disagrees. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Feb 93 12:48:33 EST From: lvc@cbvox1.att.com Subject: Re: What Would Be Required to Compile 'Secret #' FAQ? Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc. In article Chris Taylor writes: > RINGBACK: 445 > HEAR YOUR NUMBER: > 958 Maybe I was asleep or something ... could someone tell me why these services would be useful? Is there really sufficient demand for these to justify someone, other than the phone company, doing this? By demand, I mean consumers who are willing to pay for "hear your number", "ring back", and maybe others. How much would be a "reasonable" amount; $0.25 per call? More, or less? And how could this be billed to the "correct consumer" anyway? If this were done via a toll-free 800 number, how would the provider collect payment? If it was done via a 900 number, does the provider always get the correct phone number to play/call back? Is this easier than I imagine or will it be pretty difficult? > [Moderator's Note: One of the things you'd have to contend with is the > frequency with with which 'ringback' and in particular 'hear your > number' code numbers are changed. 'They' do not like people outside > the telco to know these or use them. True, but if it was an outside business doing this could the telcos force it to stop? Are there any reasons why this would be a dangerous service to sell? [Moderator's Number: *If* telco wanted to sell it (and really, telco would be the only organization able to do it with close to 100 percent accuracy; others would have to read the ANI or the Caller-ID and get the detail from those sources which is not always correct), they'd find a way to charge a premium for it much like IBT does with the Name and Address Reverse Listing Service here for 312/708 (312-796-9600). Calls to 312-796 (so far as I know, '9600' is the only resident on that exchange) are 35 cents per call, with two inquiries allowed and no guarentees you will get any information if the number you pass is non-pub, etc. (You still get charged.) Telco does sell ringback in some places through variations on an 'intercom feature' offered as part of 'Intellidial' and similar packages. Regards 'hear your number', telco does not like having that available to the general public. It has to be available since linemen and technicians need to sort out wire pairs they are working on, but given the general public's bent for fraud and assorted mischeviousness, letting them match up the wires (of others) with a specific number in an authoritative way would lead to problems. There are security problems inherent with telling anyone who happens to be on the wire what the 'number' to the wire is. It is not like your wire pair runs straight to the CO without being multipled in every basement and janitor's closet over a two block area surrounding where you live. Anyone -- literally -- could clip on those wires and dial 'hear your number'; and it would be 'your' number they were hearing, and most likely you against whom fraud was perpetrated. If others did it via 900 or whatever, there is no law against it, but they would be charging, and most people who ask this ageless question here in the Digest are looking for *free* ways to get the info. PAT] ------------------------------ From: thoth@uiuc.edu (Ben Cox) Subject: Re: Procedure to use 800-321-0ATT Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 20:12:08 GMT Reply-To: thoth@uiuc.edu (Ben Cox) Organization: Ancient Illuminated Sears of Bavaria Pat writes: > [Moderator's Note: After dialing 800-321-0288, you hear the AT&T > tones, and the robot operator announces, "AT&T ... please enter the > number you are calling, or zero for an operator." After entering the > number you are asked to enter your card number. It is basically the > same as any other credit card call. Persons who have experiences with > this are requested to write. PAT] Yes, that's exactly how it works. Of course, once you hear the tones you don't have to wait for the robot to finish its spiel. :) Ben Cox thoth@uiuc.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Feb 93 21:56:04 CST From: varney@ihlpl.att.com Subject: Re: What Could Cause Jitter in a Voice Channel Organization: AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL In article scoggin@delmarva.COM writes: > In article 5@eecs.nwu.edu, tching@target.uucp (Tracy Ching > ) writes: >> While sending a 1KHz tone over that voice channel, the other end is >> jittering (changing phase constantly) and also slightly changing >> amplitude. The "gurus" who administer the thing say there is nothing >> that can be done to fix it. I just want my clear channel. >> I'm quite sure my 1KHz tone is pure, i.e. no jitter from the source. > Digital systems experience an impairment known as timing jitter. This > is caused by the accumulation of variations in timing of a digital > signal. A string of repeaters adds small timing errors due to the > clocks in each repeater and the addition/removal of 'stuffing bits' in > async muxes (like most M13's). It is possible to add buffers to > retime the signal at each end, de-jitterizing the signal, but they are > pretty expensive. Note also that the mu-law PCM sampling algorithm can itself lead to some distortion when near-zero samples are encoded. Particularly with 1 and 2 kHz tones, where you can be very slightly out of synch with the 8kHz sampling rate, and see the results as quantization noise coupled with jitter. This is why the Digital Reference Signal for digital facilities is 1004 Hz (and I have heard that some standards folks want 1008 Hz??). This offset from 1000 Hz means only an infrequent sample hits that zero-crossing area with a sample of +0 or -0. Also, are you sure there isn't any T1 bit-robbing of A/B bits occuring? The ultimate test would be for you to send only binary samples of known value and see if they arrive without change. If so, then it's a problem with the encoder and/or decoder (and the jitter). Al Varney - just my opinion, of course. ------------------------------ From: oppedahl@Panix.Com (Carl Oppedahl) Subject: Re: What Number do I Dial From My Phone to Get My Phone to Ring? Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 21:40:07 GMT In jasko@park.bu.edu (John V. Jaskolski) writes: > I presently live in Boston. When I used to live in Milwaukee, WI, I > could dial "97" and the last five digits of my telephone number, push > down and release the hook, hear a tone come over the line, hang up, > and my phone would ring. Does anyone know what I can dial from Boston > to do the same thing? In other words What number do I dial from my > phone to get my phone to ring? (From Boston) According to Part 68 of the FCC regulations, the local telco is supposed to tell you how to make your line ring back ... so that if you have installed your own phone jacks you can test them out. The idea is to put do-it-yourselfers on a level playing field with the telco inside-wiring installers. Otherwise, if they keep the number secret, their installers would have an unfair advantage. So the way to get the answer to that question is ... ask your local telco. Now, I can tell you that I have never, never, never, in three cities found a local telco that will spill the beans on this number just for the asking. I have always had to ask to talk with a supervisor, then the office, manager, etc. etc. And in many cases I have had to photocopy the section of Part 68 that says this, and fax it to them. But I have always eventually gotten it. Here in Manhattan the numerical sequence to dial differs from one central office to the next. Seemingly no two are the same. Good luck. Carl Oppedahl AA2KW (intellectual property lawyer) 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10112-0228 voice 212-408-2578 fax 212-765-2519 [Moderator's Note: Telco need not provide an automated service for this purpose or tell you how to access the automated service. They need only to make your bell ring on request. In other words, the business office could have told you to ask the operator to ring you back. That would have met the requirements. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Feb 93 12:46:09 GMT From: jamesm@procor.dialogic.com (Mark James) Subject: Re: Sharing One FAX Card Among Several Voice Lines Organization: Dialogic (N.Z.) Ltd, Auckland, New Zealand In article elizabec@sfu.ca (Elizabeth Fong Wah Chan) writes: > Presently, my company plans to install a voice processing system to > do voice mail, audiotex, and faxing. > We have purchased a four-line voice processing board and a software > development package. > Since we want to allow callers to be able to send and receive faxes in > addition to voice processing [...] > I wonder if there is some kind of simple switching equipment that > allows sharing of one fax board among all four phone lines. You don't mention the brand name of your four-line board. If it's a Dialogic D/41, you can add a single AMX/81 board that will connect any of the four lines to any other, or to any of eight local telephones, fax machines, modems or what have you. You should find out whether your software development package will support such a configuration. Disclaimer: I work for Dialogic. I presume (but don't know) that competitors offer similar solutions to Elizabeth's problem. Mark James **[ Opinions are mine ]** Dialogic (N.Z.) Ltd. Voice: +64 9 302 1794 ext 27 Auckland, New Zealand Fax: +64 9 302 1793 ------------------------------ From: oppedahl@Panix.Com (Carl Oppedahl) Subject: Re: Internet Access From Qatar? Anyone? Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1993 01:11:09 GMT In bpj2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (BINOY P JAMES) writes: > Anybody know if I could access Internet from Qatar, in the Middle > East? How about Bitnet at least? There is a newsgroup which you might not know about, called alt.internet.access.wanted. It is perfect for your query. (I realize you may not have access to that group, in which case that would be why you did not post to it.) Anyway, if you can I suggest you post to that group. If you are not able to post to that group directly, you may wish to consider using one of the services that lets you post via email. For example, you could post to: alt.internet.access.wanted.usenet@decwrl.dec.com and state in your posting that you would like to get responses via email. Best of luck. Carl Oppedahl AA2KW (intellectual property lawyer) 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10112-0228 voice 212-408-2578 fax 212-765-2519 ------------------------------ From: fox@wubios.wustl.edu (Dave Fox) Subject: Internet Access Wanted in Cedar Rapids, IA Organization: Division of Biostatistics, WUMS, St. Louis, MO Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 20:13:27 GMT I am looking for an INTERNET newsfeed for a friend in the Cedar Rapids, IA area. Please e-mail me any info. Thanks in advance. fox@wubios.wustl.edu [Moderator's Note: You too might try Carl Oppedahl's advice in the message just before this one. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #100 ******************************