Date: Tue, 2 Jan 90 1:01:18 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #1 Message-ID: <9001020101.aa14792@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 2 Jan 90 01:00:00 CST Volume 10 : Issue 1 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Service Quality in Corpus Christi (Mark Earle) Demark Termination Problem (Mark Earle) Texas BBS's vs Phone Company (Ken Levitt) The Operator's Beep (Gabe Wiener) Direct Dialing the USSR (Gabe Wiener) Hayes 9600 v.42 (Jason Goldberg) 800 Wrong Numbers (William Degnan) Wrong Number at Directory Assistance (Jay Maynard) Re: Multiple Call-Forwarding Error (Brian Kantor) Re: Phone Frustration (Peter da Silva) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 30 Dec 89 11:32:48 CST From: Mark Earle Subject: Service Quality in Corpus Christi I don't have handy the original poster's name...but this is a geneal comment about service. I live in Corpus Christi, TX, a town of about 200,000, give or take. We're served by Southwestern Bell (with major rural areas immediately north of the metro area being served by GTE). Upon changing apartments, I ordered a second residential rate line. They were having, after all, a Christmas season special on 'Teen Lines'. The lady taking the order, however, directly asked me if part of the reason was modem useage. I answered, yes, that my work requires me to access the computer at the office from home; so the second line would allow my main line to remain clear. No problem, she probably marked that down on a data base. In reality the line is for Fidonet 160/50, my bbs... On business lines, we generally get 4 hour promised response, but the longest I've waited ever is 2 hours. Residentail, after they go through the questions (usually stopped if my mention you've trouble-shot to the demark point) usually is "same day" and they try hard not to leave ya in a bind overnight without dialtone, although by my choice, they did once (I just coudn't see getting an insaller out at 8 p.m. on a 20 degree night, just for the bbs line.) But, they *would* have sent one had I wanted /needed it up. So, that's a summary of how it is down here in Texas. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 Dec 89 11:36:04 CST From: Mark Earle Subject: Demark Termination Problem Upon having my second line installed, in the demark, there is a circuit across the tip/ring which is a 47 uf cap, a 1n914 diode, and a 15k resistor in series. Aparently, this allows some sort of loop testing. It was screwing up my 2400 baud calles (but 3, 12, and 9600 HST worked fine!). Aparently, there is another of these test circuits on the block outside--there should not have been another at my demark; the installer just forgot to check it. I removed it, then called customer service and confirmed that the test circuit was still on my line, from her end..so it must be outside in the box... the installer admitted he was a manager, catching up on the 'Teel Line Christmas Special' so a regular full time installer probably wouldn't have made this mistake. Just thought y'all might find it of interest. Mark Earle ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Dec 89 14:50:26 EST From: Ken Levitt Subject: Texas BBS's vs Phone Company The following article is being reposted from the FidoNet Law echo. I did not write it, please don't respond to me about it. ============================================================================ Date: 12-18-89 (18:19) To: ALL From: ED HOPPER Subj: PROGRESS REPORT Progress report on status of negotiations: On December 8th, the period in which the Texas BBS case (Texas PUC #8387) was held in abeyance for the purpose of negotiation expired. Shortly thereafter, conversations between the petitioner group and Southwestern Bell resumed. We (the COSUARD board) have been advised that an agreement on the issue of compensation may be possible. Southwestern Bell has indicated a willingness to agree that residence rates apply to BBS systems that do not *REQUIRE MONETARY COMPENSATION*. (Please note those three critical words). Southwestern Bell continues to insist that BBS operations be limited to one line. (I should state that there is confusion and inconsistency on the question of whether or not "separate" BBSs could be co-located in the same home. Southwestern Bell's responses on that issue in the past have been poorly phrased and difficult to relate to real world BBS operations). Last Thursday (December 14), the COSUARD board met to consider the latest statements from Southwestern Bell. While we were encouraged and pleased to see the new position regarding compensation, we continue to be troubled by the complete insistence on one line. A single line was not one of the considerations first raised by Southwestern Bell when this issue was first raised in October 1988. Since it first surfaced, in the spring of 1989, Southwestern Bell has never provided a justification for this position other than statements that BBSs using over one telephone line "seem like a business". Southwestern Bell will not force other residential customers to business rates based upon the number of telephone lines installed in the home. In fact, Southwestern Bell is currently engaged in a marketing effort to sell additional phone lines to residential customers. This is supported by television and radio advertising. As president of COSUARD, I am greatly concerned about the inequity of the basic "one-line per BBS" proposition put forth by Southwestern Bell. I am also very much aware that certain types of BBS systems ("Chat" boards and UNIX based systems, among others) virtually require more than one phone line to operate properly. These systems are a part of our BBS nation and are deserving of the solidarity and support of all. All of the officers of COSUARD seek your input on this issue. Should we continue to stand firm on the one line issue? Should we accept some other limitation or should we insist on treatment that is equal to that received by other residential customers? Member and non-member, in Texas or the rest of the world, we want to hear your views. Sincerely, Ed Hopper, President COSUARD-The Coalition of Sysops and Users Against Rate Discrimination RNet 1.02R: COSUARDNet:Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Tx - 713-782-5454 Origin: Ed Hopper's BBS (PCBoard 1:106/889.6) ============================ End of FidoNet Message ======================= Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 UUCP: zorro9!levitt INTERNET: levitt%zorro9.uucp@talcott.harvard.edu ------------------------------ From: Gabe Wiener Subject: The Operator's Beep Reply-To: Gabe Wiener Organization: Columbia University Center for Telecommunications Research Date: Mon, 1 Jan 90 02:04:54 GMT Occasionally I'll call some AT&T number or directory assistance line and hear that "beep" sounded by the operator before they get on the line. I used to hear it on all operator calls pre-breakup, but it has pretty much gone by the wayside for 0 and 00 calls. Can anyone tell me its purpose? Moreover, why did they stop using it? Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ. "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings gabe@ctr.columbia.edu to be seriously considered as a means of gmw1@cunixd.cc.columbia.edu communication. The device is inherently of 72355.1226@compuserve.com no value to us." -Western Union memo, 1877 ------------------------------ From: Gabe Wiener Subject: Direct Dialing the USSR Reply-To: Gabe Wiener Organization: Columbia University Center for Telecommunications Research Date: Mon, 1 Jan 90 02:09:39 GMT Just for the hell of it, I tried dialing that Estonian BBS # directly, and sure enough, I got an intercept saying, "Direct dial service is available to Moscow only." That sparked a few questions: 1. Why direct service only to Moscow? 2. How are international trunklines set up with countries with which we have less than an amicable relationship? Who pays for and maintains such lines? 3. What is the state of technology of the telecom system in Russia? Do they build their own hardware? or import it? 4. Does subscriber trunk dialing (to use the British term) exist inside the USSR? Or must all long-distance still be placed w/operator assistance? Thanks, and happy new year! Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ. "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings gabe@ctr.columbia.edu to be seriously considered as a means of gmw1@cunixd.cc.columbia.edu communication. The device is inherently of 72355.1226@compuserve.com no value to us." -Western Union memo, 1877 ------------------------------ From: Jason Goldberg Subject: Hayes 9600 v.42 Date: 1 Jan 90 19:02:37 GMT Reply-To: Jason Goldberg Organization: University of California, Irvine I have a few questions about modem protocals I was trying to sort out. First does anyone have any suggestions on how I can get ahold of a power transformer for a Hayes 9600 (Its a long story but I need it ASAP and I think delevery from Hayes will take a while.) Anyway, according to the Hayes 9600 v.42 manual it does error-checking and compression. Is it compatible with MNP style modems (to what level?). I know that US Robotics have a "Dual Standard" modem, is my Hayes going to be compatable with most 9600's out there. Will I get error checking on most 9600 connections? Will I get error checking on monst MNP 2400 connections? Thanks, -Jason- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Dec 89 22:21:00 CST From: William Degnan Subject: 800 Wrong Numbers A client was getting dozens of wrong number calls on his 800 number. It turned out that his number was a cross-polination of two numbers printed (too close to each other) on Southern New England Telephone's bills. To place an order: 1 800 555-2345 Billing questions: 1 203 555-1234 (numbers changed to protect the innocent) If the caller dialed, 1 800 555-1234, they got the unhappy client. We asked the nice folks at SNET to put "a little air" between the numbers (or pay for a number change, stationary printing and advertising costs), but they were uncooperative, at best. In desperation, I hinted that the client might have no other choice than to tell callers what they wanted to hear: "You are moving your offices from Danbury to Hartford on Monday and want to keep the same number? NO PROBLEM!" "Can't pay your bill? NO PROBLEM! Just send us what you can, when you can. We won't cut you off..." SNET managed to find a way to fix the unfixable. They just needed a little motivation. And to understand that some problems are less expensive than other problems. Regards, Bill Disclaimer: Contents do not constitute "advice" unless we are on the clock William Degnan | wdegnan@mcimail.com !wdegnan@at&tmail.com Communications Network Solutions | William.Degnan@telenet.com P.O. Box 9530, Austin, TX 78766 | voice: 512 323-9383 William Degnan -- via The Q Continuum (FidoNet Node 1:382/31) UUCP: ...!rpp386!tqc!39!wdegnan ARPA: wdegnan@f39.n382.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ From: Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard Subject: Wrong Number at Directory Assistance Reply-To: Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX Date: Mon, 1 Jan 90 19:17:09 GMT I have been getting sporadic calls for someone with a completely different name over the past year or so. The callers all tell me that they got the number from directory assistance. Today. I finally got enough information to track down the listing - and, sure enough, the number they have for that person is my number. I've lived here for 3-1/2 years now, and had the same number for all of that time. How do I go about getting the erroneous listing removed? A complicating factor is that DA in this area is run by Southwestern Bell, but my area is served (?) by GTE. (Oh, for those who are interested: DA used to be 411 in the Houston area, until a charge [5 free calls, then 25 cents each per month] was instituted; then it was changed to 1411. This goes anywhere in 713.) Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jay@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. {attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- Here come Democrats...here come Democrats...throwing money a-way... ------------------------------ From: Brian Kantor Subject: Re: Multiple Call-Forwarding Error Date: 31 Dec 89 17:53:23 GMT Reply-To: Brian Kantor Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd. Our campus Ericsson MD110 &*^$^%#%^ switch currently allows exactly one forward; when it was first installed you couldn't forward to a phone that was forwarded to you, but you could make a three-number loop and then crash the switch by calling any of the three numbers (complete crash: no audio paths, no ringing, no dial tone, DEAD!). Now you can set up a such a loop but the call will only forward once, and the switch won't crash. Actually, since they use divert-on-no-answer to provide voice mail, that means that I can't use my secretary's voice mail to answer my line, since even if I forward my phone to her number, it won't divert a second time to the voice mail. - Brian ------------------------------ From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Phone Frustration Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Date: Mon, 1 Jan 90 03:04:12 GMT In article <2497@accuvax.nwu.edu> tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) writes: > Our PUC has an 800 number. A call to the PUC with the location and > telephone number of the phone has resulted in DISCONNECTION of the > non-complying phone every time. Pretty nasty thing to do to some individual or small businessman who (as you later pointed out) may have NO idea of the legal requirements. How about trying to talk to the person running the thing, first? It's only common courtesy. Of course if you *have* tried this route, I apologise for jumping to conclusions. But you didn't give any indication you have. For other people: before using the power of the state, how about trying old-fashioned *communication* first... in this and other cases? You're all communications experts (or at least talented amateurs) after all... `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. . 'U` Also or . "It was just dumb luck that Unix managed to break through the Stupidity Barrier and become popular in spite of its inherent elegance." -- gavin@krypton.sgi.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #604 *****************************   Date: Wed, 3 Jan 90 0:03:11 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #2 Message-ID: <9001030003.aa15232@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 3 Jan 90 00:00:13 CST Volume 10 : Issue 2 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: "First" BBS in USSR (Dave Hughes) Re: "First" BBS in USSR (Andrei Kolesnikov) Re: Hi-Rise Joe (Tad Cook) Re: Phone Frustration (John Higdon) Re: The Operator's "Beep" (Steve Forrette) Caller ID Prefixes in PA (Sten Peters) Question About Area Code Split (Dean Sirakides) Area Code 908 Lives (Dave Levenson) Cordless Phone Recommendations (Andrew Palfreyman) Telephony in Greece (Hector Myerston) Re: 800 Wrong Numbers (Roy Smith) Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) (James Cowan) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dave Hughes Subject: Re: "First" BBS in USSR Date: 1 Jan 90 22:32:36 GMT In article <2494@accuvax.nwu.edu>, karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes: > I was interested to read of the claim that the BBS in Estonia is the > first in the USSR. This is incorrect. Earlier this year, an amateur > packet radio bulletin board system was established in Moscow with the > callsign RA3AT. I believe it can be accessed over HF radio through a > HF/VHF gateway switch also in Moscow. Well Phil, I knew, from my contacts with the local packet radio ham community - such as Andy Freeborn, President of the Tuscon group (TAPR) and Bdale Garbee - that there had been such packet radio bbs set up in Moscow. But it requires a ham license! And for years I have struggled with the contrast that modem users can be anybody, while packet radio users have to be licensed hams, or use pretty pricey commercial systems. So, yes the Packet BBS was the 1st - but only for a closed group. The Estonian BBS is 1st for just about anybody. I did something about that, by going out to get a business packet radio license for my area, and then assembling amateur-design packet controllers with low cost commercial radios. And *then* doing a 'patch arrangement' whereby the base station, instead of terminating with a computer (BBS) terminated with a properly configured modem, so I could go out to any other modem-answering system. (In fact we have had a company make a set of packet controllers with radios and modems to our specifications under our label). An 'extender' of phone modem communications via packet to a field or mobile location. Rather than just phone to phone, or radio to radio. But computer to radio to radio to phone to computer. Which seems to me to be one of the few practical answers for a lot of countries which do not have good enough telephone service. As well as many places in the US where either phone service is poor, party lines exist, or costs to extend phone service is prohibitive, or the cost of phone service itself is prohibitive. Such as in about every school in the world. If that Estonian BBS was packet-radio connected to Moscow at say, 9600 baud, terminating in a radio-packet-modem-Moscow-phone callable direct dial from the US, the noise would be less of a problem, and even the costs would be less (direct dial rather than operater assisted, which is about $7.00 for the first three minutes). But what is it going to take to get recognition that packet radio as (1) a general communications service (2) as an extender of phone-modem service is a desirable communications policy goal, not only for the US (FCC) but for PTT's elsewhere? And get laws and regulations amended accordingly. The solution cannot be for everyone to go get a ham license, code or no code - since one cannot do business over such nets, or encrypt to give even rudimentary privacy. (And the Estonian BBS is for business more than anything else.) You hams have done a wonderful job inventing the technology of packet radio, but the Berlin Wall of Licensing-Use-Policy is still up. Dave Hughes dave@oldcolo.uucp ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Jan 90 05:45:40 -0800 From: sfmtmoscow@cdp.uucp Subject: Re: "First" BBS in USSR Yes, correct. But Estonia BBS is the first for public access. It is very long story about packet radio in the USSR. Right now there is a net in Armenia for coordination of several projects. Leo Labutin was the first who open a packet link between Soviet Amateur Center and the Institute for Automated Systems. Now we plan to continue these experiments, but after we received a permission from Soviet PTT and frequency. (Not amateur frequency.) Thanks, Andrei ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Hi-Rise Joe Date: 2 Jan 90 20:35:03 GMT Organization: very little Regarding John Higdon's remarks about Cap'n Crunch, I ran across him on USENET last year! His name is John Draper, and I actually exchanged mail with him for awhile. Unfortunately, I don't have his network address any longer. Tad Cook tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Phone Frustration Date: 2 Jan 90 02:38:15 PST (Tue) From: John Higdon peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > Pretty nasty thing to do to some individual or small businessman who > (as you later pointed out) may have NO idea of the legal requirements. > How about trying to talk to the person running the thing, first? Don't you think that we, the public, are put upon enough with COCOTs in general without having to hold the hand of someone who should be aware of the rules and regs of his business BEFORE he foists his instrument of annoyance on us all? In the matter of COCOTs, I have wasted way too much time trying to track down owners of same to inform them of things they should already know. My clients' listeners go straight to the FCC for perceived violations, as well they should. Ignorance of the law, no matter how small the business, is no justification for not following the rules. > For other people: before using the power of the state, how about > trying old-fashioned *communication* first... in this and other cases? > You're all communications experts (or at least talented amateurs) > after all... In other circumstances I might agree, but the public has little enough support as it is from regulatory bodies concerning COCOTs. If it became known that violation of the few customer protections in place would result in summary disconnection, maybe more COCOT operators would obey them in the first place, instead of trying to see what they could get away with up front. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Jan 90 12:27 EDT From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: The Operator's "Beep" Regarding the message someone posted about the "beep" heard before the operator comes on the line when you dial 0, 00, or calling card calls, my experience has been that they have NOT gone away, at least for AT&T operators. My recent experience is for calls from the Seattle, Sacramento, and Oakland areas. Calls to the local operators do not seem to do this. ------------------------------ From: sp@pro-deli.cts.com (Sten Peeters) Subject: Caller ID Prefixes in PA Date: 2 Jan 90 09:56:19 GMT Pennsylvania has finally introduced Caller ID the the 215 area code. Unfortunately Philadelhia and Harrisburg will be the only ones with the service. These are the telephone exchanges where Bell of PA's caller ID service initially will be available: Harrisburg Area- 231, 232, 233, 234, 236, 237, 238, 255, 257, 540, 541, 545, 558, 561, 564, 652, 657, 691, 697, 731, 737, 761, 763, 766, 782, 790, 795, 975 Philadelphia Area- 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 232, 233, 235, 236, 238, 242, 243, 246, 247, 248, 271, 276, 281, 288, 289, 291, 324, 329, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 338, 339, 342, 349, 351, 365, 379, 382, 386, 387, 389, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 438, 452, 455, 456, 457, 462, 463, 464, 465, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473, 474, 476, 477, 482, 483, 487, 492, 533, 535, 537, 545, 546, 548, 549, 551, 552, 553, 556, 574, 578, 581, 585, 590, 592, 596, 597, 621, 624, 625, 627, 629, 632, 634, 635, 637, 662, 663, 671, 673, 676, 677, 684, 697, 698, 722, 724, 725, 726, 727, 728, 729, 732, 735, 739, 742, 743, 744, 745, 747, 748, 753, 755, 763, 765, 769, 782, 786, 787, 790, 823, 824, 829, 831, 836, 841, 842, 843, 844, 848, 849, 871, 875, 877, 878, 879, 893, 895, 897, 898, 922, 923, 924, 925, 927, 928, 932, 934, 937, 951, 952, 961, 969, 973, 976, 978, 985, 991 Suburban Philadelphia Area- 237, 244, 245, 248, 259, 284, 352, 446, 449, 461, 522, 528, 532, 534, 572, 576, 583, 586, 622, 623, 626, 638, 639, 734, 789, 853, 881, 884, 885, 886, 887 (Copied from a notice which was added to my last phone bill) Sten Peeters 2005 Buckman Ave Wyomissing, PA 19610 ProLine: sp@pro-deli Internet: sp@pro-deli.cts.com UUCP: {rosevax, bungia, crash}!orbit!pnet51!pro-abyss!pro-deli!sp Arpanet: {rosevax, bungia, crash}!orbit!pnet51!pro-abyss!pro-deli!sp@nosc.mil Fidonet: {rosevax, bungia, crash}!f101.n273.z1.fidonet.org!Sten.Peeters Talk: {rosevax, bungia, crash}!orbit!pnet51!pro-abyss!pro-deli!talk!sp ------------------------------ From: Dean Sirakides Subject: Question About Area Code Split Date: 2 Jan 90 16:32:54 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL As I am sure most people know, the Chicago area has undergone an area code split from 312 to 312 and 708. Of course, most radio and tv ads now have to give an area code with their phone numbers to keep things clear -- usually. *Question* : I have heard several ads for stores where the phone number is given out and the annoucer qualifies the number by saying, "in either 708 or 312". This is also true for most of the radio request lines in Chicago: you can always dial them without an area code. (I assume this will remain true after the grace period ends). How is this done? And as a related question: how do companies get phone numbers like "dial LAWYERS" when the prefix for the spelled out number is not used in the area that services the address of the business? Thanks. (notice this article offers no opinion on Caller-ID) Dean Sirakides | Cellular Infrastructure Division ...uunet!motcid!sirakide | Motorola, Inc. | Arlington Heights, IL Of course I speak for myself, not my employer... ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Area Code 908 Lives Date: 3 Jan 90 03:48:19 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA Right on schedule, 1/2/90, our shiny new area code began working in Central New Jersey. I forget when it's supposed to become mandatory, but folks who choose to use it can now call us on 908. Others can still use 201. Dave Levenson Voice: (201 | 908) 647 0900 Westmark, Inc. Internet: dave@westmark.uu.net Warren, NJ, USA UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave [The Man in the Mooney] AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave ------------------------------ From: Andrew Palfreyman Subject: Cordless Phone Recommendations Date: 31 Dec 89 02:09:23 GMT Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara Does anyone have specific recommendations which would assist a neophyte buyer of a cordless phone? Email if you please. .......................................................................... Andrew Palfreyman a wet bird never flies at night time sucks andrew@dtg.nsc.com there are always two sides to a broken window ------------------------------ From: myerston@cts.sri.com Date: 2 Jan 90 16:19 PDT Subject: Telephony in Greece Organization: SRI Intl, Inc., Menlo Park, CA 94025 [(415)326-6200] From time to time items appear in this newsgroup which defy intelligent analysis. Volume 9 Issue 597 is the first to contain not one but TWO such items. Congratulations to both contributors. [Moderator's Note: Uh, Hector, would you kindly share your wisdom on this with us? If you'll cite the items in particular, perhaps someone can explain them to you. PT] ------------------------------ From: roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: Re: 800 Wrong Numbers Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City Date: Tue, 2 Jan 90 15:26:20 GMT wdegnan@f39.n382.z1.fidonet.org (William Degnan) write: > In desperation, I hinted that the client might have no other choice > than to tell callers what they wanted to hear [...] SNET managed to find > a way to fix the unfixable. They just needed a little motivation. This is somewhat off the original subject, but... my mother recently told me a cute story. An organization she works with was having a day-long seminar. They printed up flyers giving a phone number to call for information and reservations. Unfortunately, they printed the wrong number, and some bakery was getting all their calls. Neither party was happy about the screwup and tensions mounted. Then somebody got a bright idea and a deal was struck -- the bakery agreed to politely redirect calls to the proper number and in return, the group agreed to use the bakery to cater all their danish etc. for the coffee breaks. Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy "My karma ran over my dogma" ------------------------------ From: John Cowan Subject: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) X-Subject-Explanation: Thurbing is, of course, what a Thurber does. Reply-To: John Cowan Organization: ESCC, New York City Date: Tue, 2 Jan 90 16:33:32 GMT In article <2492@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: >Idiot calls to my 800 number now fall into two categories: >1. Callers wishing to reach a local (SF) ferry and public >transportation service; >2. Callers wishing to reach the Hilton Hotel chain. >After blowing my stack when awakened at 5:45am by a woman who said, >"Isn't this ferries?" (I beg your pardon!!), I developed a new >approach. The moment I realize what the person who is on the line is >after, I take their reservation or give them what (made up) >information they seem to be seeking. Great fun! James Thurber, in one of his short stories, discusses a similar type of wrong-number strategy. His hero deals with a call from a woman who wants to know when the next train leaves for such-and-such a place. (Presumably she was meaning to call the train station.) He tells her that there will be no further train until 2:30 A.M. When she protests that such a departure hour is unreasonable, he says, "That's true, but as a special service to you, madam, we will send a taxi for you at 1:30 A.M. sharp. Please be ready to go when the taxi arrives." Mollified, the woman hangs up. What happened to her after that? Thurber doesn't say. But surely it must have changed her life in more ways than one. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #2 ****************************   Date: Wed, 3 Jan 90 21:00:29 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #3 Message-ID: <9001032100.aa16508@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 3 Jan 90 21:00:00 CST Volume 10 : Issue 3 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson One-armed Bandits (Steve Forrette) Telephone Companies in the US Besides the RBOCs (Anthony Lee) Request For Info About Dowty Information Systems (Dan Hall) Help! (John Higdon) The MDF....RIP, and a Quiz! (Bernard Mckeever) Modem Tax (Again? Again!) (Allyn Lai) Tariff Change on International Calling (Deepak Sabnis) Special Issues Planned for Digest (TELECOM Moderator) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 3 Jan 90 00:59 EDT From: Steve Forrette Subject: One-armed Bandits The topic of COCOT's has been popping up here lately, so I thought I'd offer my comments on the matter: IMHO, COCOT's provide nothing but a disservice to the calling public. The vast majority of callers have trouble enough with all the dialing sequences and choices we have today, and adding misprogrammed and faulty equipment to the problem is in nobody's interest. I have *never* heard of someone who had anything positive to say about them, and almost everyone has had nothing but bad experiences. These one-armed bandits seem eager to eat your money at the drop of a hat, and overcharge you when they do work. I was surprised to see someone *defending* a COCOT owner who had not properly programmed their phone for the refund number. The excuse that the person that owned the phone probably knew nothing about telephones doesn't cut it. Someone not in-the-know about telephones should not be operating what amounts to their own telephone company. [How does GTE get away with it? :-) ] When the phones charge what amount to *illegal* rates, ignorance is no excuse. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for competition in the telecom industry. The competitive marketplace in long distance carriers has brought substantial rate reductions and improved quality (if you pick the right carrier) over the past few years. But COCOT's are a different story. Most of the time, they charge MORE than "real" payphones, and for this added cost, you get LESS service and quality. Is this what competition is supposed to bring? Here's my list of gripes that I've run across at various COCOT's (mostly in California): - No call completion detection (a timeout instead). - No incoming calls. - No address posted. - At least in CA, they are allowed to charge up to 10 cents for calling card calls, collect calls, and 800 calls. That's right, you must deposit 10 cents cash to use your AT&T card if the owner chooses to require it. - Having the internal time-of-day clock set wrong so you get billed daytime rates at night or on weekends for coin long distance. - Blatant tariff violations, such as requiring local call deposit for 950 numbers charging long distance for "special" prefixes (such as to cellular phones) that are local from a real payphone. - Charging for directory assistance. - Passing to their own operator (as opposed to the BOC operator) upon dialing of "0". - Blockage of DTMF after call completion, so you can't use interactive services, answering machines, pagers, etc. The one that really gets me is the 10 cent deposit for calling card and collect calls. We spend 100 years developing the technology to allow coinless calls, and it is undone by an act of law by the PUC so that someone can make 10 cents off a call that costs them nothing. What about the kid that's stuck at the mall and needs to call home collect for a ride? Or how about me when my car breaks down, need to call AAA, and don't have any change? Granted, I am using someone else's equipment, but it seems like the traditional purpose for businesses for having payphones is for customer convenience and to bring new customers into their establishment that would not otherwise have come. Clearly, there is a public interest in having kids being able to call home in an emergency or me being able to call a tow truck, and the PUC does not seem to be looking after this very well. And a substantial number of the COCOT's are replacements for old BOC sets, so they are not "adding more convenient locations" as some would say. So by not allowing free collect/calling card calls, the replacement phones have removed what I consider to be a substantial service in the public interest that the phone network had previously provided. It's not that much of an issue for me since I got a cellular phone, but most people don't have one, and most people use payphones when they are in the least opportune position to deal with problems. Most people don't know the difference between real payphones and COCOT's, and blame the proverbial "phone company" for the problems they have. Pacific Bell's attitude to problems is "fill out this form, send it in, and if we get 3 complaints on the same phone, *maybe* we'll disconnect it." I can understand 3 complaints for money-eating, poor quality, etc., but for blatant tariff violations? If a phone is charging 60 cents for a call which by law can cost at most 25 cents, why does it take 3 complaints to have it shut off? Granted, they will probably look into it on the first complaint, but for something as serious and reproducable as that, why three before guaranteed action? Actually, I believe that the PUC has set the 3 complaint threshold; and they're the ones that are supposed to be looking after us in the first place? My beef is with the COCOT operators and the PUC for letting them get away with it, not with Pacific Bell. And these tariff violations are not as uncommon as you may think. A couple of years ago, I got a copy of all the rules from Pacific Bell (so I would know what I was talking about), and did a little testing. Out of the 20 phones I tested, NOT A SINGLE ONE was compliant. (Yes, by the way, I usually *do* have something better to do with my time, but I'm sure we'll all had pet peeves with the BOC or whomever that we've spent a couple of hours looking into. Besides, if nobody takes the time to uncover tariff violations, these cheesy companies will continue to operate they way they do now.) I say feed these folks to the lions along with the AOS people (probably the same in many cases!) And I thought one-armed bandits were only allowed in Nevada and Atlantic City... ------------------------------ From: Anthony Lee Subject: Telephone Companies in the US Besides the RBOCs Date: 3 Jan 90 11:29:39 GMT Reply-To: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au Wonder if anyone could post a summary of all the major telephone companies in the US besides the RBOCs. Particularly Nynex (sp??), I read recently that Nynex have made a deal with Telecom Australia. Anyone know more about the deal ? Anthony Lee (Humble PhD student) (Alias Time Lord Doctor) ACSnet: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz TEL:(+617) 3712651 Internet: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (+617) 3774139 (w) SNAIL: Dept Comp. Science, University of Qld, St Lucia, Qld 4067, Australia [Moderator's Note: There are over a thousand telephone companies in the United States. Many are *very* small, serving only a few hundred subscribers. The largest, following the Mother Company and her former children are GTE, with several telephone operating company subsidiaries; United, Continental and Centel, although not necessarily in that order. I think the smallest telco is one with eight subscribers. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jan 90 15:33:28 -0800 From: Dan Hall 03-Jan-1990 1732 Subject: Request For Info About Dowty Information Systems I am considering the purchase/recommendation of some products manufactured by Dowty Information Systems of Cherry Hill, NJ. Specifically, I am interested in the Multirate CSU/DSU, P/N 7055000, the T-1 CSU, P/N 7055020, and the ESF CSU, P/N 7055060. Can anyone offer their experience with any of these units? More importantly, can anyone comment on experiences with Dowty? In particular: 1) How responsive has Dowty been? 2) Does someone return phone calls in a timely fashion? 3) Is the person on the phone capable of fielding questions, or does it take several calls to several people? 4) Are repairs processed satisfactorily? 5) Are installations "clean", and are field personnel competent? 6) Are orders filled on time and completely? 7) Does the product arrive intact? 8) Do the different departments within Dowty appear to communicate effectively? 9) Is the product reliable? 10) What kind of problems have been encountered? 11) How many DOA's have been found? 12) Are there inexplicable performance irregularities? 13) How does the reliability of Dowty products stack up to that of the other products in the network? 14) Based on experience, what sort of recommendation seems appropriate to a prospective Dowty customer? Please reply to me at one of the addresses below. I will post a summary of the responses received later. Thank you in advance for any information you may have to offer. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ | Dan Hall | Email: hall@state.enet.dec.com | | Digital Equipment Corp. | -or- hall%state.dec@decwrl.dec.com | | Merrimack, NH | -or- ...!decwrl!state.dec.com!hall | \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ ------------------------------ Subject: Help! Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 1 Jan 90 12:20:02 PST (Mon) From: John Higdon Since I made my little aside about Capt'n Crunch, my mailbox has overflowed with people informing me that Capt'n Crunch and High Rise Joe are not the same person. I KNOW that. I know the Captain personally and have long known about High Rise Joe. My comments were a response to Andrei's mention of someone who had been in Moscow, done time in jail, and used a "special sound generator". That fits Capt'n Crunch; I was unaware that High Rise Joe had been in Moscow. Thanks for all the cards and letters, but I'm not that far out of it, yet! Sorry if my mention was ambiguous. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Bernard Mckeever Subject: The MDF....RIP, and a Quiz! Date: 3 Jan 90 17:57:39 GMT Reply-To: bmk@mvuxn.ATT.COM (bernard.mckeever,54236,mv,3b045,508 960 6289) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories The Main Frame, may it rest in peace. Southern Bell announced last month that they have cut over a central office that uses 100% optical fiber for interoffice and feeder facilities. What's more, by using digital cross connect systems, they have been able to eliminate the MDF. Taken a bit further, although not mentioned, they have eliminated the Central Office Technician. With today's Intelligent Network Elements [INE] provisioning and maintenance tasks are performed from remote operations centers. The only requirement for a technician [in most cases] is to replace known bad circuit packs under the direction of a tester or automatic diagnostic. When the fiber reaches your home, and you own the terminal adaptor, the outside plant technician will also pass into history. When this takes place circuit designers will be gone as well. Can test boards be far behind? Who does that leave? Before we get too sad let me explain who that leaves. It leaves a group of technicians that will have one of the most challenging and rewarding jobs in the industry. They will manage and control the network using the latest support systems and the newest performance monitoring equipment. Expert systems will be required because all the old experts will be gone, but knowledge will be the key factor in the new network. Tomorrow when something brakes, and it will, automatic systems will attempt to re-route service but the key to the situation will be the employee that KNOWS what must be done to restore service. Today's challenge, for anyone in the industry, is to design, build, and manage, new technology that will allows us to evolve from todays mostly digital network to tomorrows intelligent network. Here's a quick quiz for all you OLD Telco people that worked on large over crowded MDFs'. WHAT IS A STICK MAN ?....... HOW ARE THE HORIZONTALS LABELED ?....... WHAT DO THE FOLLOWING STAND FOR A. G&T [SXS] B. LL [XB5] C. MG [ESS] D. CXR E. DLL F. TL1,TL2 G. PN1,PN2 H. E,M,SG,SB. I. 2W 10W BRG That's it for now. Happy New Year! Bernie McKeever 598-960-6289 ------------------------------ From: Allyn@cup.portal.com Subject: Modem Tax (Again? Again!) Date: Wed, 3-Jan-90 10:59:44 PST Ok folks what is the definitive answer on the modem tax? Is it being considered again or is this a rumour? Someone on a local system claims to have checked (who? The FCC?) and they say that it IS being reconsidered! I remember an article was recently posted to TELECOM which seems to have put the subjet to rest. Unfortunately, I can't the article on my local system. Can anyone help? Allyn Lai allyn@cup.portal.com [Moderator's Note: It was not a modem 'tax', but rather, a requirement by Southwestern Bell Telephone Company that users of modems in general, and BBS operators in particular, pay business rates for their phone service. This first came up a few years ago, presumably was squashed, then the issue was raised again lately. Ken Levitt, a Fidonet participant in the Digest, passed along a report from a group of BBS sysops in SWBT territory implying the threat was again present. The following day, a message appeared here which referred to the earlier message as just a rumor that supposedly had long since been killed. Levitt sent along another anouncement last week stating that a group of sysops was actively negotiating that issue and others with SWBT. I'm sure more news will be forthcoming soon, and that the sysop's organization will keep us informed. PT] ------------------------------ From: Deepak Sabnis Subject: Tariff Change on International Calling Date: 2 Jan 90 23:36:43 GMT Organization: HP Information Networks, Cupertino, CA Used to be that the most economical time to call India from U.S. on AT&T was between 11:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.. Effective December 31, 1988 AT&T has changed it to between 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.. As a matter of fact the rate structure has dropped from three tiers to two tiers (6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. is now the most expensive times to call India). A lot of folks will be surprised next months when they see their bills. They would be making calls during what they thought was the most economical time to call only to discover that it is the most expensive time. AT&T tells me that they have ads in most new papers today 1/2/90 announcing the changes. Wonder if similar changes (not the rates but the time when it is most expensive etc) have hit the tarrifs for calling other countries. What about other carriers? Deepak Sabnis hplabs!hpda!deepak ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jan 90 19:30:50 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Special Issues Planned for Digest The year is less than a week old, and already, two special issues of TELECOM Digest are in the planning stages -- Ben Lippolt has kindly provided a bibliography of publications relevant to AI Applications. This bibliography is in bibtext format. William Degnan has provided a lengthy press release from the Texas Office of Public Counsel (the rate-setting organization in that state) which responds in detail to complaints and other comments by Southwestern Bell Telephone Company regarding a proposed across the board rate reduction in that state. Watch for these special issues of the Digest when they are distributed during the next week. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #3 ****************************   Date: Thu, 4 Jan 90 0:02:08 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #4 Message-ID: <9001040002.aa32226@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 4 Jan 90 00:00:31 CST Volume 10 : Issue 4 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) (Roy Smith) Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) (Bob Sutterfield) Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) (Jamie Hanrahan) Re: The Torsten & Jim ISDN Chat Show (was ISDN & TCP/IP) (Jim Breen) Re: Multiple Call Forwarding vs Call Multiple Forwarding (Blake Farenthold) Re: Running Out of Area Codes, and How to Dial Long Distance (David Lewis) Re: Area Code 908 Lives (Seth Zirin) Re: The New Decade (Steven Tenney) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City Date: Wed, 3 Jan 90 15:48:50 GMT In <2534@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Cowan writes: > I developed a new approach. The moment I realize what the person who is > on the line is after, I take their reservation or give them what (made > up) information they seem to be seeking. Great fun! Shame on you! Put yourself in the place of the person calling. They have made an honest mistake (maybe it wasn't even their mistake; maybe some place listed the wrong number in an ad or whatever) and you take it out on them like they were some evil person calling you on purpose to annoy you? Imagine if you called to make an important train reservation. At the right time and date, you show up at the station, baggage in hand, only to find out that they have no record of your reservation and there isn't space on the train, and there isn't another train until tomorrow, by which time you'll miss your important meeting or whatever. Pretty cruel joke to play on some random unfortunate person. Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy "My karma ran over my dogma" [Moderator's Note: Your point is a very good one. Some readers may recall the columns by {Chicago Tribune} writer Mike Royko on this subject. Royko complained that his centrex extension at the Tribune (312-222-xxxx) was the same as a very heavily used number at AT&T, less the 1-800 on the front of it. He complained that AT&T should change *their* number due to the several people calling locally who failed to prepend the 1-800 to the number and wound up annoying him instead. His way of 'getting even' with evil old AT&T for refusing to cater to him was to pretend to be an AT&T service representative, and make nasty, ignorant and crude comments to the callers. AT&T put him on notice, telling him he was free to say whatever he wanted to people who reached him via a wrong number, except that he was not free to purport to be an employee, representative or agent of AT&T, either by direct statement or insinuation. He was told if he was caught making such a misrepresentation of himself or AT&T while discussing the service of present, past, or potential subscribers of AT&T he would get sued. That simple. The eventual outcome was the Tribune changed his extension number, and sent the other one to an intercept on their switch. PT] ------------------------------ From: Bob Sutterfield Subject: Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) Reply-To: Bob Sutterfield Organization: Morning Star Technologies Date: 3 Jan 90 13:28:19 When my dorm room phone was one digit off that of the Better Cab Company (serving Chicago's near north suburbs), I often received calls at bar closing time. I would mumble something like "we'll be right there" and hang up. When I finally got too fed up with the game (probably during finals week), I stormed the local IllBell office. They changed my number while I waited, and posted an operator to answer my old number and discern who was the caller's intended recipient. Our company's WATS number is one digit off that of Texaco's customer service hotline. We keep wanting to say "don't worry, ignore that bill and we'll take care of everything" but nobody's gotten up the nerve just yet. Somehow corporate life is different from a dorm room at 2:00am. ============================================ [Moderator's Note: I admit it sounds funny....but it is not funny! As Mr. Smith pointed out, it is a dreadful joke to play on an unsuspecting person. Even a drunken patron of a public house deserves the courtesy of being told 'wrong number', even if you say it angrily and slam the receiver in the process. Yes, I've done it too, years ago when I was a Young Man with an attitude problem. In 1972, my business number was 312 - WEbster 9-4600. Sears, Roebuck Chicago Region Credit Services was WAbash 2-4600. I had two lines; they had a five position cordboard which rocked around the clock with 65 incoming trunks in rotary hunt. One day IBT/Chicago-Pullman cut over to ESS, and some fool of a CO maintainence employee didn't know his 922's from his 939's. For six hours one day, I was *saturated* with calls from people wanting to gripe about their Sears credit card and I had a little fun with them....considering the volume of calls, Sears didn't even notice they were losing any. (How could you when you ordinarily get 350 calls per hour...or like Amoco Oil's sales authorization reps, closer to 1000 calls per hour?) PT] ------------------------------ From: jeh@simpact.com Subject: Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) Date: 3 Jan 90 11:47:21 PDT Organization: Simpact Associates, San Diego CA In article <2534@accuvax.nwu.edu>, cowan@marob.masa.com (John Cowan) writes: > James Thurber, in one of his short stories, discusses a similar type > of wrong-number strategy... Here's another tale in a somewhat similar vein. (On second thought, it's not similar at all. But John's story reminded me of this one!) Opening night of a particularly dreadful play -- intended to be a comedy -- in NYC was attended by, among others, the well-known humorist Robert Benchley. Benchley was sitting near the front row and was fast asleep by the end of the first act. The second act opened on a set devoid of actors; the sole "performer" visible was a ringing telephone. Benchley stirred and said, loud enough for much of the audience to hear, "Will somebody please get that? I think it's for me." A review the next morning commented that "The funniest line of the evening was spoken by Robert Benchley, who unfortunately was not in the cast." (I'm not sure, but I think I got this from a little book called "The What To Do While You're Holding The Phone Book", by Gary Owens -- yes, the LA-area DJ and tv personality. Those old enough to remember 60s-era tv, and those fond of watching Nik at Nite reruns, will remember him as the hand-on-the-ear announcer on Laugh-In.) --- Jamie Hanrahan, Simpact Associates, San Diego CA Internet: jeh@simpact.com, | Future shock: A sense of bewilderment or if that fails, jeh@crash.cts.com | felt by those who were not paying Uucp: ...{crash,decwrl}!simpact!jeh | attention. -- Analog (Jan 90) ------------------------------ From: jwb@cit5.cit.oz (Jim Breen) Subject: Re: The Torsten & Jim ISDN Chat Show (was ISDN & TCP/IP) Organization: Chisholm Institute of Technology, Melb., Australia Date: Wed, 3 Jan 90 00:15:45 GMT In article <2353@accuvax.nwu.edu>, euatdt@euas17c10.ericsson.se (Torsten Dahlkvist) asks: > P.S. Jim: has Telecom Australia made any introduction of BRI yet? As > far as I know, Ericsson has only sold PRI to them; hence the MD110 > stuff. The short answer is no, not yet. PRI was under trial for a year or so (it kept being delayed by you-know-who's AXE software), and was formally introduced last August. Telecom has announced "BRI" for mid-1990, as a "supplementary service" wherein a PRI will be demuxed into 14 2B+Ds in a local exchange. Just how much this will differ from true BRI, I don't know, but I have to spend some time soon finding out. I guess the mux will have to sort out the SAPIs, TEPIs, etc. In article <2361@accuvax.nwu.edu>, goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) writes: > "ISDN Phones" are a classic example of technology missing the market. > ISDN makes a terrible desktop data solution. Most terminal-host > connectivity is within the building (local area). ISDN, no matter how > you slice it, costs more for this than a LAN with terminal servers. [etc] ... and > ISDN's strength in the data world is when you go beyond the LAN. ISDN > to the home, or ISDN between locations. It makes a great modem > replacement. But who in their right mind uses modems to dial down the > hall? [etc] Exactly. The applications I am looking at for ISDN involve using it for WANs, as either a replacement for modems and DDS NTUs, or as a standby to back-up our 2.048 M services. This is why I would like some TAs, either to go on separate BRIs or to go on our P(A)BX. There *is* a demand for ISDN phones, provided they supply this sort of wide area data connectivity. _______ Jim Breen (jwb@cit5.cit.oz) Department of Robotics & /o\----\\ \O Digital Technology. Chisholm Inst. of Technology /RDT\ /|\ \/| -:O____/ PO Box 197 Caulfield East 3145 O-----O _/_\ /\ /\ (p) 03-573 2552 (fax) 572 1298 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jan 90 16:18:31 CST From: Blake Farenthold Subject: Re: Multiple Call Forwarding vs Call Multiple Forwarding In-Reply-To: message from wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu >1) How many hops can a forwarded call take? >2) If ending in a hunt group or rotary, can more than one call >be forwarded at the same time? >Item one has some uses. Item two is very nice if you run a dial-in >bank, shall we say in Metro DC, with 10 modems. You can get one line, >in a 'straddle' zone (maybe Howard County) and always forward calls to >the bank. Then up to ten people can benefit from the extended area of >local calling available. There was a 14 or so line CB Simulator in Ft. Worth that tried this a few years back. As it was explained to me they had about 14 business lines that "hunted" (or whatever term is in vogue now) in Ft. Worth. They wanted to extend service into Dallas without an expensive "metro" number (numbers that can be reahed toll free from the entire Dallas Ft. Worth metroplex) so they rented a closet or somthing in one of the mid cities (Arlington, Irving, D/FW Airport [yes D/FW Airport, Texas is a city], that is a local call to/from both Dallas and Ft. Worth) and set up fowarding. It worked for a while and would multiple forward. Then the phone company caught on (or just coincidently changed their software) and it started only forwarding one call and be busy for any additional calls 'till the first one hung up. The sysop then (or so he claims) set up a PC in the "closet" and when it "heard" the short ring indicating a call is being forwarded it picked up the line, dialed *73 (cancel call forwarding), hung up, picked the phone back up, then dialed *72 (activate call forwarding). This only "sorta" worked as often a caller would call into the Dallas number while the PC was in the process of re-establishing the forwarding. I have no idea if they are still doing this and have lost touch with the people involved since they sold the system. Judging by SWBell's attitude towrds BBSers they have probably found a way to stop this, if they know about it. UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!blake ARPA: crash!pnet01!pro-party!blake@nosc.mil INET: blake@pro-party.cts.com Blake Farenthold | Voice: 800/880-1890 | MCI: BFARENTHOLD 1200 MBank North | Fax: 512/889-8686 | CIS: 70070,521 Corpus Christi, TX 78471 | BBS: 512/882-1899 | GEnie: BLAKE ------------------------------ From: David Lewis Subject: Re: Running Out of Area Codes, and How to Dial Long Distance Date: 3 Jan 90 15:55:30 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ In article <2486@accuvax.nwu.edu>, msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) writes: > The thing that most distresses me about this whole > area-code-exhaustion business is that it'll mean that we'll LOSE the > possibility of a leading 1 ACTUALLY meaning, as it still does where I > am, "long distance". However... the distinction between "local" and "long distance" is becoming more and more vague. *Generally*, the distinction is useful because long distance service is measured (pay for each minute), and local service is unmeasured (a flat fee gets you unlimited minutes of calling). As time passes, though, more and more telcos are moving more and more in the direction of local measured service. (Just ask Patrick...) Plus, marketing organizations come up with a near-infinite number of "local calling areas", "extended calling areas", "message rate service", "low usage message rate service", etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. So a leading 1 could indicate "long distance". But should this mean "measured service call"? "Outside local calling area call"? Something else? The North American Numbering Plan is a *numbering* plan. It provides an unambiguous syntax for *numbering* -- not for cost of calls, or for billing method, or for marketing distinctions. Yes, it would be nice to know, as you are making a call, whether that call will cost you a flat amount, an amount proportional to the length of the call, or whether it's covered in your normal monthly bill. It would also be nice to know, in real time, how much that call is costing you. But I think that "1+" is not an appropriate solution. > Now, finally, my question. Can anyone comment on the relative > prevalence of the four syntaxes that I have called 1, 2, 3, and 4 in > North America, or better yet, actually provide a list of what areas > use what syntax? Of course not -- Why should I answer the question you asked when I can answer another one? Seriously, I doubt that anyone can completely answer the question. I can tell you the "recommended" method (1+10D for calls outside the home NPA; 7D for calls within the home NPA), but this is another case where the recommendation is one sentence and the exceptions would fill a good-sized book... David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center) "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower." ------------------------------ From: Seth Zirin Subject: Re: Area Code 908 Lives Date: 3 Jan 90 14:55:49 GMT Reply-To: szirin@cbnewsm.ATT.COM Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <2530@accuvax.nwu.edu> dave%westmark@uunet.uu.net (Dave Levenson) writes: >Right on schedule, 1/2/90, our shiny new area code began working in >Central New Jersey. I forget when it's supposed to become mandatory, >but folks who choose to use it can now call us on 908. Others can >still use 201. Not in the areas served by United Telephone. Those people are lucky when 201 works! ------------------------------ From: 10e@hpcvia.cv.hp.com (Steven_Tenney) Subject: Re: The New Decade Date: 2 Jan 90 22:31:11 GMT Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Corvallis, Oregon This is why Arthur C. Clarke named 2001: A Space Odyssey thusly instead of 2000: A Space Odyssey. Just a little trivia! +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Steve Tenney | They asked me if I could Hewlett-Packard Corvallis, ORE| Talk the Talk 10e@hpcvia.CV.HP.COM | 'n Walk the Walk \ == /// | I said, "Neither--so you'll ||||\\\ | 'cuse me while I slide on through!" ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #4 ****************************   Date: Thu, 4 Jan 90 23:46:30 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #5 Message-ID: <9001042346.aa03798@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 4 Jan 90 23:45:42 CST Volume 10 : Issue 5 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Modeming on Electronic Switch System (John Heckendorn) Free Local Phone Calls (Voice News, December, 89 via malcolm@apple.com) Airfone Service by GTE (Billy Bradford) "Calling" Card Charges (Theodore Lee) TV News Mates With Cellular Phones (Wayne Hamilton) Two Questions About Caller ID (Steve Forrette) Re: Direct Dialing the USSR (Thomas E. Lowe) Re: Modem Tax (Again? Again!) (Miguel Cruz) Re: Telephone Companies in the US Besides the RBOCs (John R. Levine) Re: Telephone Companies in the US Besides the RBOCs (Bob Goudreau) Re: Area Code 908 Lives (Tad Cook) Re: Area Code 908 Lives (Louis J. Judice) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BMUG Subject: Modeming on Electronic Switch System Reply-To: BMUG Organization: University of California, Berkeley Date: Thu, 4 Jan 90 04:02:40 GMT Perhaps someone from Northern Telecom or someone else familiar with this situation can point me in the direction of a solution... We have installed on our site an electronic Northern Telecom DMS100 telephone system. Because the system does not recognize normal tones, the system as configured will not work with standard modems, FAX machines, answering machines, etc. It *is* possible to get individual lines massaged to enable use of these devices, but said massage costs over $10/line/month (which gets to be kind of expensive when we're talking about ~25 lines). One thing I'd love to do is to connect a dialing device to our Macintoshes to enable our staff to use a software address book/ dialer. On a standard phone system, of course, there are myriad possibilities, such as modems and devices like HyperDialer. I'd like to find out whether a hardware interface to the NT electronic system exists, or better yet, whether someone has written a utility which will convert standard tones to whatever digital language the telephone system understands -- preferably under the Mac OS :-) -- to which the output from our dialing software can be sent and translated. Please respond via email, as this newsgroup is virgin territory to me. However, I promise to post a summary if info and interest warrant. Thanks! John Heckendorn /\ BMUG ARPA: bmug@garnet.berkeley.EDU A__A 1442A Walnut St., #62 BITNET: bmug@ucbgarne |()| Berkeley, CA 94709 Phone: (415) 549-2684 | | ------------------------------ Subject: Free Local Phone Calls Date: Wed, 03 Jan 90 22:01:08 -0800 From: malcolm@apple.com The following annoucement was sent to me by a colleague. I thought it might be of interest to the list. Maybe the blipvert isn't as far away as we thought..... Malcolm Isn't technology wonderful? -- Phone Spots Inc. (Weston, MO) has received a patent for a device that places recorded messages in the four second interval between rings of a telephone. The company is in the early stages of developing one application, called Freephone Service, for its invention. The Freephone concept involves distinctively marked, coinless public telephones that allow anyone to make free three-minute local calls. Callers will hear short advertising messages between rings while waiting for the phone to be answered. When the called party picks up their receiver, the messages stop. Sites for the phones include airports, hotels and convention centers. Currently there are over 48,000 public pay phones in these areas. Phone Spots expects advertising revenues to support the service. VoiceNews, December 89 ------------------------------ From: Billy Bradford Date: Thu, 4 Jan 90 12:47:44 EST Subject: Airfone Service by GTE [Moderator's Note: This was forwarded from Telenet's Net Exchange. PT] I flew to Texas for Christmas vacation. On all of the flights (round-trip), after the cabin attendant had finished the usual oxygen mask/saftey flotation cushion lecture, she said "For those of you who would like to make a phone call, there is now a public phone installed in the back of this aircraft. The card in your seat pocket has more information." I got the card and started reading. "The AirFone (or AirPhone, I can't remember which) is a new service being offered by GTE. It allows you to make phone calls from most of the many inter-US airline flights. Rates are printed on back." It then gave information about how to use the phone. You have to use a credit card, US calls are $2.00 a minute, and international calls are $4.00 a minute. Apparently the AirFone is similar to cellular, it said that it worked on a radio network that had stations placed at strategic locations throughout the US. "Occasionally, due to weather conditions, noise may occur in your call or you may get disconnected. If that occurs, please call your AirFone representative and your bill will be credited." That's all that I can remember off of the card, I left it in the seat with my six bucks worth of magazines! +-----------------------+---------------------------------+ | Billy Bradford | "What are you trying to do, | | P. O. Box 1374 | change the world?" | | Anadarko, OK 73005 | "No, just my little corner | | (405) 247-7016 | of it." | | | ---A Digest contributor | +-----------------------+---------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jan 90 21:12:56 EST From: Theodore Lee Subject: "Calling" Card Charges Can someone explain who determines how "calling" (aka credit) card charges are billed? I have a USWest card (Minneapolis RBOC). Almost all calls I make using it, e.g., from either East coast or West coast back to Minneapolis, show up on my AT&T bill. Recently I made a couple of calls between Virginia and Maryland using it, both ends within the DC LATA. Those calls showed up on my local (USWest) bill. If the DC RBOC (C&P) can manage to get the bill sent back to USWest, why can't AT&T??? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jan 90 17:45:58 -0600 From: Wayne Hamilton Subject: TV News Mates With Cellular Phones Last nite I saw a promo spot for a local TV station's news department. They (WCIA, Channel 3, Champaign, IL) have arranged with Ameritech Cellular for "*3" dialed on cellular phones in this area to connect to WCIA news, toll-free, so that motorists can report unusual news events as they happen. wayne hamilton U of Il and US Army Corps of Engineers CERL UUCP: {att,iuvax,uunet}!uiucuxc!osiris!hamilton I'net: hamilton@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu Lowtek: Box 476, Urbana, IL 61801; (217)384-4310(voice), -4311(BBS) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jan 90 12:47 EDT From: Steve Forrette Subject: Two Questions About Caller ID 1) Long distance and Caller ID How well does Caller ID work with incoming long distance calls? I would imagine that it would depend on how much information the carrier passes to the local service provider, which probably varies between carriers? 2) Caller ID on DID lines Is this possible? ------------------------------ From: Thomas E Lowe Subject: Re: Direct Dialing the USSR Date: 4 Jan 90 13:45:50 GMT Reply-To: tel@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (thomas.e.lowe,ho,) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <2515@accuvax.nwu.edu> Gabe Wiener writes: >That sparked a few questions: >1. Why direct service only to Moscow? I was trying to reach the Estonia BBS and the circuits to USSR were very busy. I got to talking to one of the operators in Pittsburgh (where they route international calls....there is also a center in Denver) and they said that ever since Moscow went to direct dial, the circuits have been incredibly busy. I suspect that if all of USSR went direct dial, that would just compound the problem. As it is now, there is at least a limit to the number of attempts for circuits to non-Moscow sites. The operator also told me that more circuits via satelite are supposedly soon to come. I did eventually get through to the bbs and got as far as entering a password and got disconnected. I tried and tried again all day till the afternoon and someone ended up answering the phone. I talked to him for a couple minutes. I told him I would try again another day to get the bbs. I don't know if it was the sysop or not, but it was apparently the correct number. Tom Lowe tel@cdsdb1.ATT.COM attmail!tlowe 201-949-0428 AT&T Bell Laboratories, Room 2E-637A Crawfords Corner Road, Holmdel, NJ 07733 (R) UNIX is a registered trademark of AT&T (keep them lawyers happy!!) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jan 90 03:35:08 EST From: Miguel_Cruz@um.cc.umich.edu Subject: Re: Modem Tax (Again? Again!) > [Moderator's Note: It was not a modem 'tax', but rather, a requirement > by Southwestern Bell Telephone Company that users of modems in > general, and BBS operators in particular, pay business rates for their > phone service. This first came up a few years ago, presumably was > squashed, then the issue was raised again lately. Ken Levitt, a > Fidonet participant in the Digest, passed along a report from a group > of BBS sysops in SWBT territory implying the threat was again present. > The following day, a message appeared here which referred to the > earlier message as just a rumor that supposedly had long since been > killed... PT] Au contraire... The "modem tax" is something the FCC rumbles about every few years when the phone companies start complaining. It was apparently put off the last time because of the flood of letters which came in to FCC people and legislators, presumably as a result of a national BBS campaign. The campaign has started again, because the FCC is apparently considering levying an additional hourly charge (like $6) on companies like Telenet which make use of the phone network for information transit. Also, apparently (though I'm fuzzy on this) there is something involving a similar fee for any modem use over phone lines. I'm sure others out there know much more about this. [Moderator's Note: This is true, but the key here is the writer had asked about a message which appeared in the Digest just a few days earlier saying the 'tax' was only a rumor. The message he made reference to was one sent in response to Mr. Levitt's regards SWBT vrs. the BBS'ers using residence lines. But indeed, the suggested 'tax' you remind us of is still a possible threat also. Eternal vigilence is required, friends. PT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Telephone Companies in the US Besides the RBOCs Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA Date: 4 Jan 90 11:23:55 EST (Thu) From: "John R. Levine" In case nobody else tells you, here are the names of the RBOCs: NYNEX New York and New England Bell Atlantic middle Atlantic states BellSouth south east Ameritech northern midwest Southwest Bell Texas and southwest U S West mountain and northwest states Pacific Tel California and Nevada There were a lot more operating companies than this; U S West has merged all of its operating companies into U S West Communications, the rest still have the operating companies as subsidiaries, e.g. Bell Atlantic still has New Jersey Bell, Bell of Pennsylvania, Diamond State Tel (Delaware), and the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone companies of, respectively, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia. This is a long list, several of the holding companies have only one or two operating companies. The various companies have taken different diversification strategies. BellSouth and Southwest Bell have bought into a lot of cellular telephone companies outside their home area, Bell Atlantic has bought software and computer maintenance companues, NYNEX has a chain of computer stores, Pacific Tel is in undersea cables, and U S West is doing all sorts of miscellaneous stuff. It is my impression that the ones that have stuck most closely to telephony have been the most financially sucessful. Two other of Ma's heirs that bear mention are: Southern New England Telephone most of Connecticut Cincinnati Bell small area around Cincinnati Ohio They were affiliates rather than subsidiaries of AT&T (i.e. AT&T owned a minority rather than a majority of the stock) and so are not subject to the restrictions placed on the holding companies, even though before the breakup they acted as part of the Bell System as much as anybody else. Regards, John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jan 90 19:48:20 est From: Bob Goudreau Subject: Re: Telephone Companies in the US Besides the RBOCs Reply-To: goudreau@larrybud.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC In article <2543@accuvax.nwu.edu> anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au writes: >Wonder if anyone could post a summary of all the major telephone >companies in the US besides the RBOCs. Particularly Nynex (sp??), I >read recently that Nynex have [sic] made a deal with Telecom Australia. >Anyone know more about the deal ? I don't know any more about that particular deal, but I can tell you that NYNEX is NOT one of the major non-Bell telcos like GTE; rather, it is one of the 7 RBOCs spun off from AT&T during the breakup. Its regional subsidiaries are New York Telephone (which serves most of New York state and a little bit of Connecticut, I believe) and New England Telephone (which serves almost all areas in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts and Rhode Island). New York and New England -- hence the name "NYNEX". Bob Goudreau +1 919 248 6231 Data General Corporation ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!goudreau 62 Alexander Drive goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Area Code 908 Lives Date: 4 Jan 90 07:27:40 GMT Organization: very little When the new area code in Illinois arrived last fall, Illinois Bell had a nationwide WATS number that you could call which would prompt you to dial a 3 digit prefix, and then tell you whether or not it was in the new area code. Is there any service like this for the new 908 code? Any other way of finding out some exact definitions of the area it covers? I need to update my mailing list at the office, and also a list that I use to cross reference the first three digits of a postal Zip Code to the telephone area code. Tad Cook tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ From: "Louis J. Judice 04-Jan-1990 0842" Subject: Re: Area Code 908 Lives Date: 4 Jan 90 00:00:00 GMT > re: message indicating that in United Telecom areas, A/C 908 is not > working yet. Another problem is that many PBX's are programmed to reject area codes (to reduce phone abuse). Since public knowledge of 908 is virtually non-existant, most system administrators have not turned 908 on yet. Incidentally, while on a 411 call to get a number from NJ Bell information I asked "is the 908 area code working fully now?" - and got the response "what are you talking about, there is NO 908 area code here in my list"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NO KIDDING! Lou Judice Digital Equipment (908/201) 562-4103 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #5 ****************************   Date: Fri, 5 Jan 90 0:44:44 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #6 Message-ID: <9001050044.aa01825@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 4 Jan 90 00:43:58 CST Volume 10 : Issue 6 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson COCOT Scam (Dave Brightbill) Re: One-armed Bandits (Lars J. Poulsen) Re: Phone Frustration (Peter da Silva) Re: Phone Frustration (Todd Inch) Re: Phone Frustration (Tad Cook) Re: Modem Tax (Again? Again!) (Bennett Todd) Re: How Are Inter-LATA Calls in the Same Area Code Handled? (David Esan) Telephone/Computer Interface (Roger Clark Swann) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 4 Jan 90 14:17:07 EST From: Dave Brightbill Subject: COCOT Scam I just had an amazing conversation with a PSC (state utility regulation) person about COCOT's in Florida (which, for some strange reason, they call "PADS"). I was calling to bitch about a pay phone with evil alignment and we got to talking about some of the newer COCOT scams which they are currently investigating. There is a guy who is selling installed COCOT's to folks who want to immigrate to this country and need an excuse. The deal is that he sells a phone for around $50,000. The buyer now owns a business in Florida and under US immigration law, can enter the US to attend to his business affairs without having to have a green card. I also learned that COCOTs are a fav of folks with large clumps of cash to launder. They put in a phone and report huge takes in the coin box. Sort of like the vending machine business used to be. ------------------------------ From: Lars J Poulsen Subject: Re: One-armed Bandits Reply-To: Lars J Poulsen Organization: Advanced Computer Communications, Santa Barbara, California Date: Thu, 4 Jan 90 07:46:29 GMT In article <2542@accuvax.nwu.edu> STEVEF%WALKER_RICHER_QUINN@mcimail.com (Steve Forrette) writes: >IMHO, COCOT's provide nothing but a disservice to the calling public. Agreed. >So by not allowing free collect/calling card calls, the replacement >phones have removed what I consider to be a substantial service in the >public interest that the phone network had previously provided. Agreed. >Pacific Bell's attitude to problems is "fill out this form, send it >in, and if we get 3 complaints on the same phone, *maybe* we'll >disconnect it." I can understand 3 complaints for money-eating, poor >quality, etc., but for blatant tariff violations? If a phone is >charging 60 cents for a call which by law can cost at most 25 cents, >why does it take 3 complaints to have it shut off? Because any single violation could be an honest keystroke error in configuration. Technically, each business hosting a COCOT is the operator of that service, and each must be given a chance to clean up their act. Never mind that you and I know that the real operator is the device manufacturer who knows better and preprograms all of them in violation of the rules. >Granted, they will probably look into it on the first complaint, but >for something as serious and reproducable as that, why three before >guaranteed action? >And these tariff violations are not as uncommon as you may think. A >couple of years ago, I got a copy of all the rules from Pacific Bell >(so I would know what I was talking about), and did a little testing. >Out of the 20 phones I tested, NOT A SINGLE ONE was compliant. If it's that clearcut, we should be able to put them all out of service within a month!!! How long is the list of rules, what are the typical violations, and did they guarantee to shut them d~rown after 3 complaints ? An afternoon a week would be very well spent shutting down COCOTs. Here in Santa Barbara, (GTE country) we're a bit behind in COCOTs; I don't think I have seen any yet, but when they start coming, I'd love to nail them. / Lars Poulsen (800) 222-7308 or (805) 963-9431 ext 358 ACC Customer Service Affiliation stated for identification only My employer probably would not agree if he knew what I said !! [Moderator's Note: The above message had to be substantially edited to remove excess quotes. May I remind everyone that messages which contain more than a 50/50 ratio of quotes to new text will NOT pass the Usenet gateway, thus cannot be used here. Keep quotes to a minimum, or better still, don't quote at all; just paraphrase earlier remarks. PT] ------------------------------ From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Phone Frustration Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Date: Wed, 3 Jan 90 19:47:18 GMT John Higdon described how he got certain COCOTs owned by small businesses disconnected by complaining to the guvmint. I responded: Pretty nasty thing to do to some individual or small businessman who (as you later pointed out) may have NO idea of the legal requirements. How about trying to talk to the person running the thing, first? John's response: > Don't you think that we, the public, are put upon enough with COCOTs > in general without having to hold the hand of someone who should be > aware of the rules and regs of his business BEFORE he foists his > instrument of annoyance on us all? Well, he could just not provide a public telephone at his place of business at all. That's a valid option. Lots of places do that. I'd much rather have a little problem with a privately owned COCOT than have to put up with "no, we don't allow phone calls... but the laundromat across the street there has a public phone: there's a traffic signal a block east". The guy's providing a service. There's no law saying he has to make a phone available to the next guy who walks in off the street. > In the matter of COCOTs, I have > wasted way too much time trying to track down owners of same to inform > them of things they should already know. Well, if you're there you can walk up to the person behind the counter and say "Excuse me, do you know that the law says so-and-so? Could you let the owner know?". If that doesn't get results, go ahead and use your nuclear option. But it doesn't take *any* time at all for you to try the easy route first. > My clients' listeners go straight to the FCC for perceived violations, > as well they should. Ignorance of the law, no matter how small the > business, is no justification for not following the rules. One of the biggest problems in this country, in my opinion, is people like you who think that it's OK to bring the force of the law to bear on someone. Yes, ignorance of the law is no excuse. But a measured response to an irritation is only common courtesy. More courtesy and less legal excrement can only help the situation. [ If it were known that violating the law, even accidentally ] > would result in summary disconnection, maybe more COCOT operators > would obey them in the first place, instead of trying to see what they > could get away with up front. You're attributing motivations to the owners of these COCOTs that might not be there. Many people can't even program a VCR reliably, you know. And the very people who are likely to be the subject of your ire are the people least likely to know they're in danger of summary disconnection. No matter what you do. And you might find that the response will be for them to pull the phone out completely, and direct walk-ins to the laundromat down the block and across the street. I'm sure you have no problems with that. No legal ones, anyway. _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. . / `-_-'\ Also or \_.--._/ v ------------------------------ From: toddi@gtisqr.UUCP (Todd Inch) Subject: Re: Phone Frustration Date: 4 Jan 90 22:18:31 GMT Reply-To: toddi@gtisqr.UUCP (Todd Inch) Organization: Global Technology International, Inc. In article <2520@accuvax.nwu.edu> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <2497@accuvax.nwu.edu> tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) writes: >> Our PUC has an 800 number. A call to the PUC with the location and >> telephone number of the phone has resulted in DISCONNECTION of the >> non-complying phone every time. >Pretty nasty thing to do to some individual or small businessman who >(as you later pointed out) may have NO idea of the legal requirements. >How about trying to talk to the person running the thing, first? Although this would be the polite thing to do, and I would probably try it first myself, I disagree that a person is being unreasonable or rude by calling the PUC instead. Since I'm not at all connected with the telecom biz I may misunderstand some of the details, but it seems that if you are going to provide telephone service of any type to the public, through a privately owned coin phone in this case, it is your responsibility to know what you're doing and to make sure you've followed all the regulations. The public should be able to hold you accountable for this. If you don't know what you're doing, you should hire a knowledgable consultant. If I were in the restaurant business, for instance, I'd have to understand sales tax, health regulations, etc. (Hmmm . . . should a customer tell me about gross things he found in the hamburger, or just call the Health Dept?) There are plenty more examples. I assume that the phones in question are intended to make profits or to support another business (hotel, etc) which make profits. I wouldn't feel quite so strongly about this if the phone were truly a public service rather than a revenue-generator. There is already too much confusion in the telecommunication business which the consumer has to deal with. I can do without more naive business people trying their hand at these new markets. It IS reasonable to try to keep others from having trouble with a problem (billing, operation, or whatever) phone by having it shut off. How easy would it be to find the owner/operator of the phone, let alone convince him of the problem? Most of the times I've tried to convince a business that they have a problem, either I can't find the right person or they don't care. I've found this to be true of even very small business that you'd think would want your input. Kinda sad. That's my $.02 worth, anyway. Todd Inch, System Manager, Global Technology, Mukilteo WA (206) 742-9111 UUCP: {smart-host}!gtisqr!toddi ARPA: gtisqr!toddi@beaver.cs.washington.edu "You are the booger in the nose of my life." - My wife, to me. (Jokingly?) Disclaimer: My boss will read this while checking up on me and will disagree. ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Phone Frustration Date: 4 Jan 90 07:13:56 GMT Organization: very little I was interested to read Peter da Silva's comments about my posting regarding disconnection of COCOTs. At the time that I wrote it, I was a bit concerned that my posting sounded a little heavy handed. Actually, I have tried communication with the owners of the offending COCOT phones....but get nowhere. Often the guy at the gas station or convenience store says they don't know anything about it. Also, in this state it is a requirement that these phones have the name, address, and phone number of the COCOT owner displayed, along with a coin-free method of reaching them for repair or refund. In each case, my complaint revolved around the fact that the phone could not reach these numbers. Actually, I am not anti-COCOT. I also think that the tarrifs on COCOTs are awfully steep, especially since the telco wont give them answer supervision. But I also expect to be able to reach the operator of each COCOT, as provided by law. Tad Cook tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ From: bet@orion.mc.duke.edu (Bennett Todd) Subject: Re: Modem Tax (Again? Again!) Date: 4 Jan 90 18:55:10 GMT Reply-To: bet@orion.mc.duke.edu (Bennett Todd) Organization: Diagnostic Physics, Radiology, DUMC In-reply-to: Allyn@cup.portal.com I think two different issues have gotten confused with one and other here. 1: A couple of years ago the FCC was considering a ruling that would require services like GTE's PC-Pursuit to pay an access charge, similar to that paid by alternative LD carriers. This has been hooted down, and I haven't heard any new news about that in a couple of years. As far as I know that one's dead. 2: In a completely unrelated piece of news, SWB has been battling for a while now to force individuals to pay business rates if they use a modem. They particularly targeted BBS owners. That issue appears to be open still, though it looks like the sysops have succeeded in making major headway. -Bennett bet@orion.mc.duke.edu ------------------------------ From: Dave Esan Subject: Re: How Are Inter-LATA Calls in the Same Area Code Handled? Date: 4 Jan 90 15:09:23 GMT Organization: Moscom Corp., E. Rochester, NY In article , johnl@esegue.segue. boston.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes: > How many multi-lata area codes are there other than 609? I know that > 914 in New York is one, as is 408 in California. Are there many > others? Yes, most NPA's have more than one lata in them. As a matter of fact, according to my last search 99 NPA's have more than one lata. They are: 201 219 317 412 509 608 704 805 901 203 301 318 413 512 609 705 806 902 205 303 319 414 513 612 706 807 904 206 304 402 417 515 613 712 809 905 208 305 403 419 516 614 715 812 912 209 307 404 501 517 615 716 813 913 214 308 405 502 601 618 717 814 914 215 309 406 503 602 619 719 815 915 216 313 407 504 605 701 801 816 916 217 314 408 505 606 702 803 817 918 218 316 409 507 607 703 804 819 919 ____________________________________________________________ --> David Esan rochester!moscom!de ------------------------------ From: Roger Clark Swann Subject: Telephone/Computer Interface Date: 4 Jan 90 05:55:27 GMT Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics, Seattle WA I seem to remember that someone was asking about an interface box here recently. Today I came across an ad for a box that some of you out there might be interested in. All I know about the device is from the ad.... TELEPHONE/COMPUTER INTERFACE T-130 Telephone Access unit with 2-way Touchtone/ASCII conversion: * Intelligent dialer for PC's and other DTE devices. Responds to call progress tones, voice, and other calling signals. ASCII controlled DTMF and audio input. * Intelligent answering device reports incoming rings for auto or commanded answer. Answer tone, audio port, and DTMF to ASCII conversion for remote phone data entry. For more info call: 1-800-426-3926 (in Washingtion State: 206-827-9626) TELTONE (R) 10801 120th Avenue NE, Kirkland, WA 98033 Roger Swann | uucp: uw-beaver!ssc-vax!clark @ | The Boeing Company | ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #6 ****************************   Date: Fri, 5 Jan 90 1:39:02 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest Special: AI Applications Message-ID: <9001050139.aa31616@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 5 Jan 90 01:25:00 CST Special: AI Applications Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Summary of AI Applications in Telecommunications (Ben Lippolt) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ben Lippolt Subject: Summary of AI Applications in Telecommunications Date: 3 Jan 90 15:23:33 GMT Organization: PTT Research Neher Laboratories Lines: 558 A few week ago I posted an inquiry about publications on AI-applications to telecommunications network management. I got several responses. Thanks to everybody who replied. Here follows a summary and a list of titles in bibtex format. The most important sources for this topic are: * the book "Expert System Applications to Telecommunications", by Jay Liebowitz (ed), Wiley, 1988. * proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Communications, June 1988, Philadelphia. * proceedings of ICC'89: International Conference on Communications, 1989. * proceedings of Avignon'89: specialized conference on Artificial Intelligence, Telecommunications & Computer Systems, May 1989, Avignon. (also the 1987 proceedings contain some articles on this topic. The same specialized conference will be held again in 1990). * the journal "IEEE Journal on selected areas in communications" of june 1988 is a special issue on this topic. I hope this information is useful. Ben Lippolt PTT Research, Neher Laboratories || E-mail : BJ_Lippolt@pttrnl.nl PO Box 421 || EARN/BITnet : LIPPOLT@HLSDNL5 2260 AK Leidschendam || UUCP : hp4nl!dnlunx!lippolt The Netherlands || Tel : +31 70 3435439 --------------------------- cut here ----------------------------------- @article{K614, AUTHOR = {{C. Cynar}}, TITLE = { Computer desing networks by imitating the experts}, JOURNAL = { Data Communications}, YEAR = {1985}, VOLUME = { 4}, NUMBER = { 4}, PAGES = { 137-145}, } @misc{K360, AUTHOR = {{G.J. Garwood}}, TITLE = { Role of Expert Systems in the Maintenance of Telecommunication Networks}, BOOKTITLE = { 6th European Conference on Electronics EUROCON'84}, YEAR = {1984}, PAGES = { 9-13}, } @inproceedings{K575, AUTHOR = {{F. Ghazvinian} and {J.J.M. Wang} and {R. Godfrey}}, TITLE = { Application of expert system in CLASS}, BOOKTITLE = { IEEE Int. Conf. on Comm.'88}, MONTH = {june}, YEAR = {1988}, PAGES = { 1745-1749}, ADRESS = { Philadelphia}, } @article{K482, AUTHOR = {{D. Gross}}, TITLE = { Applications of AI technology in communications networks}, JOURNAL = { Expert systems}, YEAR = {1988}, VOLUME = { 5}, NUMBER = { 3}, PAGES = { 248-251}, } @article{K018, AUTHOR = {{C.N. Klahr}}, TITLE = { An expert system can greatly reduce expenditures for telecommunications}, JOURNAL = { Data Communications}, MONTH = {july}, YEAR = {1985}, PAGES = { 155-167}, } @article{K615, AUTHOR = {{L. Mantelman}}, TITLE = { AI carves inroads: network design, testing, and management}, JOURNAL = { Data Communications}, YEAR = {1986}, VOLUME = { 5}, NUMBER = { 7}, PAGES = { 106-123}, } @inproceedings{K570, AUTHOR = {{H.T. Mouftah}}, TITLE = { Expert systems for the performance evaluation of communication networks}, BOOKTITLE = { IEEE Int. Conf. on Comm.'88}, MONTH = {june}, YEAR = {1988}, PAGES = { 1719-1723}, ADRESS = { Philadelphia}, } @inproceedings{K572, AUTHOR = {{B. Pagurek} and {A.R. Kaye} and {D. Helmy}}, TITLE = { Knowledge based fault location in a data communication network}, BOOKTITLE = { IEEE Int. Conf. on Comm.'88}, MONTH = {june}, YEAR = {1988}, PAGES = { 1729-1733}, ADRESS = { Philadelphia}, } @article{K089, AUTHOR = {{D. Probert}}, TITLE = { Towards expert systems for telecommunications policy analysis}, JOURNAL = { Computer communications}, MONTH = {april}, YEAR = {1983}, PAGES = { 58-64}, } @inproceedings{K567, AUTHOR = {{S. Rabie} and {T. Bult} and {V. Snarr Carter} and {B. Cavan}}, TITLE = { DRESS: diagnostic repair expert system shell}, BOOKTITLE = { IEEE Int. Conf. on Comm.'88}, MONTH = {june}, YEAR = {1988}, PAGES = { 1467-1472}, ADRESS = { Philadelphia}, } @inproceedings{K571, AUTHOR = {{B. Roberts}}, TITLE = { A network analyst's assistant}, BOOKTITLE = { IEEE Int. Conf. on Comm.'88}, MONTH = {june}, YEAR = {1988}, PAGES = { 1724-1728}, ADRESS = { Philadelphia}, } @article{K499, AUTHOR = {{W. Sayles} and {J. Thomas}}, TITLE = { Finding and fixing network faults with an expert system}, JOURNAL = { Data Communications}, MONTH = {june} YEAR = {1988}, PAGES = { 149-165}, } @article{K329, AUTHOR = {{M. Thandasseri}}, TITLE = { Expert systems application for TXE4A exchanges}, JOURNAL = { Electrical Communication}, YEAR = {1986}, VOLUME = { 60}, NUMBER = { 2}, PAGES = { 154-161}, } @inproceedings{K573, AUTHOR = {{E.J. Zakrzewski} and {R. Quillin}}, TITLE = { Applications of expert systems to network control}, BOOKTITLE = { IEEE Int. Conf. on Comm.'88}, MONTH = {june}, YEAR = {1988}, PAGES = { 1734-1739}, ADRESS = { Philadelphia}, } @article{K627, AUTHOR = {{Shri K. Goyal} and {Ralph W. Worrest}}, TITLE = { Expert systems in network maintenance and management}, JOURNAL = { IEEE}, YEAR = {1986}, VOLUME = { 39}, PAGES = { 1225-1229}, } @article{K629, AUTHOR = {{JY. Brossier} and {B. Faller} and {A. Fron} and {G. Garcia} and {P. Kirsch}}, TITLE = { A communication network trouble-shooting expert system}, JOURNAL = { IEEE}, YEAR = {1986}, VOLUME = { 39}, PAGES = { 1238-1240}, } @article{K632, AUTHOR = {{Y.V. Ramana Reddy} and {Shankar B. Uppuluri}}, TITLE = { Intelligent systems technology in network operations management}, JOURNAL = { IEEE}, YEAR = {1986}, VOLUME = { 39}, PAGES = { 1220-1224}, } @inproceedings{K662, AUTHOR = {{David Leinweber}}, TITLE = { Real-Time Expert Systems and Communications Network Applications}, BOOKTITLE = { Sixth Annual International Phoenix Conference on Computers and Communications, IEEE}, MONTH = {feb}, YEAR = {1987}, PAGES = { 548-550}, ADRESS = { Scottsdale USA}, } @inproceedings{K663, AUTHOR = {{Sol J. Greenspan} and {Clement L. McGowan} and {M. Chandra Shekaran}}, TITLE = { Toward an object-oriented framework for defining services in future intelligent networks}, BOOKTITLE = { IEEE International Conference on Communications '88}, MONTH = {June}, YEAR = {1988}, PAGES = { 867-873}, ADRESS = { Philadelphia USA}, } @inproceedings{K664, AUTHOR = {{A. Taylor}}, TITLE = { How expert systems can support network diagnostics, management and control}, BOOKTITLE = { International Conference on Private Switching Systems and Networks}, MONTH = {June}, YEAR = {1988}, PAGES = { 159-164}, ADRESS = { London}, } @inproceedings{K665, AUTHOR = {{Roman O. Yudkin}}, TITLE = { On testing communication networks}, BOOKTITLE = { GLOBECOM Tokyo '87}, MONTH = {Nov}, YEAR = {1987}, PAGES = { 1843-1850}, ADRESS = { Tokyo, Japan}, } @inproceedings{K666, AUTHOR = {{N.A. Khan} and {P.H. Callahan} and {N.S. Lee} and {R. Dube} and {J.L. Tsay} and {W. van Dusen}}, TITLE = { An engineering approach to model-based troubleshooting in communication networks}, BOOKTITLE = { GLOBECOM Tokyo '87}, MONTH = {Nov.}, YEAR = {1987}, PAGES = { 1818-1824}, ADRESS = { Tokyo}, } @inproceedings{K667, AUTHOR = {{T. Bult} and {D. peacocke} and {Sameh Rabie} and {Vicky Snarr}}, TITLE = { An interactive expert system for switch maintenance}, BOOKTITLE = { Proc. Int. Switch. Symp.}, MONTH = {March}, YEAR = {1987}, PAGES = { 59-65}, } @article{K668, AUTHOR = {{Wei-Dong Zhan} and {Suchai Thanwastien} and {Lois M.L. Delcambre}}, TITLE = { SIMNETMAN: An expert workstation for designing rule-based network management systems}, JOURNAL = { IEEE Netw.}, MONTH = {Sept.}, YEAR = {1988}, VOLUME = { 2}, NUMBER = { 5}, PAGES = { 35-42}, } @article{K669, AUTHOR = {{Kenneth J. Macleish}}, TITLE = { Mapping the integration of artificial intelligence into telecommunications}, JOURNAL = { IEEE Journal on selected areas in communications}, MONTH = {June}, YEAR = {1988}, VOLUME = { 6}, NUMBER = { 2}, PAGES = { 892-898}, } @article{K670, AUTHOR = {{Paul H. Callahan}}, TITLE = { Expert systems for AT\&T switched network maintenance}, JOURNAL = { AT\&T Technical Journal}, MONTH = {Jan-Feb}, YEAR = {1988}, VOLUME = { 67}, NUMBER = { 1}, PAGES = { 93-103}, } @article{K671, AUTHOR = {{T.E. Marques}}, TITLE = { STARKEEPER network troubleshooter: an expert system product}, JOURNAL = { AT\&T Technical journal}, MONTH = {Nov-Dec}, YEAR = {1988}, VOLUME = { 67}, NUMBER = { 6}, PAGES = { 137-154}, } @article{K672, AUTHOR = {{A. Pitchai} and {S. Chaganty} and {T.W. Morgan}}, TITLE = { NET-HELP: An online rule based help system for the network}, JOURNAL = { Proc. SPIE - Int. Soc. Opt. Eng.}, YEAR = {1988}, VOLUME = { 937}, PAGES = { 666-670}, } @inproceedings{K685, AUTHOR = {{A. Benicourt} and {V. Crommelynck}}, TITLE = { CENTAURE: an expert system for monitoring the French Railways nationwide computer network}, BOOKTITLE = { 9th International Workshop on Expert Systems and their applications}, MONTH = {May 29 - June 2}, YEAR = {1989}, PAGES = { 17-34}, ADRESS = { Avignon}, } @inproceedings{K686, AUTHOR = {{C. Baird} and {T. White}}, TITLE = { A real-time network monitor}, BOOKTITLE = { 9th International Workshop on Expert Systems and their applications}, MONTH = {May 29 - June 2}, YEAR = {1989}, PAGES = { 35-44}, ADRESS = { Avignon}, } @inproceedings{K687, AUTHOR = {{L.M. Cross} and {T.S. Dillon}}, TITLE = { A knowledge-based approach to network traffic management in a national telecommunications network}, BOOKTITLE = { 9th International Workshop on Expert Systems and their applications}, MONTH = {May 29 - June 2}, YEAR = {1989}, PAGES = { 45-62}, ADRESS = { Avignon}, } @inproceedings{K688, AUTHOR = {{B. Lutticke} and {D. McArthur} and {A. Neuhaus} and {S. Sachs} and {A. Swanson}}, TITLE = { An interactive graphical configurator for networked systems}, BOOKTITLE = { 9th International Workshop on Expert Systems and their applications}, MONTH = {May 29 - June 2}, YEAR = {1989}, PAGES = { 119-130}, ADRESS = { Avignon}, } @inproceedings{K689, AUTHOR = {{E. Hausen-Troppen} and {S. Pierre}}, TITLE = { An expert system for designing large scale computer networks}, BOOKTITLE = { 9th International Workshop on Expert Systems and their applications}, MONTH = {May 29 - June 2}, YEAR = {1989}, PAGES = { 131-143}, ADRESS = { Avignon}, } @inproceedings{K690, AUTHOR = {{G. Fleischanderl} and {G. Friedrich} and {J. Retti}}, TITLE = { Model-driven fault localization in audio routing systems}, BOOKTITLE = { 9th International Workshop on Expert Systems and their applications}, MONTH = {May 29 - June 2}, YEAR = {1989}, PAGES = { 173-184}, ADRESS = { Avignon}, } @inproceedings{K691, AUTHOR = {{F. Ferrara} and {F. Giovannini} and {E. Paschetta}}, TITLE = { IAS: an expert systems for packet-switched network monitoring and repair assistance}, BOOKTITLE = { 9th International Workshop on Expert Systems and their applications}, MONTH = {May 29 - June 2}, YEAR = {1989}, PAGES = { 185-198}, ADRESS = { Avignon}, } @inproceedings{K692, AUTHOR = {{L. Goffaux} and {R. Mathonet}}, TITLE = { Providing object-oriented systems with automatizable knowledge representation formalisms. An application to network troubleshooting}, BOOKTITLE = { 9th International Workshop on Expert Systems and their applications}, MONTH = {May 29 - June 2}, YEAR = {1989}, PAGES = { 199-211}, ADRESS = { Avignon}, } @inproceedings{K693, AUTHOR = {{C. Radcliffe}}, TITLE = { An expert system for integrated network management}, BOOKTITLE = { Proceedings of the international conference on Network Management}, YEAR = {1988}, PAGES = { 137-148}, ADRESS = { London}, } @inproceedings{K694, AUTHOR = {{D. Chivers} and {I.P. Sharp}}, TITLE = { Experience of an expert system for network management}, BOOKTITLE = { Proceedings of the international conference on Network Management}, YEAR = {1988}, PAGES = { 149-160}, ADRESS = { London}, } @article{K695, AUTHOR = {{L. Bernstein} and {C.M. Yuhas}}, TITLE = { Expert systems in network management - The second revolution}, JOURNAL = { IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications}, MONTH = {june}, YEAR = {1988}, VOLUME = { 6}, NUMBER = { 5}, PAGES = { 784-787}, } @article{K696, AUTHOR = {{K. Ganesan} and {M. Ganti}}, TITLE = { A multimedia front-end for an expert network management system}, JOURNAL = { IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications}, MONTH = {june}, YEAR = {1988}, VOLUME = { 6}, NUMBER = { 5}, PAGES = { 788-791}, } @article{K697, AUTHOR = {{N.A. Khan} and {P.H. Callahan} and {R. Dube} and {J.L. Tsay} and {W. van Dusen}}, TITLE = { An engineering approach to model-based troubleshooting in communication networks}, JOURNAL = { IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications}, MONTH = {june}, YEAR = {1988}, VOLUME = { 6}, NUMBER = { 5}, PAGES = { 792-799}, } @article{K698, AUTHOR = {{D.M.D. Liu} and {D.A. Pelz}}, TITLE = { I-test: Integrated testing expert system for trunks}, JOURNAL = { IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications}, MONTH = {june}, YEAR = {1988}, VOLUME = { 6}, NUMBER = { 5}, PAGES = { 800-804}, } @article{K699, AUTHOR = {{R.O. Yudkin}}, TITLE = { On testing communication networks}, JOURNAL = { IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications}, MONTH = {june}, YEAR = {1988}, VOLUME = { 6}, NUMBER = { 5}, PAGES = { 805-812}, } @article{K700, AUTHOR = {{D. Peacocke} and {S. Rabie}}, TITLE = { Knowledge-based maintenance in networks}, JOURNAL = { IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications}, MONTH = {june}, YEAR = {1988}, VOLUME = { 6}, NUMBER = { 5}, PAGES = { 813-818}, } @article{K701, AUTHOR = {{K.E. Brown} and {C.F.N. Cowan} and {T.M. Crawford} and {P.M. Grant}}, TITLE = { Knowledge-based techniques for fault detection in digital microwave radio communicatio equipment}, JOURNAL = { IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications}, MONTH = {june}, YEAR = {1988}, VOLUME = { 6}, NUMBER = { 5}, PAGES = { 819-827}, } @article{K702, AUTHOR = {{J.J.P. Tsai}}, TITLE = { A knowledge-based system for software design}, JOURNAL = { IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications}, MONTH = {june}, YEAR = {1988}, VOLUME = { 6}, NUMBER = { 5}, PAGES = { 828-841}, } @article{K703, AUTHOR = {{K. Takahashi} and {N. Shiratori} and {S. Naguchi}}, TITLE = { An intelligent support system for protocol and communications software development}, JOURNAL = { IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications}, MONTH = {june}, YEAR = {1988}, VOLUME = { 6}, NUMBER = { 5}, PAGES = { 842-849}, } @article{K704, AUTHOR = {{T. Kinoshita} and {K. Sugawara} and {N. Shiratori}}, TITLE = { Knowledge-based design support systems for communication systems}, JOURNAL = { IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications}, MONTH = {june}, YEAR = {1988}, VOLUME = { 6}, NUMBER = { 5}, PAGES = { 850-861}, } @article{K705, AUTHOR = {{M.T. Harandi}}, TITLE = { Buiding a knowledge-based software development environment}, JOURNAL = { IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications}, MONTH = {june}, YEAR = {1988}, VOLUME = { 6}, NUMBER = { 5}, PAGES = { 862-868}, } @article{K706, AUTHOR = {{K.H. Muralidhar} and {B.W. Irish}}, TITLE = { MAPCON: an expert system for configuration of MAP networks}, JOURNAL = { IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications}, MONTH = {june}, YEAR = {1988}, VOLUME = { 6}, NUMBER = { 5}, PAGES = { 869-873}, } @article{K707, AUTHOR = {{Y.X. Zhang} and {K. Takahashi} and {N. Shiratori} and {S. Naguchi}}, TITLE = { A knowledge-based system for protocol synthesis (KSPS)}, JOURNAL = { IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications}, MONTH = {june}, YEAR = {1988}, VOLUME = { 6}, NUMBER = { 5}, PAGES = { 874-883}, } @article{K708, AUTHOR = {{B. Chandrasekaran} and {W.F. Punch}}, TITLE = { Hierarchical classification: Its usefulness for diagnosis and sensor validation}, JOURNAL = { IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications}, MONTH = {june}, YEAR = {1988}, VOLUME = { 6}, NUMBER = { 5}, PAGES = { 884-891}, } --------------------cut here---------------------------------------- [Moderator's Note: My sincere thanks to Mr. Lippolt for producing this special issue of the Digest. I hope you'll find his research useful, and take the time to drop him a note if you are able to use it. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest Special: AI Applications ****************************   Date: Fri, 5 Jan 90 20:31:16 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #7 Message-ID: <9001052031.aa25815@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 5 Jan 90 20:30:38 CST Volume 10 : Issue 7 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) (John Higdon) Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) (Ken Levitt) Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) (John Cowan) Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) (Tad Cook) Re: TV News Mates With Cellular Phones (John Higdon) Re: TV News Mates With Cellular Phones (Edward Vielmetti) Re: Caller ID Prefixes in PA (Gordon Burditt) Re: Airfone Service by GTE (William Payne) Re: Airfone Service by GTE (John R. Levine) Re: How Are Inter-LATA Calls in the Same Area Code Handled? (John Levine) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) Date: 4 Jan 90 01:58:34 PST (Thu) From: John Higdon roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: > Shame on you! Put yourself in the place of the person > calling. No! You put yourself in my place. Just this morning I have received five calls for Hilton. Each of these calls costs ME money, disturbs my peace, interupts my tranquility. Is it my fault that idiots out there can't dial their damn phone? > [Description of consequences to unsuspecting person being duped by my > dark humor.] > Pretty cruel joke to play on some random unfortunate person. The only thing cruel about it is that I would not have the satisfaction of seeing it happen. > [Moderator's Note: I admit it sounds funny....but it is not funny! As > Mr. Smith pointed out, it is a dreadful joke to play on an > unsuspecting person. Even a drunken patron of a public house deserves > the courtesy of being told 'wrong number', even if you say it angrily > and slam the receiver in the process. It is ceasing to become funny. It's now damned annoying and I even called Hilton and told them what was happening and what I was doing about it. They said they were sorry, but they weren't responsible (they aren't) and whatever I did with the callers was up to me. Pac*Bell informs me that it will cost $30 to have my number changed. That's really wonderful. And after I have had my number changed (and suffered all the screwups that will go with it), will I then get Sheraton's calls? No, there's no point in having it changed. It would probably be trading a headache for an upset stomach. Late word: One of the last callers, after questioning, has informed me that *my* number is listed as Hilton reservations in their local phonebook. I'm going to get a copy of that book. If this is true, I am really going to be unhappy paying $30 because of a Pac*Bell mistake. And who do we refer *my* old number to, Hilton or me? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Jan 90 11:26:34 EST From: Ken Levitt Subject: Re: Thurbing (Was: 800 Wrong Numbers) In Telecom V10 #4 Roy Smith writes: "Shame on you" {for misleading people who dialed a wrong number} I think it depends on the situation and the type of business involved. We all must take responsibility for our actions and live with the consequences. Anyone who dials a number at 3am better make sure they are dialing the correct number. If I wake up in the middle of the night it may take me an hour or two to get back to sleep. In this case no punishment is too severe for the the offending caller. (wouldn't Caller*ID be great?). Many years back there were only two exchanges in my town (653 and 655). One day we started getting a very large amount of wrong numbers on one of our two lines. It turned out that a catalog store had just opened that week and they had the 653 number that corresponded to out 655. I called the phone company and they said that we could pay to change our number which we had been using for 9 years. I then called the store manager who was very arrogant and told me I should change my phone number. I pointed out to him that we had this number for 9 years and he had his for one week. It would be a lot easier for him to change his number than for us to change ours. I also suggested that it would not be good for his business if callers ended up talking to an irate person on the phone. He seemed not to care. The people calling were interested in knowing about products for sale or orders that they had placed. These were not urgent items. For a while I did take some orders and told people that other orders had come in. The theory was that one of two things would happen. Either the store would get a lot of flack about this or people would stop doing business with them. After a while I got tired of this game and just left an answering machine on the line. I changed the message to something very generic so that it did not identify who had been reached. Some callers did seem irate that they has called sever times and had not been called back. The funniest message that was ever left was from an employee of the store who said that he would not be in that day. You would think that an employee would know that the store did not have an answering machine. The store finally went out of business after about two years and things have been mostly quiet since then. Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 UUCP: zorro9!levitt INTERNET: levitt%zorro9.uucp@talcott.harvard.edu ------------------------------ From: John Cowan Subject: Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) Reply-To: John Cowan Organization: ESCC, New York City Date: Thu, 4 Jan 90 21:00:34 GMT In article <2556@accuvax.nwu.edu> roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: >In <2534@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Cowan writes: >[quoted nastiness deleted] [flame in response deleted] [comment by Digest Moderater deleted] Please be more careful when editing messages! The [quoted nastiness] was >not< by me, but by John Higdon . Furthermore, the flame actually responded to a stretch of material written by me but paraphrasing a >fictional< story by the well-known author James Thurber, as indicated in the text itself. I have >not< told a wrong-number caller I was a railway station. John Higdon has apparently misled some wrong-number callers. A fictional character in Thurber's short story has done the same. ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) Date: 4 Jan 90 07:23:49 GMT Organization: very little I spoke with a woman in Chicago recently that was constantly getting calls for the bus station on her cellular phone. She claims that one time she took a reservation from a woman, and told her that there was a special "buffet service" available, and that the bus would pick her up at her house! Tad Cook tad@ssc.UUCP [Moderator's Note: That is weird. The Chicago Greyhound-Trailways Terminal gave schedule information on 312-FInancial 6-5000 for about forty years. Only recently they installed a centrex system, in the 312-781-29xx series, and give schedule/fare information on 781-2900. Does her cell phone number come anywhere close to that? PT] ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: TV News Mates With Cellular Phones Date: 5 Jan 90 02:17:20 PST (Fri) From: John Higdon Wayne Hamilton writes: > They (WCIA, Channel 3, Champaign, IL) have arranged with Ameritech > Cellular for "*3" dialed on cellular phones in this area to connect to > WCIA news, toll-free, so that motorists can report unusual news events > as they happen. About two years ago, Cellular One set up a similar service with a "newstalk" radio station in San Francisco. To report (mainly traffic) events one dials "*KGO81". The airtime is picked up by the station. Not to be outdone, Mobilnet turned around and offered a similar arrangement with the other "newstalk" station. Mobilnet customers dial "*CBS" and of course, KCBS picks up the tab. Apparently this arrangement has paid off, since both operations are still in force after these two years. They usually give air credit to a "traffic spotter" when the report they are giving comes from a cellular subscriber. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Edward Vielmetti Subject: Re: TV News Mates With Cellular Phones Date: 5 Jan 90 17:18:46 GMT Organization: University of Michigan Math Dept., Ann Arbor MI. > WCAI Channel 3 in Champaign is toll-free *3 WWJ Radio in Detroit has a similar arrangement, dial *WWJ (*995) to get their traffic bureau to report accidents or big pot-holes or the like. Seems like they get more traffic reports by phone than from the helicopter these days. --Ed ------------------------------ From: Gordon Burditt Subject: Re: Caller ID Prefixes in PA Date: 4 Jan 90 03:23:47 GMT Organization: Gordon Burditt In article <2528@accuvax.nwu.edu> sp@pro-deli.cts.com (Sten Peeters) writes: >Pennsylvania has finally introduced Caller ID the the 215 area code. >Unfortunately Philadelhia and Harrisburg will be the only ones with >the service. >Harrisburg Area- > >231, 232, 233, 234, 236, 237, 238, 255, 257, 540, 541, 545, 558, 561, 564, >652, 657, 691, 697, 731, 737, 761, 763, 766, 782, 790, 795, 975 (I presume that although the article mentions area code 215, that's for Philadelphia and the Harrisburg exchanges are really in 717.) Does this mean that exchange 717-697, the one (but I'm not saying only one) where you can't get touch-tone at any price without changing your number out of that exchange (according to relatives who live there, as of a few weeks ago) is going to get Caller-ID? What switch supports caller-ID and not touch-tone? Gordon L. Burditt ...!texbell!sneaky!gordon ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jan 90 15:37:06 CST From: William Payne Subject: Re: AirPhone Service By GTE A while ago I asked for any info on GTE's AirPhone service after using it during a Thanksgiving flight. Lo and behold the following article showed up. I reproduce it below w/o permission. From Electronic Engineering Times; Issue 571; January 1, 1990, page 8. AirPhone Creator Proposes Flight FAX Washington- Jack Goeken, the man who started the GTE AirPhone service in 1976 and thus ensured that no one could get away from it all, has another plan up his sleeve for making flight time more productive. His new company, In-Flight Phone Co., has petitioned the [FCC] to allow air travelers to send facsimiles from air to ground, check on flight schedules and seat availability and transmit data from portable computers, all without leaving their seats. -Cheaper than AirPhone- The proposed services, designed to be available at passenger seat backs, would cost less than present AirPhone charges, which are about $4 for the first minute and $2 per each additional minute. In-Flight estimates that computer data - requiring less bandwidth than a voice channel - could be transmitted for $1 or less per minute. Goeken expects the new service's power to permit air travelers on delayed flights to check flight-connection alternatives while still airbound will make the system attractive to customers and airlines alike. AirPhone - which permits travelers to make, but not receive, in-flight calls - is the only chartered air telephone carrier at present, a situation which Goeken plans to remedy with his own VHF two-way systems in 1990, pending FCC approval. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Airfone Service by GTE Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA Date: 5 Jan 90 11:30:58 EST (Fri) From: "John R. Levine" I have used Airfones a few times. You walk to the phone (unless it's in the back of the next seat, as on some Trump shuttle planes) and put in a credit card, then it unlocks and you can take the handset, which resembles a cordless phone, back to your seat. It takes the usual cards, Amex, MC, VISA, but not any telco calling cards. You wait, sometimes a long time, for it to seize a channel and get a dial tone, then dial calls the usual way. They're very expensive, $7.50 for the first three minutes for calls withing the U.S. and about $2/minute after that. (The rates may have recently been changed, but not by much.) Directory assistance is free, 800 numbers are not. International calls are possible but I haven't tried any. The bad news is that they don't work worth beans. The connection is terrible, sort of like talking to East Germany, with lots of static and distortion, often to the point where you can't understand the other person. There is interference on the plane itself, and I've found that you hear a lot better if you keep the phone next to the base rather than going back to your seat. The phone only works when the plane is actually in the air, so the time when you most need it, when you're stuck on the ground for an hour waiting for a landing slot so you can take off, you can't use it. In short, I don't think it merits the radio channel that the FCC has assigned it. The Airfone company has had a checkered career. There used to be some connection with GTE, since severed. It is run by Sandy Goeken, who I believe is the daughter of the guy who started MCI, who like her father had to overcome innumerable technical and political barriers to get the service started. I only wish she'd turned her talents to something more worthwhile. Regards, John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl ------------------------------ Subject: Re: How Are Inter-LATA Calls in the Same Area Code Handled? Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA Date: 5 Jan 90 12:02:19 EST (Fri) From: "John R. Levine" In article <2600@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >Yes, most NPA's have more than one lata in them. As a matter of fact, >according to my last search 99 NPA's have more than one lata. They are: There's something wrong with this search algorithm. Looking at the list, I see 403, 613, 705, 807, 819 and 902 which are in Canada. 706 and 905 are pseudo-area codes for Tijuana and Mexico City which are being phased out in favor of 011 5266 and 011 525. 809 is the odd area code for most of the Carribean (although I have no idea whether equal access is supposed to apply to Puerto Rico and the USVI, the two American pieces of 809.) Within the US, some of the ones look wrong. The last time I looked, Utah (801) was one LATA possibly except for some little independent telcos around the edge. 203 is mostly served by SNET, a non-Bell telco, except for Greenwich which is New York Tel's -- I don't know whether toll calls between Greenwich and other parts of Connecticut are carried by SNET or inter-lata carriers. But actually, I was really wondering if most multi-lata NPAs have something like 1+number for interlata calls or if it's like 609 where you dial everything with 7 digits and can't really tell until the bill comes who carried it. Regards, John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #7 ****************************   Date: Fri, 5 Jan 90 21:16:38 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #8 Message-ID: <9001052116.aa21142@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 5 Jan 90 21:15:30 CST Volume 10 : Issue 8 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Question About Area Code Split (David Lewis) Re: Phone Frustration (John Higdon) Re: One-armed Bandits (David A. Cantor) Re: COCOT Scam (John Higdon) Re: The Operator's Beep (Paul S. R. Chisholm) New England Telephone Massachusetts Rate Restructuring (John Covert) 976 in Massachusetts (Steve Elias) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lewis Subject: Re: Question About Area Code Split Date: 4 Jan 90 15:06:26 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ In article <2529@accuvax.nwu.edu>, motcid!sirakide%cell.mot.COM@uunet.uu.net (Dean Sirakides) writes: > As I am sure most people know, the Chicago area has undergone an area > code split from 312 to 312 and 708. > *Question* : I have heard several ads for stores where the phone > number is given out and the annoucer qualifies the number by saying, > "in either 708 or 312". How is this done? [I have a feeling this is one of those questions that about 17 people will answer. Apologies for any unwanted duplication...] There are several ways I can think of doing this; I'm not sure which, if any, are *the* way it's done in any particular instance, but I think they'd all work... First of all, I don't *think* that a single exchange can overlap NPAs, so that (for example) 708-888 and 312-888 would refer to the same central office. I can't find anything explicitly excluding this in my references, though, so I could be mistaken -- if anyone knows this is definitely the case, please let me know... That means if (for example) you want your phone number to be 888-8888 in both 708 and 312, you have to have some sort of service in both 888 exchanges. The simplest way I can see would be to get service in the appropriate exchange in the "other" NPA (if your office is in 312, get service in 708) with the desired phone number, and forward it to your office. A second solution would be to get foreign exchange (FX) service in the other NPA, with dial-in capability and the appropriate phone number. A third solution would be to get service in the other NPA with the appropriate phone number and use private or leased facilities to tie it to your office, but that's getting into the category of Serious Hack. Then, of course, there are all sorts of ways using services that haven't been implemented yet, but that's not really relevant... > And as a related question: how do companies get phone numbers like > "dial LAWYERS" when the prefix for the spelled out number is not used > in the area that services the address of the business? Same ways, I presume. > Thanks. (notice this article offers no opinion on Caller-ID) Thank you. Sincerely. David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center) "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower." ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Phone Frustration Date: 5 Jan 90 03:02:17 PST (Fri) From: John Higdon peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > John Higdon described how he got certain COCOTs owned by small businesses > disconnected by complaining to the guvmint. I would be proud to claim credit for disconecting one of these monsters, but unfortunately you are miscrediting someone else's success to me. But moving on... > Well, he could just not provide a public telephone at his place of > business at all. That's a valid option. Lots of places do that. I'd > much rather have a little problem with a privately owned COCOT than > have to put up with "no, we don't allow phone calls... but the > laundromat across the street there has a public phone: there's a > traffic signal a block east". What you seem to be saying here is "better a COCOT than nothing at all." Well, that's debatable, but not an issue. I can't speak for your area, but here in the Bay Area the onslaught of COCOTs did not mean an increase of public phones, but the wholesale replacement of Pac*Bell phones with COCOTs. This is my main complaint. If all the *real* public phones remained and COCOTs showed up where there had been no pay phones before, your argument would be valid. Actually, in some cases COCOTs did show up near Pac*Bell phones, but eventually the Pac*Bell phones were removed because the COCOTs couldn't survive with real phones within sight. Yes, I checked with the store owners; it was that way, not the other way around. > The guy's providing a service. There's no law saying he has to make a > phone available to the next guy who walks in off the street. No, but the Pac*Bell phone he used to have was somewhat superior to the COCOT which took its place. His shiney new COCOT may cough up more money for him, but it is certainly not as much service for his customers. > Well, if you're there you can walk up to the person behind the counter > and say "Excuse me, do you know that the law says so-and-so? Could you > let the owner know?". If that doesn't get results, go ahead and use > your nuclear option. But it doesn't take *any* time at all for you to > try the easy route first. Invariable answer: "I don't know anything about the phone. You'll have to call the number on the card." Card says call "211". Reaches disconnect recording, doesn't answer, or reaches answering machine. Leaving message is futile. There was one notable exception on a phone outside of a Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet. I reached a live person to whom I complained about not being able to access AT&T. I was given a lengthy discourse on how they wouldn't make any money of they allowed this. "How would you like it if you had people using your telephone all the time and you didn't get anything out of it?" In other words, the kickbacks weren't big and fat like those from his ripoff AOS. It was much nicer when that was a Pac*Bell phone. I even used it then. > One of the biggest problems in this country, in my opinion, is people > like you who think that it's OK to bring the force of the law to bear > on someone. Yes, ignorance of the law is no excuse. But a measured > response to an irritation is only common courtesy. More courtesy and > less legal excrement can only help the situation. Don't you think it is a bit naive to think that the average person is supposed to be more knowledgeable concerning telephony regulations than those in the business? How many people do you suppose a misprogrammed COCOT will rip off before a knowledgeable person finally uses it and does something about it? Of the somewhere between 50 and 100 times I have complained to COCOT operators about their non-compliant phones, not one has ever done anything to correct the condition(s). Your even-handed approach is wasted on this particular breed of businessman. Oh, and I wish you would avoid the phrase, "people like you". Those who know me are fully aware that in matters concerning "legitimate" businesses, I am most patient and long suffering. As a broadcaster, I almost never involve the FCC in any problem with a fellow broadcaster. But we're talking about people who are well informed and have a desire to comply with the standards of their business, not the "get rich quick" people in the COCOT racket. > You're attributing motivations to the owners of these COCOTs that > might not be there. Many people can't even program a VCR reliably, > you know. True, but they aren't in charge of a television station, either. If a person doesn't know anything about the telephone business, why is he subjecting the public to the consequences of his ignorance? I always thought that people got into business because they had some expertise to contribute or at least some interest in their endeavors. Lacking any of that, IMHO their motivations are indeed suspect. > And you might find that the response will be for them to pull the > phone out completely, and direct walk-ins to the laundromat down the > block and across the street. I'm sure you have no problems with that. As a matter of fact, a COCOT was yanked from a 7-eleven near my home. A Pac*Bell phone took its place. I certainly had no problem with that! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Jan 90 13:31:27 -0800 From: "David A. Cantor 05-Jan-1990 1220" Subject: Re: One-armed Bandits In TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 3, Steve Forrette () writes: >These one-armed bandits [COCOTs] seem eager to eat your money at the drop of a >hat, and overcharge you when they do work. > - Blatant tariff violations, such as requiring local call deposit > for 950 numbers charging long distance for "special" prefixes (such > as to cellular phones) that are local from a real payphone. >And I thought one-armed bandits were only allowed in Nevada and Atlantic City. That last whimsical statement has more truth to it than the author realizes. Two weeks ago, I was in Atlantic City International Airport (ACY) and tried to use a payphone for a 950 call. I dialled 950-1022 (MCI) and the phone said "Please deposit NINE DOLLARS AND NINETY-FIVE CENTS." (emphasis is mine). I used MCI's 800 number instead. Dave C. ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: COCOT Scam Date: 5 Jan 90 03:11:26 PST (Fri) From: John Higdon Dave Brightbill writes: > I also learned that COCOTs are a fav of folks with large clumps > of cash to launder. They put in a phone and report huge takes > in the coin box. Sort of like the vending machine business used to be. Ah, but unlike the old vending machine scam, it would be possible to audit one of these babies and nab the perp. Remember, the cash in the box would have to be at least loosely related to the local charges on the line and the charges from the AOS or LD carrier. A clever IRS man could nail one of these laundramats in a hurry. And the more cash reported, the greater chance an audit would be triggered, particularly if receipts seemed way out of line from the rest of the industry. Just a thought. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: "Paul S. R. Chisholm" Subject: Re: The Operator's Beep Date: 5 Jan 90 06:29:08 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <2514@accuvax.nwu.edu>, gabe@sirius.ctr.columbia.edu (Gabe Wiener) writes: > Occasionally I'll call some AT&T number or directory assistance line > and hear that "beep" sounded by the operator before they get on the > line. I used to hear it on all operator calls pre-breakup, but it has > pretty much gone by the wayside for 0 and 00 calls. > Can anyone tell me its purpose? Moreover, why did they stop using it? I have no idea what it *used* to mean. Nowadays, it's generated any time you go through AT&T; if you don't hear it, you've got some other company. (And some other company's rates. My in-laws called collect from a payphone in Charleston just after the hurricane, to tell us their phones and power were out but they were okay. The five minute call went through an "Alternative Operator Service" company that charged me six dollars!) Paul S. R. Chisholm, AT&T Bell Laboratories att!pegasus!psrc, psrc@pegasus.att.com, AT&T Mail !psrchisholm Disclaimer: I do e-mail software for AT&T, not telephony; I'm not speaking for the company, I'm just speaking my mind. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Jan 90 05:17:18 -0800 From: "John R. Covert 04-Jan-1990 2205" Subject: New England Telephone Massachusetts Rate Restructuring N.E.T. had filed a complete rate restructuring of almost all services in Massachusetts, to take effect 31 December 1989. The D.P.U. has suspended these tariffs until 1 July 1990, and is holding public hearings. The first of these was tonight at the State House; future hearings are 24 Jan in Springfield, 25 Jan in Lee, 30 Jan in East Sandwich and (date missing) in Worcester. I attended the hearing tonight, at which little clarity appeared. I had expected some sort of handout with the new rates to be available, but I was wrong. I had expected N.E.T. to make some sort of presentation of the rates, but I was wrong. I was able to briefly borrow State Rep. Galvin's copy of the tariff to get an idea of what is proposed. This is truly a strange filing. The cornerstone of the filing is an increase of approximately $3/month in all categories of residential service, whether measured or otherwise. There are little things like an increase in the Touch-Tone charge from $0.58 to $0.98. But the truly strange stuff has to do with the "rate experimentation" as N.E.T. calls it. Disclaimer: all the new rates which follow are approximate, since I didn't get a chance to write it all down. Intra-LATA toll rates are proposed to remain the same for residential customers in Eastern Massachusetts, but business customers will get a new toll rate structure. Whereas intra-LATA toll currently varies from .19(1st min)/.09(addl min) to .55/.23, and is the same for both residence and business customers, and the same in either eastern or western Mass., the rate filing proposes to eliminate WATS and basically make all business lines pay roughly the current WATS rate, something like .01 per call and .12/minute, regardless of distance. Volume discounts apply. In Western Mass., both residence and business customers will pay something like .01 per call and .055/minute for any intra-LATA toll, regardless of distance. Message unit pricing remains the same in Eastern Mass., .111 for business customers and .0898 for residence customers (regardless of time of day), but the existing 3-message unit area in Boston Metro is folded into the 2-message unit area. But in Western Mass, local message units change to .01/call and about .012/minute during the peak period (9AM to 9PM) and less off-peak. These same peak/off-peak periods apply on Western Massachusetts intra-LATA toll and I think on Eastern Massachusetts business intra-LATA toll. It was a truly strange filing, and a truly strange hearing. I was one of the few people who spoke about the propriety of the rates, emphasizing that the national trend was to reduce or eliminate the Touch-Tone charge, not to increase it, asking if it was proper public policy to have toll rates different in different parts of the state or to lower business toll rates while keeping Eastern Mass residential toll rates higher than inter-LATA rates to almost anywhere outside the state. Most of the attendees were CWA or IBEW reps or members, every one of whom was angry with N.E.T. and dead set against allowing their employer any rate increase while N.E.T. is attempting to cut costs by reducing staff and hiring contractors from out of state. The mood of the employees is very, very bad, and they were very, very unruly, shouting down the N.E.T. attorney whenever he said anything they didn't like. /john ------------------------------ Subject: 976 in Massachusetts Date: Fri, 05 Jan 90 08:22:38 -0500 From: eli@pws.bull.com The Massachusetts DPU has apparently just given the OK for 976 (and more) tariffs. Also, 940 tariffs for "adult" messages. Initially, all telephones will be blocked from making 940 calls. Blocking for 940 numbers, as well as 1-900 numbers will initially be available for free. Steve Elias work phone: 508 671 7556 ; email: eli@pws.bull.com , eli@spdcc.com voice mail: 617 932 5598 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #8 ****************************   Date: Sat, 6 Jan 90 0:02:42 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #9 Message-ID: <9001060002.aa11301@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 6 Jan 90 00:00:12 CST Volume 10 : Issue 9 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Western Electric Maternity Leave Litigation (Clerk of US District Court) AT&T Planning Computer Access To Phone Numbers (James Price Salsman) 201/908 Split Dates -- Official Word (John R. Covert) AT&T Advertisement is Stupid (David Dodell) Equinox Data Switch (Alan Bell) One Modem, Multiple Lines (Kevin P. Kleinfelter) The People Side of Managing Your Network (Sharon Lynne Fisher) Re: Modem Tax (Again? Again!) (Martin J. Shannon) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 5 Jan 90 2:27:07 CST From: Clerk of US District Court Subject: Western Electric Maternity Leave Litigation This is a legal notice, and may affect your rights. Please read it carefully and ask your attorney for advice if you have questions about this notice. In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division ************************************************* Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, * Communications Workers of America, et al * Plaintiffs * Consolidated 78 C 3951 * Dockets: 82 C 1542 * -- vrs -- * * Hon. James H. Alesia * Special Master: AT&T Technologies, Inc., et al * Frank J. McGarr Defendants * * ************************************************* N O T I C E ===================== If you took a maternity leave from Western Electric Company between July 2, 1965 and August 7, 1977, and were employed by Western Electric on or after March 23, 1971, you have a right to receive money, employment at AT&T, seniority and other benefits. The Basis of the Lawsuit: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a United States government agency, the Communications Workers of America (CWA), and several Western Electric employees as individuals are plaintiffs in a lawsuit claiming that Western Electric's maternity leave policies discriminated against female employees. The Court has ruled that certain policies were discriminatory against women by: o Forcing pregnant women to stop working at a specified time regardless of whether they were still able to work. o Failing to reinstate or delaying the return to work of women on maternity leave. o Giving women on maternity leave only 30 days of seniority. Who May File a Claim: You may file a claim if you took one or more maternity leaves between July 2, 1965 and August 7, 1977, and if you were employed by Western Electric on or after March 23, 1971. If you were on leave or layoff status as of March 23, 1971, you may also file a claim. If you took a maternity leave from facilities in Watertown or Southboro, Massachusetts; Burlington or Winston-Salem, North Carolina; the State of New Jersey or the State of Arizona, you are NOT entitled to file a claim. The terms of your union contract, and/or state and municipal laws in the aforementioned places governed labor practices at your facility. If you were employed at any other facility of the Western Electric Company in the United States, then you ARE entitled to file a claim. How to Present Your Claim: To present your claim, you must fill out a Claim Form. Claim Forms have been mailed, but the passage of time has caused the records of the Plaintiffs and Defendants to become out of date and inaccurate. If you believe you are entitled to file a claim, and have not received a Claim Form in the mail, you may request one by one of the two methods listed below. A Claim Form and instructions will be sent to you by return mail. Attornies for the Plaintiff Will Assist You: If you have any questions or want legal counsel before submitting the Claim Form, you may telephone toll-free to attornies representing the female employees in this case. The attornies are: Julie Bowman Michael Erp Arthur Benson Their telephone number is 1-800-628-2289. Or, you may consult your own attorney for advice. Show this notice to your attorney and request an explanation and assistance. If you prefer, you may WRITE and request a copy of the Claim Form and Instructions, by writing to: H. Stuart Cunningham Clerk of the United States District Court ATTN: Western Electric Claims Post Office Box 909703 Chicago, IL 60690 << Include your Social Security Number in your correspondence >> Timely Notice Required: The Request for Claim Form and Instructions must be mailed promptly. The deadline for submitting your claim is March 22, 1990. The Court will not consider claims submitted after that date. The statements made in your claim will be verified against the employment records of the Defendant, and you may be asked to prove the statements you make in your claim. The only persons authorized to discuss your claim are the attornies noted above or the Clerk of the United States District Court. Correspond only with the persons named above. Do not telephone the Court. Do not telephone, write, or otherwise contact the Western Electric Company/AT&T Technologies, Inc. /signed/ H. Stuart Cunningham Clerk of the United States District Court Chicago, Illinois ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Jan 90 15:02:45 -0500 (EST) From: James Price Salsman Subject: AT&T Planning Computer Access To Phone Numbers [Moderator's Note: Mr. Salsman forwarded this message to us which was posted earlier today in a news file at andrew.cmu.edu PT] NEW YORK -- American Telephone & Telegraph Co. is seeking permission from the Federal Communications Commission to offer corporate customers nationwide computer access to local phone listings. If approved, the service will be the first of its kind in the country, as local phone companies are barred by law from offering access to facilities outside their own service areas. Moreover, AT&T's service could eventually alter the way local phone companies staff their directory assistance operations, because corporations, which account for most calls to operators, will be able to get access to phone numbers anywhere in the country without human intervention. "It's just like directory assistance today, only you access the information using a computer instead of talking to the operator," said Nora Glover, product manager for the new service. AT&T plans to begin offering the service, dubbed AT&T Find America, on Jan. 18, when the FCC's normal 45-day period for public comment on the request expires. It will be available initially to companies seeking listings of customers in the five-state territory of Southwestern Bell Corp., the St. Louis-based regional Bell telephone company. By the end of the year, however, AT&T plans to cement agreements with all seven regional Bell companies and offer the service nationwide. By mid-1990, AT&T plans to begin talks with overseas telephone administrations about extending the service internationally, Glover said. AT&T made its request to the FCC on Dec. 4 in a special tariff filing, but chose not to publicize it because "We didn't have a name for the service" at the time, Glover said. The FCC said the tariff has been unopposed. AT&T is aiming the service at the banking and credit industries first, said Kimberley Partoll, marketing manager for the new service. Secondary targets will be the retail and transportation industries. All that a customer will need is a computer terminal or mainframe computer to get access to the same listings from phone company data bases that operators use, with one exception: Unlisted numbers won't be made available. Partoll said customers have shown an interest in the new service, but can't sign up until after midnight Jan. 17, when the tariff is expected to take effect. AT&T is offering to waive for one month the $2,200 monthly fee for any customer that subscribes by Feb. 28. AT&T also will knock off the $100 charge for listing the customer's password. Besides these regular fees, AT&T will charge 35 cents for each computer screen of information and $22 an hour for transmission. Glover said each of those transmissions should take about 3.6 seconds to retrieve a listing -- about one-tenth the time that a regular directory assistance call takes today. In its FCC filing, AT&T estimated that first-year revenue from the service will amount to at least $12.6 million, or 3.2 million minutes of usage. After three years, AT&T estimated, revenue could hit $82.8 million a year. A spokesman for Southwestern Bell said the company also is offering other long-distance carriers, such as MCI Communications Corp., the opportunity to provide computer access to its local phone listings. Regarding the services' potential effect on operator staffing, he said: "This is a new service. We don't really know that now." At MCI, a spokesman said the company is studying AT&T's proposal, but doesn't have any immediate plans to offer similar service. US Sprint Communications Co., a unit of United Telecommunications Inc., didn't have any comment. [Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell has offered a similar service for several years but using only its own directory database. The service here, called 'Directory Express' allows access to the same information the operators use, using a terminal or PC. It is not cheap, the charge is by the hour of connect time, and about the only subscribers are some large credit grantors and collection agencies. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Jan 90 12:53:47 -0800 From: "John R. Covert 05-Jan-1990 1526" Subject: 201/908 Split Dates -- Official Word OK, here's the official word on what's happening with 908, from the responsible people in the Bellcore and NJ Bell network planning departments: The "network event" beginning permissive dialling was 1 Jan 90. It should be working from everywhere, however, due to the next item, reporting a trouble may not always be effective. For now, it's really a "network event" for people in the telecom industry only. The general public should _continue_to_use_201_ for now. For this reason, I was unable to get _any_ information from normal business office sources. In July 90, NJ Bell will start talking about it in new telephone books. On 6 Jan 91, customers will be told that their numbers are 908 numbers (and I infer that new 908-only prefixes may begin to open). On 8 June 91, the permissive dialling period ends, and 908 must be used for any of the codes transferred in the split. /john ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Jan 90 20:48:18 mst From: David Dodell Subject: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid I'm sure other members of the conference have seen the recent AT&T ad showing some guy at a telephone both trying to call Phoenix but getting Fuji instead. Checking with AT&T, the country code to Fuji is 679, while Phoenix is area code 602 ... on top of this you need to dial 011 to get international access. I figure that this ad is just plain stupid, since if someone can't dial a number correctly, it has nothing to do with the carrier they are using. The ad implies otherwise. Oh well, advertising at its finest. David ------------------------------------------------------------------------- St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona uucp: {gatech, ames, rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!ddodell Bitnet: ATW1H @ ASUACAD FidoNet=> 1:114/15 Internet: ddodell@stjhmc.fidonet.org ------------------------------ From: abell Subject: Equinox Data Switch Reply-To: Alan Bell Organization: Cal Poly State University -- San Luis Obispo Date: Fri, 5 Jan 90 19:38:54 GMT We have an Equniox DS-5 Data PBX and are looking for either replacement parts or a complete system. The main boards of interest are the 24-line CS and 24-line-XS boards. Let me know if you have boards/system which you would like to dispose of, or know of where we can get reasonably priced boards. Alan C. Bell (abell@polyslo.calpoly.edu) Computer Science Department ..!ucbvax!voder\ California Polytechnic State University ..!sdcrdcf!csun |!polyslo!abell San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 (805)756-7185 ..!lll-crg!csustan/ ------------------------------ From: "Kevin P. Kleinfelter" Subject: One Modem, Multiple Lines Date: 5 Jan 90 16:04:45 GMT Organization: Management Science America, Inc., Atlanta, GA We have two phone numbers (a local and and 800) which our clients use to dial-up our computer. We have n lines connected to n modems on the local line, and m lines connected to m modems on the 800 line. (Both the local and the 800 roll to the next number when busy.) Of course, sometimes all n local lines are busy, and 0 of the 800 lines are busy or vice versa. Is there a device which allows one to connect two phone lines to a single modem (or single-line telephone, for that matter) such that when one line rings, the other line is busied out, and the ringing line is connected through to the device? Is there a better way? (Our 800 is provided as a channel on a T1 from AT&T, and our local number is just an extension on our PBX. What I wish we had, but do not think we can get, is a deal where the 800 number rings on our local extension.) Kevin Kleinfelter @ Management Science America, Inc (404) 239-2347 gatech!nanovx!msa3b!kevin ------------------------------ From: Sharon Lynne Fisher Subject: The People Side of Managing Your Network Date: 5 Jan 90 18:51:08 GMT I'm working on a story for a magazine called Connect; it's a quarterly that's put out by 3Com. The story is on the people side of managing a network. How do you find and train people to do this? Is it difficult? How is it determined who manages what, as voice and data networks become increasingly merged? You can reply to me here or via mail to slf@well.sf.ca.us or sharon@asylum.sf.ca.us Thanks! ------------------------------ From: Martin J Shannon Subject: Re: Modem Tax (Again? Again!) Date: 5 Jan 90 18:14:50 GMT Reply-To: mjs@cbnews.ATT.COM (martin.j.shannon,59112,lc,4nr10,201 580 5757) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Several folks have made mention of the FCC's recurrent proposed tax on modem use, and the SWBT fiasco with BBS users and operators, and I'm sure that various & sundry regulatory agencies have proposed surcharges and/or taxes on modem use in the past, and will continue to do so until the modeming community makes itself heard. How to make ourselves heard, you ask? (I'm *so* glad you did!) Consider the following for a moment: How much revenue would the local phone companies (*and* long distance carriers) lose if most modem use were to cease for a month? How many BBS users regularly run up a $100/month bill? $200/month? $500/month? I can't remember the last time my BBS hopping cost less than $100/ month; in fact, only 1 month in the last 8 or so was under $200! I can't really believe that I'm particularly pathological in my modeming habits, so I'd figure that a protest of voting with our wallets would carry a great deal of weight. Now, I'm not (necessarily) actually proposing such a stunt, but if the FCC (or any of the state PUC's) were to make the mistake of penalizing BBS users and/or operators, it would seem to me that the only "right and proper" thing for us all to do is "Just say no!" Do any of you TELECOM folks have access to ballpark figures of just how much the "little people" (BBS users & operators) actually pay to the various phone companies? I'd love to see some figures! Marty Shannon; AT&T Bell Labs; Liberty Corner, NJ, USA (Affiliation is given for identification only: I don't speak for them; they don't speak for me.) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #9 ****************************   Date: Sat, 6 Jan 90 23:26:46 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #10 Message-ID: <9001062326.aa05534@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 6 Jan 90 23:25:56 CST Volume 10 : Issue 10 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Modem Tax (Again? Again!) (John Higdon) Re: Modem Tax (Again? Again!) (Fred R. Goldstein) Re: Modem Tax (Again? Again!) (Allyn Lai) Re: Modem Tax (Again? Again!) (Peter Marshall) Re: The Operator's Beep (Steve Forrette) Re: Direct Dialing the USSR (Sakari Mattila) Re: Free Local Phone Calls (Alonzo Gariepy) Re: One-armed Bandits (Peter da Silva) Re: One-armed Bandits (David Tamkin) Re: One Modem, Multiple Lines (Macy Hallock) Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) (David Tamkin) Re: Telephone Companies in the US Besides the RBOC's (William Degnan) Re: Special Issues Planned for Digest (Peter Marshall) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Modem Tax (Again? Again!) Date: 6 Jan 90 14:32:18 PST (Sat) From: John Higdon Martin J Shannon writes: > Do any of you TELECOM folks have access to ballpark figures of just > how much the "little people" (BBS users & operators) actually pay to > the various phone companies? I'd love to see some figures! I'm sure everyone's mileage varies, but I know how much I spend to support my computer habit. My home computer uses four lines, two measured and two unmeasured. This comes to about $50/month with all the tax and license. Plus, my machine is in regular contact with several systems in southern California to the tune of about $100/month. Simple arithmetic would indicate that my home computer spends $150/month with "the phone company". But in all fairness to Pac*Bell, I have to say that there have been no rumblings whatever about screwing modem users. Furthermore, sometime this year Pac*Bell and GTE California will drop all charges for touch tone (as opposed to raising them as I have heard some other telcos are doing). Pac*Bell is fully aware of the use to which I put my phone lines and I have never had any crap about upgrading to business, "one line limit" per machine, or any of the nonsense that SWBT seems to be laying on its customers. This is, after all, Silly Con Vallee. As one Pac*Bell rep admitted to me, it is very common in this area for people to have many residential lines and have them heavily used for modem traffic. If Pac*Bell were to pull any of the horsehooey that seems to go on elsewhere, they would find many people up in arms. There are a lot of Pacific Telesis buildings in San Francisco to picket in front of, not to mention the State building down the street! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: "Fred R. Goldstein" Subject: Re: Modem Tax (Again? Again!) Date: 5 Jan 90 20:29:53 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA There are two things. One is the FCC Enhanced Service Provider (ESP) surcharge, which they don't call a surcharge, but is one. That is what the latest "modeming" chain letter was about. It is a false rumor, as my message of last week sought to squash. The other is Southwestern Bell's idea that people who use modems at home are really doing business with them, and not qualified for residential rates. That's a state issue and totally separate. SWBT is losing there too, but seems to fight on. Fred R. Goldstein goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 486 7388 ------------------------------ From: ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com!Allyn@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Modem Tax (Again? Again!) Date: Fri, 5-Jan-90 22:55:42 PST Ok it looks like there are really two similar issues being discussed. One is the SouthWestern Bell vs. Texas BBS operators issue and the other is the FCC "access charge" issue. I think the people on my local BBS are talking about the FCC access charge. So I presume that this issue is being discussed in Congress right now? Anybody know how to check up on such things? Doesn't seem likely to pass what with all the businesses in the U.S. that depend on common carriers (i.e. Telenet, Tymnet)... Anyway, thanks! Allyn Lai allyn@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ From: Peter Marshall Subject: Re: Modem Tax (Again? Again!) Date: 6 Jan 90 15:30:52 GMT Reply-To: Peter Marshall Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA In Lai's 1/3 post and moderator's note regarding so-called "modem tax," the moderator seems to be confusing and blending two different, yet conceptually similar, matters. The so-called "modem tax" affair was an FCC thing; it was, and is, unrelated to the SWB-COSUARD matters referenced in the moderator's note. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Jan 90 02:55 EDT From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: The Operator's Beep In previous posting, Paul S. R. Chisholm indicates that the operator's beep lets you know that you've got AT&T. Does this mean that it is a registered trademark of AT&T? If not, what is to prevent some AOS cheese from using it? As an aside, I always wondered why AT&T didn't file for trademark status for the calling card "ka-bong". Now that others are using it to trick people, I've noticed AT&T added a voice "AT&T" with a short tune (not tone!) so you know BEFORE you enter your card who you're dealing with. (by the way, I do believe that such things may be registered. My favorite example is the red stripe on the top of some zip-closure bags. It's a registered trademark of a specific manufacturer) ------------------------------ From: Sakari Mattila Subject: Re: Direct Dialing the USSR Date: 6 Jan 90 13:27:23 GMT Organization: Technical Research Centre of Finland, Laboratory for Information Processing (VTT/TIK) In calling Estonia BBS try Bell 102 modem at 300 b/s. This good old modem goes thru almost any telephone system. Sakari M. Mattila 71307.1525@CompuServe.COM mattila@hemuli.tik.vtt.fi ------------------------------ From: alonzo@microsoft.UUCP (Alonzo Gariepy) Subject: Re: Free Local Phone Calls Date: 6 Jan 90 09:26:11 GMT Reply-To: alonzo@microsoft.UUCP (Alonzo GARIEPY) Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA In article <2580@accuvax.nwu.edu> malcolm@apple.com writes: > The Freephone concept involves distinctively marked, coinless public > telephones that allow anyone to make free three-minute local calls. I view payphones as an essential public service along the lines of mailboxes, trashcans, fire hydrants, and ...ahem, we won't mention that... Free local-only phones have the potential to drive pay phones out of locations where most of the revenue is generated by 25 cent local calls. That includes almost everywhere but airports and hotels. The result is reduced service. The 25 cents you normally pay for short local calls justifies the existence of a full service telephone that can be used for toll calls and longer local calls. This also bears on the claim that a COCOT shouldn't charge ten cents for 800 calls because they don't cost the owner anything. Ridiculous!! The costs of a tollfree call are the same as a local call to the owner: a monthly line cost and paying the lease on the phone. COCOTs look much better in the long run then these free phones. Most free things are worth what you pay. Commercial television is a good example. Alonzo Gariepy // Think of something original to say; alonzo@microsoft // endless debate is so boring... ------------------------------ From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: One-armed Bandits Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Date: Fri, 5 Jan 90 12:05:39 GMT Let's get this straight. I'm not defending folks who are deliberately ripping off the public. I'm attacking the attitude that it's OK to sic the law on someone without even trying to find out if they've made an honest mistake. That's the attitude that fills the courts with technically legitimate but nonsensical lawsuits. This is getting off the subject of telecommunications. If you folks have anything further to say on the subject send me email. _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. . / \ Also or \_.--._/ v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-' ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: One-armed Bandits Date: Sat, 6 Jan 90 4:06:26 CST During the course of 1989 two COCOT-related events occurred within a quarter mile of my home: 1. A COCOT-owning pharmacy closed when its owner decided to retire. The COCOT was torn out and Central Telephone installed an additional real public telco coin phone next to the existing one outdoors. Several months later Centel put a third real public telco coin phone in next to the first two. (In addition, there has been another telco coin phone all along inside a tavern in the same shopping strip.) 2. Down the street a gasoline station owner had the two Illinois Bell true public payphones taken out. I saw someone working with wiring at the hole in the ground where they had been: his equipment was in an unmarked van. I said, "That's bad news." He asked me what I meant. I said, "You're taking out the Illinois Bell coin phones and putting in private ones." He replied "No, these are from Illinois Bell." Well, the hell they were. The next day one COCOT had replaced the two telco payphones. It bore no number on its face (and still doesn't); later when I tried it it didn't disable the pad after an 800 number, but if you attempt to dial 950 it interrupts after three digits and a badly digitized voice tells you, "Invalid number. Invalid number." I saw the same installer there that second day; I looked at the COCOT and looked at him, and he acted as if he had no idea of what was on my mind. Perhaps he truly didn't. Shortly thereafter another identical COCOT appeared at the gasoline station, so now there were two phones to replace the two removed phones, but I would have a hard time deciding which is worse: one COCOT and no other phone or two COCOTs. David Tamkin PO Box 813 Rosemont IL 60018-0813 708-518-6769 312-693-0591 dattier@chinet.chi.il.us BIX: dattier GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 ------------------------------ From: fmsystm!macy@cwjcc.ins.cwru.edu Date: Sat Jan 6 16:19:44 1990 Subject: Re: One Modem, Multiple Lines Organization: F M Systems Inc. Medina, Ohio USA In article <2635@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 9, message 6 of 8 > ....request for a method of terminating two lines groups on > one set uf modems... In your specific case you have apparently: - DID incoming local lines thru your PBX - AT&T Megacom lines via T1 that terminate directly on the modems. This is a fairly common situation in order entry systems... The most common solution is to have your AT&T T1's terminate on your PBX as DID lines, too. This is very common. Where the DID number dialed into the PBX is different than the DID dialed in on the outside lines, set up a call forward to the correct desired group. AT&T actually prefers that Megacom services act as DID's, its easier for their 4 ESS's to do. Depending on the type of PBX (or Centrex) you have, the T1's can terminate directly into the switch or channel banks with tie line type channel cards terminating on your PBX as tie lines or DID trunks will be req'd. Talk to your equipment vendor. Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy F M Systems, Inc. {uunet!backbone}!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!fmsystm!macy 150 Highland Drive Voice: +1 216 723-3000 Ext 251 Fax: +1 216 723-3223 Medina, Ohio 44256 USA Cleveland:273-3000 Akron:239-4994 (Dial 251 at tone) (Insert favorite disclaimer here) (What if I gave a .sig and nobody cared?) ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) Date: Sat, 6 Jan 90 3:55:09 CST Amid all the tales of pretending to be the business whose phone number was misprinted and making promises to callers that the called party isn't going to keep, are there any tales of the callee's simply saying, "Sorry, they've gone out of business"? It seems that would stop the caller from dialing but would cause a lot less damage. David Tamkin PO Box 813 Rosemont IL 60018-0813 708-518-6769 312-693-0591 dattier@chinet.chi.il.us BIX: dattier GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Jan 90 19:05:00 CST From: William Degnan Subject: Re: Telephone Companies in the US Besides the RBOCs In an article of <3 Jan 90 11:29:39 GMT>, munnari!batserver.cs.uq.oz.au! anthony@uunet.uu.net (Anthony Lee) writes: >Wonder if anyone could post a summary of all the major telephone >companies in the US besides the RBOCs. Particularly Nynex (sp??), Well NYNEX is the holding company that owns to BOCs: New York Telephone (NY) and New England Telephone (NE). The "X" part may stand for Xtra money? Or, X as in cross connection? >I read recently that Nynex have made a deal with Telecom Australia. >Anyone know more about the deal ? This isn't the deal where they going to put cellular phones on the kangaroos? :) :) Regards, Bill Disclaimer: Contents do not constitute "advice" unless we are on the clock William Degnan | wdegnan@mcimail.com !wdegnan@at&tmail.com Communications Network Solutions | William.Degnan@telenet.com P.O. Box 9530, Austin, TX 78766 | voice: 512 323-9383 ------------------------------ From: Peter Marshall Subject: Re: Special Issues Planned for Digest Date: 6 Jan 90 15:23:57 GMT Reply-To: Peter Marshall Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA A small correction: please note that the Texas Office of Public Counsel is not "the rate-setting organization in that state," but the "public advocate" for utility matters. The "rate-setting organization," of course, is the Texas PUC. [Moderator's Note: Thanks for the correction on this. And this is as good a time as any to remind readers this special issue of the Digest will be issued and in your mailboxes sometime Sunday. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #10 *****************************   Date: Sun, 7 Jan 90 0:22:36 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #11 Message-ID: <9001070022.aa02544@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 7 Jan 90 00:22:14 CST Volume 10 : Issue 11 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Test Lines (was 0020 Suffix lines) (Macy Hallock) ISDN Sets (Macy Hallock) Default Long Distance Carrier Override (Steve Forrette) Clarification on COCOT Disconnection (Steve Forrette) DC Area AC Usage (David Lesher) Cutting the Overhead (John Higdon) Demise of Telephone Museum (Curt Larock) Where Can I Buy a Caller*ID Box Now? (John Boteler) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: fmsystm!macy@cwjcc.ins.cwru.edu Subject: Test Lines (was 0020 Suffix lines) Date: Sun Jan 7 00:00:00 1990 Reply-To: macy@fmsystm.UUCP (Macy Hallock) Organization: F M Systems Inc. Medina, Ohio USA [Moderator's Note: This was mailed to the Digest on December 25. It arrived January 5!! The dating above was changed so it will have a couple days life in Usenet. PT] In article <2352@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 587, message 6 of 9 >> I noticed a couple of years ago in PacBell land in Northern CA that >> the 0020 suffix in just about any prefix always went to a loud, >> continuous tone, which has about a 1/2 sec gap every 15 secs or so. >This tone is known in the biz as the "miliwatt". It is a 1004 hz tone >that originates with a power of .001 watt in the CO. It is a standard >so that by dialing that number, a field tech can readily measure the >loss on that particular circuit. There are several other "standard" test lines that are commonly used. Working from memory here are a few...( it's been a few years...) 1004 Hz milliwatt tone (commonly known as 0.0 db tone) Quiet line, terminated Quiet line, unterminated Quiet line, synchronous 1004 Hz low level, -20 db I think Sweep tone, for frequency response test Various progress tones (busy, intercept, etc) for equip. test Responder lines (send them 1004 Hz. 0.0 db and they respond) Dial test lines (pulse and DTMF), respond with beeps is dial is OK ANI line Ringback line (these have been talked to death here) Automatic analysis line (call it, hang up, the line you called from is checked and you are called back with "reading" info) GTE's Fourtel has an option like this, too. Of the above, 1004 and terminated quiet line are the most freqently used. >There was a number that a phone man used once on some PBX trunks that >I had installed that produced the strangest sounds I had ever heard. This was probably a "sweep" line, which uses a set of tones to check the frequency response and phase envelope delay characteristics of a line, usually a special test unit is used at the site. These were often used to setup and test "conditioned" lines and "program" lines. They do sound very odd when you listen to them. These lines often are set up to require a test set to interact with the CO unit, or they won't respond. Calling one with a 2500 set usually gets a simple beep, then they hang up. And then there is automated testing... GTE has several "access" lines here to use the automation, but few of the craftsmen use them. Their common gripe is the Fourtel is "too sensitive" and responds to many type of equipment as "trouble". At one time, GTE dispatched a repairman on every Fourtel ticket...and they found alarms, data sets, fax machines, key sysetms, PBX's and even a few single line phones created tickets... So now the GTE people run them in a more traditional format...each Fourtel ticket is checked by a human on the test board first before it is dispatched. Now they use Fourtel to spot "trends" on groups of lines (like spotting wet cable) primarily, and individual lines are checked individually. A GTE foreman told me that a recent upgrade to the system had solved a lot of these problems. Automated line testing still tends to set off a lot of alarms with "telephone line cut monitors", especially if it's a long loop. We've had to tell GTE to "bypass" several of our customers (it's actually a class mark in the CO database). Ohio Bell line test stuff has caused us few problems. Craftsmen are still resisting the use of automated test and respond lines, though. They still want to talk to a testboard operator. (Gives them time to drink their coffee, while they wait on hold...) I always used to get mad at holding, and have the frame open the pair, and then use my trusty old Simpson 260 along with some 22 volt batteries to clear the pairs.... I'd be very interested in hearing anyone else's info, experiences, and problems with test lines and/or automated testing. Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy F M Systems, Inc. {uunet!backbone}!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!fmsystm!macy 150 Highland Drive Voice: +1 216 723-3000 Ext 251 Fax: +1 216 723-3223 Medina, Ohio 44256 USA Cleveland:273-3000 Akron:239-4994 (Dial 251 at tone) (Insert favorite disclaimer here) (What if I gave a .sig and nobody cared?) ------------------------------ From: fmsystm!macy@cwjcc.ins.cwru.edu Subject: ISDN Sets Date: Sun Jan 7 00:00:00 1990 Reply-To: macy@fmsystm.UUCP (Macy Hallock) Organization: F M Systems Inc. Medina, Ohio USA [Moderator's Note: This message likewise was delayed 12/25 ==> 1/5. PT] In article <2353@accuvax.nwu.edu> Torsten Dahlkvist writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 587, message 7 of 9 >My question: Does any net.reader know if they're available in the >U.S.? If not: Does anybody know why? My own hypothesis so far is that >they're slowed down by those very same "oddities" of the U.S. ISDN >spec as have deterred us. Knowing the capacity of these Japs I'd >expect US-type TAs shortly unless your own import restrictions prevent >them :-) Fujitsu is doing something in this area, I am told. We do not use/sell their ISDN stuff, but rumors are they are preparing to introduce several new "applications oriented" versions of their ISDN customer site gear. The way I heard it, Bellcore and the CO manufacturer's cannot agree on the CO sofware end of things, and Fujitsu cannot proceed. Since Fujitsu has entered the CO switch market in the US, they could go ahead and introduce these units as proprietary applications, but since ISDN and CO switching are two different Fujitsu US divisions, that seems unlikely. (Note: I am not cross-posting this to talk.rumors, but that's what this is: unsubstantiated gossip, nothing more...) Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy F M Systems, Inc. {uunet!backbone}!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!fmsystm!macy 150 Highland Drive Voice: +1 216 723-3000 Ext 251 Fax: +1 216 723-3223 Medina, Ohio 44256 USA Cleveland:273-3000 Akron:239-4994 (Dial 251 at tone) (Insert favorite disclaimer here) (What if I gave a .sig and nobody cared?) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Jan 90 08:24 EDT From: Steve Forrette Subject: Default Long Distance Carrier Override In a previous posting, John Higdon indicates that a COCOT did not allow him to access AT&T. I don't know when this occurred, but I'm relatively sure that a year or two ago the FCC made a rule that said ALL phones (COCOT's, hotels, etc.) MUST allow the caller to specify the ld carrier of his/her choice (presumably with an 10xxx access prefix). It is a crime to block this (but as we know, some are getting away with highway robbery). (John mentioned that the phone's operator stated that they wouldn't make any money if they allowed this. That rep should know better than that; how much of the calling public in general knows what 10xxx is?) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Jan 90 08:12 EDT From: Steve Forrette Subject: Clarification on COCOT Disconnection A couple of people have indicated that disconnection by PUC upon report of a tariff violation is a bit much. Here's what I meant by my previous posting: If a COCOT is found to be in violation of tariff and the PUC is notified, they should contact the owner, who should fix it IMMEDIATELY (a day or two), or face termination (of the phone, that is). If the phone is being maintained by a company that does such things, and they are notified by PUC that one of their phones is in violation, any reports of the same violation on other phones under their care should result in immediate termination (in this case, shoot first, ask questions later). I agree with the other posters that small operators should not be yanked upon a first violation, which they *may* not have known about. But they should be told in no uncertain terms by PUC that they are expected to be 100% compliant with tariff, and that if they can't handle that, they are in the wrong business. I have a copy of the Pacific Bell documentation and agreement that the operators sign, and the rates they can charge are spelled out quite clearly (examples along with the jargon so non-techies can understand it). The application that they sign also makes quite clear that they are expected to follow *all* of the rules, and that it is *their* responsibility to see to it that it is done. Of course, nobody reads the "fine print", right? The companies who are in the business of putting many phones in various places and maintaining them have no excuse for violations. However, I am willing to grant them a warning on the first instance of a particular violation on any of their phones (aren't I nice?). But, if they fix just that one phone and leave others in violation of the same tariff, it seems quite clear cut that they are *knowingly* in violation of tariff, and IMHO deserve to have all remaining phones that are in violation disconnected without notice. If this happened a couple of times to some of the larger operators, how long do you think it would take before almost all COCOT's were in *complete* compliance? I think that the above guidelines would not be unreasonable to the small operators, yet would go a long way in bringing order to the anarchy that exists today in the COCOT world. ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: DC Area AC Usage Date: Fri, 5 Jan 90 23:46:34 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher As other have reported, the {202,301,703} DC metro area is starting to require area codes on intra-area calls to ease the prefix shortage. Prior to this, LD calls to 202 xxx-yyyy worked even if the number was 301 or 703 (IF it was a local DC call) Well that's no longer true -- sometimes. A normal 703-455 (Newington) call cut to intercept today when dialed as 202-455. But a 202 call to a DID (system 85) number in that same building did complete. Now that 85 is linked to several others in the DC area to provide 5 digit internal dialing, etc. This includes one in 202 itself, and another couple in Rosslyn (703) VA. Now, I'd guess at least 50% of the phones in that area are on one or another govt or large private {PBX,Centrex,DID system}. If they extend this reserved prefix treatment to all of them, have they REALLY gained that many prefixes?? A host is a host & from coast to coast...wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu no one will talk to a host that's close..............(305) 255-RTFM Unless the host (that isn't close)......................pob 570-335 is busy, hung or dead....................................33257-0335 ------------------------------ Subject: Cutting the Overhead Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 6 Jan 90 00:32:06 PST (Sat) From: John Higdon Now that the PUC has ruled that Pac*Bell can keep its "excess" profits, the Chronicle reported today that Pacific Telesis will reduce its workforce by 11,000 over the next five years. This amounts to 16% of the total employees. This will be done by offering early retirement or "exit" packages and by not replacing those who quit. They did not, however, rule out the possiblity of layoffs. Company officials insisted that the job cuts will be accomplished without any decline in the quality of telephone service. [I'll leave that one alone!] This amounts to the deepest personel cut by any of the RBOCs. Gee--who is going to keep all that crossbar running? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Jan 90 12:04 EST From: Curt Larock Subject: Demise of Telephone Museum While in Chicago over the holidays I attempted to visit the Telephone Museum. The museum, alas, has been closed - permanantly. According to the Illinois Bell receptionist the museum was dismantled due to the renovation of the building now underway. Some of the exhibits were given to the Chicago Historical Society, but there are no plans at present to put them on display. [Moderator's Note: The museum closed permanently a couple months ago when the IBT Headquarters Building was in the process of being renovated. The loss was extremely unfortunate. The people at IBT who seemed to have some say-so about whether the museum should be there or not apparently have no interest in any link with the past. Its as though they feel the telephone somehow came into existence 1/1/84 or thereabouts. Their own internal history -- let alone that of the industry in general -- is fascinating, but I guess no one there felt it had anything to do with telephony as we know it today. Even the Telephone Pioneers were given no choice in possibly supporting the museum at some other location. PT] ------------------------------ Subject: Where Can I Buy A Caller*ID Box Now? Date: Fri, 5 Jan 90 10:45:31 EST From: John Boteler [Moderator's Note: Mr. Boteler shares a letter with us he recently sent to hsu@eng.umd.edu. PT] Hi, it's me again, the thing that wouldn't leave! Having received the notice from C&P announcing a $16 service charge waiver incentive for activating CLASS features, I decided I can't wait for other promised products to hit the market. My question: where can I buy any Caller*ID box now! Even with its flaws, the one you have would be an acceptable alternative in the interim. I haven't seen nor heard of any others, anywhere. Someone mentioned Sears, Roebuck, & Co. the other day; they must be cheaper than Hello Direct's $100 price tag! p.s. I talked to a ham operator named 'John' the other day who seems to be into computers at UM@CP. In fact, half the ham radio club there seems to be. I'll check to see if we know some people in common. Thanx now, til then! Bote Common Sense Computing 703-241-7818 NCN NudesLine 703-241-BARE -- VOICE only, Touch-Tone (TM) accessible {zardoz|uunet!tgate|cos!}ka3ovk!media!csense!bote ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #11 *****************************   Date: Sun, 7 Jan 90 1:32:04 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #12 Message-ID: <9001070132.aa19331@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 7 Jan 90 01:30:15 CST Volume 10 : Issue 12 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Obscene Callers Plague MCI 800 Subscriber (Macy Hallock) One Solution to 800 Wrong Numbers (Lars J. Poulsen) Marking COCOTS Out of Order (Brian Kantor) A Bad Time to Fall Asleep (TELECOM Moderator) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: fmsystm!macy@cwjcc.ins.cwru.edu Date: Sat Jan 6 15:59:10 1990 Subject: Obscene Callers Plague MCI 800 Subscriber Organization: F M Systems Inc. Medina, Ohio USA In article <2611@accuvax.nwu.edu>: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 7, message 1 of 10 ...discussion of wrong numbers on 800 lines and effects thereof.... >Late word: One of the last callers, after questioning, has informed me >that *my* number is listed as Hilton reservations in their local >phonebook. I'm going to get a copy of that book. If this is true, I am >really going to be unhappy paying $30 because of a Pac*Bell mistake. >And who do we refer *my* old number to, Hilton or me? We had a similar problem which still haunts me to this day...we have had to refer the whole thing to the attorney, in fact. When the OCC's were first starting up 800 numbers, I worked with my local MCI rep and F M Systems was assigned (800) 727-3000... (real close to 723-3000, which we have had for almost 20 years as out local number...a story in itself)...and I was real proud of myself 'cause good 800's are hard to get. Of course no good deed goes unpunished. And almost immediatly we began to get "strange" phone calls. On answering the 800 line, our receptionist would get people (always a male voice) with requests like: "I'd like a blonde" and "I want someone who likes to play..." and worse. This went on for weeks. On most days we would get three to five times as many "odd" calls as legitmate calls. The "odd" callers would be strangely unresponsive and even rude if you asked questions about where they got the number and why they were calling. I contacted MCI and requested assistance in this...they were no help. I called a friend at MCI (informally) and asked him to help...he ran a few checks and told me the calls were from all over the country, but mainly from a few major cities (we have most of our customers in Northern Ohio), so this was a little bit of help. We now knew that we were not being "pranked" by one person. One day my receptionist got one of the callers to give him the number he was calling by acting like an intercept operator (she was getting very tired of this by now, too). Turns out that the number was (800) 727-3300. I called this number and asked a few questions...what I got was basically an answering service that did not want to answer my questions...but the name of the service was Date-Line. Well, I was getting fed up with this, too. So I called the 3300 number back and used my best "intelligent, helpful telephone repairman" personality and then pointedly asked for a supervisor. I was given a local number in the 718 area code as a local business office number for Date-Line. After some further investigation (the details of which I will leave a an excerise for the student) here is what I found: The number (800) 727-3300 (note the one digit difference from (800) 727-3000) was being advertised in "Village Voice" and several "underground" newspapers as Date-Line, a dating service for those with "unusual" requirments. While I did not get into the exact details of the nature and working of Date-Line, I now knew what was happening and why...this was the next best thing to having my number one digit away from a sex line (or kinky pizza shop, I guess) At least I knew why the callers on these wrong numbers acted so strangely. And why they had made several specific suggestions to my receptionist. About this time Ruth, our receptionist, had ceased to see the humor and educational value in all this...probably brought on by the male caller who responded to Ruth's polite greeting with a husky "I'm wearing panty hose..." Ruth's reply was a rather brusque "Well, so am I!" and she slammed down the phone...and screamed. Well, I had talked to MCI about this three or four times. They did not even have the courtesy to suggest changing our number (much less doing anything to Date-Line) until I called to drop the service....All my accounts with them, as matter of fact. I contended they had an obligation to me to assist...they should not assign heavily advertised, much less sexually oriented numbers adjacent to normal businesses. So, two years later, they still contend that I owe them several thousand dollars more than I paid (I paid one-third of the bill, probably much more than my actual business usage). They even agreed to settle with me on that amount at one point, and then sent the account to collection...a year later. Needless to say, they'll have to fight for it, especailly after agreeing to settle. I can tolerate mistakes, but not lies. This is another instance of a larger company using tariffs to shield itself from irresponsible behavior. Pity....until this, I had encouraged my customers to use MCI, because I thought they were more innovative and agressive and more service oriented than their competitors. Well, take note, and beware...we now advise our customers on several points about 800 numbers: - Do not commit to the number until it is installed and you have lived with it for a couple months. This is the only way to prevent this nonsense. - Get a reverse 800 listing from the carrier to see who your 800 neighbors are. I know the company who accidently got the number that was 800 F*CKYOU....I now use a program I wrote check the cute letter combinations that arise. - Place test calls from various cities regularly. Routing problems do occur... - Be prepared to eat wrong number charges. You will get neither credit nor sympathy from your carrier. - Ask for a "tough" number, not an easy one. You will have less problems. - Consider detailed billing service, which gives the oringinating numbers of the callers on the billings. Very helpful for tracking abuse and the marketing types love the demographics they can derive from this. - Always expect the bill to be bigger than you think... usage always rises on 800 numbers. It's the old WATS is free battle... Its a shame I could not post the audio log tapes of some of the calls we got...maybe we should sell them to Playboy Channel for one of their comedy shows. And there is no truth to the rumor that I had this number reassigned to John Higdon's or Dave Lesher's home phones...they are responisible for their own weird calls. :) Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy F M Systems, Inc. {uunet!backbone}!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!fmsystm!macy 150 Highland Drive Voice: +1 216 723-3000 Ext 251 Fax: +1 216 723-3223 Medina, Ohio 44256 USA Cleveland:273-3000 Akron:239-4994 (Dial 251 at tone) (Insert favorite disclaimer here) (What if I gave a .sig and nobody cared?) ------------------------------ From: Lars J Poulsen Subject: One Solution To 800 Wrong Numbers Reply-To: Lars J Poulsen Organization: Advanced Computer Communications, Santa Barbara, California Date: Sun, 7 Jan 90 06:02:20 GMT While "wrong number" calls at odd hours are a great nuisance to residences, they are no big deal to businesses. Maybe the solution is to move towards separation of residential number space and business number space. Most people expect an 800-number to be a business number, and may be less careful when dialing than they would for a regular number. How about assigning a separate NPA for residential use ? 810, anyone ? With new technology, and lots of small long-distance carriers to compete, residential 800-service is going to boom, and I think it would be better to have separate prefixes for residential and business than to have multiple mixed NPAs. / Lars Poulsen (800) 222-7308 or (805) 963-9431 ext 358 ACC Customer Service Affiliation stated for identification only My employer probably would not agree if he knew what I said !! ------------------------------ From: Brian Kantor Subject: Marking COCOTS Out of Order Date: 7 Jan 90 06:10:33 GMT Reply-To: Brian Kantor Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd. I wonder if perhaps the best solution to noncompliant COCOTs isn't to just hang an OUT-OF-ORDER sign on all that you encounter, with perhaps a written explanation of what's wrong with the phone. I suspect COCOT owners will pay attention to an empty coinbox more quickly than almost any other thing. And it's much more polite than repairing the phone with an axe. - Brian [Moderator's Note: But the proprietor may come along and rip the sign down. Better to use some *very sticky* pre-printed (office copy machine?) labels which say "Out of Order Due to Misprogrammed Routing/Rates" which you slap on the phone across the coin slot area. Make sure you cover the coin slot. Once you have thus affixed the notice, be sure to visit the location in a day or two to see if the phone is still marked out of service, or if some creature came out of the swamp and scraped off the notice; if so, you will need to affix a new sticker after checking the phone to see if it is now 'repaired'. Minimum repair requirements will be considered met if dialing 10288-0 produces you know who, and if dialing a sample 800 number produces a 'thank you' without demanding a deposit. If you have the time and money to stand there and perform further diagnostics, please do. In your new role as trouble-shooter, you may also wish to get cozy with the manufacturer of the COCOT as a potential buyer of several hundred units. With the installer's manual at hand, perhaps you can liberate -- uh, I mean reprogram the firmware yourself. :) PT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jan 90 0:31:10 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: A Bad Time to Fall Asleep There were simpler times in the history of telephony, and simpler problems to deal with. During the several years I lived in the Hyde Park neighorhood on the south side of Chicago during the 1960's, my favorite neighbor was Lauri Fermi, widow of Enrico Fermi, known for his work on the Atomic Bomb. Mrs. Fermi and I lived in the same apartment building on East 56th Street, directly across the street from the Museum of Science and Industry, and we chatted and dined together frequently. In the fall of 1965, on the occassion of the twentieth anniversary of the completion and first testing of the bomb, Mrs. Fermi told a fascinating story of that summer day, twenty years earlier. Her comments were tape-recorded, and are transcribed below: "The testing was of course kept closely under wraps, you know, the government was awfully sensitive about it. All the papers were giving reports that a monster-like weapon was in the final testing stages, but some of the newspaper accounts were ridiculous. Enrico was given his orders only two days earlier as to exactly where we were to be stationed in the test zone area. Even the local people in New Mexico were told as little as possible; I think the governor and some state officials were told, and sworn to secrecy. "In Alamogordo, we checked into the hotel then drove out to where Enrico had been assigned. It was set up that the scientists were deployed over about a two hundred square mile area; we were about fifteen miles from the target. "The test was set for 4:30 AM the next morning, so we returned to the hotel and went to bed early. We got up at 3 the next morning and drove out to the location, since it took about an hour to set up the test gear Enrico would use....I suppose it was about 4:15, when a fierce rain storm developed. It lasted only five or ten minutes, but was quite a downpour, and Enrico remarked he hoped nothing would go wrong with the test because of it. "Well, the time came and went, everything was quiet, no bomb, nothing. About 4:45, Enrico decided we had better return to town and see what was what, and we drove back. He wanted to make a phone call and see if the test had been cancelled or not, and the only place open in town at that time of night was the hotel where we had stayed. There was a payphone in the lobby, and Enrico went in the booth, but he didn't get anywhere. I heard him flashing the hook and swearing softly, then he came out and said he could not get the operator. (Alamogordo had manual service at that time, just a small switchboard.) "We got in the car, and Enrico had me drive while he leaned out the window and kept looking overhead at the phone wires. He'd have me turn down one street, then turn back up another street, and finally he said pull the car over and stop. "Where we stopped was in front of a house on one of the residential streets there, but what looked odd to me was on the side of the house, there were hundreds of wires converging, coming in from a dozen telephone poles which all seemed to meet in the back yard or on the side of the house. And all these wires came down out of the sky you might say, and went in the side of the house in a big bundle. "The front porch light was burning, and when we went up on the front porch, the front door was open, but the screen door was latched from the inside. A radio was playing music very softly, and the room was rather dim with just a single light burning. A switchboard sat on one side of the room, and the signal lights on it were flashing off and on like Christmas tree lights. Over by the other corner was a sofa, and a woman was laying on the sofa, obviously sound asleep. This was right about five o'clock, I guess, or a few minutes after. "Enrico banged on the screen door a few times, then kicked it once or twice with his foot. All of a sudden, the lady woke up; she looked over at us very startled, standing at the door; she looked over at the switchboard; looked back at us; jumped up and rushed over to the board and sat down, pausing long enough to light a cigarette and she started frantically answering all the flashing signals. "We got back in the car, and drove out to where we had been before. We were there about five minutes, and the test was conducted. Everything the poets have said about the brilliance and beauty of that first explosion was true.... later, we got together with the others who had been assigned there and found out that it wasn't the rain that delayed things; it was that woman asleep; you see, the main people responsible were linked by phones through Alamogordo; they had to coordinate what they were doing and sychronize their work. All of them got the same thing on the phone we got: no answer from the operator for 45 minutes! "Really, I can't blame the lady much. The whole summer of 1945 was just horrid. When we arrived the day before, the temperature was over a hundred; the poor lady probably couldn't sleep at all that day from the heat, and still had to go to work that night exhausted. Then the rain cooled things off twenty degrees in fifteen minutes; that sofa was just too tempting for her; and probably every other night she only got two or three calls in the whole eight hour shift.... "No one ever said anything to her or the woman who owned the phone exchange there, so I suspect to this day, twenty years later, she doesn't realize she was responsible for causing the first atomic bomb explosion in the world to be delayed for a little over an hour....but as I think back now, probably someone should have told her ahead of time about that very special morning, and sworn her to secrecy until the test was completed. "When I was there in town two weeks ago for the (twentieth anniversary) reunion, just from curiosity I went past that house; it took me awhile to remember where it was. No wires anywhere like before; and I asked someone there if the phone exchange was there. He told me the 'telephone lady' had been gone for years; Bell or someone had bought it and moved it to a building in the downtown area." ===================== End of Transcription ======================= And that was Laura Fermi talking about the summer of '45 in the desert of New Mexico, in the fall of '65 at a dinner. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #12 *****************************   Date: Sun, 7 Jan 90 2:23:11 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest Special: Texas OPC/SWBT Message-ID: <9001070223.aa27904@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 7 Jan 90 02:17:00 CST Special: Texas OPC/SWBT Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Preface and Introductory Remarks (William Degnan) Texas OPC Responds to Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. (William Degnan) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 05 Jan 90 19:06:00 CST From: William Degnan Subject: Preface and Introductory Remarks >William Degnan has provided a lengthy press release from the Texas >Office of Public Counsel (the rate-setting organization in that state) To clarify: The Ofice of Public Utility Counsel (OPC) was created by the Public Utility Regulatory Act -- the same legislation which created the rate-setting organization-- the Public Utility Commission. The OPC: "(1) shall assess the impact of utility rate changes and other regulatory actions on residential consumers in the State of Texas and shall be an advocate in its own name of positions most advantageous to a substantial number of such consumers as determined by the counsellor; "(2) may appear or intervene as a matter of right as a party or otherwise on behalf of residential consumers, as a class, in all proceedings before the commission; "(3) may appear or intervene as a matter of right as a party or otherwise on behalf of small commercial consumers, as a class, in all proceedings where it is deemed by the counsel that small commercial consumers are in need of representation; "(4) may initiate or intervene as a matter of right or otherwise appear in any judicial proceedings involving or arising out of any action taken by an administrative agency in a proceeding in which the counsel was authorized to appear;" (and so on) The Texas OPC initiated docket 8585 which is a general inquiry into the reasonableness of SWB's rates and tariffs. This is a departure from "tradition" where rate cases result from the Telco's request for a rate increase. SWB was preparing to ask that rates be frozen and that they be given additional "incentives" to modernize the network. OPC and PUC staff testimony in 8585 has called for massive rate decreases and refunds. Regards, Bill Disclaimer: Contents do not constitute "advice" unless we are on the clock William Degnan | wdegnan@mcimail.com !wdegnan@at&tmail.com Communications Network Solutions | William.Degnan@telenet.com P.O. Box 9530, Austin, TX 78766 | voice: 512 323-9383 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Jan 90 3:39:00 CST From: William Degnan Subject: Texas OPC Responds to Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. The following information was received from The Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel (OPC), and is distributed for your information/comments. PRESS RELEASE Contact: C. Kingsbery Ottmers (512)475-3700 PUBLIC COUNSEL SAYS SOUTHWESTERN BELL LOCAL TELEPHONE CHARGES SHOULD BE REDUCED Newly-released plans provided by Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SWB) confirm that the telephone utility's rates should be reduced substantially, according to testimony filed today by the Office of Public Utility Counsel (OPC), a state agency which represents residential ratepayers. The latest testimony filed by OPC accountant Randy M. Allen evaluates the effect of SWB's recently)released 5 year Business Plan on OPC's previously recommended revenue reduction of $595 million. SWB had claimed that its latest plan and its testimony based on that plan effectively rebutted much of the testimony filed by various intervenors. After reviewing this newly avail- able information, OPC accountant Randy M. Allen testifies that the new information substantiates his conclusion that SWB's revenues should be reduced at least $595 million. Earlier testi- mony filed by five other OPC experts suggested that the reduction should be used to reduce rates for each major service category by approximately 16.9%. For example, a 16% reduction to the local service charge would reduce the average local rate from $9.69 to $8.14. Those previ- ous filings included the testimony of Washington D.C. economists Dr. Marvin Kahn and Dr. Charles Johnson, Boston engineer Dr. Frank Collins, and OPC economic analysts Clarence Johnson and Dr. Carol Szerszen. The determination that SWB's revenues can be reduced was the culmination of a major investigation by Mr. Allen and other OPC experts in conjunction with two major consulting firms that specialize in telecommunications economics. The testimony is part of the Public Utility Commission's hearings established to determine whether SWB is earning excess profits. SWB responded to the hearing by proposing a plan that would minimize rate reductions. Referring to SWB's so)called "Texas First" plan, Ms. C. Kingsbery Ottmers, the Public Counsel, said "the phone company's insistence on keeping its monopoly profits should really be called `South- western Bell First'". She said that traditional regulatory controls on monopolistic profits provide the best opportunity to further the economic development of Texas. "Our proposal will put money back in the pockets of consumers and businesses throughout the state," she pointed out. "Under SWB's plan, excess profits would be funneled to the tele- phone company's St. Louis-based holding company, Southwestern Bell Corporation," the public counsel said. "Contrary to SWB's self-serving description of `Texas First', the corporate game plan is to diversify into competitive enterprises all over the world and that means siphoning off excess profits from its Texas monopoly and investing in businesses from Australia to Europe", she continued. OPC's recommended revenue level includes suffi- cient funds for SWB to upgrade the Texas telecommunication system -- an investment that the utility believes will cost $340 mil- lion. Ms. Ottmers stated that economically justified improve- ments to the telephone network should be performed -- and that high-tech services which are made possible by the modernization should pay for the upgrades. Ms. Ottmers stated "the quality telephone service can be enhanced, the telephone equipment throughout the state, including rural areas, can be improved, the rates can be cut by almost 17%, and the Company would still make a totally reasonable profit". She noted that Southwestern Bell Telephone Company did not offer to provide service improvements in rural areas, until their overearnings were questioned by the Public Utility Commission. "Public utilities are obligated to invest in facilities that are necessary to provide reasonable and efficient service -- that is why they earn a profit", she said. "Now SWB wants permission to spend ratepayers -- not investors' -- money on its investment, in addition to earning excessive profits". OPC is particularly critical of SWB's recent claim that proposed rate reductions would force them to lay off employees and cut service. Ms. Ottmers said it is important to "distinguish sound business plans from pure public relations". OPC points out that its proposed revenue reduction includes sufficient expense levels to meet currently expected payroll. "Bell is trying to confuse the public", she said. "The telephone company does not point out that 5,700 employee reductions occurred since its last rate case -- without any rate reductions". Ottmers also branded as "preposterous" Bell's claim that a reve- nue reduction is illegal. According to the Public Counsel, SWB's version of "doublespeak" ignores the purpose of regulation. "SWB makes the incredible claim that regulation is intended to promote excess profit rather than the fair and reasonable profit required by law", Ms. Ottmers responded. She also denies that revenue reductions will reduce SWB's level of service. She said that traditional regulation operates to calculate revenue required to cover reasonable expenses plus a reasonable return on investment. "If rates are reduced to cover the utility's cost, including a fair profit margin, and the telephone company responds by cutting service, that means the telephone company is diverting funds required for utility service into its excess profits", Ms. Ott- mers said. "I do not think the Commission should stand for that". OPC's testimony defends traditional ratemaking as a sound ap- proach which equally protects ratepayers and the utility's share- holders. "It is ironic that SWB argues, on the one hand, that traditional regulation is outmoded, while at the same time admit- ting that traditional regulation has allowed SWB and Bell compa- nies throughout the United States to offer quality telephone service at affordable rates", Ms. Ottmers added. "Ratemaking" as practiced in Texas is mandated by Texas law, which was passed by the Legislature of Texas, according to OPC. Hearings in the SWB case are expected to start in January of next year. -30- FACT SHEET: TEXAS FIRST 1. Is SWB'S "TEXAS FIRST" PROPOSAL A GOOD THING FOR TEXAS? Without a revenue reduction, Bell's profits will be far too high to be called "reasonable". Many of the Texas First service changes have merit. Incentive rate regulation is not a prerequi- site for technological advancements. A modern telephone system is possible under traditional regulation. 2. IF WE DO NOT ACCEPT SWB'S TEXAS FIRST, WITH SWB'S PRICE TAG, ARE WE CHOOSING STAGNATION - AS SWB CLAIMS - INSTEAD OF GROWTH AND PROGRESS? Of course not. SWB's current profits will be far too high. SWB is understandably trying to hold on to as much of the excess as possible. Their claims of less growth and progress, and even of reductions in present levels of service, are nothing more than scare tactics. SWB is a monopoly, and the fundamental purpose of utility regulation is to prevent the telephone company from extracting monopoly profits out of Texas consumers. 3. THE COMMISSION STAFF AND VARIOUS INTERVENORS ARE PROPOSING REVENUE REDUCTIONS OF $392 TO $702 MILLION. WITH CUTS THAT DEEP, WON'T BELL HAVE TO CUT SERVICE AND LARGE NUMBERS OF EMPLOYEES IN ORDER TO COMPETE FOR INVESTORS, AS BELL CLAIMS? Not at all. In rate cases at the PUC, Bell's rates are set at a level to pay for all its legitimate business expenses necessary to provide reliable service to its customers. That includes new digital equipment, where required, and all necessary employees. In addition, the rates are set to include a reasonable profit to the Company (a return on the utility's investment), so that investors will continue to invest in the utility. The utility's federal income tax on that profit is also paid by the ratepayers, to make sure the utility nets enough profit. The point is this: Bell has no good reason to cut any necessary service or employee, because the rates are set high enough to cover all legitimate expenses, plus a reasonable profit. 4. IF THE RATES ARE SET TO GIVE BELL ONLY A REASONABLE PROFIT, WHY ARE THEY MAKING EXCESS PROFITS NOW? There are several reasons. Bell's present rates were set about four years ago. Since that time, the federal income tax rate has been reduced from 46% to 34%. Ratepayers have continued to pay Bell for those taxes at the 46% rate, even though the most Bell would pay is at the 34% level. Some of Bell's operating expenses have increased and some have decreased since rates were last set in 1986. For example, Bell has already reduced its employment level by 5,700 employees. OPC has recommended an increase in some expenses and a decrease in other expenses to arrive at a total level of legitimate ex- penses less than the level requested by SWB. SWB's rate base (remaining investment) has also changed, and the resulting cost of capital, including the cost of borrowing money, is less than the cost at the time of SWB's last rate case. Because the rates were set high enough to cover taxes and other expenses no longer being paid by Bell, Bell's revenues are now too high. No matter whether Bell uses the excess revenue to pay for something not required to provide good service, or uses it as excess profits for shareholders, the result cannot be justified so long as Bell remains a protected monopoly. 5. SWB SEEMS TO THINK THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH TRADITIONAL RATEMAKING. IS THERE? Traditional ratemaking provides a reasonable profit for utilities that provide reliable service. Sound ratemaking principles and state laws balance the public interest by not allowing SWB to earn excessive profits at the expense of Texas citizens. Texas First is SWB's attempt to keep its excessive profits. In fact, most of Texas First can be accomplished under traditional rate- making. 6. IS SWB RIGHT WHEN THEY SAY THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC UTILITY COUNSEL IS DISREGARDING TEXAS LAW BY RECOMMENDING THESE CUTS IN BELL'S PROFITS? That claim by SWB must have been made from anger rather than reason. The claim is preposterous. This office has no reason at all to disregard the law, and it does not disregard it. It is Bell which would like to avoid the mandates of Texas regulatory law - and the utility regulatory laws in Texas are based squarely on traditional ratemaking. Any contention that utility regula- tion is intended to promote, rather than restrain, monopoly profits disregards the historic antecedents of regulation. 7. SWB SAYS THE RATES IN TEXAS ARE 20% BELOW THE NATIONAL AVER- AGE. DOES NOT THAT SUGGEST WE ARE ACTUALLY GETTING A GOOD DEAL NOW ON OUR TELEPHONE RATES IN TEXAS? Bell is also claiming Texas rates are bargains because the typi- cal monthly bill is less than the cost of a pizza. Those com- parisons are not very relevant. If SWB's claim were correct, then it is also true that SWB's costs are more than 20% below the national average. Of course, too many factors prevent valid comparisons of that type. The way utility rates are set under traditional ratemaking, and under Texas law, is to set the rates based on what it costs that utility to serve its customers. Anything more is a gift from the telephone customers to SWB. 8. DOES THE CURRENT LAW ALLOW FOR THE COMPETITIVE NATURE OF SWB'S BUSINESS? Yes, S.B. 444 has been incorporated into the Public Utility Regulatory Act and rules promulgated by the Commission. SWB has not been hesitant to use these rules and other Commission proce- dures to implement many new services. Public Counsel has not opposed implementation of these new services so long as they comply with the law and monopolized services, e.g., basic serv- ice, are not used to subsidize them. OPC's concern is that the new services be fair to SWB's customers and competitors. 9. DOES SWB NEED A FINANCIAL INCENTIVE TO PROVIDE RELIABLE SERVICE? No. SWB, as a regulated utility, has a moral and ethical respon- sibility to provide adequate and reliable service at the least possible cost with regulatory constraints. After all, SWB is in business to provide service to and support the citizens of Texas, not the other way around. SWB would earn a reasonable return under OPC's proposal that is sufficient to attract investment capital. _Reasonable_ return constitutes adequate incentive to conduct business properly. 10. HAVE OTHER STATES ADOPTED INCENTIVE RATE PLANS SIMILAR TO TEXAS FIRST? While many Bell Telephone Companies have proposed similar plans, most state regulatory commission have only adopted such plans after ordering significant rate reductions and changes similar to those proposed by OPC and other intervenors. =========================================================================== Disclaimer: Contents do not constitute "advice" unless we are on the clock William Degnan | wdegnan@mcimail.com !wdegnan@at&tmail.com Communications Network Solutions | William.Degnan@telenet.com P.O. Box 9530, Austin, TX 78766 | voice: 512 323-9383 William Degnan -- via The Q Continuum (FidoNet Node 1:382/31) UUCP: ...!rpp386!tqc!39!wdegnan ARPA: wdegnan@f39.n382.z1.FIDONET.ORG [Moderator's Note: My thanks to Mr. Degnan for passing this along and for his efforts in producing 'digest-ready' copy. Special issues of the Digest are prepared without number referencing so that they can be kept in your reference files without an interupption in regular Digest numbering. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest Special: Texas OPC/SWBT *****************************   Date: Mon, 8 Jan 90 1:20:59 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #13 Message-ID: <9001080121.aa05596@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 8 Jan 90 01:20:13 CST Volume 10 : Issue 13 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: 976 in Massachusetts (John Higdon) Re: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid (William Degnan) Re: Obscene Callers Plague MCI 800 Subscriber (John Higdon) Re: Phone Frustration (Bernie Cosell) Re: Phone Frustration (Peter da Silva) Re: Area 908 Lives (Tad Cook) Re: Enterprise Numbers? Zenith Numbers? (Paul Fuqua) Re: The Operator's Beep (Jim Gottlieb) Re: Where Can I Buy A Caller*ID Box Now? (George H. Martin) Re: Texas OPC/SWBT (John Higdon) 1990 Area Code Directory Available (TELECOM Moderator) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: 976 in Massachusetts Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 6 Jan 90 22:30:27 PST (Sat) From: John Higdon In article <2628@accuvax.nwu.edu> eli@pws.bull.com writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 8, message 7 of 7 >The Massachusetts DPU has apparently just given the OK for 976 (and >more) tariffs. Also, 940 tariffs for "adult" messages. >Initially, all telephones will be blocked from making 940 calls. Excuse me, but how is a "940" provider supposed to make any money if no one can call his number? Since the whole premise of 976, 900, "940", etc., is to allow casual, impulsive calls and provide a surefire billing mechanism, who would bother setting up a service that would require clientele to go through elaborate preparations in order to make calls? >Blocking for 940 numbers, as well as 1-900 numbers will initially be >available for free. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: Unlike 900 & 976 which are by default open and blocked on request, the 940 numbers will be blocked by default and opened on request. The 940 numbers will generally be explicit -- very explicit -- in sexual content, and subscribers who want to avail themselves of the phone-sex service will need to specifically ask to have their lines authorized. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 06 Jan 90 18:04:00 CST From: William Degnan Subject: Re: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid In an article of <5 Jan 90 03:48:18 GMT>, ddodell@stjhmc.fidonet.org (David Dodell) writes: DD>AT&T ad...trying to call Phoenix but getting Fuji instead. DD>...ad is just plain stupid... I wonder if this is a carefully targeted ad? I know _I_ feel insulted by it, but are they looking to gain (or retain) the business of those people who aren't bright enough to direct-dial a call to Phoenix? I object to the "slice of fear" advertising that AT&T uses. I rarely meet people who regard the LEC or AT&T as some kind of protector from technical and financial adversity. Would AT&T continue to run these ads if they didn't work? Would reliance on fact-laden ads place them in a more favorable position? Is it an outward sign that AT&T still thinks it is 1959? Regards, Disclaimer: Contents do not constitute "advice" unless we are on the clock William Degnan | wdegnan@mcimail.com !wdegnan@at&tmail.com Communications Network Solutions | William.Degnan@telenet.com P.O. Box 9530, Austin, TX 78766 | voice: 512 323-9383 UUCP: ...!rpp386!tqc!39!wdegnan ARPA: wdegnan@f39.n382.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Obscene Callers Plague MCI 800 Subscriber Date: 7 Jan 90 11:35:28 PST (Sun) From: John Higdon fmsystm!macy@cwjcc.ins.cwru.edu writes: > - Be prepared to eat wrong number charges. You will get > neither credit nor sympathy from your carrier. I feel fortunate in this instance. My AT&T 800 number (which is administered by Pac*Bell) has had it's share of wrong numbers and billing errors. I have had no trouble convincing Pac*Bell reps that I am fully aware of the amount and origin of legitimate traffic on the line and they have not hesitated to remove any and all charges that do not correspond to my known usage. BTW, the 800 number I *really* wanted was an MCI prefix. I gave it up because I wanted AT&T. After reading Macy's narrative, I'm glad I did. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Bernie Cosell Subject: Re: Phone Frustration Date: 7 Jan 90 15:22:51 GMT john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: }peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: }> Well, he could just not provide a public telephone at his place of }> business at all. That's a valid option. Lots of places do that. I'd }> much rather have a little problem with a privately owned COCOT than }> have to put up with "no, we don't allow phone calls... but the }> laundromat across the street there has a public phone: there's a }> traffic signal a block east". }What you seem to be saying here is "better a COCOT than nothing at }all." Well, that's debatable, but not an issue. I can't speak for your }area, but here in the Bay Area the onslaught of COCOTs did not mean an }increase of public phones, but the wholesale replacement of Pac*Bell }phones with COCOTs. This is my main complaint. If all the *real* }public phones remained and COCOTs showed up where there had been no }pay phones before, your argument would be valid. I don't understand quite how this applies at all. Are the various RBOCs under some obligation to provide "public phones"? Could not *all* public phones, telco and cocot alike, all go away tomorrow if the various owners/operators chose? There are two kinds of pay phones in the world as far as I can tell --- really public ones [which means NOT on private property: like an outside phone booth on the corner] and public-service ones [where some private person has made arrangements to have a publicly accessible phone on their property]. For the latter, much as I despise COCOTs, I'm not sure I have anything to say about it, just as Peter points out. As for the former ones, I don't have a clue if there is some real set of public regulations requiring some density of those suckers or not, but it seems to be the only place where we can legitimately have a gripe: if there *is* such a standard, then I think it is exactly right that we bitch if there are not an adequate number of the really-public phones of a "socially reasonable" type, either real-local-telco, or COCOT with rational firmware. If there is NOT such a standard [or if the reality is that there are already "enough" of the public-public phones in the area], then there's not much to complain about [other than to try to get the standards changed]. In either event, I don't think we should have any particular way to tell the local hardware store what sort of phone they must/cannot provide. }> The guy's providing a service. There's no law saying he has to make a }> phone available to the next guy who walks in off the street. }No, but the Pac*Bell phone he used to have was somewhat superior to }the COCOT which took its place. His shiney new COCOT may cough up more }money for him, but it is certainly not as much service for his }customers. Sounds like the American way. Why should he have one type of phone service or another for YOUR convenience? It pisses me off that I can't get "New Scientist" at the local news stand, but that's life --- he runs his business as he sees fit, and I take my business where I think my needs are best served. How else would you have it? /bernie\ ------------------------------ From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Phone Frustration Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Date: Sun, 7 Jan 90 14:36:53 GMT > I was interested to read Peter da Silva's comments about my posting > regarding disconnection of COCOTs. At the time that I wrote it, I was > a bit concerned that my posting sounded a little heavy handed. Yeh, a little. :-> I also seem to have gotten you confused with John Higdon. > Actually, I have tried communication with the owners of the offending > COCOT phones....but get nowhere. That's different, then. I withdraw my complaint with you. I still think that there's a general problem with people shooting from the hip and calling the law in long before it's reasonable. Legal action should be a last resort, not the first thing you consider. First, I apologise for confusing you with the person who really posted the article, but... > Invariable answer: "I don't know anything about the phone. You'll have > to call the number on the card." Card says call "211". Reaches > disconnect recording, doesn't answer, or reaches answering machine. Then you've got a reason to call the PUC. But my point is that there was no indication that the person involved had made such an attempt. And that's what I was complaining about. > Oh, and I wish you would avoid the phrase, "people like you"... Again, I publicly apologise for the misunderstanding. Thinking back on it, what with I remember of your stand on Caller ID and similar subjects, getting lumped in with people like that must have really hurt. _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. . / \ Also or \_.--._/ v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-' ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Area Code 908 Lives Date: 7 Jan 90 20:57:06 GMT I tried calling 908 from my office (served by GTE in WA state) and got nowhere. Also my Sprint line at home will not accept 908 calls. I have the Bellcore letter announcing 908, but it seems to have a LONG period of permissive dialling...til June 1991! When I called GTE about it, they claimed that there was NO 908 area code. When I read the Bellcore letter, I was passed to a supervisor who claimed that New Jersey Bell had decided not to implement it "just yet"! Tad Cook tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Jan 90 18:23:42 CST From: Paul Fuqua Subject: Re: Enterprise Numbers? Zenith Numbers? Date: Thursday, December 14, 1989 12:26pm (CST) From: mjs at mozart.att.com (Martin J Shannon) Subject: Enterprise Numbers? Zenith Numbers? [Moderator's Note: Enterprise and Zenith were the same difference. Believe it or not, there are a few companies still listed in the Chicago phone book with Enterprise numbers, but they are few and far between. PT] The only Enterprise numbers I see any more in Dallas are the ones on the "don't dig here, there's cable/pipes underground" signs that seems to be everywhere. Most recently, there was one on the telephone junction box (or whatever) attached to my old apartment. Since it was built in 1985, I guess they're not phasing Enterprise out very quickly for their own stuff. Paul Fuqua pf@csc.ti.com {smu,texsun,cs.utexas.edu,rice}!ti-csl!pf Texas Instruments Computer Science Center PO Box 655474 MS 238, Dallas, Texas 75265 ------------------------------ From: Jim Gottlieb Subject: Re: The Operator's Beep Date: 8 Jan 90 04:35:19 GMT Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles All operator systems provide an audible warning to the operator that a new call has arrived. Only the AT&T TSPS lets the caller hear the beep. I have always liked it, but I'm not even sure it was intentional. Most BOCs these days are installing Northern Telecom's TOPS (their answer to TSPS). TOPS does not let the customer hear the beep. It's as simple as that. Jim Gottlieb E-Mail: or or V-Mail: (213) 551-7702 Fax: 478-3060 The-Real-Me: 824-5454 ------------------------------ From: "George H. Martin" Subject: Re: Where Can I Buy A Caller*ID Box Now? Date: 8 Jan 90 05:27:31 GMT Reply-To: "George H. Martin" Organization: Homer Dodge Network Systems, Inc. I should be able to post information about a real nice Caller*ID display unit very soon. If I receive permission to advertise this unit, I will post the ordering information, etc. This unit stores the last 64 calls (including the date and time) and will sell for under $100 ($70-90 ?). Give me a week. I am also considering having a unit developed that will provide an RS-232 interface, for connection to a processor or printer (i.e., ASCII). I would like to here from anyone who would be interested in this capability. George H. Martin uunet!hodgenet!georgemartin Homer Dodge Network Systems, Inc. +1 201 454 3333 Moderator's Note: Although the Digest is not usually a forum for advertising commercial products, some definitive information about sources for purchasing the boxes would be welcome. PT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Texas OPC/SWBT Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 7 Jan 90 21:31:03 PST (Sun) From: John Higdon That whole preceding with SWB sounds very familiar. Looks like Pac*Bell started something with this new breed of "deregulation". It's nice to know that Pac*Bell is a pioneer in something: screwing the public. Unfortunately, the CPUC bought Pac*Bell's package and went the SWB proposal one better. In addition to the already exhorbitant rates that Pac*Bell charges, they are allowed to *raise* their rates AUTOMATICALLY every year. No questions asked. Notice how they got their SWB-style regulation package through the commission and THEN they announced the elimination of 11,000 jobs. So now Pac*Bell's excessive profits turn into obscene profits. Oh, in case you doubt, check Pacific Telesis' last few quartarly reports. It will blow your socks off. They will have plenty of capital to explore new international ventures, all courtesy of the California ratepayer. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Jan 90 1:11:32 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: 1990 Area Code Directory Available The 1990 edition of AT&T's 'Area Code Handbook' is now available. The most recent edition shows communities in area code 708. In addition, this publication gives brief information on country codes involved in international dialing, a map, and some other interesting items. The price is $2.95 each, plus applicable state tax . You may send your check, or request a charge to your VISA, Master Card or American Express. When you write, ask for publication Select Code 999-600-111. You might also ask for your free copy of the International Calling Guide, which lists very detailed instructions for placing/receiving calls from other countries. Write to: AT&T Customer Information Center Marketing Department Post Office Box 19901 Indianapolis, IN 46219-0901 Orders must be prepaid, or charged to credit cards. For credit card orders only, you may phone 1-800-432-6600. Allow about two weeks for delivery by mail. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #13 *****************************   Date: Mon, 8 Jan 90 23:40:52 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #14 Message-ID: <9001082340.aa03693@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 8 Jan 90 22:40:00 CST Volume 10 : Issue 14 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Free Local Phone Calls (John Higdon) Re: Marking COCOTS Out of Order (John Higdon) Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) (Tad Cook) Re: 976 in Massachusetts (John R. Levine) Re: 976 in Massachusetts (Wolf Paul) Re: Controversy Over Area Code 213 Split (Carl Moore) Re: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid (Brian Matthews) Re: TV News Mates With Cellular Phones (Tad Cook) Texas BBS/SWBT News in Alt.Cousard (was: Modem Tax) (Blake Farenthold) Another Meaning for 'NYNEX' (Edward Greenberg) Re: Phone Frustration (John Higdon) Definition of "IT"? (Will Martin) SDL Diagrams for LAPB (Mike Gertsman) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Free Local Phone Calls Date: 7 Jan 90 11:05:58 PST (Sun) From: John Higdon alonzo@microsoft.UUCP (Alonzo Gariepy) writes: > This also bears on the claim that a COCOT shouldn't charge ten cents > for 800 calls because they don't cost the owner anything. > Ridiculous!! The costs of a tollfree call are the same as a local call > to the owner: a monthly line cost and paying the lease on the phone. Not true. COCOT owners are charged for local calls the same as any other business. What the COCOT owner makes off local calls is the difference between what he charges and what the telco charges him. 800 calls, on the other hand, cost him nothing at all. Just as 950, local and intralata information, emergency, and repair service cost him absolutely nothing. One of the costs of doing business in the COCOT world is providing the facilities for those free calls. In the case of emergency and repair service, the PUC mandates that these calls be permitted without charge. If you consider public phones to be a necessity of life, how can you justify COCOTs being less of a service to the public than telco pay phones? One of the reasons I have an 800 number is to check my messages from anywhere in the state without being gouged by AOSs. Another is so that I don't have to have change handy. If the only phone in the area requires a dime that I don't have, I am not served. If COCOTs can't provide *at least* the level of service as the telco pay phones, they are extra baggage to society and should never have been allowed in the first place. I have no problem with creating a new industry as long as it doesn't displace a public service that has become traditional over past decades. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Marking COCOTS Out of Order Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 7 Jan 90 23:22:48 PST (Sun) From: John Higdon In article <2669@accuvax.nwu.edu> Brian Kantor writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 12, message 3 of 4 >[Moderator's Note: But the proprietor may come along and rip the sign >down. Better to use some *very sticky* pre-printed (office copy >machine?) labels which say "Out of Order Due to Misprogrammed >Routing/Rates" which you slap on the phone across the coin slot area. As a matter of fact, a couple of years ago one of the inhabitants of essug.*, our statewide telephone news group, had a bunch of stickers printed up and sent them around to everyone that wanted them. I just ran across the few that I had left. There were some notorious COCOT violators and when all else failed, I started sticking it to them. These people were uncanny in their ability to remove them as fast as I stuck them on, usually the same day. There was one phone that charged for everything, including repair service and information, had no mention of who owned it, and required coin for all long distance no matter how paid. It was a vile thing and I would put stickers on it daily that invited people to take their telephony business elsewhere, but it was uphill all the way. Needless to say, I soon gave up. Even though the shopkeeper professed to know nothing about the phone, I suspect that it was he who was removing the stickers. "I don't know nuthin 'bout da fone, just putchya money in an' shuddap." John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) Date: 8 Jan 90 03:30:22 GMT Organization: very little The moderator asked if my aquaintance with the cell phone who was getting bus station calls had a cell phone number anything like 781-2900. I don't know. But it sure was an entertaining story, at least the way she told it. Remember that this person was in SALES, were they like to tell funny stories, so she may have made it up. :) Tad Cook tad@ssc.UUCP [Moderator's Note: I don't believe that sales people in the telecom industry make up stories. Do they? They do? :) PT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: 976 in Massachusetts Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA Date: 8 Jan 90 09:30:04 EST (Mon) From: "John R. Levine" My impression is that the phone sex crowd are dedicated enough to send in a postcard one time to get the 940 numbers turned on. I have philosophical problems with all of the 900 style surcharged numbers because unlike any other number you can dial, the number itself gives you no idea of how much the call will cost. I think they should do something like prefixing each call with a message: "This call to will cost per minute, starting at the third beep" followed by three slow beeps to give you time to hang up. Truth in labelling and all that. Regards, John ------------------------------ From: wolf paul Subject: Re: 976 in Massachusetts Date: Mon, 8 Jan 90 13:47:05 MET DST Organization: IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria In TELECOM-DIGEST 10/13, John Higdon writes: > >Initially, all telephones will be blocked from making 940 calls. > Excuse me, but how is a "940" provider supposed to make any money if > no one can call his number? Since the whole premise of 976, 900, > "940", etc., is to allow casual, impulsive calls and provide a > surefire billing mechanism, who would bother setting up a service that > would require clientele to go through elaborate preparations in order > to make calls? If enough consumers want this kind of service, someone will probably provide it. I am sure the phone company will be glad to provide a count of unblocked subscribers to potential service providers who can then decide if it is worth it. Allowing casual, impulsive calls just simply is not suitably for all types of materials, since there would be nothing to stop children from impulsively calling such numbers, nor does anyone who casually misdials a number need to be confronted with certain materials. Wolf N. Paul, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis Schloss Laxenburg, Schlossplatz 1, A - 2361 Laxenburg, Austria, Europe Phone: [43] (2236) 71521-465 BITNET: tuvie!iiasa!wnp@cernvax.BITNET UUCP: uunet!tuvie!iiasa!wnp INTERNET: wnp%iiasa.at@uunet.uu.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Jan 90 15:01:40 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Controversy Over Area Code 213 Split I heard there were some adjustments made along the then-proposed 213/818 border because of communities otherwise facing split along that border. I realize this was from the article, but when 310 comes into use, it will be 8, not 5, years since the 213/818 split. But that's still shorter than the 11 1/2 years between N0X/N1X prefixes coming to 213 (covering what is 213 & 818 at this writing) and the 213/818 split. ------------------------------ From: 6sigma2@polari.UUCP (Brian Matthews) Subject: Re: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid Date: 8 Jan 90 18:42:58 GMT Reply-To: 6sigma2@.UUCP (Brian Matthews) Organization: PolarServ, Seattle WA In article <2632@accuvax.nwu.edu> ddodell@stjhmc.fidonet.org (David Dodell) writes: |I'm sure other members of the conference have seen the recent AT&T ad |showing some guy at a telephone both trying to call Phoenix but |getting Fuji instead. |I figure that this ad is just plain stupid, since if someone can't |dial a number correctly, it has nothing to do with the carrier they |are using. The ad implies otherwise. Not that I want to stick up for AT&T's advertising department, but when I first saw the ad, I thought the point was that having called Fiji instead of Phoenix, he had to call the billing department of whatever long-distance company he was using, while an AT&T operator would give him instant credit. Brian L. Matthews blm@6sceng.UUCP ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: TV News Mates With Cellular Phones Date: 8 Jan 90 03:32:57 GMT Organization: very little A friend of mine works for the local ABC affiliate, and they put in this kind of service for reporting of traffic problems to their AM radio new department. He claims the service has turned out to be a big pain for the radio station....most of the calls are from cellular customers asking why the traffic is slow, rather than giving information! Tad Cook tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Jan 90 12:29:21 CST From: Blake Farenthold Subject: Texas BBS/SWBT News in Alt.cousard (Was: Modem Tax) >[Moderator's Note: It was not a modem 'tax', but rather, a requirement >by Southwestern Bell Telephone Company that users of modems in >general, and BBS operators in particular, pay business rates for their >phone service. >... I'm sure more news will be forthcoming soon, and that the >sysop's organization will keep us informed. PT] Actually if you are really interested in the issue find a site that carries the usenet newsgroup alt.cousard which started out as the tx.cousard. That group carries all the info about the ongoing battel w/SWB. Thr group has a s/n ratio with a lot of messages that don't contain what I'd concider useful info. The group is, however, interesting as it has a lot of "non-usenet" sites (mainly bbs's) that have hacked gatewats. I beleive it is carried as a fidonet echo-mail conference as well. We carry it as a conference on pro-party (512/882-1899 3-9600 HST). UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!blake ARPA: crash!pnet01!pro-party!blake@nosc.mil INET: blake@pro-party.cts.com Blake Farenthold | Voice: 800/880-1890 | MCI: BFARENTHOLD 1200 MBank North | Fax: 512/889-8686 | CIS: 70070,521 Corpus Christi, TX 78471 | BBS: 512/882-1899 | GEnie: BLAKE ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Jan 90 08:13 PST From: Edward_Greenberg@cso.3mail.3com.com Subject: NYNEX Well NYNEX is the holding company that owns to BOCs: New York Telephone (NY) and New England Telephone (NE). The "X" part may stand for Xtra money? Or, X as in cross connection? - Anthony Lee I thought NYNEX was how much your phone bill went up with divestature (9x). ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Phone Frustration Date: 8 Jan 90 07:29:28 PST (Mon) From: John Higdon Bernie Cosell writes: > Sounds like the American way. Why should he have one type of phone > service or another for YOUR convenience? It pisses me off that I > can't get "New Scientist" at the local news stand, but that's life --- > he runs his business as he sees fit, and I take my business where I > think my needs are best served. How else would you have it? Why, no other way at all. And I am perfectly entitled to take my business else where if the merchant demonstrates his attitude toward his customers by have a COCOT. This is no joke. A COCOT was replaced by a Pac*Bell phone in a restaurant that I frequent. When I enquired of the owner (whom I know personally), she said that the complaints that she was getting indicated to her that customer relations were being damaged slightly. Since her customers meant more to her than some extra nickels from the pay phone, she switched. Yes, she did it for her customers' convenience because she values her customers. I would assume that if you can't get "New Scientist" at your local news stand, you go somewhere else rather than throw up your hands and say, "that's life". And let your local merchant know it! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Jan 90 10:00:30 CST From: Will Martin Subject: Definition of "IT"? The recently-made-available acronym lists and glossary files don't list "IT" as an abbreviation with a definition. So, in the moderator's posting in issue 590 that mentions "a big IT in the basement", what does "IT" mean? Regards, Will [Moderator's Note: Many installers, or at least the older ones, use 'IT' to mean 'inside terminal', and this is typically the demarcation point in a (large) building where the cable first comes in from the street, is punched down on several strips to be mated with appropriate house pairs. The ones I have seen, specifically in older, large apartment-hotel type buildings, have the incoming cable punched down on the left side on three or four strips of 40-50 terminals each. The house pairs terminate on the right side on three or four similar strips. Then jumper wires cross connect the two sides of the IT, or inside terminal. The jumper pairs will usually have little tags tied on with string saying things like 'second pair to apartment 903' or 'OPX to 123 Main Street, circuit 903-V'. To install a new line to someone in the building, the installer goes to that box, finds the cable and pair assigned and jumps it to the desired house pair. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Jan 90 11:09:29 EST From: Mike Gertsman Subject: SDL Diagrams for LAPB Can anyone point me to a source of SDL diagrams for the LAPB (X.25 level 2) data link control protocol? The X.25 specification (in the CCITT Red Book) does not seem to have these diagrams. I would think that they would be available since Q.921 (in the CCITT Blue Book) has such a set of diagrams for LAPD. Please reply directly to me if possible. Thanks. Michael Gertsman gertsman%spock@mitel.uu.net or uunet!mitel!spock!gertsman ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #14 *****************************   Date: Tue, 9 Jan 90 0:37:01 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #15 Message-ID: <9001090037.aa11153@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 9 Jan 90 00:35:19 CST Volume 10 : Issue 15 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Mobile Communications in the Soviet Union (Andrei Kolesnikov) Robust Answering Machines? (Jerry Leichter) Old Speakerphone Information Needed (Larry Bierma) Telephone Voltage Information Needed BBS a Business? So What? (John Boteler) San Marino / Trinidad & Tobago Code Change? (John R. Covert) Area Code Mapping (John Boteler) How To Dial Long Distance (Greg Monti via John R. Covert) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 8 Jan 90 14:09:43 -0800 From: sfmtmoscow@cdp.uucp Subject: Mobile Communications in the Soviet Union Anybody know more about the following announcement on the Nokia Telecommunications venture? Two interesting points: 1. That the Nokia deal did involve coverage for international cellular communications inside Moscow or other big cities..... 2. Did not involve cellular communications; using existing analog lines with radio waves overlay..... If first is correct, good deal! If only second - no big deal, no new technology. ======================================================================== MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS IN THE HEART OF THE SOVIET UNION MOSCOW GETS ITS FIRST RADIOPHONE LINK-UP AS THE AMT JOINT VENTURE TAKES TO THE AIRWAVES Work has begun on the construction of a mobile radiotelephone network in the Moscow City area under the auspices of a new joint venture company formed between Nokia Telecommunications and the Soviet Union's Moscow Telephone Network. In the initial stage, AMT, in which Nokia has a 40 % share, is supplying its services primarily to international companies and diplomatic missions in the Soviet capital. The company is also offering maintenance and installation services for the equipment delivered by Nokia. Nokia Telecommunications is delivering both the network infrastructure and end-user equipment. Offering ease of use of automatic mobile networks, the Moscow system provides complete coverage of the city area, together with connections to the fixed domestic and international telephone networks. Construction of the mobile network got under way this autumn, with the first subscribers planned to go on line early in 1990. At the second stage, AMT will also install a paging system and provide other modern speech and data transmission services. Moscow Telephone Network holds a 60 % share in the joint venture. For Nokia Telecommunications, this collaboration marks the company's entry into the service provision sector of the industry. ==================THANKS================= andrei ...!labrea!cdp!sfmtmoscow ...!hplabs!cdp!sfmtmoscow ------------------------------ From: Leichter-Jerry <@venus.ycc.yale.edu:Leichter-Jerry@cs.yale.edu> Subject: Robust Answering Machines? Date: 8 Jan 90 13:30:50 GMT Organization: Yale Computer Center (YCC) I have a cheap answering machine (made by Conair). I picked it up at a clear- ance sale for about $20, in a concession to modern technology - I had managed for years to do without one. The thing works reasonably well most of the time, but has an annoying sensitivity: The briefest power glitch (and we have those every couple of weeks) resets the machine to a state in which it doesn't answer calls at all. (According to the instructions, the only way to reset this state is to re-record the answer message, thus also losing any messages taken before the glitch. Fortunately, experimentation has revealed that you don't have to do that.) Anyhow...now that I've gotten used to having the machine, I find this annoy- ing. (Ah, how indulgences become necessities!) Presumably better-quality machines are not so sensitive. However, I have yet to see anyone advertise "robustness in the face of power failures" as a feature of their machines, so I'm not about to shell out four or five times what I paid for this one for a fancy machine with the same vulnerability. What is the collective experience out there with answering machines? Do some of them survive power failures more intelligently? If so, which ones? (Side-bar for the "central office lovers": Yes, a central office voice mail service would not have this problem. However, I don't see such a service offered in my area....) -- Jerry [Central Office Lover's Note: I love my voice mail from Centel. The price is right ($5.95 per month for a 'front end' with two partitions in it); ability to retrieve from any phone and change outgoing messages from anywhere; date stamping; it can handle several calls at once, etc. PT] ------------------------------ From: Larry Bierma Date: 8 January 1990 1329-PST (Monday) Subject: Old Speakerphone Information Needed Reply-To: bierma@nprdc.navy.mil Greetings, I've rescued from the trash an old speaker phone (originally hooked up to 5-button dial set). The identification on the bottom is: 108 Loudspeaker set. I have two pieces, the speaker box and the little on/off volume control (appears to have the mic it it also) both terminate in "sawed off" 25 pair connectors. The question is can I make what I have work with a basic plain pushbutton phone that connects to an rj11 jack? (I do have an old 5-button dial set if that is needed to make the speaker phone work). Thanks! Larry ARPA: bierma@nprdc.navy.mil UUCP: ucsd!nprdc!bierma PSTN: (619) 553-7915 ------------------------------ From: sp@pro-deli.cts.com (Sten Peeters) Subject: Telephone Voltage Information Needed Date: 8 Jan 90 13:16:18 GMT Just a simple question. but, What is the ring voltage on a telephone line? And also, what is the voltage on the line when the phone is on the hook and off the hook. The info would be appreciated. Sten Peeters 2005 Buckman Ave Wyomissing, PA 19610 ProLine: sp@pro-deli Internet: sp@pro-deli.cts.com UUCP: {rosevax, bungia, crash}!orbit!pnet51!pro-abyss!pro-deli!sp Arpanet: {rosevax, bungia, crash}!orbit!pnet51!pro-abyss!pro-deli!sp@nosc.mil Fidonet: {rosevax, bungia, crash}!f101.n273.z1.fidonet.org!Sten.Peeters Talk: {rosevax, bungia, crash}!orbit!pnet51!pro-abyss!pro-deli!talk!sp ------------------------------ Subject: BBS a Business? So What? Date: Mon, 8 Jan 90 11:33:12 EST From: John Boteler This article concerns the discussion of the SouthWestern Bell position that modem users, specifically BBS operators, should pay business rates, and no other matter. The question which has not been answered, because it was never asked is: Why should a BBS operator care that business rates could be imposed? In my operating company area (C&P), monthly business rates are cheaper than residential, presumably because the anticipated message unit income would easily recover costs for the phone company. If the BBS receives incoming calls, how can a similar rate structure be detrimental? No message units would be incurred. Email me, if the answers are too obvious for me to see. Thanx Bote NCN NudesLine 703-241-BARE -- VOICE only, Touch-Tone (TM) accessible {zardoz|uunet!tgate|cos!}ka3ovk!media!csense!bote ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Jan 90 20:58:22 -0800 From: "John R. Covert 08-Jan-1990 2359" Subject: San Marino / Trinidad & Tobago Code Change? Corroboration requested on the rumour that San Marino (now reached via Italy) will change to country code 295 and that Trinidad & Tobago (now in area code 809) will change to country code 296. /john ------------------------------ Subject: Area Code Mapping Date: Mon, 8 Jan 90 12:13:19 EST From: John Boteler From: nvuxr!deej@bellcore.bellcore.com (David Lewis) >In article <2529@accuvax.nwu.edu>, motcid!sirakide%cell.mot.COM@uunet.uu.net (Dean Sirakides) writes: >> *Question* : I have heard several ads for stores where the phone >> number is given out and the annoucer qualifies the number by saying, >> "in either 708 or 312". How is this done? >[I have a feeling this is one of those questions that about 17 people >will answer. Apologies for any unwanted duplication...] >First of all, I don't *think* that a single exchange can overlap NPAs, >so that (for example) 708-888 and 312-888 would refer to the same >central office. I can't find anything explicitly excluding this in my >references, though, so I could be mistaken -- if anyone knows this is This is my answer to an answer to a question: A single exchange may indeed be accessed by different area codes via mapping. A present and fast vanishing example is the 202 area code serving your Nation's Capital (TM). The Washington Metropolitan Calling Area covers the District of Columbia, and parts of suburban Maryland and Virginia inside the Beltway. Telephone dialups in the WASHMET zone are mapped into 202, including those in 301 or 703 for the benefit of the sanity of John Q. Public. For example, to call a telephone in Falls Church, Virginia, one has the choice of dialing 703-241-xxxx or 202-241-xxxx; both work at present, until number conservation goes bye-bye next year! This has flabbergasted many phone phreak friends of mine, and may very well be one of the last relics of a more peaceful time in the life of the phone network. Naturally, Bote NCN NudesLine 703-241-BARE -- VOICE only, Touch-Tone (TM) accessible {zardoz|uunet!tgate|cos!}ka3ovk!media!csense!bote ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Jan 90 21:04:32 -0800 From: "John R. Covert 09-Jan-1990 0002" Subject: How To Dial Long Distance From: Greg Monti, National Public Radio; forwarded by John R. Covert How to Dial Long Distance Mark Brader writes: > Our moderator writes: >> ... area codes *as we know them* will be used up is 1995. I think 1993 >> might be a better estimate. From that point on, area codes will resemble >> prefixes, and dialing 1 before long distance numbers everywhere will be >> mandatory. ... > Presumably by "long distance" he meant here "to another area code". Actually, one or both can currently apply. My understanding of the North American Numbering Plan is that a leading "1" was *always* intended to mean "area code next." The use of it with a seven-digit number after it is a hack implemented by phone companies originally as a "get out of this central office" code in the old, step- by-step days in many areas. Later, as people got used to it meaning "long distance next," the telcos and their regulators kept the "1" for that purpose. 1+7 digits only works FROM area codes where there are no interchangeable codes (prefixes that look like area codes). Once interchangeable codes are implemented, users within that area code can no longer use 1+7 digits. Once the *whole NANP* goes to interchangeable codes in 1995 (or whenever "Time T" it turns out to be), 1+7 digit dialing will have to be eliminated in *all* NANP area codes. > The thing that most distresses me about this whole > area-code exhaustion business is that it'll mean that we'll LOSE the > possibility of a leading 1 ACTUALLY meaning, as it still does where I > am, "long distance". Not necessarily. The standard seems to have been laid out already. Those places will go to your "Syntax 3" system so BOTH effects of the "1" will apply. "1" will mean "long distance" *and* "area code next." 1+7 digits will be replaced by 1+10 digits. > To be complete I should mention Syntax 4, which I think was formerly > common and is becoming rare: leading 1 is never used, and one dials > NNX-XXXX for any call within one's area, 10 digits for calls to other > areas. You are correct. See below. > Can anyone comment on the relative prevalence of the four syntaxes > that I have called 1, 2, 3, and 4 in North America, or better yet, > actually provide a list of what areas use what syntax? (Note: My > interest here is in major operating companies, not, say, Pinnacles.) Okay. First a summary: Syntax 1: Local within area code: 7 digits Toll within area code: 1 + 7 digits Local to another area code: 7 digits Toll to another area code: 1 + 10 digits Syntax 2: Local within area code: 7 digits Toll within area code: 7 digits Local outside area code: 1 + 10 digits Toll outside area code: 1 + 10 digits Syntax 3: Local within area code: 7 digits Toll within area code: 1 + 10 digits Local outside area code: 7 digits Toll outside area code: 1 + 10 digits Syntax 4: Local within area code: 7 digits Toll within area code: 7 digits Local outside area code: 10 digits Toll outside area code: 10 digits "Syntax 1" is the most common in the USA and Canada. It generally applies in areas and states and provinces where the area codes are so large that most, or many calls within it are toll. Population density is small enough that prefixes can be assigned in a "conserved" way, so that prefixes in nearby parts of adjacent area codes are not ambiuguous with the same prefixes in the home area code. This allows 7 digit dialing across the area code boundary, but only for local calls. VIRTUALLY ALL places that now have Syntax 1 dialing will convert to Syntax 3 dialing in 1995, or whenever "Time T" is. Massachusetts' 617 is currently a variation on Syntax 1 (local outside area code is now 1 + 10 digits) which will change to Syntax 2 eventually, according to previous posttings on this Digest. Neighboring 508 has the same Syntax 1 exception, but is staying that way indefinitely. Michigan's 313 is a Syntax 1 area code moving to Syntax 2. There, the 1 + 7 digits has become a mess, with some local calls requiring it and Michigan Bell is going to straighten it out by eliminating 1 + 7 digits. "Syntax 2" is used in the biggest of the big cities where many area codes may be within the local calling area and where mandatory local measured service is common and where interchangeable codes are now used. Most places with Syntax 2 now had Syntax 4 up until about 1980 when the first interchangeable codes were issued as prefixes. Syntax 2 areas are 213 (and the new 310, when implemented), 818, 415 (and 510), 212, 718, 201 (and 908), 312 and 708, I believe. Area 609 in New Jersey is a variation of Syntax 2. Its exception: local calls outside the area code are also 7 digits. "Syntax 3" is the "new standard" for after "Time T". It is already in effect in 404, 919, 703, 202, 301, 214 (and the new 903?) and soon 416. Some areas which use this already are adding variations due to the number crunch: 214, 202, 301 and 703 will use 10 digits for local outside area code. That appears to be a new standard for crowded areas already using Syntax 3. "Syntax 4" is a rarity: places that still don't have interchangeable codes but do have large calling areas with mandatory local measured service. 516, 914 (maybe not all of it, though) and 408. Syntax 4 areas switch to Syntax 2 after "Time T". Did I get everything? Greg Monti, Arlington, Virginia work +1 202 822-2459 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #15 *****************************   Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 0:45:41 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #16 Message-ID: <9001100045.aa28073@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 10 Jan 90 00:45:32 CST Volume 10 : Issue 16 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: BBS a Business? So What? (John Higdon) Re: Modeming on Electronic Switch System (Dave Livingston) Re: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid (Joel B. Levin) Re: The Torsten & Jim ISDN Chat Show (was ISDN & TCP/IP) (Peter Desnoyers) Re: TV News Mates With Cellular Phones (John Wheeler) Re: How To Dial Long Distance (Fred R. Goldstein) Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) (Tad Cook) Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) (Robert P. Warnock) Re: 976 in Massachusetts (Ted Ede) Re: The Operator's Beep (John Boteler) One After 909 (Carl Moore) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: BBS a Business? So What? Date: 9 Jan 90 10:35:08 PST (Tue) From: John Higdon John Boteler writes: > Why should a BBS operator care that business rates could be imposed? > In my operating company area (C&P), monthly business rates are cheaper > than residential, presumably because the anticipated message unit > income would easily recover costs for the phone company. If the BBS > receives incoming calls, how can a similar rate structure be > detrimental? No message units would be incurred. In my area, and I suspect others, the basic rate for business measured is higher than residence unmeasured. Furthermore, most BBSs call out quite often, so I don't understand your argument that no message units would be incurred. It was frequently pointed out in all of the SWB flap that business service was considerably higher than residence service. In my case, I don't have a BBS, but I do have a well-connected UNIX machine. It uses four lines. It calls out at least as much as it receives calls. It is not used for business, but for hobby purposes. If I had to pay business rates, it would become unaffordable. The question remains: Why should anyone have to pay more for telephone service simply because they allow a modem to speak over the line? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Modeming on Electronic Switch System Date: 9 Jan 90 13:41:15 EST (Tue) From: Dave Livingston In article <2579@accuvax.nwu.edu>, bmug%garnet.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax. berkeley.edu (BMUG) writes: >Perhaps someone from Northern Telecom or someone else familiar with >this situation can point me in the direction of a solution... We >have installed on our site an electronic Northern Telecom DMS100 >telephone system. Because the system does not recognize normal tones, >the system as configured will not work with standard modems, FAX >machines, answering machines, etc. It *is* possible to get individual >lines massaged to enable use of these devices, but said massage >costs over $10/line/month (which gets to be kind of expensive when >we're talking about ~25 lines). Before we can find a solution, we must first define what the problem is. The first thing that must be defined is the terminology, normal tones. To me, normal tones are the tone definitions that have been established by Bellcore as standards. The examples that come to mind here are, of course, digitone (dual tone multi frequency), mf (multi- frequency), busy tone, etc. With that definition, then we can determine that the problem is not that the DMS-100 will not recognize standard tones. All Northern Telecom digital switches meet the standards defined by Bellcore for tone generation/reception. Based upon what I do know, I think that centrex service has been provided to the office, and that the service has been provided on Electronic Business Sets versus a standard 2500 telset. This can cause some confusion. The EBS is not a standard telset, since it has a 19.2 digital data link to the switch where all the signaling, off-hook, ringing, etc is passed. The EBS will require that a different type of line card be used within the DMS-100. As far as the rest of the problem, the solution to me is quite simple. For those systems that need to be connnected with the telephone network, like the fax machine, order a standard IBS line. For modems, the question then must be asked if it is for data communication or some type of telephone dialing system. For data communications, I opt for a dedicated line, as for the fax. For dialing systems, I would investigate the features that Meridian Digital Centrex has to offer, especially with EBS. Your customer service rep should be able to help you. I realize that answers were requested via E-mail...But I feel that the question and answer might be of benefit to the digest.. Dave Livingston Standard Disclaimer Applies Northern Telecom - DMS-10 Research Triangle Park, NC EMAIL ...!uunet!mcnc!rti!ntpdvp1!davel 919/992-3322 ------------------------------ From: Joel B Levin Subject: Re: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid Date: 9 Jan 90 19:46:38 GMT Reply-To: Joel B Levin Organization: BBN Communications Corporation In article <2708@accuvax.nwu.edu> 6sigma2@.UUCP (Brian Matthews) writes: |In article <2632@accuvax.nwu.edu> ddodell@stjhmc.fidonet.org (David Dodell) |writes: ||I figure that this ad is just plain stupid, since if someone can't ||dial a number correctly, it has nothing to do with the carrier they ||are using. The ad implies otherwise. |Not that I want to stick up for AT&T's advertising department, but when |I first saw the ad, I thought the point was that having called Fiji |instead of Phoenix, he had to call the billing department of whatever |long-distance company he was using, while an AT&T operator would give |him instant credit. Of course that's the point of the ad; what we complain about is the ludicrous strawman they set up, that someone might confuse calling Fiji with calling Phoenix. And of course the alternate implications, that the ordinary user is stupid enough to make that mistake, or that the alternate long distance carrier would make that mistake. This is only one of a number of moderately sleasy long distance ads, most of which are perpetrated by AT&T. /JBL Nets: levin@bbn.com | "There were sweetheart roses on Yancey Wilmerding's or {...}!bbn!levin | bureau that morning. Wide-eyed and distraught, she POTS: (617)873-3463 | stood with all her faculties rooted to the floor." ------------------------------ From: Peter Desnoyers Subject: Re: The Torsten & Jim ISDN Chat Show (was ISDN & TCP/IP) Date: 9 Jan 90 20:50:21 GMT Organization: Apple Computer, Inc. In article <2353@accuvax.nwu.edu> euatdt@euas17c10.ericsson.se (Torsten Dahlkvist) writes: > But I must ask a question to the net, U.S. readers in particular: I > know for a fact (= I was there when it happened!) that Ericsson has > been approached by one of *the* major Japanese electronics > manufacturers (no, I'm NOT going to say which one - I'm far out on a > limb as it is already!) which wanted to sell a line of ISDN phones > with built-in TA functions. Essentially a small feature-phone with a > V.24, X.21 or (I think, but memory is vague) X.25 connector. We tried > it and found that with minor changes in CO software it could be used > with our CO (remember I said our implementation is *very* close to the > international standard. We like to think it's *the* closest one on the > market at present!). Sorry to come into this discussion so late (I had a rush project before Christmas and am just catching up on news). Anyway, this sounds similar to the AT&T 7500 set with the optional rate adaption card. I imagine that it would cost lots-o-bux, but I know they are selling them to real people (i.e. they're not just engineering samples) because I saw one in a hotel in Key West. It'll handle 5ESS BRI (of course) at the S interface and seems relatively reliable. I've never used the rate-adaption card - I think the physical interfaces available are RS232 and V.34. Peter Desnoyers Apple ATG (408) 974-4469 ------------------------------ From: John Wheeler Subject: Re: TV News Mates With Cellular Phones Date: 9 Jan 90 04:08:19 GMT Reply-To: John Wheeler Organization: Turner Entertainment Networks Library; Atlanta In article <2616@accuvax.nwu.edu> emv@math.lsa.umich.edu (Edward Vielmetti) writes: >WWJ Radio in Detroit has a similar arrangement, dial *WWJ (*995) to >get their traffic bureau to report accidents or big pot-holes or the >like. Here in Atlanta, on January 1, 1990, the "WGST NewsRadio Six-Forty BellSouth Mobility Traffic Center" became the "WGST NewsRadio Six-Forty Pac*Tel Traffic Center". Access is, of course, by dialing *640 from your Pac*Tel mobile phone. Apparently Pac*Tel outbid BellSouth for the advertising. At least it made the name shorter! * John Wheeler - Unix/C Systems Designer/Programmer/Administrator/etc... * * Turner Entertainment Networks * Superstation TBS * TNT * Turner Production * * ...!gatech!nanovx!techwood!johnw (404) TBS-1421 * * "the opinions expressed in this program are not necessarily those of TBS" * ------------------------------ From: "Fred R. Goldstein" Subject: Re: How To Dial Long Distance Date: 9 Jan 90 22:49:34 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA In article <2724@accuvax.nwu.edu>, covert@covert.enet.dec.com (John R. Covert) writes... > From: Greg Monti, National Public Radio; forwarded by John R. Covert >Syntax 1: Local within area code: 7 digits > Toll within area code: 1 + 7 digits Or, "1 for toll" >Syntax 2: Local within area code: 7 digits > Toll within area code: 7 digits Or, "1 for area code" >Syntax 3: Local within area code: 7 digits > Toll within area code: 1 + 10 digits Or, "1 for area code, but you dial your own for toll calls) >Syntax 4: Local within area code: 7 digits > Toll within area code: 7 digits >"Syntax 3" is the "new standard" for after "Time T". It is already in >effect in 404, 919, 703, 202, 301, 214 (and the new 903?) and soon 416. I don't think so; rather, Syntax 2 is the "standard". Syntax 3 is a hack for people who are so used to "1 for toll" that intra-NPA calls must be dialed as inter-NPA. I think it's a bad idea, and not the standard. In any case, 7 digits for inter-area is wrong, since you have to specify _which_ area code you want. (NYC has 4, for instance.) Whether 2 or 3 is adopted doesn't matter to Time T; Syntax 4 must go away, as must Syntax 1, since both fail to disambiguate between prefix code and area code. Fred R. Goldstein goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 486 7388 ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) Date: 9 Jan 90 20:50:54 GMT Organization: very little The moderator, in connection with the story about the saleslady getting bus station calls on her cellular phone said that he didn't think telecom sales people make up stories :> This lady was a FAX salesperson! ;=) tad@ssc.UUCP [Moderator's Note: A FAX salescreature? Oh dear! I'm sure she wouldn't lie about anything. I chased one out of our office just last week. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Jan 90 04:22:10 PST From: "Robert P. Warnock" Subject: Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) Reply-To: "Robert P. Warnock" Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA In article <2614@accuvax.nwu.edu> tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) writes: +--------------- | I spoke with a woman in Chicago recently that was constantly getting | calls for the bus station on her cellular phone... +--------------- I also get lots of wrong numbers on my cellular phone, and suspect that that in the Bay Area lots of PacTel Mobile customers do, too. You see, here in (415), PacTel Mobile numbers run "999-abcd", and for many "a"s (including mine), there *are* non-cellular "99a-" local exchanges. So if somebody's finger stutters (or they have a really cheap phone), instead of dialing 99a-bcde", they dial "999-abcd". Their local CO cheerily ignores the superfluous "e", and rings my phone (or one of the other few thousand cellular phones). In my case, one of the ten potentially confused numbers (e = 0-9, remember) happens to be a popular Mexican restaurant! And yes, I do get calls from people calling in sick or whatever, usually much earlier than my normal waking time. ("No, I *can't* get the manager for you. No, I *can't* take a message.") And worse, often in Spanish, which I don't speak. By now, I have just accepted several wrong numbers a week as part of the cost of using PacTel Mobile... Rob Warnock, MS-9U/510 rpw3@sgi.com rpw3@pei.com Silicon Graphics, Inc. (415)335-1673 Protocol Engines, Inc. 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd. Mountain View, CA 94039-7311 ------------------------------ From: ted@mbunix.mitre.org (Ede) Subject: Re: 976 in Massachusetts Date: 9 Jan 90 19:05:00 GMT Reply-To: ted@mbunix.mitre.org (Ede) Organization: The MITRE Corp. Bedford, MA In article <2628@accuvax.nwu.edu> eli@pws.bull.com writes: >Initially, all telephones will be blocked from making 940 calls. >Blocking for 940 numbers, as well as 1-900 numbers will initially be >available for free. To clear up a minor point. Blocking will always be free. It's making a change to the blocking that the phone company will eventually charge you for. The pamphlet that they mailed was very interesting. In about six different languages on the cover it said something like, "This is very important information. Please have it translated." I'm surpised the don't put that on their bills. But what do you expect from a company that give you *net 45* to pay. |Ted Ede -- ted@mbunix.mitre.org -- The MITRE Corporation -- Burlington Road| | linus!mbunix!ted -- Bedford MA, 01730 -- Mail Stop B090 -- (617) 271-7465 | | - this line intentionally left blank - | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Subject: Re: The Operator's Beep Date: Tue, 9 Jan 90 4:17:26 EST From: John Boteler Regarding the 'beep' tone which is heard when an operator's position is connected to a caller: the beep was named the 'high tone', frequency 480 cps. Since the original poster noticed its absence, it must have done its job of announcing the operators presence. :) John Boteler NCN NudesLine: 703-241-BARE -- VOICE only, Touch-Tone (TM) accessible {zardoz|uunet!tgate|cos!}ka3ovk!media!csense!bote ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Jan 90 11:40:46 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: One After 909 Cavern City Tours in Liverpool, England, has, as the last 4 digits of its phone number, 9091. (From the song "One after 909".) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #16 *****************************   Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 1:26:18 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #17 Message-ID: <9001100126.aa11663@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 10 Jan 90 01:25:43 CST Volume 10 : Issue 17 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Computer-Mediated Communication in Education (N. R. Coombs) The Big PUC Give-Away (John Higdon) Answer to Area Code Congestion (Daniel O'Callaghan) Odds and Ends (Daniel Leibold) CES Shows Cellular Phones With Caller-ID & RS232 Ports (Brian Litzinger) Caller*ID Display Sources (John Boteler) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "N.R. Coombs" Subject: Computer-Mediated Communication in Education Date: 9 Jan 90 21:06:26 GMT Reply-To: "N.R. Coombs" Organization: Information Systems and Computing @ RIT, Rochester, New York Announcement Computer-Mediated Communication in Education: An Electronic Conference sponsored by Comserve edited and moderated by Professor Norman Coombs Rochester Institute of Technology Members of the Speech Communication Association and other interested individuals are invited to participate in an electronic conference addressing the uses of computer-mediated communication for educational purposes. The conference will explore how electronic mail and computer conferencing might be integrated into college education. Among the topics considered will be: the techniques and technologies that are currently being used and new ones that are envisioned; uses of electronic mail and computer conferencing to deliver information, conduct class discussions, handle questions and answers; how these educational technnologies influence course content, teaching style, student participation; studies that have explored the success of these applications, etc. The conference will be edited and moderated by Professor Norman Coombs of the Rochester Institute of Technology. Prof. Coombs has used electronic mail and computer conferencing to teach college courses for the last four years and conducts research in the educational applications of information technology. Earlier this year, Prof. Coombs won a Masters of Innovation Award from Zenith for his innovative use of computer conferencing in an educational program for deaf students. The conference is scheduled to begin January 15, 1990 and continue through the Spring semester. Individuals with experience in computer conferencing applications in education, individuals who are interested in exploring such applications, and graduate students are encouraged to participate. The conference is sponsored by Comserve and will take place over the CommEd Hotline. For more information, send an electronic mail message to Support@Rpiecs, or write: Comserve Dept. of Lang., Lit., & Communication Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Troy, NY 12180 ------------------------------ Subject: The Big PUC Give-Away Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 9 Jan 90 16:27:54 PST (Tue) From: John Higdon My mailbox has been filling up with messages from people who think that I am being overly mean to Pac*Bell concerning their recent "modern regulatory changes" that they whisked past the CPUC. One writer said that my comment about Pac*Bell being allowed unlimited profits was incorrect; that they indeed had to share with the rate payers. Well, yes and no. Granted, the wording on the ruling would indicate that, but who will determine how much of a profit has been made? Why, Pac*Bell, of course. There are so many tricks to hide a profit from one subsidiary by pumping up another that space forbids going into that here, not to mention the inappropriateness of the group. But let us just say whenever you have an intentional monopoly, it MUST be regulated or the public will suffer. Allowing a "rate of return" against the CPI as the sole standard for regulating a monopoly is most ineffective protection for the consumer. This is particularly true when you have a holding company that has as much diversification as Pacific Telesis. They are now into every form of electronic communications, including equipment supply. Which brings up an interesting scam. What would stop a Pacific Telesis supply arm from buying, for instance, Northern Telecom DMS100s at a steal of a price (quantity, someone sleeping with someone, whatever) then turning around and selling those switches to Pac*Bell at full list? And then when it comes time to compute rate-of-return for Pac*Bell they show exhorbitant costs for their CO equipment, reflecting a lower apparent rate-of-return. But Pacific Telesis made the profit at its other subsidiary, *totally at the expense of Pac*Bell's ratepayers*. Back to my question: What would stop them? Nothing. They do it all the time. Now that the PUC isn't watching them anymore, it will be even easier to get away with it. Pac*Bell's PR is most effective. I was reminded by some that they agreed to give up touch-tone charges in this package. Actually, that was the new PUC chairman's idea. It was an obsession with him to remove those charges, and Pac*Bell had to agree to it before the PUC would proceed with the give-away. In my case, it is meaningless. Touch-tone is included with Commstar II, and if anyone thinks that Pac*Bell will lower the cost of Commstar II to reflect that then I have some large artifacts near New York I would like to sell to you. I hate to be such a curmugeon on this topic, but where in the hell was the public (and, for that matter, the consumer advocacy organizations like TURN) when all this was before the PUC? The media spoke of the whole matter in glowing terms, printing verbatim what the Pac*Bell spokespeople spewed forth on the subject. The California telephone ratepayer was taken to the cleaners. Let's hope the good people of Texas are not taken for a ride by SWB the way we where here in CA. Remember, Pacific Telesis isn't in business to serve the public; it's in business to make money--any way it can. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: U5434122@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au Subject: Answer to Area Code Congestion Date: 10 Jan 90 16:31:07 (UTC+11:00) Organization: The University of Melbourne Here is a way to ease area code congestion without being too difficult to implement in North America. It basically means that the affected area switches to 8 digit numbers without any other area needing to know. Most telephone numbers stay the same, with the addition of another digit, and for those that change, working out the new number is very easy. Taking Los Angeles area 213 as an example: 1. Abolish area code 213 and in its place establish areas 225 and 228. This will mean that all areas using 225 and 228 as prefixes must remove 1+7D toll dialling. 2. There is no geographical isolation of 225 and 228. Instead, the areas are assigned to the prefixes 2xx-5xx and 6xx-9xx. 3. Old numbers beginning with 5 and 8 have their first digit changed to 7 and 3 respectively. 4. Dialling within the 225-228 area *must* begin with either a 5 or an 8. Any attempt to dial a number beginning with 2,3,4,6,7,9 should be directed a recorded message to remind about the new system. This should last several months. The new numbering system would be: Old New 213-2xx- 225-2xx- 213-3xx- 225-3xx- 213-4xx- 225-4xx- 213-5xx- 225-7xx- 213-6xx- 228-6xx- 213-7xx- 228-7xx- 213-8xx- 228-3xx- 213-9xx- 228-9xx- There would certainly be teething problems, especially for people whose old numbers began with 5 or 8, since there can be no slow change-over for them. The benefits of this system are many, including the retention of LA as a large community, and an inexhaustible supply of new prefixes, by simply adding new pseudo-areas 22N when everyone was used to 8 digit dialling. 8 digit numbers could provide up to 80 million services, and I doubt that even the USA's voracious telephone appetite would use them all. Cellular sevices could all be moved to say 229, allowing easy identification of a number as mobile. Lastly, by using area codes in the series NXX (X not 1,0 ) 80 megalopoli could have their area code worries removed forever. It would even be possible to merge areas already separated. e.g. Assign 332 and 337 to 212 and 335 and 339 to 718. After a year or so, when everyone is used to 8 digits the old 212 and 718 areas would be part of the 33N area. Comments anyone?? Daniel O'Callaghan, u5434122@ucsvc.unimelb.edu.au ------------------------------ Subject: Odds and Ends Date: Tue, 9 Jan 90 10:26:31 EST From: woody The following items cover various subjects; you may respond to whatever item(s) you wish, via email or posting as appropriate... News and notes... (1) Subject: Re: Enterprise Numbers? Zenith Numbers? > [Moderator's Note: Enterprise and Zenith were the same difference. > Believe it or not, there are a few companies still listed in the > Chicago phone book with Enterprise numbers, but they are few and > far between. PT] In Bell Canada territory, there is supposedly a service called Contac which runs like Zenith, but is intended for use by municipal governments. I have yet to see a single Contac number anywhere, however. (2) 416 goes from NNX to NXX As of 1st Dec 89, area 416 customers can use the 1 + 416 + number to call within their own area if they like (as well as previous 1 + number only). As of 1st Mar 90, dialing 1 + 416 + number will be mandatory. (3) multi-LATA/NPA zones I read about the area codes with multiple LATAs; i believe there are LATAs with multiple area codes such as one around Detroit where a LATA covers a bit of northwestern Ohio as well (thus, a multi-state LATA). (4) Phone Piracy Article The latest high-profile news item on phone phreaking can be found in the 7th Jan 90 issue of the _Toronto_Star_, for those of you with access to libraries that carry the _Star_. It begins on the front page. (5) COCOTS Haven't seen any COCOTS in Canada yet, though Bell Canada is trying out a nice card phone. Some day, COCOTS might infect Canada, though it's possible the greater regulatory hurdles up here might alleviate some of the COCOTS problems reported on this newsgroup. (6) 940 service 940 service has been mentioned as an "adult entertainment" service. Here in 416, 940 exchange is assigned as a regular exchange outside of Toronto. 940 is presumably not a universally adopted exchange for special service as 950 or 976 would be; the complications of wrong numbers can arise here... Requests... (6) area code splitting Area code 312 recently split into 312/708 and there's the new 908 code. What will be the next area codes to be assigned, and where? (7) 800/900 exchanges I notice that the 900 area code tends to use N(0/1)X codes such as 200, 410, 909, etc. while I haven't found any of these on 800 service. Are the NXX codes for 900 purposely chosen to be different from anything on the 800 service to avoid confusion? Also, is it possible to get a list of 800 and 900 exchanges (NXXs) and what they do (what cities, functions, which ones are Sprint, MCI, etc)? Please e-mail one (to djcl@contact.uucp) if possible (or it could be posted if there is general interest). (8) 10xxx + codes Does anyone have a list of the 10XXX codes used for alternate carriers? If so, please mail one to me (djcl@contact.uucp), or post the 10XXX list if it has not appeared in the past while. Thanx. || David Leibold....... "Art is anything you can get away with" || djcl@contact.uucp... - Marshall McLuhan ------------------------------ From: Brian Litzinger Subject: CES Shows Cellular Phones With Caller-ID & RS232 Ports Date: Tue, 9 Jan 90 11:21:20 PST Organization: APT Technology, Inc. San Jose, CA, USA At CES last weekend, there was about 2400 square feet of floor space dedicated to consumer telephones, especially cellular. Motorola was showing there new ultra slim cellular phone. It folds up and fits in your shirt pocket for about $2300. For $3000 they offered the same unit with caller-ID builtin. [The $2300 model was discounted to $1300 only a few booths away.] There were also phones there with caller-ID and RS-232C ports which connected to a box. This box contained a hard-drive with a "reverse-directory" on it, which allowed the phone to look up the name and address of the caller when it received a caller-ID. Thus it displayed the caller-ID, name of the person and their address if available. There were also simple caller-ID capable phones there for as little as $28 dealer cost. <> Brian Litzinger @ APT Technology Inc., San Jose, CA <> UUCP: {apple,sun,pyramid}!daver!apt!brian brian@apt.UUCP <> VOICE: 408 370 9077 FAX: 408 370 9291 ------------------------------ Subject: Caller*ID Display Sources Date: Tue, 9 Jan 90 2:59:07 EST From: John Boteler It appears that I am now the moderator of an impromptu survey to locate suppliers of Caller*ID display units of any description for consumer use. I currently have information on the way from Zoom Telephonics and Software Studios concerning their offerings. When that information arrives I shall analyze, homogenize, and summarize. Any reader who can email names of sources, features, and other pertinent information to the address BELOW will win one acknowledgment response, hand typed by me. I will summarize as needed. So far, the field of players consists of AT&T. That's it. But, after all, "aren't you glad you never left home?" :-/ John Boteler NCN NudesLine: 703-241-BARE -- VOICE only, Touch-Tone (TM) accessible {zardoz|uunet!tgate|cos!}ka3ovk!media!csense!bote ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #17 *****************************   Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 2:16:48 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #18 Message-ID: <9001100216.aa29817@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 10 Jan 90 02:15:27 CST Volume 10 : Issue 18 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Don't Steal Phone Service, Or Else! (TELECOM Moderator) Supreme Court Rules Cordless Calls Not Private (TELECOM Moderator) Common Carrier Dialer (John Stanley) New Sleazy 900 Service (Edward Greenberg) Re: Phone Frustration (Tad Cook) Re: Phone Frustration (Dell Ellison) Re: Marking COCOTS Out of Order (Mike Morris) Two Jokes (Edward Greenberg) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 1:58:23 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Don't Steal Phone Service, Or Else! [Excerpts from the Chicago Tribune and New York Times, Sunday, January 7, 1990] By Calvin Simms With college students returning to campus after the holiday break, long distance telephone companies are continuing their nationwide crackdown on students who steal telephone services by using illegal credit card numbers and access codes. To combat telephone fraud, the companies are closely monitoring all long distance calls placed from college campuses so they can quickly detect patterns of abuse. The long distance carriers have also started an information campaign to let students know they will be prosecuted for stealing telephone service. In some cases, the companies have agreed not to prosecute students if they come forward and pay for the illegal calls. Two years ago more than 1000 students at North Texas State University in Denton confessed to using stolen telephone credit card numbers to make long distance calls and agreed to pay MCI Communications Corp. about $100,000 in restitution. The same year, about 400 students from American University in Washington, DC faced prosecution for using unauthorized codes, but under an amnesty program offered by MCI, they paid $32,000 in restitution. Although telephone fraud on college campuses has shown a slight decline in the last two years, law-enforcement and telephone company officials say many students continue to steal long distance service by charging calls to someone else's account, especially at the beginning and ending of semesters. College students are the second-largest group responsible for phone fraud according to Rami Abuhamdeh, executive director of Communications Fraud Control Association, an industry group financed by telephone companies. The group most responsible for phone fraud is prisoners. Telephones for inmate use in penitentiaries have a very high rate of fraud, and usually are monitored very closely, and have numerous restrictions on the types of calls which can be placed from them. Telephone fraud costs long distance companies more than $500 million per year, or about one percent of the industry's total revenue, the fraud control group said. Of that, colleges, military bases and penitentiaries account for thirty percent, or $150 million, and of those three groups, prisons are first, college campuses second, and military bases third. "A lot of students think it is impossible to trace back fraud calls to them, but the fact of the matter is we can, and we will," said Robert F. Fox, Vice-President, Corporate Security, of US Sprint. He pointed out that in many instances, Sprint has an agreement with schools to match the destination of illegal calls with the home addresses of students enrolled at that school. A spokesman for MCI agreed, saying that most colleges and universities will supply telephone companies with the home addresses and telephone numbers of their students. Providing phone service to students on college campuses is a very tricky problem, and to guard against lost revenues, phone companies often treat college students and prisoners the same: as high-risk customers of whom a large security deposit will be required. Or, they may require some third person to make a personal guarentee for the payment when it comes due. Ronald Potter, Manager of corporate security for AT&T, said that the company has begun a nationwide deterrent campaign that includes posters and leaflets warning students that they are breaking the law if they use stolen codes. And he noted, "We remind them that upon conviction for this in a federal court, the law provides for imposition of punishment including fifteen years in prison and a $50,000 fine." The fraud control group stated that techniques for discovery and prevention of fraud are 'becoming much more sophisticated than ever before.....we are catching people all the time, and college students in particular are watched closely'. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 1:08:46 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Supreme Court Rules Cordless Calls Not Private The Supreme Court on Monday let stand a ruling that conversations on cordless phones are not private. Justices turned down an appeal by Scott Tyler, of Dixon, Iowa, whose conversations on a cordless phone were overheard by neighbors who called police when they suspected he had broken the law. Tyler was convicted in 1984 of criminal conspiracy and theft in connection with business arrangements that had been discussed over his cordless phone. He then sued his neighbors and the police, contending the eavesdropping was an unconstitutional invasion of his privacy. A federal judge in Davenport, Iowa threw out the suit, saying users of cordless phones should know that the technology used in their phones makes it possible to overhear a conversation without a wiretap. As readers of the Digest know, cordless phones use low-power radio signals in the 46-49 megahertz range that broadcast conversations a short distance and can be intercepted by other cordless phones, scanners and some other types of radio equipment. "Because there was no justifiable expectation of privacy, the interceptions did not violate the Fourth Amendment," the judge decided. An appellate court agreed and rejected Tyler's appeal. In the appeal to the Supreme Court, Tyler's attornies acknowledged that conversations on cordless phones are more susceptible to casual interception than traditional phone calls. But, they argued, that "does not justify ignoring the Fourth Amendment entirely any more than crossed wires in a phone exchange short-circuit all Fourth Amendment safeguards." The justices did not explain their decision, which was announced by an unsigned order. Nonetheless, the action can be used as precedent in other similar cases which may and have arisen elsewhere. Stephen Shapiro, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union who argued the matter before the Supreme Court claimed "this decision deprives millions of Americans the privacy rights they *think* they have when they are talking at home on a cordless phone." (emphasis mine) He said it also takes away the privacy protection of callers using a regular phone who, unknowingly, speak with someone using a cordless phone. Cordless phones, which are in use in an estimated twenty-five percent of American homes are not covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA), which protects conversations on wired and cellular phones from interception without a judge's permission. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Jan 90 09:46:16 EST From: John Stanley Subject: Common Carrier Dialer Help. I have just come accross some interesting pieces of phone hardware and would like to know if I can use them for anything productive/intriguing. They are called "Common Carrier Access Dialer and Call Controller" with the name SMarT-1 and Mitel on them, and the claim they are manufactured by SMT Corp. I understand they are the way a local small-time long distance company got around equal access. Does anyone have any info on how to program them? nn m m RRR i John Stanley n n m m m R R New Methods Research, Inc. n n m m m RRR i 6035 Corporate Drive n n m m m R R i East Syracuse, NY 13057 n n m m m R R i (This space reserved for electronic addresses, #include when I finally figure out what they are.) [Author's note: isn't it interesting. We moved recently. Once we turned the systems on, uunet was happily bringing us our electronic mail. The US Mail is still hiccuping. Wouldn't it be nice if ...] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Jan 90 10:40 PST From: Edward_Greenberg@cso.3mail.3com.com Subject: New Sleazy 900 Service Latest ad is for a service that will "add your name" to a communication to your legislators announcing your feelings (pro or anti) on the abortion issue. Call 1-900-xxx-xxx0 for one view and 1-900-xxx-xxx0 for the other view. In letters 3 pixels high for about 10 seconds, it states that the call costs $4.95. Otherwise, no audio mention of the cost. The announcer is a pretty lady with a soothing voice telling how important the issue is, and how the supreme court has put it back in the hands of the legislator and how disasterous it would be if your voice wasn't heard. Unsaid, but implied is the threat that if the other side calls in more times than your side does, legislators will be influenced against your position. Boy, this industry has hit new lows in sleeze. -edg ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Phone Frustration Date: 9 Jan 90 07:15:54 GMT Organization: very little In response to the posting by /bernie\, yes the PUC usually requires the telco to put payphones in lots of areas that they dont want to, for public convenience. The telcos complain that the COCOTs naturally take the "good" locations. Again, I am not anti-COCOT or pro-telco, even though I am the guy who calls the PUC and gets them removed. Oh, and another thing about removal. It doesn't happen without warning. The COCOT owner gets a letter explaining the problem, and is given time to correct it. Tad Cook tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ From: Dell Ellison Subject: Re: Phone Frustration Date: 9 Jan 90 19:08:00 GMT Organization: gte In article <2596@accuvax.nwu.edu>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > ... I'd > much rather have a little problem with a privately owned COCOT than ^^^^^^ ??? Sorry, but that's where I differ in opinion, which might be what it comes down to: everyone's own opinion. But, (IMHO) I would much rather have a little problem of finding a valid payphone than have to deal with the rip-offs by mail. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Jan 90 00:31:30 PST From: Mike Morris Subject: Re: Marking COCOTS Out of Order In article <2669@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >[Moderator's Note: But the proprietor may come along and rip the sign >down. Better to use some *very sticky* pre-printed (office copy >machine?) labels which say "Out of Order Due to Misprogrammed >Routing/Rates" which you slap on the phone across the coin slot area. >Make sure you cover the coin slot. Once you have thus affixed the >notice, be sure to visit the location in a day or two to see if the >phone is still marked out of service, or if some creature came out of >the swamp and scraped off the notice; if so, you will need to affix a >new sticker after checking the phone to see if it is now 'repaired'. >If you have the time and money to stand there and perform further >diagnostics, please do. In your new role as trouble-shooter, you may >also wish to get cozy with the manufacturer of the COCOT as a >potential buyer of several hundred units. With the installer's manual >at hand, perhaps you can liberate -- uh, I mean reprogram the firmware >yourself. :) PT] Somebody is reading your mind, Patrick! Yesterday I saw one at a local Union Oil gas station with a _professional_looking_ but laser-printed sticker across the coin slot, and upon looking closely, I saw that somebody had gotten even and had glued all the buttons with (what looked like) 5-minute epoxy! The sticker said "Out of order - crooked owner!". It would be interesting if it could be programmed without opening the case - the only info I have on the guts suggests that there is a switch inside that must be closed to enable programming mode. I know a couple of types can be remotely programmed - one of them is marked "Cannot receive incoming calls". When a new prefix was turned on here in LA I deliberately tried it on a couple of phones the following week, and then called the "repair number" and chewed them out for "preventing me from calling my mother" - one outfit thought I was the client!! They told me they would verify the new prefix, and "download the new database immediately. Would I like any other changes at the same time? No charge, since we have to add the new prefix." I was very tempted.... Mike Morris Internet: Morris@Jade.JPL.NASA.gov Misslenet: 34.12 N, 118.02 W #Include quote.cute.standard Bellnet: 818-447-7052 #Include disclaimer.standard Radionet: WA6ILQ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Jan 90 10:17 PST From: Edward_Greenberg@cso.3mail.3com.com Subject: Two Jokes The future: AT&T will announce its new "Intergalactic Direct Distance Dialing" system (IGDDD). Although no foreign galaxies will yet have been hooked into the system, it will be recommended that users begin placing calls immediately since the time lag to get a ring at the called party's phone may range up to hundreds of millions of years or more. When asked about charging for the new service, the official reply will be, "if you have to ask, you can't afford it - but you won't have to worry about getting a bill any time soon. In a dramatic event, a team of hard-core teenage computer "crackers" will be found to have spent over 10,000 man-hours attempting to break into what they thought was a high-security computer system. It will be revealed, however, that the youngsters were actually attempting to log in to a modem that was not attached to a computer at all. The local district attorney's office will announce that charges of malicious mischief will be filed against the crackers as soon as they have been deemd safe to be released from their rubber rooms, where they continue to babble, "Man, this is one tough system to crack..." ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #18 *****************************   Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 0:10:54 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #19 Message-ID: <9001110010.aa28670@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 11 Jan 90 00:10:12 CST Volume 10 : Issue 19 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Reach Out World (Don H. Kemp) The REAL Scoop on the FCC Surcharge Rumor (Glenn Popelka) Looking For a Good Installer (Jeff M. Cochran) CES - Request For Info (Peter Weiss) Caller ID Question (W.L. Ware) Phone/FAX/Modem Switches (gperkins@cdp.uucp) Question on Automatic Calling Devices (Mark Ahlenius) Wrong Numbers (Piet van Oostrum) Re: Supreme Court Rules Cordless Calls Not Private (John R. Levine) Re: NYNEX (Don H. Kemp) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Reach Out World Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 17:20:08 EST From: Don H Kemp [Moderator's Note: Mr. Kemp has forwarded another AT&T Press Release to us. Thank you, Don. PT] FOR RELEASE WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 10, 1990 BASKING RIDGE, N.J. -- AT&T today announced its international discount calling plan, called AT&T Reach Out (R) World. The FCC tariff for this plan has been in effect since July 1, 1989. Customers save 10 percent or more on calls made during Reach Out World's hours. For a $3 per month fee, customers receive discounts on calls to 25 of the most frequently called countries and overseas areas: Canada, Mexico, the United Kingdom, Japan, Italy, Australia, France, Switzerland and the Netherlands. Other countries and areas in the program are Denmark, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Monaco, Brazil, Panama, Peru, Uruguay, the Philippines, Korea, Guam, Taiwan, Pakistan, Kuwait and Israel. Reach Out World customers also receive a 5 percent discount on direct-dialed interstate calls within the United States. AT&T also announced today it will soon add nine new countries and overseas areas to Reach Out World, including West Germany, Spain, Hong Kong, Greece and Thailand. John Berndt, president of AT&T International Communications Services, said, "The dramatic reduction in international prices over the last few years has democratized international calling. Our Reach Out World plan is an example of how inexpensive and convenient it has become. As the barriers between East and West and between the nations of the world come down, telecommunications is leading the way toward a world in which ideas flow freely." A nationwide advertising campaign in support of the Reach Out World plan will begin tomorrow in newspapers. Reach Out World is part of a continuing effort by AT&T to make international calling more convenient and affordable. On January 1, AT&T reduced international calling prices by $104 million. The AT&T Reach Out World calling rates also now reflect that reduction. AT&T has offered discount calls to Canada through its Reach Out (R) Canada program for three years. For the past two years, AT&T has offered Reach Out (R) United Kingdom and Reach Out (R) Philippines. The January 1 rate decrease and Reach Out World plan continues a decades-long trend toward lower AT&T international rates. The average price of an AT&T international call today is less than half the average price of 15 years ago. AT&T has also been working to make international calling easier by adding Spanish-speaking representatives, introducing multilingual capabilities and extending to more than 65 countries its USADirect Service, which allows people phoning the U.S. from overseas to be directly connected to an AT&T operator in the U.S. At the same time, AT&T has expanded its Worldwide Intelligent Network. In the next few weeks, AT&T will add the Philippines and Taiwan links to a fiber-optic network that now stretches from Europe to Asia. And later this year, AT&T plans to expand the fiber-optic network to include Hong Kong and Korea in the Pacific, and Colombia, Puerto Rico, Jamaica and the Dominican Republic in the Caribbean. # # # Don H Kemp "Always listen to experts. They'll B B & K Associates, Inc. tell you what can't be done, and Rutland, VT why. Then do it." uunet!uvm-gen!teletech!dhk Lazarus Long ------------------------------ From: Glenn Popelka Subject: The REAL Scoop on the FCC Surcharge Rumor Date: 10 Jan 90 20:07:57 GMT Reply-To: Glenn Popelka Organization: University of Chicago The file MOBILIZE.ZIP has been circulating recently, urging you to write to a variety of beaurocrats and politicians about a proposed FCC surcharge on modem usage. The file mentions a talk show from KGO radio in San Francisco. I called KGO today (Jan. 10,1990) to get the real scoop on this issue. The talk show mentioned is several years old. In fact, its so old, they couldn't give me the date the show originally aired. KGO is aware that the issue has re-surfaced, and spent most of yesterday (Jan. 9,1990) talking about it. I will talk to the producer later today (again, Jan. 10,1990) to see if I can get a transcript of the show to post. So for now, sysops should take the file MOBILIZE.ZIP and put it away for possible future use. I can't fault people for being concerned and wanting to take action against this; I think it demonstrates one of the better qualities of the BBS community. But, we have to get our facts straight. Check your sources. Verify the facts. (And cite them.) Include dates on all postings. If you are concerned about dampers being placed on the free flow of information by malignant utilities, I suggest you follow alt.cosuard, and write a letter to Southwestern Bell. This is a current issue (as of Jan. 10, 1990) which could set a dangerous precedent for all of us. peace & peebs, glenn popelka from chicago's great south side. ------------------------------ From: "Jeff M. Cochran" Subject: Looking For a Good Installer Date: 10 Jan 90 08:18:55 GMT Organization: Cochran & Associates I am looking for someone who is capable of doing some phone installation work in West Caldwell, NJ. The first thing that must be done is the installation of a Panasonic KXT-123211 with two phones and a couple of lines. That part is simple. The next thing that needs to be done is the installation of a Newbridge 3612 Mainstreet Multiplexer. Then in addition to some voice lines the MUX will have to have some terminals and printers connected to it. I will need the work to be done in the next couple of weeks. If you do this sort of work or can recommend somebody to do it please email your response to me at: jeff@heltel.ati.com Thank you in advance. Jeff M. Cochran jeff@heltel.ati.com 415/327-6165 ------------------------------ Subject: CES - Request For Info Organization: Penn State University Date: Wednesday, 10 Jan 1990 15:12:33 EST From: Peter Weiss I would like to read of other C.E.S. attendees' impressions of the new/novel. There is already a trickle flowing to Usenet, but I think you can do better than CNN-TV. /Pete ------------------------------ From: "W.L. Ware" Subject: Caller ID Question Date: 10 Jan 90 18:25:37 GMT Organization: Information Systems and Computing @ RIT, Rochester, New York I live in Rochester NY, and have a question about caller ID. Rochester Telephone says that they are planning to implement thier own version of caller ID, the lady I talked to was not all to sure of exactly what would go into it but she said probably inthe next 6 months it would be out. We are on ISDN here so my question is can I buy a Caller ID box from some 3rd party and plug it in and expect it to work? Lance ************************************************************************ *W.L.Ware LANCEWARE SYSTEMS* *WLW2286%ritvax.cunyvm.cuny.edu Value Added reseller* *WLW2286%ultb.isc.rit.edu Mac and IBM Access. * [Moderator's Note: The answer is yes you can. Shop the catalogs. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 19:34:33 -0800 From: gperkins@cdp.uucp Subject: Phone/FAX/Modem Switches Has anyone had experience with the various phone/FAX switches that are being advertised lately in the U.S.? They run from $100 to $350 and allow you to call your home and switch past an answering machine to a modem or FAX. Anyone seen any comparative reviews? G. Perkins, Mpls, MN, USA ------------------------------ From: Mark Ahlenius Subject: Question on Automatic Calling Devices Date: 8 Jan 90 14:44:58 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL I recently moved and got a new home phone number. Each night at approximately 10:28 pm we get a call from some auto dialer device. It does not sound like any modem device I have ever heard before. It has a short beep (about 0.5 sec.) then pauses for 3-4 seconds or so and repeats until either I hang up or it gives up a minute or so later. It does not sound like any fsk device. It almost sounds like the type of beep you hear when someone is recording a phone conversation. Anyway it will try to call us 3 times and then finally give up. Maybe HAL or the WHOPPER were revived? I called Ma Bell (Illinois Bell in this case) and explained the problem. They told me that the previous owner of this number had it changed some time ago cause they got calls from some Bank's fax machine. And I could have it changed too. They couldn't resolve the problem at that time either. But alas we have already published our new number to a lot of folks and hate to change it again. A phone trap will cost ME bucks and we have to get the local police involved - something that I don't want to spend money on. I called our fax machine at work and it does not sound like this device either - so I am confused about it. If it is indeed a fax machine - perhaps I can borrow a fax machine or fax modem and hook it up and try to recieved their cover sheet and in effect - return the favor. My guess is that our number is programmed in some auto calling device by mistake and no one knows about it. Then I can call the culprits and tell them of the trouble and if that doesn't stop them I could fax them the whole Sears catalog - until they get the picture! Anyway does anyone have any ideas on what this problem could be? If so - please email me your suggestions and I will post any successful solutions if so desired to the group. Thanks in Advance. Mark [Moderator's Note: What you are suggesting is a fun idea, but then they could make trouble for you. I suggest instead that you have IBT trace the calls. If the service rep tries to tell you there will be a charge to you for tracing, start yelling loudly and demand to have a supervisor 'or someone who has been trained to talk to subscribers and correct problems' come on the line. Remind them that their own tariffs cover tracing of nuisance calls; they are there to serve you, not the other way around; and do they want to do their job or will you be put in the postion of having to appeal to the Chairman's office? They'll do the trace, and when it is completed, then go to the office of the Illinois Commerce Commission and file a complaint against the offender and request that the ICC order telco to disconnect the offender's service. I will look up the appropriate regulation number if telco can't find it for you. Then take your bill for what all this has cost you and file suit in Small Claims Court against the offending caller to collect for your expenses. I had an almost identical situation three years ago involving a computer at a bank in Chicago which was mis-programmed to dial my second line. All the pleading in the world did no good; I could reach no one in authority to correct the matter and was told they would do as they pleased. All of a sudden when one day they were notified by telco that they had a Commission complaint with a 48 hour 'correct or disconnect order' and the next day the Sheriff served them with my summons in Small Claims, they became very solicitous and eager to talk to me. PT] ------------------------------ From: Piet van Oostrum Subject: Wrong Numbers Can Be Profitable Date: 10 Jan 90 14:04:13 GMT Reply-To: Piet van Oostrum Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University, The Netherlands A friend of mine got a telephone number that previously belonged to a building supplies company (they moved to a different exchange). He got several telephone calls for the company. After getting tired of it he called the company and offered them to give their new number to the callers in exchange for a 10% discount on any purchase. They agreed. Piet* van Oostrum, Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University, Padualaan 14, P.O. Box 80.089, 3508 TB Utrecht, The Netherlands. Telephone: +31-30-531806 Uucp: uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!ruuinf!piet Telefax: +31-30-513791 Internet: piet@cs.ruu.nl (*`Pete') ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Supreme Court Rules Cordless Calls Not Private Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA Date: 10 Jan 90 17:16:21 EST (Wed) From: "John R. Levine" Alan Dershowitz, normally a fairly reasonable guy, was all upset about the Court's decision and how it would inconvenience all of the users of cordless phones. I don't have to explain to any readers here that the technology used in cordless phones makes any expectation of privacy unreasonable and to attempt to legislate otherwise is spitting into the wind. If we step back a little here, what has really happened is that a technology has been implemented willy-nilly without a thorough understanding of what it really is or what its implications are, and when people find out later what has happened they get all upset. Is there anyone around trying to educate the population in general and the legal profession in particular about social implications of technical change? If so, they're not doing a very good job. I suppose if I really care so much I should do something about it myself. Regards, John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl PS: I wouldn't dream of mentioning Caller ID again. Oops, I just did. Sorry. John R. Levine, Segue Software, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, +1 617 864 9650 johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {ima|lotus|spdcc}!esegue!johnl "Now, we are all jelly doughnuts." [Moderator's Mote: Caller-ID? Gaak! You devil, you! :) PT] ------------------------------ From: Don H Kemp Subject: Re: NYNEX Date: 10 Jan 90 20:51:33 GMT Organization: B B & K Associates, Inc., Rutland, VT From article <2711@accuvax.nwu.edu>, by Edward_Greenberg@cso.3mail.3com.com: >> Well NYNEX is the holding company that owns to BOCs: New York >> Telephone (NY) and New England Telephone (NE). >> The "X" part may stand for Xtra money? Or, X as in cross connection? >> - Anthony Lee > I thought NYNEX was how much your phone bill went up with divestature > (9x). While holding idle chit-chat with some NYNEX sales types today, I was told a little war story about the origin of the name. It seem that when New England Telephone and New York Telephone management were argui.. (sorry) discussing who would come first in the name of the new holding company, NYTel decided to be very gracious. "New England can come first in the name. See, N for New England, then Y for New York..... On a related subject, the front page story in the WSJ of 01/09 about Nynex Material Enterprises overcharging the two operating companies (to the tune of $120,000,000), brings to mind the name used for the holding company by many of it's current and former employees..... SlimeX Don H Kemp "Always listen to experts. They'll B B & K Associates, Inc. tell you what can't be done, and Rutland, VT why. Then do it." uunet!uvm-gen!teletech!dhk Lazarus Long ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #19 *****************************   Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 1:21:34 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #20 Message-ID: <9001110121.aa20265@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 11 Jan 90 00:20:41 CST Volume 10 : Issue 20 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid (Henry Mensch) Re: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid (Kent Borg) Re: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid (Dimetri Vulis) Re: New Sleazy 900 Service (Gary Sanders) Re: New Sleazy 900 Service (Seth Zirin) Re: Don't Steal Telephone Service, or Else! (Thomas Lapp) Re: Supreme Court Rules Cordless Phones Not Private (Thomas Lapp) Re: Two Questions About Caller ID (David Lewis) Re: Texas PUC Responds to Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. (David Lewis) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 04:01:06 -0500 From: Henry Mensch Subject: Re: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid Well, maybe the example is stupid, but it is indeed possible for an unwary user to misdial the other way around (i.e., trying to get a foreign destination and getting a domestic one instead). My office phone in Australia was +61 75 951431 and at least one person told me that the number they dialed got them a disconnect message (in area code 617, 595-1431 "has been disconnected.") They obviously didn't dial the "+" (011) first... # Henry Mensch / / E40-379 MIT, Cambridge, MA # / / ------------------------------ From: Kent Borg Subject: Re: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid Date: 10 Jan 90 23:28:45 GMT Reply-To: Kent Borg Organization: Camex, Inc., Boston, Mass USA In article <2632@accuvax.nwu.edu> ddodell@stjhmc.fidonet.org (David Dodell) writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 9, message 4 of 8 >I'm sure other members of the conference have seen the recent AT&T ad >showing some guy at a telephone both trying to call Phoenix but >getting Fuji instead. >Checking with AT&T, the country code to Fuji is 679... Wow! I knew Fuji had their own blimp, and I knew there were a lot of big and powerful multinational corportions out there, but this is the first time I have heard a company having its own *country* code! I don't approve--maybe we should all start buying Kodak film in protest. Kent Borg lloyd!kent@husc6.harvard.edu or ...!husc6!lloyd!kent MacNet: kentborg H:(617) 776-6899 W:(617)426-3577 "The wall has been opened. One of the most insurmountable borders in Europe has become a German dance floor." -Christoph Hein, NYT Magazine, 17 Dec 1989 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 00:12 EDT From: DLV@cunyvms1.bitnet Subject: Re: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid Brian L. Matthews said: >Not that I want to stick up for AT&T's advertising department, but when >I first saw the ad, I thought the point was that having called Fiji >instead of Phoenix, he had to call the billing department of whatever >long-distance company he was using, while an AT&T operator would give >him instant credit. Huh! Last fall I called my father in Leningrad, USSR via AT&T. As discussed previously on Telecom, you have to go thru an AT&T operator to call there. The operator dialed the number incorrectly. I immediately called the operator back and they said they won't charge us for this. Imagine our surprise (well, not much, really) when I accidentally looked at the itemized AT&T bill and noticed $6+ for that call! Unfortunately, I don't have the habit of checking the phone bill in great detail, and this one has already been paid. We're trying to straighten it out now. Moral: If the AT&T operator says you got instant credit, it ain't necessarily so. Dimitri Vulis Department of Mathematics City University of New York Graduate Center ------------------------------ From: gws@cbnews.ATT.COM (Gary W. Sanders) Subject: Re: New Sleazy 900 Service Date: 10 Jan 90 14:34:49 GMT Reply-To: gws@cbnews.ATT.COM (Gary W. Sanders,51236,cb,3D246C,6148605965) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <2755@accuvax.nwu.edu> Edward_Greenberg@cso.3mail.3com.com writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 18, message 4 of 8 >Latest ad is for a service that will "add your name" to a >communication to your legislators announcing your feelings (pro or >anti) on the abortion issue. Call 1-900-xxx-xxx0 for one view and I noticed another sleazy thing that is happening in the 900/976 world is on pricing. I have seen a number of ads stating a price of 50 cents a minute, that is about 1/2 of what other services are charging, but if you look closely there is a "*" and very small print at the bottom of the page that says cost is based on 1/2 minutes. The other sleazy item is get minimum number of minutes, you get this "great rate" but there is a 15 minute minimum on the call. With many of these chat/talk lines running $60 to $75 an hour I dont see how people can really spend that kind of money. Are people really that lonely? The quality of the phone lines and quality of the service overall is very poor. Gary Sanders (N8EMR) AT&T Bell Labs, Columbus Ohio gws@cblph.att.com 614-860-5965 ------------------------------ From: Seth Zirin Subject: Re: New Sleazy 900 Service Date: 10 Jan 90 14:26:24 GMT Reply-To: szirin@cbnewsm.ATT.COM In article <2755@accuvax.nwu.edu> Edward_Greenberg@cso.3mail.3com.com writes: >The announcer is a pretty lady with a soothing voice telling how >important the issue is, and how the supreme court has put it back in >the hands of the legislator and how disasterous it would be if your >voice wasn't heard. Unsaid, but implied is the threat that if the >other side calls in more times than your side does, legislators will >be influenced against your position. There are worse ads in the NY Metro area. 1) A "free" information kit for people with bad credit that desire a credit card. The call costs 6.95 and the warning is visual only and lasts 1 second. 2) Information on buying cars seized from drug dealers for $100. They show new Vettes, BMWs, etc and the call costs $59.00! Again, there is no audible warning. 3) WOR in NJ seems to bombard their evening viewers with ads for various date and love lines. They state that only women will be on the line. Since we never see ads geared towards women that claim only men will be on the line, we can only assume that the women are employees of the service provider and are not women calling in on some other number. Using 900 for these calls was a bad idea. Anyone dialing an off by one to a toll free 800 number can get zapped. Imagine trying to get credit for a $59 wrong number from one of the fly by night "telephone companies." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 19:16:16 est From: Thomas Lapp Subject: Re: Don't Steal Telephone Service, or Else! Reply-To: mvac23!thomas@udel.edu TELECOM Moderator writes: > [Excerpts from the Chicago Tribune and New York Times, > Sunday, January 7, 1990] > tricky problem, and to guard against lost revenues, phone companies > often treat college students and prisoners the same: as high-risk > customers of whom a large security deposit will be required. Or, they > may require some third person to make a personal guarentee for the > payment when it comes due. When I attended Ohio State University as a grad student, it was the first time I had telephone service installed. When I called to have service installed, I really expected to have to pay dearly for service. Much to my surprise, even though I let the order taker know that I had never had phone service before, I was not required to put down a down payment. Nor was I required to pay for service in advance (other than the usual billing for installation and the first month). Of course, I don't know if she took employment info or not, but I was employed by the University (as a teaching associate). ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 19:16:16 est From: Thomas Lapp Subject: Re: Supreme Court Rules Cordless Phones Not Private Reply-To: mvac23!thomas@udel.edu And in a comment on another posting in the same issue in which the Supreme Court ruled that conversations over cordless phones are not considered private: > A federal judge in Davenport, Iowa threw out the suit, saying users of > cordless phones should know that the technology used in their phones > makes it possible to overhear a conversation without a wiretap. As > [...] > who argued the matter before the Supreme Court claimed "this decision > deprives millions of Americans the privacy rights they *think* they > have when they are talking at home on a cordless phone." (emphasis > mine) What bothers me about this is that if users of cordless phones should be aware that they can be overheard, the Supreme Court should also apply the same reasoning to cellular telephones since it is OBVIOUS that carphones, etc. use radio waves (the antenna tends to give it away :-). It seems inconsistant that the ECPA protects cellular phones but not cordless phones; or vice versa, that the Supreme Court can rule that cordless phones are not private, but not strike down the ECPA on that same point. > He said it also takes away the privacy protection of callers using a > regular phone who, unknowingly, speak with someone using a cordless phone. Now I could see this side of it, although most of the time, the quality difference between cordless and corded telephones is such that most people can tell which is being used at the other end. And likewise, most people know that they are dialing a cellular telephone when they do so, although the quality difference is less noticable (in my opinion). - tom internet : mvac23!thomas@udel.edu or thomas%mvac23@udel.edu uucp : {ucbvax,mcvax,psuvax1,uunet}!udel!mvac23!thomas Europe Bitnet: THOMAS1@GRATHUN1 Location: Newark, DE, USA Quote : Virtual Address eXtension. Is that like a 9-digit zip code? [Moderator's Note: There is no logical reason why cordless phones are not protected by ECPA and cellular phones are. The only reason for this discrepancy is that cellular phone companies have big $$ to spend on aggressive attornies. Actually, there is no valid reason for ECPA, period, but that's a story for another day. PT] ------------------------------ From: David Lewis Subject: Re: Two Questions About Caller ID Date: 10 Jan 90 17:37:15 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ [What was it you said, Patrick? Two weeks before we start up again?] In article <2584@accuvax.nwu.edu>, STEVEF%WALKER_RICHER_QUINN@mcimail.com (Steve Forrette) writes: > 1) Long distance and Caller ID > How well does Caller ID work with incoming long distance calls? It doesn't. [Inasmuch as "long distance" is defined as inter-LATA.] None of the CLASS service package, of which Caller ID is one service, will work in any way with inter-LATA calls. However, some certain 800 calls will result in the billing number (which, in 99% of residential applications, is the same as the calling number) being delivered to the called party. AT&T offers billing number delivery (a.k.a. ANI delivery) over an ISDN BRI from their 4ESS to a customer's PBX; MCI is shortly going to begin delivery of billing number (ANI) via MF signaling to customers. Both of these are, so far as I know, offered only in conjunction with 800 service. David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center) "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower." ------------------------------ From: David Lewis Subject: Re: Texas PUC Responds to Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. Date: 10 Jan 90 22:16:19 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ An interesting point. The Texas OPC (Office of Public Counsel) claims that SWBT can modernize the network, and use the revenues from new services to pay for that modernization. The quote was... >Ms. Ottmers stated that >economically justified improvements to the telephone network should >be performed -- and that high-tech services which are made possible >by the modernization should pay for the upgrades. Unfortunately, those "high-tech" services cost money above and beyond that to upgrade the network. For an example near and dear to the hearts of the Digest, consider the CLASS service package. To deploy CLASS, you have to "upgrade the network" -- deploy CCS7 to all your end offices. However, you also have to purchase the CLASS software. The services then have to recover the cost of not only the software to provide the service, but also the network improvement. A case could even be made that this is *not* in the public interest, because all users of the telephone network are benefiting from the deployment of new technology, but not all users are paying for said deployment. However, it's been an accepted practice since the beginning of time for PUCs to permit (nay, encourage) this sort of internal subsidy, because it's the general public who receives the benefit. (General public pays for benefits to limited set of users == not good; limited set of users pays for benefits to general public == good.) This aside, I would go out on a limb and say that if PUCs accept the argument that telcos should put up the money for network improvements and expect to recover those costs in revenues from new services, it's going to be a cold day in El Paso before we see a slew of network improvements. Why? Because telephone companies are risk-averse. They attract investors precisely because they are risk-averse; regardless of their intentions, they will continue to be risk-averse for a very, very long time. Consider the reaction of Wall Street if SWBT made the following announcement: (The following is a simulation. Please do not adjust your set.) SWBT ANNOUNCES NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS Southwestern Bell Company today announced that it was reducing investor dividends for the third quarter by a total of $340 Million to fund its "Oklahoma First" network improvement plan. "We feel that there is sufficient revenue out there to justify the cost," said xxx, Vice President for Network Planning. "The PUCs aren't guaranteeing our usual 12% rate of return on capital investments, but our market research indicates that the Oklahoma market for advanced services is tremendous. We expect to recover our investment in two years." (This has been a simulation; we now return you to our regularly scheduled post.) Imagine the reaction of pension fund managers and mutual fund managers who have SWB stock because it's a nice, safe investment returning 12% a year. Now, they've gone and kicked $340M into an investment that's not nice, safe, guaranteed, and they're counting on market research for services that no one's ever sold before to pay it back... Sell! Sell! I don't know if the answer is new forms of regulation, or competition in the local loop, or more intelligent regulatory bodies, or what -- but I'm fairly certain it's *not* what the OPC thinks it is in this case... Industrial-strength disclaimer -- this is my opinion, not Bellcore's. David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center) "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower." ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #20 *****************************   Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 2:08:42 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #21 Message-ID: <9001110208.aa22828@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 11 Jan 90 01:50:34 CST Volume 10 : Issue 21 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Notes on the Network: Dialing Procedures (David Lewis) Why 8-digit Numbers Are Impossible in North America (John R. Covert) Why Can't I Use 1+10 Dialing For All Calls? (Chris Johnston) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lewis Subject: Notes on the Network: Dialing Procedures Date: 10 Jan 90 23:45:57 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ Given the apparent resumption of the discussion of dialing plans to do with interchangeable codes, I thought it might be a good idea to present "the straight story", from Notes on the Network. I took the effort to get the following excerpts from Notes typed in. {However, this is an unauthorized reproduction. While I shouldn't get into *too* much trouble...} I would ask that: (1) all distribution in electronic form of the following excerpts reproduce the excerpts in their entirety, without change, deletion, or modification of any parts; (2) all distribution in electronic form of the following excerpts include the full citation and copyright notices; (3) no more than one hardcopy, for personal use only, be made by any reader of the following excerpts. [Moderator's Note: I appreciate your concern, and have prepended your note to me to the start of this article. I ask that readers observe your special requests under the circumstances. PT] ========================================================================= The following is excerpted from _Notes on the BOC Intra-LATA Networks - 1986 Issue 1, April 1986 TR-NPL-000275 Copyright (c) American Telephone and Telegraph, Inc., 1980, 1983 Copyright (c) Bell Communications Research, Inc., 1986 All rights reserved. 3.0 Interchangeable Codes 3.01 The subject of interchangeable codes is frequently misunderstood, perhaps in large part due to the terminology used. Some definitions of interchangealbe codes that will be useful in the following discussion are provided below: * Interchangeable CO codes: This refers to anygiven NPA in which codes of the format N 0/1 X (i.e., those codes traditionally used only as NPA codes) are used for CO codes, in addition to the traditional CO codes of the format NNX. Thus, interchangeable CO codes are of the format NXX. Interchangeable CO codes are currently in use in NPA 201 (Northern New Jersey), NPAs 212/718 (New York City), 213/818 (Los Angeles), 312 (Chicago), 214/817 (Dallas/Fort Worth), 905 (Mexico City), and 706 (Northwest Mexico). {Note -- as of April, 1986. I presume 718 is also using interchangeable CO codes; some others may be as well.} * Interchangeable NPA codes: This refers to codes of the format NNX (i.e., those codes traditionally used only as CO codes) are used as NPA codes in addition to the traditional NPA codes of the format N 0/1 X. Thus, interchangeable NPA codes are also of the format NXX. No interchangeable NPA codes are in use at this time. However, Bellcore has recommended that the NANP service area implement interchangeable NPA code capability by July 1, 1995. 3.02 The two interchangeable code situations together are often referred to as "full code interchangeability" or "fully interchangeable codes." The term "interchangeable codes" is frequently used to refer to either situation. Unlike the ANC (All Number Calling) situation, there are some significant effects on both caller-dialing procedures and the switching equipment when interchangeable codes are implemented. These effects are discussed in the remainder of part 3.0. 3.03 omitted 3.04 omitted 3.05 Interchangeable CO codes are implemented on an individual NPA basis without any resulting effect on the dialing procedures or switching system arrangements in any other NPAs. However, within the NPA in which the conversion takes place, all switching systems must be modified to accept codes of the format N 0/1 X as the first three digits of a 7-digit number, as well as the first three digits of a 10-digit number. 3.06 When interchangeable CO codes are introduced in an NPA, the ability of the switching systems to distinguish between a 7- and a 10-digit address by examing the first three address digit is impaired. Thus, some other method for making that distinction is required. Several possibilities exist. One possibility is to have the callers provide a positive indication of their intention by dialing "1" in front of the area code on all 10-digit (and only 10-digit) calls. This is referred to as the "1+" or "prefix" method. Another is to have the switching machine wait a fixed period of time (i.e. approximately four seconds) after seven digits have been received to see if additional digits are received. If no additional digits are received within the required period, the switching machine will time out and process the call on a 7-digit basis. This is referred to as the "timing" method. Yet a third possibility is a compromise between the prefix and timing methods. This will be referred to as the "hybrid" method in this document. The hybrid method is summarized below. CALL TYPE DIALING PROCEDURE TIMING REQUIRED Local 7D NXX-XXXX No Toll 7D 1+NXX-XXXX Only if NXX is also an assigned NPA code All 10D 1+NPA-NXX-XXXX No 3.07 Thus, the hybrid method requires timing only in those cases where a toll call is dialed on a 1+7D basis, and the dialed NXX code is assigne as both a CO code within the HNPA {Note -- Home NPA a.k.a. home area code} and an NPA code elsewhere in the North American network. The successful application of the hybrid method depends upon a switching system capabile of examining the first three digits received after a leading "1" to determin whether they are an NPA code only, an office code only, or an ambiguous code that is in use as both. Only in the latter case will the timing option have to be applice, after the seventh digit, to determine whether a 7- or 10-digit number is being received. 3.08 The 1+ or prefix method is the recommended standard dialing procedure. As expected, there are advantages and disadvantages for both the prefix and the timing methods. The decision to designate the prefix method as the standard for the future include the following considerations: * The prefix method has the disadvantage of requiring the dialing of an extra digit. However, this is applicable only on 10-digit calls, and over 90% of BOC main stations already use a 1+ when dialing 10-digit calls. * The prefix method avoids the need for imposing a four-second post-dialing delay scheme on some, or all, local calls. Avoidance of this extra delay on local calls is beneficial both to the telephone companies in the form of reduced holding time for the switching system's common control equipment, and to the caller in the form of reduced call-setup delay. * With the timing method, common control switching systems have the ability to avoid the need for timing except where ambiguous codes (i.e., those codes actually assigned for both NPA and CO use) actually exist. The need for timing would be minimized initially. However, as time passes and the quantity of ambiguous codes increases, the quantity of time-out applications will also increase. Also, for those callers with an ambiguous office code, all intra-NXX calls would be subjected to the timing delay. * With the advent of Common Channel Signaling (CCS), connections can be completed within a few seconds after dialing. As the average long-haul post-dialing delay continues to decrease, the existance of a 4 to 6 second delay on an increasing number of local calls would become increasingly irritating to callers. * Those areas with step-by-step switching equipment will have an additional penalty under the prefix scheme. HNPA toll calls will have to be dialed on a 1+10D basis instead of the 1+7D basis often used now. As the common control systems replace the step-by-step equipment, all HNPA calls will be dialable on the recommended 7D basis. * The recommended dialing procedure for use with interchangeable codes specifies 0+10D dialing for all operator-assisted calls, both HNPA and Foreign NPA (FNPA). The HNPA 0+ call is the one case where, even after step-by-step is replaced, customers will be asked to dial additional digits (other than the 1+) beyond their present dialing patterns (i.e., 0+10D instead of 0+7D for HNPA operator-assisted calls). The additional three digits will avoid the nominal 4-second timing period that occurs if only seven digits are dialed. 3.09 omitted Effects of Implementing Interchangeable Numbering Plan Area (NPA) Codes 3.10 omitted 3.11 ... Dialing procedures also will have to be changed in many areas. The same comments made in parts 3.03 through 3.09 for interchangeable CO codes apply to interchangeable NPA codes with regard to the requirement for 1+ dialing for 10-digit calls... The Prefix or 1+ Method As USed with Interchangeable Codes 3.12 It should be noted that, in this document, references to the prefix or 1+ method in connection with interchangeable codes mean that 1+ is used *only* for 10-digit calls and without regard to whether or not the 10-digit call is a toll or local call. With the prefix method, dialing 1+7D will result in a partial-dial situation once interchangeable codes have been implemented in an NPA. Many callers that are presently required to dial 1+10D are also required to dial 1+7D for 7D toll calls. The latter procedure will have to be eliminated (or the hybrid timing method implemented) prior to implementation of interchangeable CO codes in an NPA. Similar action will be required in all NPAs prior to implementation of interchangeable NPA codes in the NANP. The temporary use of 1+HNPA+7D may be required in some cases. TABLE D Type of call Without With Interchangeable CO Codes Local Direct Dialed HNPA NNX-XXXX R NXX-XXXX R* 1+NNX-XXXX NR 1+NXX-XXXX NR NPA+NXX-XXXX NR NPA+NXX-XXXX NR 1+NPA+NXX-XXXX P 1+NPA+NXX-XXXX P FNPA NNX-XXXX R NXX-XXXX R (protected codes) 1+NNX-XXXX NR 1+NXX-XXXX NR NPA+NXX-XXXX NR NPA+NXX-XXXX NR 1+NPA+NXX-XXXX P 1+NPA+NXX-XXXX P FNPA NPA+NNX-XXXX R NPA+NXX-XXXX NR (nonprotected codes) 1+NPA+NNX-XXXX P 1+NPA+NXX-XXXX R* Toll Direct Dialed HNPA NNX-XXXX R NXX-XXXX R* 1+NNX-XXXX NR 1+NXX-XXXX NR NPA+NXX-XXXX NR NPA+NXX-XXXX NR 1+NPA+NXX-XXXX P 1+NPA+NXX-XXXX P FNPA NPA+NNX-XXXX R NPA-NXX-XXXX NR 1+NPA+NNX-XXXX P 1+NPA+NXX-XXXX R* R = Recommended R* = Recommended, These are the recommended long-term procedures to be applicable after step-by-step equipment and protected codes are obsolete. NR = Not Recommended P = Permissive; may be permitted in addition to recommended procedure. Note: Code protection is discussed in part 4.02, item 4: 4.02 CO code conservation forestalls the need for code relief and the associated expenditures... The following is a list of CO code-conservation measures recommended for CO code administration: ... 4) Code protection is an arrangement wherein a CO code assigned in one NPA is excluded from assignment in an adjacent NPA, to permit 7-digit dialing across the common boundary. This is a permissible arrangement and has advantages where a community of interest bridges the boundary in question, but is acceptable only as long as it can be contunued without causing exhaustion of the CO code universe in the NPA protecting the code... ====================================================================== End of excerpt David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center) "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower." [Moderator's Note: Thank you very much for the work involved in getting this prepared for the Digest. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 05:36:29 -0800 From: "John R. Covert 10-Jan-1990 0822" Subject: Why 8-digit Numbers Are Impossible in North America Daniel O'Callaghan at The University of Melbourne writes: >Here is a way to ease area code congestion without being too difficult >to implement in North America. It basically means that the affected >area switches to 8 digit numbers without any other area needing to know. Unfortunately, due to the presence of a large number of No. 5 Crossbar central offices throughout North America, changing the length of telephone numbers is not technically possible without billions of dollars in expenditure in other areas. Unlike countries where most telephone service is provided by either ancient step-by-step or modern electronic offices, the North American Integrated Numbering Plan Area (U.S., Canada, and the 809 Caribbean) is chock full of central offices of an intermediate type. These common control offices store the number dialled, the _entire_ number, in what is known as an Originating Register. This is a hardware register made out of relays, and it has the capability of storing three, seven, or ten digits, plus a flag indicating whether "1" or "0" was dialled first. To implement eight digits _anywhere_ in North America would require costly modifications _throughout_ North America to every originating register in every remaining No. 5 XBar office, many of which are not scheduled for retirement until sometime in the first two decades of the next century. >Cellular sevices could all be moved to say 229, allowing easy identification >of a number as mobile. It is not clear that it is desirable for mobile numbers to be identified as mobile numbers. Why should anyone care? /john ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 16:05:16 199 From: Chris Johnston Subject: Why Can't I Use 1+10 Dialing For All Calls? When I was in Oakland (415) last summer I wasted nearly 20 minutes trying to call a San Francisco number. First I dialed 1-415-123-4567 and got an intercept "You do not need to dial 1 before this number". So I dialed 415-123-4567 and got the message "You must dial 1 before this number". Eventually I figured out I was already in 415 and was required to use the seven digit number. Yesterday something similar happened on the Howard "L" platform. One end of the platform is in Evanston the other in Chicago. Since I wanted to call a 708 number I carefully checked the number card on the (Illinois Bell) pay phone it (incorrectly) read 312. So I dialed 1-708-xxx-xxxx and got a recording which sounded like a local telco installer who gruffly said " dial 1 " I redialed without the areacode and got right through. Why can't I always use eleven digit dialing? Why must I know the local geography to dial a phone? Does anybody check these messages to see if they make sense? Is every switch message recorded locally? Could this be an old switch which is not centrally maintained? cj [Moderator's Note: Please double-check on this. The elevated platform is entirely in Chicago. Evanston starts about five feet west of the embankment on the north side of the street at that point. The Evanston boundary then runs parallel to the tracks on the west side up to where the turn-around is wedged in at the corner of Jonquil Terrace and Clark Street (aka Chicago Avenue in Evanston). The City of Chicago then has a little wedge about a block long terminating on the north side by the Calvary Cemetery. It is only at that point that Evanston moves east of the tracks. The pay phones on the platform and in the station downstairs were all HOllycourt 5 the last time I saw them, which is a Chicago exchange (312-465). This was about three weeks ago. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #21 *****************************   Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 19:31:08 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #22 Message-ID: <9001111931.aa26952@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 11 Jan 90 19:30:56 CST Volume 10 : Issue 22 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Cordless Phone User Vows New Fight (John Boteler) Picking on the BOCs? (William Degnan) Faxnet Info Request (Hank Nussbacher) National Telecom Policy (William Degnan) Conn./Mass. Cellular 911 Access Upgraded (John Boteler) Looking For a Used Panasonic KX-616 (John Kennedy) An Annenberg/CPB Special Funding Initiative (ROBERTS@umdc.bitnet) Re: Don't Steal Phone Service, or Else! (Carl Moore) Re: Reach Out World (Clive Dawson) Re: Modeming on Electronic Switch System (David Lewis) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Cordless Phone User Vows New Fight Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 4:13:06 EST From: John Boteler Excerpted from: UPce 01/08 1709 Phone user vows new court fight DIXON, Iowa (UPI) - An Iowan whose eavesdropping case was turned down by the U.S. Supreme Court said Monday the issue sets up affluent cellular phone users as a special class over average Americans using cordless phones. The high court refused to hear a case brought by Scott Tyler, of Dixon against some nosey neighbors and Scott County officials who listened in on his cordless telephone conversations for months in 1983. At issue is whether users of such phones, now in millions of homes, have an expectation of privacy in their conversations as they would when using a traditional phone. Tyler said he plans to refile the appeal before the Supreme Court Oct. 1 after mounting a publicity campaign backed by supporters in the Seventh Day Adventist Church. Tyler has already received invitations for national radio and television talks shows as well as news programs. National media such as Time Magazine and The Wall Street Journal plan feature stories. A local talk show host, Jim Fisher of WOC radio in Davenport, said he will tape cordless phone conversations he picks up and air them over his station to illustrate the problems with the Supreme Court's decision. Tyler said it's case of the justices lagging behind technological development. He noted almost 40 years passed between the time of the telephone's first widespread use and the first supreme court ruling in 1928 that phone conversations were covered by Fourth Amendment rights of privacy. Tyler said the refusal to extend those rights to cordless phones is a slap at the common citizen. Privacy rights have been granted to phone pagers and cellular communications already. "The cellular phone, the rich man's phone, is covered, but the average man's isn't," Tyler said. According to lower court records, the case began when Richard and Sandy Berodt, whom Tyler described as "political enemies," discovered in 1983 that their cordless telephone could intercept conversations on the cordless telephone in the Tyler household more than four blocks away. Tyler said he was suspected of narcotics dealing when the Berodts misunderstood "light load" for "white load." Tyler ran a wholesale food firm at the time. Based on what they overheard, the Berodts suspected Tyler of criminal activity and contacted the Scott County Sheriff's Department and were urged to monitor Tyler's conversations. The county eventually supplied the Berodts with recording equipment. Tyler was never charged with drug dealing but was convicted on theft and conspiracy charges stemming from his business. He served four months in prison. Tyler then brought suit against his neighbors and county officials, charging the eavesdropping violated his constitutional rights. Lower courts dismissed the case ruling he had no expectation of privacy when using a phone they knew could easily be monitored and he appealed to the high court. Tyler is currently unemployed. Three supporters in the Seventh Day Adventist Church are paying for Tyler's legal bills, which have amounted to more than $200,000, and giving him a stipend to travel the country publicizing his case, he said. He argued phone partylines are covered by privacy rights and also said the lower court's reliance on radio waves as a justification for not protecting cordless phones does not make sense. Cellular phones are entirely broadcast over radio while cordless phones are merely transmitted from the headset to the base unit, which is plugged into a regular phone jack. The other half of conversations could also be over regular landlines and would have a reasonable expectation of privacy, Tyler said. [ wrong - ed ] "This could take on Orwellian excesses," Tyler said. "Police could sit on a street with an AM radio and wait for a criminal conversation to occur." /* end excerpted text */ Interesting to Telecommers, notwithstanding some of the inaccuracies. John Boteler NCN NudesLine: 703-241-BARE -- VOICE only, Touch-Tone (TM) accessible {zardoz|uunet!tgate|cos!}ka3ovk!media!csense!bote [Moderator's Note: I will comment for now only on the proposed activities of Jim Fisher, the talk-show host on WOC/Davenport. I can't believe he is as dumb as he sounds. *If* he plays those phone calls over the radio, he will risk the station losing its license, and being fined heavily. In addition, there could be fines against him. You may not broadcast a telephone call over the air without the knowledge and consent of the person(s) on the phone. Steve Dahl tried it in Chicago and had fines heaped upon his station by the FCC. You may not ever engage in an activity for personal gain based upon what you overheard in a radio transmission not intended for yourself. You may not discuss what you heard, or acknowledge that you heard anything. Please note a 'broadcast' is a radio transmission intended for you; a telephone conversation which uses a radio link in part or in whole is a radio transmission *not* intended for you, and while I disagree with the ECPA, and believe I have the right to decipher any electromagnetic radiation which comes my way, I still believe the FCC was correct in prohibiting the use of information overheard by third parties while tuning their radios, etc. Not in *listening* to it, mind you, just in acknowledging it or using it. Mr. Fisher seems to think its okay to personally gain from what he hears by using it for an 'interesting' program, and he certainly does not feel he needs to obtain permission from the telephone users. His proposed violations of the law are not merely 'cordless phone issues', but rather, violations of various other FCC regs. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 20:54:01 CST From: William Degnan Subject: Picking on the BOCs? john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: >What would stop a Pacific Telesis supply arm >from buying, for instance, Northern Telecom DMS100s at a steal of a >price (quantity, someone sleeping with someone, whatever) then turning >around and selling those switches to Pac*Bell at full list? And then >when it comes time to compute rate-of-return for Pac*Bell they show >exhorbitant costs for their CO equipment, reflecting a lower apparent >rate-of-return. But Pacific Telesis made the profit at its other >subsidiary, *totally at the expense of Pac*Bell's ratepayers*. Back to >my question: What would stop them? Nothing. They do it all the time. >Now that the PUC isn't watching them anymore, it will be even easier >to get away with it. John, don't you think you're just a little paranoid? Nahhhhhh. From the MDF (Main Distribution Frame) Echo on Fidonet: 053/061 09 Jan 90 19:18:04 From: News Desk @ 382/39 To: All Subj: Cross-subsidization? Us? Nahhhhh. NYNEX AUDIT -- When Nynex ... set up a subsidiary to buy supplies for them, the idea was to save money: The purchasing unit could buy in volume, and the savings would be passed on to customers. From the start, regulators worried that it wouldn't work that way. Because profits of the purchasing unit wouldn't be regulated, Nynex might be tempted to have this unit charge the phone companies inflated prices. ... It was a temptation Nynex apparently couldn't resist. A year-long federal audit has concluded that ... Nynex has overcharged its own companies this way to the tune of $120 million. The FCC ... may act against Nynex as early as this week. ... The complex web of intramural transactions at Nynex ... reminds regulators of the cozy ties that AT&T's Western Electric unit had with the Bell operating companies, a relationship that helped prompt the breakup of AT&T. Since the breakup, such relationships have become increasingly common with the ... Baby Bells. ... New York Times, A1. =============================================== "Just 'cause you're paranoid, doesn't mean they ain't out to getcha." Regards, Bill Disclaimer: Contents do not constitute "advice" unless we are on the clock William Degnan | wdegnan@mcimail.com !wdegnan@at&tmail.com Communications Network Solutions | William.Degnan@telenet.com P.O. Box 9530, Austin, TX 78766 | voice: 512 323-9383 William Degnan -- via The Q Continuum (FidoNet Node 1:382/31) UUCP: ...!rpp386!tqc!39!wdegnan ARPA: wdegnan@f39.n382.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 18:24:45 O From: Hank Nussbacher Subject: Faxnet Info Request I am looking for information about Faxnet products and integration to PCs. I am aware of Fax machines that can maintain lists of numbers to dial so that one can have a distribution list via FAX. But what if I am on a PC and I want to send my data directly from my PC to a Faxnet machine so that certain copies will be sent via Fax but some will be sent via e-mail so that the destination user will receive the letter in computer readable format. What of the reverse? Someone feeding in a typed letter into a FAX and the FAXnet machine sending it to some people via straight FAX and others via e-mail. Is that posssible? I am interested in hearing of any papers, documents, articles on this matter. Many thanks, Hank ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 12:54:00 CST From: William Degnan Subject: National Telecom Policy The following summary was received in our office this morning. Does anybody here have access to the "notice"? I'd sure like to see it. ================================================================= COMMENTS, PLEASE -- The government has begun an inquiry into whether basic telephone service in the future should include technical innovations such as call-forwarding and access to data and video networks. ... The Bush administration said Tuesday it wants to have a policy in place a year from now. ... Key issues are how, how fast and which various elements of the industry can best improve U.S. competitiveness and the quality of life. ... In a 99-page notice published Tuesday, the policy-advising National Telecommunications and Information Admin. ... said it wants fresh comments within the next 90 days from the industry. ... AP, McGraw Hill, 1/9. Regards, Bill Disclaimer: Contents do not constitute "advice" unless we are on the clock William Degnan | wdegnan@mcimail.com !wdegnan@at&tmail.com Communications Network Solutions | William.Degnan@telenet.com P.O. Box 9530, Austin, TX 78766 | voice: 512 323-9383 William Degnan -- via The Q Continuum (FidoNet Node 1:382/31) UUCP: ...!rpp386!tqc!39!wdegnan ARPA: wdegnan@f39.n382.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ Subject: Conn./Mass. Cellular 911 Access Upgraded Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 4:06:57 EST From: John Boteler UPI New England reports that cellular telephone users in Connecticut, as well as users in Springfield, MA, may now access local emergency dispatch centers directly via E-911. The article indicated that prior to January 1 an operator intercepted the calls to 911, rerouting them to the appropriate agency. It did not indicate exactly what will happen now, however the EMX (TM) switches have probably implemented call steering to route the call to the appropriate emergency communications center based on the location of the active cell site. It is my understanding that Metropolitan WashiMore subscribers to Cellular One have had this capability for several years, at least. John Boteler NCN NudesLine: 703-241-BARE -- VOICE only, Touch-Tone (TM) accessible {zardoz|uunet!tgate|cos!}ka3ovk!media!csense!bote ------------------------------ From: John Kennedy Subject: Looking For a Used Panasonic KX-616 Date: 11 Jan 90 12:42:22 GMT Reply-To: johnk@opel.uu.net (John Kennedy) Organization: Second Source, Inc., Annapolis, MD Perhaps you're about to upgrade? I'm looking to spend around $500. John Kennedy johnk@opel.uu.uunet Second Source, Inc. Annapolis, MD ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 09:27:48 EST From: ROBERTS@umdc.bitnet Subject: An Annenberg/CPB Special Funding Initiative The Annenberg/CPB Project Announces A Special Funding Initiative: The Project seeks proposals from a broad range of 2- and 4-year colleges and universities that would use technologies to make academic programs more accessible to more types of students. Priority will be given to projects that can serve individuals who face constraints of schedule, distance, physical impairment, and/or cost. Submission Deadline: May 15, 1990 For guidelines, write or call: The Annenberg/CPB Project 1111 Sixteenth Street NW Washington, DC 20036 (202) 955-5256 or send electronic mail to: roberts@umdc.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 10:47:29 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Don't Steal Phone Service, Or Else! The published item says "beginning and end of semesters". Let me add this: A caution I read several years ago was that at the beginning of a traditional spring term, students usually have less money available than at the beginning of the fall term; therefore, various forms of fraud (shoplifting, phone fraud, etc.?) are more likely to occur at the beginning of the SPRING term. ------------------------------ Date: Thu 11 Jan 90 11:49:06-CST From: Clive Dawson Subject: Re: Reach Out World A comment regarding ATT's new Reach Out World program. I called ATT to inquire what the discount rate would be for calls to Mexico. I was told that the rate under Reach Out World would be $.15/minute, with an additional 5% discount on calls over 10 minutes. I told the rep this was too good to be true, and sure enough, it was. He said, "Of course, this applies only to the U.S. portion of the call up to the international boundary. We have no control over the foreign country rates." Blah. From Austin, the U.S. portion of the night-time rate to Mexico is currently $.14/minute, and I don't have to pay $3/month to get it! (The Mexican portion is about $.75/min -- that's the real killer.) Does anybody have any info regarding a rumor that the Mexican telephone industry was recently de-regulated and/or that the government has relinquished direct ownership? Clive ------------------------------ From: David Lewis Subject: Re: Modeming on Electronic Switch System Date: 11 Jan 90 14:50:47 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ In article <2736@accuvax.nwu.edu>, ntpdvp1!davel@rti.uucp (Dave Livingston) writes: [specifics omitted] > ...standards defined by Bellcore... While we're talking correct terminology... Bellcore doesn't define standards; Bellcore writes technical requirements. Committee T1, CCITT, and ISO write standards, to which Bellcore (and Northern Telecom/Bell Northern Research, among others) is an active contributor. I know what you meant, but the term is actually "Bellcore Requirements". David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center) "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower." ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #22 *****************************   Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 22:10:51 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #23 Message-ID: <9001112210.aa14314@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 11 Jan 90 22:10:30 CST Volume 10 : Issue 23 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson New Telephone Numbering System in Hong Kong (Albert Pang) Re: Answer to Area Code Congestion (John R. Levine) Re: Answer to Area Code Congestion (David Lewis) Re: Answer to Area Code Congestion (Steve Gaarder) Re: Why 8-digit Numbers Are Impossible in North America (Dan O'Callagan) Re: One Solution To 800 Wrong Numbers (David Lewis) Re: Caller ID (Keith Vitek) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: albert@quiche.cs.mcgill.ca Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 13:32:03 EST Subject: New Telephone Numbering System in Hong Kong I have just returned from Hong Kong and have withnessed this historic event in telecommunication history in Hong Kong. As of Dec 30, 1989 00:01a.m. ("Easy Dialing Day"), no "regional code" will be needed in HK's phone numbers. Most phone numbers now have seven digits (with the exception of "999" the emergency number, etc). From then on, the "regional code" (a 3 for Kowloon, 5 for Hongkong Island or 0 for New Territories) will be stripped off from phone numbers with 7 digits. For those numbers with 6 digits, the "regional code" will become part of the telephone number. Example: 3-376756 will become 337-6756 (a 6 digit phone # in Kowloon) 5-8172780 will become 817-2780 (a 7 digit phone # HK island) The new way of writing phone #s is to divide the # into 2 groups: a group of 3 digits and a group of 4 digits. From news media, I learned that there will be a transition period during which you can still use the old # but you will hear a recording telling you about the change. Over two million numbers were changed overnight. All these changes were for the preparation of a all digital system by year 1995. From my observation, the general reaction of the public was favourable. Due to massive advertisement (since June 1989) in TV, radio, Newspaper etc, It is almost impossible to overlook the changes. albert@calvin.cs.mcgill.ca McGill University, Montreal, Canada. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Answer to Area Code Congestion Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA Date: 10 Jan 90 18:11:21 EST (Wed) From: "John R. Levine" In article <2748@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >Here is a way to ease area code congestion without being too difficult >to implement in North America. It basically means that the affected >area switches to 8 digit numbers without any other area needing to >know. ... It seems to be difficult for people from other countries to understand how deeply ingrained 3+7 digit phone numbers are in North America. It is not practical to suggest that we change to anything different. Both central office equipment and premises equipment such as PBXes, memory dialers, toll restrictors, etc. have the 7 and 10 digit lengths wired in. Also, now that every dialable phone number in North America has been ten digits since about 1955, an entire generation has grown up with 3+7 numbers and it's ingrained in our dialing fingers. I'm 35 and I don't remember anything else. By the way, on another thread, I suspect that the reason that some areas are going to 1+NPA+number rather than just the number for intra-NPA toll calls is due to the limitations of old exchanges that need a leading 1 for tandem access. As noted elsewhere, toll charging is complicated enough that "dial 1 for toll" really isn't very meaningful any more. Regards, John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl PS: Didn't mention Caller ID at all. Oops, did it again. :-) ------------------------------ From: David Lewis Subject: Re: Answer to Area Code Congestion Date: 11 Jan 90 18:31:04 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ In article <2748@accuvax.nwu.edu>, U5434122@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au writes: > Here is a way to ease area code congestion without being too difficult > to implement in North America. It basically means that the affected > area switches to 8 digit numbers without any other area needing to > know. Most telephone numbers stay the same, with the addition of > another digit, and for those that change, working out the new number > is very easy. > Taking Los Angeles area 213 as an example: > 1. Abolish area code 213 and in its place establish areas 225 and 228. > This will mean that all areas using 225 and 228 as prefixes must > remove 1+7D toll dialling. In effect, this means that all of the North American Numbering Plan must cutover to fully interchangeable codes. Although you restrict it to 225 and 228 at the start, you assume that farther down the line 22X is the next step, and 33X and other prefixes will be used in other areas. As time goes to infinity, the number of NPAs that have none of these prefixes assigned goes very, very rapidly to 0. Therefore, the entire NANP must cutover to fully interchangeable codes. This is, when it occurs around 1995, going to be *the* biggest and most expensive change to the NANP. > 2. There is no geographical isolation of 225 and 228. Instead, the > areas are assigned to the prefixes 2xx-5xx and 6xx-9xx. > 3. Old numbers beginning with 5 and 8 have their first digit changed > to 7 and 3 respectively. > 4. Dialling within the 225-228 area *must* begin with either a 5 or an > 8. Any attempt to dial a number beginning with 2,3,4,6,7,9 should be > directed a recorded message to remind about the new system. This > should last several months. Let me see if I understand this. The number that used to be 213-455-XXXX would now be 225-455-XXXX, but would be, within this NPA, dialed as 5-455-XXXX. From outside this NPA, it would be dialed 1-225-455-XXXX. Dialing within the NPA would be 8-digit; dialing to outside the NPA would be 11-digit (1+NPA+NXX-XXXX). > The benefits of this system are many, including the retention of LA as > a large community, and an inexhaustible supply of new prefixes, by > simply adding new pseudo-areas 22N when everyone was used to 8 digit > dialling. Here's a trap. You say above that, in a "pseudo-area" 2 2 5/8, CO codes can not begin with 5 or 8. So if you add "pseudo-areas" of the format 22N (I think you meant 22X -- N excludes 0/1, X doesn't), this restricts you from having CO codes beginning with N (X). Therefore, CO codes don't begin with any number (as CO codes cannot begin with 0 or 1). > Comments anyone?? Well, you asked for it. First, the implementation side. As mentioned above, this is not "easy to implement" -- it means cutting over the entire NANP to fully interchangeable codes. I've been trying to figure out how, exactly, to phrase the other problems I see with it -- the usability problems, as opposed to the implementation problems. I think what it comes down to is -- why bother screwing around with 8-digit dialing when we can go straight to 10-digit dialing, in a manner consistent with the current dialing syntax, continuing to provide 7-digit dialing for HNPA calls? The proposal here would: * Change on the order of 1.5M 7-digit phone numbers (all 5/8XX-XXXX numbers) * Change dialing syntax from 7-digit to 8-digit in some -- but not all -- NPAs, therefore removing the universality of HNPA dialing in the NANP (Now, in your home NPA, you dial 7 digits. In this proposal, in some home NPAs you dial 7 digits, in some you dial 8 digits.) * Provide less than an order of magnitude increase in available numbers, compared to more than two orders of magnitude increase by going to fully interchangeable codes * Not be any less expensive to implement than fully interchangeable codes. Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but this seems to present all the disadvantages of fully interchangeable codes, add new disadvantages of its own, and not provide any advantages... David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center) "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 11:34:20 EST From: Steve Gaarder Subject: Re: Answer to Area Code Congestion If you really want 8-digit dialing in large cities, the way to do it is to use the last digit of the NPA code. To use the numbers in the last example, LA could get NPA codes 225 and 226 (after interchangeable NPA codes are activated). Local calls would be 5xxx-xxxx or 6xxx-xxxx. Long distance calls would use area code 22 followed by 8 digits of number. This would not require changes to any systems outside the local area. I don't think this is worth the trouble, though. We all have 7-digit phone numbers as a standard, and having 8-digit in parts of the country would add vast user confusion (almost as bad as the introduction of COCOTs). Steve Gaarder ------------------------------ From: U5434122@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au Subject: Re: Why 8-digit Numbers Are Impossible in North America Date: 12 Jan 90 11:30:52 (UTC+11:00) Organization: The University of Melbourne In article <2789@accuvax.nwu.edu>, covert@covert.enet.dec.com (John R. Covert) writes: > Daniel O'Callaghan at The University of Melbourne writes: >>Here is a way to ease area code congestion without being too difficult >>to implement in North America. It basically means that the affected >>area switches to 8 digit numbers without any other area needing to know. > Unfortunately, due to the presence of a large number of No. 5 Crossbar > central offices throughout North America, changing the length of > telephone numbers is not technically possible without billions of > dollars in expenditure in other areas. > common control offices store the number dialled, the _entire_ number, > in what is known as an Originating Register. This is a hardware > register made out of relays, and it has the capability of storing > three, seven, or ten digits, plus a flag indicating whether "1" or "0" > was dialled first. I am not suggesting that subscribers' numbers be made 8 digits. What I propose is that two or more areas are not geographically distinct and have the same first two digits. Also, dialling 1+3+7 should be mandatory for *all* calls, except that '5' is an abbreviation for '1-225-' and '8' is an abbreviation for '1-228-'. Only those central offices in the affected area need to be changed so that the 'flag' register indicates '1','0','5' or'8'. All other central offices can continue quite happliy believing that (225) and (228) are totally different, and for wiring purposes they can be. Each central office in the affected area is in either (225) or (228), in *exactly* the same way COs were split between (312) and (708) in Chicago. Is impossible to convert the flag to handle 4 digits? If these COs are Stored Program Control Crossbar, can't they be programmed to substitute 1-225- for '5' and 1-228- for '8' on the first digit? >>Cellular sevices could all be moved to say 229, allowing easy identification >>of a number as mobile. > It is not clear that it is desirable for mobile numbers to be identified > as mobile numbers. Why should anyone care? In Australia the caller pays the charges for calling a mobile number. The charges are the same as long distance rate 165-745 km, 39c/min 8am-6pm, 26c/min 6pm-10pm and 15c/min 10pm-8am+Saturday night and all day Sunday. Since the caller pays, it is nice to know before you ring the number. Also, cellular phones are not wasting prefixes in the normal area codes. Daniel u5434122@ucsvc.unimelb.edu.au ------------------------------ From: David Lewis Subject: Re: One Solution To 800 Wrong Numbers Date: 10 Jan 90 22:28:51 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ In article <2668@accuvax.nwu.edu>, lars@salt.acc.com (Lars J Poulsen) writes: > > While "wrong number" calls at odd hours are a great nuisance to > residences, they are no big deal to businesses. I think you'd get some argument on that, but I won't provide it. > Maybe the solution is > to move towards separation of residential number space and business > number space. Most people expect an 800-number to be a business > number, and may be less careful when dialing than they would for a > regular number. How about assigning a separate NPA for residential use > ? 810, anyone ? Actually, N10 codes (with the exception of 610) are in the set of usable area codes and not reserved as Service Access Codes (SACs, like 700, 800, 900). Whereas 200, 300, 400, 500, and 600 are in the reserved set, so it would make sense to use one of them. How 'bout 400? Like, half of 800... > With new technology, and lots of small long-distance carriers to > compete, residential 800-service is going to boom, and I think it > would be better to have separate prefixes for residential and business > than to have multiple mixed NPAs. I think it's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure if it's a good one. (Haven't thought through the implications yet.) Would be interested in comments, and if there's anything useful (like, maybe a general agreement!?), I'd be willing to pass things along to the Numbering/Dialing Planning District here at Bellcore. (Although I'd greatly appreciate, if this is viewed as a Good Thing, if perhaps our moderator could compile all the appropriate posts into a single file and mail it to me -- I've had difficulty getting to the archives.) David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center) "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 10:57:53 CST From: Keith Vitek Subject: Re: Caller ID How can you stop Caller ID on your line? UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!kvitek ARPA: crash!pnet01!pro-party!kvitek@nosc.mil INET: kvitek@pro-party.cts.com Keith Vitek | Voice: 512/852-1841 | I want my NeXT... 5914 LiptonShire | or: 512/852-1780 | I want my AmigaUUCP... Corpus Christi, TX 78415 | FIDO: 1:160/40 | I want .......... [Moderator's Note: Do you mean, how can you stop someone who is equipped with a Caller-ID readout from seeing your number? You can't, however at the present time, the display seems to be limited to calls within the local community. Long distance identification is not very common yet. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #23 *****************************   Date: Fri, 12 Jan 90 2:01:59 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #24 Message-ID: <9001120201.aa01049@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 12 Jan 90 02:00:18 CST Volume 10 : Issue 24 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Common Carrier Dialer (William Degnan) Most Expensive 900 Call? (Curtis Galloway) Re: New Sleazy 900 Service (Louis J. Judice) Re: New Sleazy 900 Service (David Lewis) Re: New Sleazy 900 Service (John Higdon) 976 (Don't) Dial-It (Robert E. Seastrom) Re: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid (John J. DiLeo) Re: BBS as a Business (Wolf Paul) Those Beeps _Are_ a FAX Machine Trying to Call (John R. Covert) Mobile Telephone Questions (Anthony Lee) Re: Why Can't I Use 1+10 Dialing For All Calls? (Chris Johnston) Customer Support (Ken Levitt) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 20:45:01 CST From: William Degnan Subject: Common Carrier Dialer In an article of <9 Jan 90 14:46:16 GMT>, nmri!!stanley@uunet.uu.net (John Stanley) writes: JS>From: nmri!!stanley@uunet.uu.net (John Stanley) JS>Date: 9 Jan 90 14:46:16 GMT JS>Organization: TELECOM Digest JS>Message-ID: <2754@accuvax.nwu.edu> JS>Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom JS>They are called "Common Carrier Access Dialer and Call Controller" JS>with the name SMarT-1 and Mitel on them, and the claim they are JS>manufactured by SMT Corp. Call Jane Conti at Mitel, 555 Taxter Road, Elmsford, NY 10523 (914) 592-1110, if you're buying. She can probably point you in the right direction. (Ask her if she found that Pizza place near Amtrack in Rensselaer.) For literature, including installation practices: Mitel, Inc., Literature Center, 5400 Broken Sound Boulevard, Boca Raton, FL 33487 (407) 994-8500. Some of them have speed dial, an smdr port and ARS. Regards, Bill Disclaimer: Contents do not constitute "advice" unless we are on the clock William Degnan | wdegnan@mcimail.com !wdegnan@at&tmail.com Communications Network Solutions | William.Degnan@telenet.com P.O. Box 9530, Austin, TX 78766 | voice: 512 323-9383 William Degnan -- via The Q Continuum (FidoNet Node 1:382/31) UUCP: ...!rpp386!tqc!39!wdegnan ARPA: wdegnan@f39.n382.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ From: Curtis Galloway Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 10:10:02 PST Subject: Most Expensive 900 Call? The other day, I saw a commercial on cable TV for one of those "credit-repair" services. It seemed remarkably uninteresting, until I noticed the cost of the 900 number which you call for information on their service. For one telephone call: THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS. I'm curious to know if other Telecom readers have seen more expensive calls. (Gee, the Jose Canseco hotline seems like a bargain now!) Curtis Galloway | The Santa Cruz Operation | /\/\ curtisg@sco.com | I \ / DISCLAIMERS ...{uunet,ucbvax,ucscc}!sco!curtisg | \/ [Moderator's Note: Yes, there is one charging $58. See later article. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 07:23:05 -0800 From: "Louis J. Judice 11-Jan-1990 0916" Subject: Re: New Sleazy 900 Service Ok, here is a mega-buck idea for a 900 service... Set up an 800 number, 1-800-RATFINK and advertise that people should call to report crimes, indescretions, income-tax evasion and other nasty behavior. Then set up the 900 service, with a $49.95 charge and advertise that if you call it, we WON'T use any information we collect on you! It's sort of a post-de-regulation, post-devestiture variant of the Monty Python skit about the "Blackmail" show. /ljj ------------------------------ From: David Lewis Subject: Re: New Sleazy 900 Service Date: 11 Jan 90 15:06:01 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ In article <2755@accuvax.nwu.edu>, Edward_Greenberg@cso.3mail.3com.com writes: [description of latest sleazy ad for 900 service -- "important issue, add your name to the list of people in favor", 3-pixel high notification that it costs $4.95 and will be billed directly to your phone bill -- omitted.] That's nothing. You know those ads you always see in the back of magazines about buying vehicles from the government for $49? Where, basically, you send them $5 and they send you a copy of a GSO printout of vehicle auctions. Lately on NYC TV I've been seeing ads for a "service" which will provide you information on how you can get vehicles from the government for exorbitantly low prices... starts sounding familiar... of course, this is TV advertizing, so they call it an "association" or something, and give you a fancy embossed credit card-type membership card with your name and "membership number"... The kicker? The "membership fee" is like $57.95. The number to call is a 900 number. In small print at the bottom of the screen is the disclaimer "fee will be directly charged to your phone bill." In other words, you call, they collect the money, send you a pile of stuff you could get for about $0.85 by writing to the GSO, and when you find out it's worthless, you have very little recourse... Sigh. P.T. Barnum is alive and well and selling 900 services... David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center) "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower." ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: New Sleazy 900 Service Date: 11 Jan 90 04:13:56 PST (Thu) From: John Higdon Seth Zirin writes: > 3) WOR in NJ seems to bombard their evening viewers with ads > for various date and love lines. They state that only women > will be on the line. Since we never see ads geared towards > women that claim only men will be on the line, we can only > assume that the women are employees of the service provider > and are not women calling in on some other number. While there are female employees of the service provider lurking on the line to keep things under control (get rid of obnoxious callers, keep a sagging discussion going, etc.), the ads are set up in this manner because it is difficult to get men to call. They need to make it look like the line is teeming with women, and it usually is. > Using 900 for these calls was a bad idea. Anyone dialing an off by > one to a toll free 800 number can get zapped. Imagine trying to get > credit for a $59 wrong number from one of the fly by night "telephone > companies." As the weary recipient of many 800 number misdials, let me say that this would be a great incentive to dial the right number, don't you think? But unlike other evils in the telephone jungle, the 976/900 sleaze market is something you can easily avoid. When your car quits on some lonely road and the only phone for miles is a misprogrammed COCOT, you're screwed. When your local telco is gouging you for local service, it's already too late. If you can't get any modern features because your telco is more interested in profits than modernization, well... On the other hand, 976/900 are easy to do without: just don't dial them. I have to say that regardless of how sleazy the TV spots are, no matter how much they charge for their questionable "service", or how much money I *could* waste by calling them, I have not lost one cent to these people. This is a truly *optional* evil. You need go to no pains to avoid spending a single dime. For this reason, I can't get too excited about this particular telephony annoyance. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 11:34:38 EST From: "Robert E. Seastrom" Subject: 976 (Don't) Dial-It I saw these really great stickers pasted up all over the place the other day and just *had* to peel a couple off and take them with me. They said: WARNING: *Please* Don't Call This Number 976-DONT 976-3668 (It's habit forming) $2.98 per call if you did ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 16:29:33 EST From: dileo@brl.mil Subject: Re: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid Reply-To: dileo@brl.mil (John J. Dileo (CSD) ) Organization: USAMSAA, APG, MD 21005 In article <2737@accuvax.nwu.edu> Joel B Levin writes: >Of course that's the point of the ad; what we complain about is the >ludicrous strawman they set up, that someone might confuse calling >Fiji with calling Phoenix. And of course the alternate implications, >that the ordinary user is stupid enough to make that mistake, or that >the alternate long distance carrier would make that mistake. This is >only one of a number of moderately sleasy long distance ads, most of >which are perpetrated by AT&T. If I am thinking about the same commercial, it seemed that his call was *MISROUTED* by the carrier, not misdialed by him. In fact, he dialed the number twice and received the same incorrect number both times. What AT&T was really doing was playing on two at once: that no other phone company is competent to handle long-distance service, and that no other company is as competent at handling complaints, billing, etc. I admit that the ad in question was quite melodramatic, but I don't think it was as stupid as previous posters have suggested. --John DiLeo dileo@brl.mil ------------------------------ From: wolf paul Subject: Re: BBS as a Business Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 14:22:06 MET DST Organization: IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria In TELECOM Digest Volume 10, Issue 16, John Higdon writes: > The question remains: Why should anyone have to pay more for telephone > service simply because they allow a modem to speak over the line? In the SWBT vs. COSUARD situation, that is not the question. SWBT argues that a BBS is a business not because it uses a modem, but because it advertises and offers a service. That the vast majority of BBSs are not making any profit, and are not charging for their service is immaterial -- after all, non-profit organizations like the Salvation Army also pay business rates. To illustrate their argument, they maintain that when a sysop imposes online time limits, but then gives time credit for uploads, that actually constitutes a business transaction. He accepts the upload as payment for increased online time. Needless to say, I don't share SWBT's opinion; however, even if business rates were imposed on BBS operators and users, telecommunications as a hobby would still be much more affordable in the US, and offer greater possibilities (even in GTE areas :-) than over here in Austria :-(. Wolf N. Paul, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis Schloss Laxenburg, Schlossplatz 1, A - 2361 Laxenburg, Austria, Europe Phone: [43] (2236) 71521-465 BITNET: tuvie!iiasa!wnp@cernvax.BITNET UUCP: uunet!tuvie!iiasa!wnp INTERNET: wnp%iiasa.at@uunet.uu.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 07:09:22 -0800 From: "John R. Covert 11-Jan-1990 0743" Subject: Those Beeps _Are_ a FAX Machine Trying to Call >I called our fax machine at work and it does not sound like this >device either - so I am confused about it. The sound you describe is the CCITT standard sound for "the device calling you is an autodialer." FAX machines generate this sound when making calls. They do not generate this sound when answering calls. >If it is indeed a fax machine - perhaps I can borrow a fax machine or fax >modem and hook it up and try to recieved their cover sheet ... Patrick is correct to point out that the phone company is required to help you find the source of an annoyance call -- at no charge. But your own idea above (except for the harrassment part which followed) is a good idea. Since these calls come at a specific time, if you have call forwarding, you could make arrangements with one of those P.O.Box/FAX drops (or anyone with a FAX machine) for you to forward your calls to their machine from 10:20 to 10:35 some night to receive the FAX and find the originator. /john ------------------------------ From: Anthony Lee Subject: Mobile Telephone Questions Date: 12 Jan 90 03:35:56 GMT Reply-To: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au In a normal telephone call, the destination can suspend the call by replacing the hook. Just wondering, in the case of a Mobile call, what does the dest. do to suspend the call ? Also I call setup procedure in the 79 Bell Journal a bit hard to follow. Does anyone know a good introduction text that explain mobile call setup in a more procedural way ? Thank you Anthony Lee (Humble PhD student) (Alias Time Lord Doctor) ACSnet: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz TEL:+(61)-7-371-2651 Internet: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au +(61)-7-377-4139 (w) SNAIL: Dept Comp. Science, University of Qld, St Lucia, Qld 4067, Australia ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 21:30:44 199 From: Chris Johnston Subject: Re: Why Can't I Use 1+10 Dialing For All Calls? Organization: U. Chicago Computer Science Dept. In article <2790@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 21, message 3 of 3 >[Moderator's Note: Please double-check on this. The elevated platform >is entirely in Chicago. > (convoluted boundaries omitted) >pay phones on the platform and the station downstairs were all >Hollycourt 5 numbers, which is a Chicago (312-465) exchange. PT] Patrick is right the Howard platform is entirely in Chicago. I checked a couple of pay phones including 312-465-9810. The switch is programmed incorrectly and won't allow 1-708- (or 1-312-) calls. First it returned my quarter then rang about three times, the recording was "We are sorry you must dial 1 before ... ". The static was part of the recording. By the way the half dozen pay phones I checked in Wilmette and Evanston were incorrectly labeled with the 312 area code. >Why can't I always use eleven digit dialing? Why must I know the >local geography to dial a phone? cj ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 22:46:17 EST From: Ken Levitt Subject: Customer Support I am about to embark on a new business venture and money is rather tight. This venture requires that my partner and I provide an incredibly high level of customer support for 16 hours a day 7 days a week. I am seeking telecommunications solutions to this problem. The following items are givens: 1. 80 percent of the calls will be answered by either myself or my partner and will not need special processing. 2. Telling customers that "If you can't reach us, to call my beeper number", is not acceptable from a corporate image point of view. 3. We can not afford to hire an employee to help with the support. 4. We can not always be here to answer the phone. 5. 98 percent of the time a client should be able to talk with us within 15 minutes of their call. 6. We can not be calling in to an answering machine every 15 minutes to see if anyone has left a message. I have thought of three possible solutions but I don't know where to find the equipment for numbers 2 and 3. 1. Hire an answering service. Either tell them where I can be reached at all times or get a beeper and tell them to beep me if any calls come in. This seems like an expensive solution, but it should work. 2. Have a call forwarding device that would answer on one line and call out to me on another line. In order for this to work, I would have to be able to re-program the forwarding number remotely. I don't think New England Telephone offers a service like this. (do they?) 3. I understand that there is a type of answering machine that will take a message and then call some other number (like a beeper) to inform you that you have a message waiting. If anyone has any additional ideas or can tell me how to locate devices listed in #2 and #3 above, I would like to hear from you. Please contact me directly. If there are any interesting solutions, I will post them to the Digest. Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 UUCP: zorro9!levitt INTERNET: levitt%zorro9.uucp@talcott.harvard.ed ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #24 *****************************   Date: Fri, 12 Jan 90 23:49:13 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #25 Message-ID: <9001122349.aa18445@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 12 Jan 90 23:45:59 CST Volume 10 : Issue 25 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Supreme Court Rules Cordless Calls Not Private (Jim Breen) Re: Supreme Court Rules Cordless Calls Not Private (David Tamkin) Re: Cordless Phone User Vows New Fight (John R. Levine) Re: Cordless Phone User Vows New Fight (Bernie Cosell) Re: Faxnet Info Request (John R. Levine) Re: AT&T Advertisement Is Stupid (David Tamkin) Re: The Big PUC Give-Away (Tad Cook) Re: How To Dial Long Distance (Mark Brader) Re: How To Dial Long Distance (Kent Hauser) Re: Reach Out World (John Gilmore) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jwb@cit5.cit.oz (Jim Breen) Subject: Re: Supreme Court Rules Cordless Phones Not Private Organization: Chisholm Institute of Technology, Melb., Australia Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 23:08:28 GMT In article <2784@accuvax.nwu.edu>, thomas%mvac23.uucp@udel.edu (Thomas Lapp) writes: > What bothers me about this is that if users of cordless phones should > be aware that they can be overheard, the Supreme Court should also > apply the same reasoning to cellular telephones since it is OBVIOUS > that carphones, etc. use radio waves (the antenna tends to give it > away :-). ........ It is interesting to note how Australian law differs here. We have no general right to privacy, but there is a strict law on phone tapping and on recording phone calls. Whether listening in to a cordless or cellular call on your el cheapo scanner constitutes a tap, or is just legitimate use of your right to listen to any frequency you like has yet to be tested in court (and may never be.) Recording of a phone call is a definite no-no. There was a very funny case a couple of years ago where the leader of the opposition Liberal (i.e. conservative) Party in Victoria had a long car phone conversation with Andrew Peacock, then Federal deputy leader (also in opposition) of that party. Andrew made a lot of highly uncomplimentary comments, complete with plenty of four-letter words, about his colleague and leader, John Howard. Of course, a ham with a scanner and recorder was listening in, and within minutes the choice bits of the conversation were being played on commercial radio. The fur flew, and Andrew lost his job. (He eventually rolled Howard and became leader. In his victory Press conference he promised to stay awy from car phones.) I believe the ham got a bit of a wrist slapping and was told not to do it again. No charges were laid. The US has a long history of listening to other people's phone conversations. For years the CIA happily read all the car phones of the Soviet leadership. This was one of the reasons behind the (understandable) distress over the release of the "Pentagon Papers". Some of the material in those papers could only have been obtained from car phone taps, and thus the release effectively blew (and destroyed) the whole sigint operation. _______ Jim Breen (jwb@cit5.cit.oz) Department of Robotics & /o\----\\ \O Digital Technology. Chisholm Inst. of Technology /RDT\ /|\ \/| -:O____/ PO Box 197 Caulfield East 3145 Australia O-----O _/_\ /\ /\ (ph) +61 3 573 2552 (fax) +61 3 572 1298 ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: Supreme Court Rules Cordless Calls Not Private Date: Fri, 12 Jan 90 17:03:14 CST Has anyone yet looked into the situation of a person who picks up a wired phone to place a call, but the callee answers on a cordless phone? Has anyone yet looked into the situation of someone who picks up a wired phone to answer a call that, it turns out, is being placed from a cordless phone? If the person on the wired phone has no rightful expectation of privacy (especially in the second situation, where the person on the wired phone didn't even place the call), how is he or she to know that the call is legally monitorable? Is one to assume that no telephone conversation is private at all? In ancient times recording devices were required to emit periodic beeps to warn the party at the other end that the call was being recorded. Maybe we need something similar for cordless phones. David Tamkin P.O Box 813 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-0813 | BIX: dattier dattier@chinet.chi.il.us (708) 518-6769 (312) 693-0591 | GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN No two Chinet users agree about this (or anything else). | CIS: 73720,1570 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Cordless Phone User Vows New Fight Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA Date: 12 Jan 90 00:00:41 EST (Fri) From: "John R. Levine" In article <2794@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >You may not broadcast a telephone call over the air without the >knowledge and consent of the person(s) on the phone. My recollection of the ECPA is that it specifically prescribes no penalties for disclosing a cordless phone conversation. It is not at all clear how that relates to the traditional policy that radio transmissions not intended for the public may be intercepted but not disclosed. For that matter, the question of party lines is an interesting one. Do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy on a party line? How about if you pick up the phone wishing to make a call and, e.g. inadvertently overhear business plans or something of which you could take advantage, are you allowed to do so? What a mess. Regards, John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl [Moderator's Note: Listening to a radio transmission is not the same as *disclosing* the contents of the transmission, and it certainly is not the same as *re-transmitting* the original transmission without the consent of the people involved. Forget cordless phones for a minute, and think 'radio transmissions' instead. PT] ------------------------------ From: Bernie Cosell Subject: Re: Cordless Phone User Vows New Fight Date: 12 Jan 90 04:55:58 GMT csense!bote@uunet.uu.net (John Boteler) writes: } DIXON, Iowa (UPI) - An Iowan whose eavesdropping case was turned }down by the U.S. Supreme Court said Monday the issue sets up affluent }cellular phone users as a special class over average Americans using }cordless phones. ...... } Tyler said the refusal to extend those rights to cordless phones is }a slap at the common citizen. Privacy rights have been granted to }phone pagers and cellular communications already. ...... } "The cellular phone, the rich man's phone, is covered, but the }average man's isn't," Tyler said. ...... This is probably a misc.legal matter, but I'll ask anyway: isn't this guy a bit confused? The "Privacy rights" for phone pagers and cellular phones are, I thought, *not* a matter of "rights" but a matter of "law". That is, that if cellular phones were *not* covered by the ECPA, the SC might well rule that they, too, don't carry such an expectation. / Bernie \ ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Faxnet Info Request Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA Date: 11 Jan 90 23:36:44 EST (Thu) From: "John R. Levine" In article <2796@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >But what if I am on a PC and I want to send my data directly from my PC to >a Faxnet machine so that certain copies will be sent via Fax but some will be >sent via e-mail so that the destination user will receive the letter >in computer readable format. All of the major E-Mail services such as MCI Mail, AT&T Mail, and Compuserve do this already. Fax addresses typically look like email addresses to a pseudo-system named fax or something like it. To get data from your PC to the E-Mail system you can use something like Lotus Express which uses a proprietary protocol on top of X.PC to talk to MCI Mail or UUPC, a free PC implementation of uucp, which should be adequate to talk to AT&T Mail. >What of the reverse? Someone feeding in a typed letter into a FAX and >the FAXnet machine sending it to some people via straight FAX and >others via e-mail. Is that posssible? Not really. Current OCR technology, certainly current low-cost OCR technology, has a high error rate and I doubt anyone would be happy with an OCR interpretation of a document scanned in via a Fax machine. What is possible now is to receive faxes on your PC and treat the image as a graphic email message. One particularly clever implementation allows you to attach the fax card to a DID trunk so the fax card can have a whole lot of phone numbers, one per email user, and route the incoming graphics messages based on the number called. Regards, John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: AT&T Advertisement Is Stupid Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 18:05:33 CST Joel Levin wrote in Telecom Digest, volume 10, issue 16: | Of course that's the point of the ad; what we complain about is the | ludicrous strawman they set up, that someone might confuse calling | Fiji with calling Phoenix. And of course the alternate implications, | that the ordinary user is stupid enough to make that mistake, or that | the alternate long distance carrier would make that mistake. This is | only one of a number of moderately sleasy long distance ads, most of | which are perpetrated by AT&T. There is no alternate implication. The caller dials to Phoenix twice and reaches the same phone in Fiji both times. Clearly AT&T's fantasy has the carrier at fault. To top it off, horror of horrors, he has to call the carrier's customer service department for credit and look up (or, pain of pains, REMEMBER) a telephone number longer than "00". With AT&T, your *operator* can arrange credit. We couldn't live without that, could we? Thrust of the message: if you are (1) too stupid to follow calling card instructions; (2) dumb enough to think that AT&T's calling cards are easier to use than those of other carriers; (3) intimidated by dialing 1-800 plus seven more digits to reach your long-distance carrier's offices; and (4) closed-minded and angry at the notion of any change in your life, then American Telephone and Telegraph thinks you're important enough to have a special commercial targeted just to getting your business. David Tamkin P.O.Box 813 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-0813 | BIX: dattier dattier@chinet.chi.il.us (708) 518-6769 (312) 693-0591 | GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN No two Chinet users agree about this (or anything else). | CIS: 73720,1570 ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: The Big PUC Give-Away Date: 12 Jan 90 06:35:05 GMT Organization: very little Higdon mentioned something about what would happen if an unregulated subsidiary of a regulated telco bought equipment, and then sold it to the regulated telco at an inflated price. The Wall St. Journal had an excellent article on this on Tuesday, January 11 right on the front page. It looks like Nynex was doing just that...forcing the regulated telco to buy from their unregulated purchasing arm...at inflated prices! This came out in an FCC audit, and the article indicated that other telcos have been doing the same thing. So the rate of return on the telco to the holding company is guaranteed, and any expenses are covered by the ratepayers. The unregulated purchasing arm can sell to the telco at high prices, give the profits to the holding company, and the regulated telco (the ratepayers) foot the bill! Pretty slick! Or as Oliver North would say, "A neat idea!" tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ From: Mark Brader Subject: Re: How To Dial Long Distance Date: Fri, 12 Jan 90 03:37:49 EST Fred Goldstein writes: > In any case, 7 digits for inter-area is wrong, since you > have to specify _which_ area code you want. (NYC has 4, for instance.) Ah, but what Greg Monti said was that "7 digits for inter-area local calls" was used only where area codes cover a large area, and not in places like NYC. For instance, I was recently in Hull (area code 819) and watched my wife make a (local) call to Ottawa (area code 613) by dialing 7 digits. For instance, 239 is an Ottawa prefix; from Hull, 239-5000 would reach the Canada's Capital Visitor Information Centre in Ottawa. The trick is that if 239 exists in area 819 at all, it's in a location that is NOT a local call from Hull, and one dials 1-239-5000 to reach it. Mark Brader "...most mistakes are made the last thing before SoftQuad Inc., Toronto you go to bed. So go to bed before you do utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com the last thing." -- David Jacques Way ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jan 90 10:53:36 EST From: Kent Hauser Subject: Re: How To Dial Long Distance [ Discussion of various syntaxes used for toll dialing in US ] Of course, yet another syntax should be added. Syntax U (universal): 1 NPA NXX XXXX Should connect me with the unambiguously specified line. Allow me to give an example of it's use -- I have a modem with a `autodial' button on the front. I use it to call the office. However, I carry my modem around. Sometimes I need 7 digits, sometimes I need 11. Whenever I travel, I have to reprogram my modem's autodialer. This is stupid, because my number hasn't changed. For all of you that feel that 1+ dialing is a numbering plan issue & not a `toll call' issue, I suggest that you add the lack of `Syntax U' to your pet peeves. Kent ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jan 90 02:31:12 PST From: John Gilmore Subject: Re: Reach Out World > AT&T has offered discount calls to Canada through its Reach Out > (R) Canada program for three years. I looked at this program last year since I spend $60-80/mo calling utzoo in Toronto from hoptoad in San Francisco. Turns out that the Reach Out Canada flat rates were MORE expensive than the night direct-dial rate. Thanks a lot, AT&T! (It also took three calls to operators, and some excessive bills, before I could get a correct answer to "what ARE the night rate hours when calling Toronto from SF?" Midnight to 8 AM every day, and that's all.) [Moderator's Note: Reach Out Canada really is not a very good deal except for people in the geographical extremities of the US calling some geographically extreme place in Canada; i.e. a call from Miami, FL to Fort Nelson, BC would probably be cheaper via Reach Out Canada. I investigated it for my use calling between Chicago and Toronto/suburbs, and found the same thing as you: Regular rates were frequently less expensive. For that matter, even Reach Out America has a certain distance factor involved before it becomes useful: calling someplace less than about 400 miles away, interstate, during the overnight hours is cheaper when you use the 'regular' night rates, i.e. it is more of a bargain for people on the coasts than in the midwest. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #25 *****************************   Date: Sat, 13 Jan 90 0:32:51 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #26 Message-ID: <9001130032.aa25499@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 13 Jan 90 00:30:52 CST Volume 10 : Issue 26 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Customer Support (Randal Schwartz) Re: Customer Support (Dave Levenson) Re: Customer Support (John Higdon) Re: Question on Automatic Calling Devices (Chris Johnson) Re: Question on Automatic Calling Devices (Peter da Silva) Re: Question on Automatic Calling Devices (David Lewis) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Randal Schwartz Subject: Re: Customer Support Reply-To: Randal Schwartz Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA Date: Fri, 12 Jan 90 16:03:37 GMT In article <2828@accuvax.nwu.edu>, levitt@zorro9 (Ken Levitt) writes: | I am about to embark on a new business venture and money is rather | tight. This venture requires that my partner and I provide an | incredibly high level of customer support for 16 hours a day 7 days a | week. I am seeking telecommunications solutions to this problem. | I have thought of three possible solutions but I don't know where to | find the equipment for numbers 2 and 3. | 1. Hire an answering service. Either tell them where I can be reached | at all times or get a beeper and tell them to beep me if any calls | come in. This seems like an expensive solution, but it should work. | 2. Have a call forwarding device that would answer on one line and call | out to me on another line. In order for this to work, I would have | to be able to re-program the forwarding number remotely. I don't | think New England Telephone offers a service like this. (do they?) | 3. I understand that there is a type of answering machine that will | take a message and then call some other number (like a beeper) | to inform you that you have a message waiting. | If anyone has any additional ideas or can tell me how to locate | devices listed in #2 and #3 above, I would like to hear from you. It's called a "cellular phone". I use a portable cell phone *all* the time (for the last 18 months) to do exactly what you asked for. But most of the time, I'm not paying airtime rates, because I have forwarded the call to a landline that I happen to be at. If I'm really concerned about expenses, I start to handle the call, and then get a number and call them back. And, as a benefit, I can make outgoing calls while walking around, if the time is more important to me than the money. Of course, I had the expense of getting the phone (Radio Snack CT300) in the first place, but that's life. I also happen to live in an area where prime-time charges are only $0.31/min, and call-forwarded calls are only $0.07/min on a $15/month fee. (Apparently, that's pretty low.) Believe me. I had a answering-service/pager solution before this, and there's no comparison. (I still have the service, but they refer people to my cell phone if the caller asks for me by name. And I forward the cell phone to the service when I'm not willing to take calls.) Just another cell-phone user. /== Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095 ====\ | on contract to Intel's iWarp project, Beaverton, Oregon, USA, Sol III | | merlyn@iwarp.intel.com ...!uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn | \== Cute Quote: "Welcome to Oregon... Home of the California Raisins!" ==/ ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Customer Support Date: 13 Jan 90 03:14:16 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <2828@accuvax.nwu.edu>, levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org (Ken Levitt) writes: > I am about to embark on a new business venture and money is rather > tight. This venture requires that my partner and I provide an > incredibly high level of customer support for 16 hours a day 7 days a > week. I am seeking telecommunications solutions to this problem. I have been involved in a business with similar customer-support requirements, for several years. We have a business number which is covered by a full-time answering service. They have the beeper numbers and mobile phone numbers of the customer-contact people. The number also rings in my residence. The answering service costs $50 / month. Each beeper cost us $100 or so to buy (used). The beeper service charge, per number, is about $16.50 / month. The mobile service here costs $29.00 / month per phone, plus $0.55 / minute. I tried an answering machine with automatic outcalling message-notification features. It works, technically, but suffers from the ills that plague a lot of answering machines...people don't like to reach it, and often don't leave readable messages. (A high percentage of our callers speak English as a poor second language.) The human being at the answering service is a whole lot better at prompting an intelligible message out of most callers! Dave Levenson Voice: (201 | 908) 647 0900 Westmark, Inc. Internet: dave@westmark.uu.net Warren, NJ, USA UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave [The Man in the Mooney] AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Customer Support Date: 12 Jan 90 12:25:54 PST (Fri) From: John Higdon Ken Levitt writes: > 3. I understand that there is a type of answering machine that will > take a message and then call some other number (like a beeper) > to inform you that you have a message waiting. From what you describe, a Watson (tm) from Natural Microsystems, located somewhere in MA, would fill your bill. I have one and it does essentially what you seem to require. I do freelance work, and the Watson does all of the call processing for that. I would heartily recommend a mechanical solution, such as a Watson, over any answering service. Over the past ten years I have had considerable experience with answering services, from cord boards to the now-trendy DID computerized type. All of that experience has been most negative. They hire complete losers to man the stations, they get names and phone numbers wrong, they page on wrong numbers and fail to page when a client is off the air, and they have no concept of how important your telephone is to your business. I wouldn't have a live answering service if they paid ME. Several months of answering service fees would buy your Watson. If you do get a Watson, I would be happy to share with you some of the programming tricks that I have learned regarding paging, etc. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Chris Johnson Subject: Re: Question on Automatic Calling Devices Date: 12 Jan 90 21:02:41 GMT Reply-To: Chris Johnson Organization: Com Squared Systems, Mendota Heights, MN, USA In article <2774@accuvax.nwu.edu> motcid!ahlenius%cell.mot.COM@uunet.uu.net (Mark Ahlenius) writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 19, message 7 of 10 >I recently moved and got a new home phone number. Each night at >approximately 10:28 pm we get a call from some auto dialer device. It > < description deleted > >[Moderator's Note: What you are suggesting is a fun idea, but then >they could make trouble for you. I suggest instead that you have IBT >trace the calls. If the service rep tries to tell you there will be a > < stuff deleted > >They'll do the trace, and when it is completed, then go to the office >of the Illinois Commerce Commission and file a complaint against the >offender and request that the ICC order telco to disconnect the >offender's service. I will look up the appropriate regulation number...] Let me suggest that the original writer at least proceed to find the caller and ask them to cease and desist before calling in the government and hanging them high. There's far too much animosity in this world already; we really don't need any more. It may well be an honest mistake so there's no good reason in my book to screw someone for it. Besides, anyone who is reading this is already using an electronic network which makes extensive use of auto-dial modems, and you can bet your life that some of them on some occaision have been connected to the wrong number. If people make too big a stink about something like this, the legal risks of running an auto-dial modem could become prohibitive. For example, a friend of mine runs a BBS here in the Twin Cities of Minneapolis/St. Paul. He is part of a local and nationwide net of such BBS's. A month or so ago, he somehow got the wrong number in his database for a new network node. So for a day or three, his system autodialed a wrong number. He corrected the problem as soon as he discovered it. However, the called party was very irate. They called the phone company and the police and what not. Even though my friend wrote the victim a letter of apology, and offered to pay for any costs (of which there should be none, if indeed the phone company must trace nuisance calls for free by tariff), they are pressing charges in court! He stands to be one very screwed over ex-BBS operator in the near future, because they are not being the least bit understanding. Apparently they view him as one of those notorious, criminal and vile hackers out to do no good with malicious intent, instead of someone who made a simple mistake. Somehow I doubt they would be pressing the same charges against my company if one of our Usenet modems made such a mistake (and PEP tones are a lot more obnoxious than 1200 baud, let me tell you! :-), simply because we are a respectable company who made a mistake instead of young man with a hobby. I would suggest that the moderator's advice is good, but only when your civil and mannerly avenues have been exhausted. And certainly, the phone company ought to help you out with those, too. Maybe I interpret things differently than others, and perhaps the disconnect order suggested by the moderator is not as obnoxious as I am viewing it at the moment. I sure won't object to someone clarifying or correcting me. I have no qualms against throwing the book at someone who continues to do something harmful and annoying when they've been asked to stop, but when it might be an innocent mistake by someone who will be more than apologetic, why not try that approach first? Too often it seems with our legal system today, the more you get the law involved, the more freedom to do as we wish gets taken away. Certainly I don't think anyone here wants a return to the bad old days of having to pay the phone compay to connect a modem to your phone line for it to be legal, do they? Chris Johnson UUCP: chris@c2s.mn.org Com Squared Systems, Inc. ATT: +1 612/452-9522 Mendota Heights, MN USA FAX: +1 612/452-3607 ------------------------------ From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Question on Automatic Calling Devices Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Date: Fri, 12 Jan 90 18:13:30 GMT Didn't we just go through this? > They'll do the trace, and when it is completed, then go to the office > of the Illinois Commerce Commission and file a complaint against the > offender and request that the ICC order telco to disconnect the > offender's service. Please, before you do this call the offender and ask them to stop calling you. You don't know who they are, and they don't know that they have the wrong number. Then if they are recalcitrant go ahead and call the cops. But most likely that won't be necessary. It's not in their interest to keep calling a wrong number. _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. . / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-' ------------------------------ From: David Lewis Subject: Re: Question on Automatic Calling Devices Date: 12 Jan 90 14:55:25 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ In article <2774@accuvax.nwu.edu>, motcid!ahlenius%cell.mot.COM@uunet.uu.net (Mark Ahlenius) writes: > I recently moved and got a new home phone number. Each night at > approximately 10:28 pm we get a call from some auto dialer device. It > does not sound like any modem device I have ever heard before. It has > a short beep (about 0.5 sec.) then pauses for 3-4 seconds or so and > repeats until either I hang up or it gives up a minute or so later. That sounds to me like a fax machine calling... > I called Ma Bell (Illinois Bell in this case) and explained the > problem. They told me that the previous owner of this number had it > changed some time ago cause they got calls from some Bank's fax > machine. Fits. > If it is indeed a fax > machine - perhaps I can borrow a fax machine or fax modem and hook it > up and try to recieved their cover sheet and in effect - return the > favor. Borrowing a fax machine or fax modem to get their cover sheet is a reasonable idea. General courtesy calls for putting a return phone number and fax number on a fax machine. You could then send them a fax notifying them that the number in their autodialer is incorrect and would they please change it, and call them and tell them the same thing. Then again, if there's some interesting information on the fax, maybe you could just keep the fax machine for a while and see what turns up... > [Moderator's Note about getting the service disconnected omitted] Chill out a bit, Patrick. I agree that a complaint to the PUC is a last resort, but first assume that it's just a mistake on the part of the "caller" and deal with *them* to resolve it. First try to talk to the people placing the fax calls. If they're uncooperative, unresponsive, or don't want to deal with you, *then* get in touch with the PUC. Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity. David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center) "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower." [Moderator's Note: But you yourself quoted part of the original message in which the writer said the earlier assignees of the number had to get it changed because of the same problem. If between telco and the original user of the number, the problem could not be corrected short of changing the number, why will it be different this time around? Nor do I think it is malice *or* stupidity. It is a situation where a large organization (the bank) has no provision for imaginative people on its staff to make changes of this sort without going through various levels of staff and chains of command. No one can do it if it isn't part of their job description, and people are frightened to make changes to job descriptions for fear of losing their own. When I had this problem, whenever I would call the bank, I would be transferred between people, round-robin style, getting no one who would admit to any authority or knowledge. You'd have thought it was the COCOT in the lobby of the building they were talking about! PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #26 *****************************   Date: Sun, 14 Jan 90 0:02:40 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #27 Message-ID: <9001140002.aa07144@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 14 Jan 90 00:00:32 CST Volume 10 : Issue 27 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Government Eyes Phone Service of the Future (Will Martin) Tariff Question (Steve Golson) London (England) Telephone Number Prefix Changes (Tony Walton) Re: Customer Support (John Higdon) Re: Customer Support (Paul Guthrie) Re: Area Code Mapping (Carl Moore) Re: Most Expensive 900 Call? (John Higdon) Re: Question on Automatic Dialing Devices (Henry Mensch) Re: 800 Wrong Numbers (Steven W. Grabhorn) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 12 Jan 90 13:47:28 CST From: Will Martin Subject: Government Eyes Phone Service of the Future In the St. Louis Post-Dispatch of 10 Jan 90: GOVERNMENT EYES PHONE SERVICE OF THE FUTURE Washington (AP) - The government on Tuesday began an inquiry into whether basic telephone service in the future should include technical innovations such as call-forwarding and access to data and video networks. Sure to fuel an intense turf battle among the phone, cable, broadcast, satellite, and newspaper industries going into the next century, the Bush administration said it wants to have a policy in place a year from now. Assistant Commerce Secretary Janice Obuchowski said the key issues are how, how fast, and which elements of the industry can best improve US competitiveness and the quality of life in an increasingly information- based world economy. In a 99-page notice published Tuesday, the policy-advising National Telecommunications and Information Administration that Obuchowski heads said it wants fresh comments within the next 90 days from the industry. Among the key questions, she said, is whether an emerging infrastructure of fiber optics, cellular phone systems, fax machines and other technologies is advancing fast enough on its own or requires, in effect, a government-sponsored telecommunications "industrial policy." "In the United States we have relied on customer pull or demand to set the pace for technology deployment," she said. "Some of our strategic competitors worldwide have rather more strongly relied on government push in setting the pace." Japan, for example, has set a goal of having a fully fiber-optic nationwide voice and data transmission system in operation within the next decade. The study will tackle head-on issues that have widely divided the telecommunications industry since the government-ordered breakup of the Bell system in 1984. Among them are whether the seven regional "Baby Bell" companies that were spun off AT&T into separate enterprises should be allowed to transmit video signals across their lines, a move that could put them into direct competition with the TV cable industry. Another is a current prohibition that allows regional phone companies to act as a carrier of data services but not as an originator. The phone companies are challenging those restrictions in the US Court of Appeals and legislation is pending in Congress that would remove them. The prohibitions, however, are supported by the newspaper industry, which has expressed fears that the phone companies would take advantage of their monopoly position to undercut their advertising market. ***End of article*** Regards, Will ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jan 90 11:39:40 EST From: Steve Golson Subject: Tariff Question During the "work stoppage" this past fall my home/business line was out for three weeks. I rented a cellular phone until my line was repaired, and now I'm trying to get New England Telephone (a NYNEX Company) to reimburse me for the rental and airtime charges. The response so far is "our Legal Department will investigate your claim and contact you regarding this matter." Does anyone know what the tariff says about reimbursement in a case like this? Is there anything concerning "reasonable expenses" or am I out of luck? Steve Golson sgolson@East.sun.com golson@cup.portal.com Trilobyte Systems -- 33 Sunset Road -- Carlisle MA 01741 -- 508/369-9669 (consultant for, but not employed by, Sun Microsystems) "As the people here grow colder, I turn to my computer..." -- Kate Bush ------------------------------ From: olapw@olgb1.oliv.co.uk (Tony Walton) Subject: London (England) Telephone Number Prefix Changes Date: 13 Jan 90 02:12:54 GMT Organization: British Olivetti Ltd.,AT&T Division, London, England. Please note that from one minute past midnight BST (01:01 GMT) on 6th May 1990 (GMT) ALL London (England) phone numbers will change. The London prefix (+44 1) will disappear and will be replaced by either +44 71 or +44 81 depending on the next 3 digits of the number (for instance +44 1 821 XXXX will become +44 71 821 XXXX while +44 1 785 NNNN will become +44 81 785 NNNN). Please either email me or contact your local international operator for details of specific changes. The change has apparently become necessary because London has run out of 01 (international +44 1) numbers - 071 (internat +44 71) has been allocated to "inner London" and 081 (internat +44 81) to "outer London". Tony Walton, OEM/VAR Division, British Olivetti Ltd. 154-160 Upper Richmond Rd, LONDON, SW15 2FN. Tel: (+44) 1 789 6699 Telefax: (+44) 1 785 6670 Telex:27258 Uucp : { ukc!uel | mcvax!olnl1 | ihnp4!cuuxb | iconet | olhqma } !olgb1!olapw olapw@olgb1.oliv.co.uk ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Customer Support Date: 13 Jan 90 03:42:03 PST (Sat) From: John Higdon Randal Schwartz writes: > It's called a "cellular phone". I use a portable cell phone *all* the > time (for the last 18 months) to do exactly what you asked for. But I have a portable phone as well. And unless you keep that phone on *all* the time and can guarantee that it will not be out of range or in a coverage hole, you will put some of your customers off, big time. Getting the "I'm sorry, the cellular customer you are trying to reach..." recording is an instant tip off that you are running the business out of your car. A possible solution is to invoke "no answer forwarding" which is available from some providers, but then you have to forward that call *somewhere*. > most of the time, I'm not paying airtime rates, because I have > forwarded the call to a landline that I happen to be at. Well, if you forward a cellular phone on most systems, you pay airtime for the call regardless where the forward actually terminates. > I also happen to live in an area > where prime-time charges are only $0.31/min, and call-forwarded calls > are only $0.07/min on a $15/month fee. (Apparently, that's pretty > low.) You're damn right that's pretty low. Try $39/mo and $0.45/min as is the case here. And then Dave Levenson writes: > I have been involved in a business with similar customer-support > requirements, for several years. We have a business number which is > covered by a full-time answering service. They have the beeper > numbers and mobile phone numbers of the customer-contact people. > The number also rings in my residence. I have been involved with business ownership ranging from sole propritorship to a corporation employing twenty people, always service oriented. I have had terrible luck with answering services. First, they have tremendous turnover, and are usually understaffed. Customers wait on hold, or are put on hold numerous times during the conversation. The mentally deficient people that answer the calls can't spell or even hear properly. I recall getting paged repeatedly when the call was for someone else, or when some salesman called, or even, as I mentioned before, over a wrong number. I made a routine call to the service only to find that one of my biggest customers had been off the air for over four hours. They weren't sure whether they should page me or not! I have been paged and then called in and put on hold so many times that I finally gave up. It goes on and on. Repeated talks with the supervisor netted most sincere apologies and promises for improvement, and then it would start all over. "But sir, we have such a turnover that it's hard to keep trained people." My customers would invariably complain about the answering service (with justification). The field has consisted of three "computerized" services, and one no-nonsense cordboard (direct connection) service. It was all terrible. > I tried an answering machine with automatic outcalling > message-notification features. It works, technically, but suffers > from the ills that plague a lot of answering machines...people don't > like to reach it, and often don't leave readable messages. (A high > percentage of our callers speak English as a poor second language.) > The human being at the answering service is a whole lot better at > prompting an intelligible message out of most callers! Interesting, but my experience has been exactly the opposite. My customers have been much happier interacting with my Watson. It is predictable, dependable, and the bottom line is that they reach me much more reliably. The "human beings" at the answering service would have had difficulty being intelligible themselves, much less prompting anything from anyone. When a customer would try to leave an even slightly technical message, the result after being filtered through an answering service pea brain was most humorous. With the Watson, the caller says his piece and hangs up, confident that his message will be delivered verbatim, rather than mangled beyond all recognition. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Paul Guthrie Subject: Re: Customer Support Reply-To: Paul Guthrie Organization: The League of Crafty Hackers Date: Sat, 13 Jan 90 17:40:31 GMT In article <2828@accuvax.nwu.edu> levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org (Ken Levitt) writes: >I am about to embark on a new business venture and money is rather >tight. This venture requires that my partner and I provide an >incredibly high level of customer support for 16 hours a day 7 days a >week. I am seeking telecommunications solutions to this problem. Get a PC with some sort of voice mail board (watson, dialogic, etc). Have it take the call, and then beep you (easy to program). This solution worked for me for quite a while. Paul Guthrie chinet!nsacray!paul ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jan 90 11:04:26 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Area Code Mapping There is an Iowa prefix (Cedar Lake?) right next door to Omaha, Nebraska, which can be reached with 2 area codes: 712 (Iowa) or 402 (Nebraska). Area code 202 goes outside the beltway, too. However, when you get to outer fringes like Herndon (Va.) or Laurel (Md.), you are local to DC but outside of area code 202. Previous articles in Telecom have explained that 202 will be restricted to DC, and that local calls in DC area will become 10 digits when crossing area code boundary, and that the cases of 11-digit local calls (extended-area from Va. suburbs to Prince William, and from Bowie-Glenn Dale "foreign" exchanges to 569 in Severn, Md.) may later be reduced to 7 digits. ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Most Expensive 900 Call? Date: 12 Jan 90 11:51:41 PST (Fri) From: John Higdon Curtis Galloway writes: > For one telephone call: THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS. > I'm curious to know if other Telecom readers have seen more expensive > calls. (Gee, the Jose Canseco hotline seems like a bargain now!) Gotcha beat. Just last night I started seeing a TV ad for "the private numbers of beautiful women". Slides of models fade from one to the next while a voice says "you can have the private numbers of these beautiful women." FIFTY DOLLARS PER CALL!!! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Jan 90 03:46:09 -0500 From: Henry Mensch Subject: Re: Question on Automatic Dialing Devices I agree with Patrick; how is the ordinary Joe supposed to identify someone who (when calling) only identifies themselves with tones or a carrier? It is unreasonable for me (Joe random pots user) to have to borrow a FAX machine or modem just to cause this disturbance to stop. There are procedures in place to handle exactly this situation; why not use them? (And yes, I've gotten calls from the phone company because direct marketing companies have dialed and gotten my modem ... "did you know that your number 437-xxxx ... ?" The phone company is in a position to identify callers; make them work for you ... ) # Henry Mensch / / E40-379 MIT, Cambridge, MA # / / [Moderator's Note: It is particularly annoying when someone else takes it upon themselves to decide your number is out of order and reports it to repair. A lady once called from a payphone and got my modem. Not content to lose 25 cents, she dialed *four times* and each time got the modem; then had the brass bedsprings to call up IBT Repair and report me out of order -- and ask for a refund of the $1 she 'lost' in the payphone!! I got a call from the repair supervisor, "Say Pat, you have a modem on the line, don't you?" I told him yes....he told me the lady reported it out of order. I asked him if she was calling from the lobby of the Hotel Screwball; the place where the management asks that you do not disturb the guests, because they already are. PT] ------------------------------ From: "Steven W. Grabhorn" Subject: Re: 800 Wrong Numbers Date: 13 Jan 90 07:01:25 GMT Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego Speaking of wrong 800 numbers, today's (1/12/90) San Diego edition of the Los Angeles Times had the following article (a little background, the San Diego Padres are up for sale by Joan Kroc): It started with a joking headline on Times sports editor Dave Distel's column on Thursday: "Have a Credit Card Ready and Call Now! 1-800-BUY-PADRES." Richard Cole, co-owner of Emslee Products of Cleveland, Ohio, is not laughing. His company sells sanitary napkins. Its number is 1-800-BUY PADS. "Our phone has been ringing all day," Cole said. "My secre- tary can't get any work done, I'm losing orders, I'm paying 12- cents per minute for every call, what in hell are you people doing out there?" Cole hopes people will stop phoning. He spent an exasperat- ing day telling callers he's not related to Joan Kroc. "I told them, `Listen, I can't sell you a baseball team, but if you need sanitary napkins, toilet seat covers or diapers, I'm your man,'" Cole said. "I didn't make a single sale!" Steve Grabhorn, Code 645, Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego, CA, 92152 Phone:619-553-3454 Internet:grabhorn@nosc.mil UUCP:..!sdcsvax!nosc!grabhorn ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #27 *****************************   Date: Sun, 14 Jan 90 14:18:03 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest Special: SIGUCCS Conference Message-ID: <9001141418.aa16962@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 14 Jan 90 14:00:00 CST Special: SIGUCCS Conference Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson SIGUCCS CALL for PARTICIPATION (Amin Shafie) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 14:13 EST From: Amin Shafie - Univ of Cincinnati Comp Ctr Subject: SIGUCCS CALL for PARTICIPATION SIGUCCS User Services Conference XVIII Call For Participation New Centerings in Computing Services September 30 through October 3, 1990 Westin Hotel Cincinnati, Ohio >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Attention Directors, Managers, Analysts, Consultants, Programmers, Technical Writers, Trainers, and Librarians! The higher education computing scene in the 1990s will present exciting challenges. To accommodate users' needs, computing service organizations are now visibly transforming in function and structure. The widespread adoption of personal computing by all disciplines, the increasing demand for desktop access to shared resources, the growth in demand for supercomputing capabilities, and the proliferation of powerful desktop workstations exert irresistible forces on central computing services. In response, the central site grows exponentially in staff and machinery at one academic institution; at another, the computing center is disbanded to provide distributed computing! At some sites increasing specialization is urged; at others, generalization is required. Regardless of the transforming strategy adopted by an individual institution, one fact seems clear: the user is the center toward which all computing services are directed. SIGUCCS '90 invites you to participate in the examination and discussion of the myriad challenges facing user services professionals as we enter a new decade and of the new centerings computing service organizations are discovering to meet them. Please join us! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can Participate Presentations Papers Panel Discussions Quick Workshops Educational Materials Competition Newsletter Competition Technical Writing Competition Documentation Display >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Important Dates March 1, 1990 Presentation proposals due April 1, 1990 Notification of proposal acceptance May 1, 1990 Final Papers due June 1, 1990 Newsletter entries due June 1, 1990 Technical writing entries due June 15, 1990 Notification of paper/panel acceptance September 1, 1990 Deadline for materials for documentation display >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Presentation Topic Areas Information Exchange Technology Information exchange may well be the most important computing activity of the 1990s. The infrastructure for information delivery, the National Research and Academic Network (NREN), is presently being developed. How do we meet the challenges of a world where the facilitation of information delivery may be a principal user services responsibility? Topics of particular interest include: new approaches to information exchange campus activity in implementing information exchange facilities that comply with emerging international standards research and development of computer-mediated information exchange methods Distributed Services As the role of user services shifts to providing distributed support, we must create new ways of providing traditional services as well as designing new services. Topics of particular interest include: providing support staff in departments and colleges funding issues if and how to charge back for services human networking of distributed support staff nonlabor-intensive support strategies cooperative efforts with other departments Management Strategies How do user services managers cooperate with other administrative and academic units that use or provide computing resources? How do they meet the many and diverse demands? Topics of particular interest include: reorganization interaction with faculty advisory groups delegating and distributing responsibility coordinating university computing resources staff professional development Marketing your Services Changing roles may require changing your services and, often, your image on campus as you provide new services to new users. Topics of particular in- terest include: promotional strategies conducting market research designing services for unique or special audiences Strategies for Small Schools How can a small liberal arts college have distributed user services and centralized user services? How do distributed and centralized services work together to provide computing services beyond word processing? The sciences have become computer literate; now, how do we reach out from the center to the humanities and fine arts? Are we getting out of the office and into the trenches? Are we making too many "house calls"? Should we make them at all? Security and Ethics As electronic mail and conferencing become more popular, computing systems are widely accessible to more users. How secure should academic computing resources be? What are the ethical guidelines provided for users of electronic mail and conferencing systems? Topics of particular interest include: promoting responsible and ethical use of computing resources security strategies adopting an ethics policy Serving New Audiences People from the humanities, the arts, and other traditionally nontechnical disciplines are discovering that computers can help in areas other than word processing. In an increasingly proactive stance in the central computing facility, what do we do to attract and support these new audi- ences? Topics of interest include: providing information about off-the-shelf specialized programs for music, fine arts, and the humanities facilitating technical support of nontraditional areas serving the computing beginner who wants to do sophisticated tasks Consulting, Training, and Documentation Supporting those who use the computing resources that we provide re- mains an important responsibility of user services organizations. Topics of particular interest include: new approaches to training providing distributed consulting documentation distribution services and/or other topics that would be of interest to your national and international colleagues >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Submitting Proposals Submit proposals via electronic mail to: SIGPAPER@OHSTVMA.BITNET or SIGPAPER@OHSTVMA.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU If you do not have access to electronic mail, send a printed copy to: Susan Jenkins Saari Instruction and Research Computer Center The Ohio State University 1971 Neil Avenue Columbus, OH 43210 phone: (614) 292-4843 fax: (614) 292-7081 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Accepted Proposals Proposals must be received by March 1, 1990. Any submisson received after this date will not be considered by the Program Committee. You will be notified of the Program CommitteeUs decision by April 1, 1990. If your proposal is accepted, you will be asked to submit a full paper by May 1, 1990. Any papers received after this date will not be considered. You will be notified of the Program Committee decision by June 15, 1990. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How to Participate Proposals For each proposal, include your name, title, affiliation, mailing address, type of proposal (presentation or panel discussion) and its topic area. In addition, you must enclose the proper materials from the following requirements list: Description Papers Papers will be presented in 20-minute intervals, with three papers scheduled per 90-minute session. Speakers' papers will be published in the conference proceedings. Panels Panels will be in-depth treatments of a single topic by two to four speakers from at least two different schools, coordinated by a moderator. Allow ample time for audience discussion. Abstracts for panels should be submitted as a unit by the person who wishes to act as a moderator. Panelists' papers will be published in the conference proceedings. Quick Workshops Quick workshops provide 90-minute overviews of new technolo- gies, innovative applications, and creative strategies for addressing the needs of computer users on campus. Requirements Papers A 250- to 300-word abstract of the paper. Acceptance of a proposal does not automatically ensure acceptance of a paper for presentation; you must submit a full paper to be considered for the conference program. Panels A 250- to 300-word description of the panel, including each panelist's name, title, affiliation, and presentation topic. Acceptance of a panel description does not automatically ensure acceptance of the panel for presentation; each panelist must submit a full paper to be considered for the conference program. Quick Workshops A one- to two-page outline of the presentation and a 10-minute videotape excerpt from the proposed presentation. Acceptance of a proposal does not automatically ensure acceptance of a workshop for presentation; you must submit a full paper to be considered for the conference program. Only three or four presentations will be a ccepted in this category because it is highly competiive. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Other Ways to Participate Education and Training Materials Competition Interest in and the importance of user education and training have grown with each SIGUCCS conference. The 1990 SIGUCCS Conference offers, for the first time, competition for user education and training materials for colleges and universities.* We invite you to submit no more than two entries in any or all of the following categories: curriculum catalog, class- room printed materials, or self-contained printed tutorials. Although the first year of this competition includes only printed materials, we would like to know if there is an interest in expanding our future competitions to include video, audio, and computer-based tutorials. Deadline for entry is June 1, 1990. For more details and an entry form, or to address the issue of future competition categories, contact: Diane Jung-Gribble Indiana University 750 North State Road 46 Bypass Bloomington, IN 47405 (812) 855-0962 JUNG@IUBACS.BITNET JUNG@JADE.BACS.INDIANA.EDU *NOTE: this competition is not open to commercial materials Newsletter Competition Winning an award in the SIGUCCS Newsletter Competition is a mark of distinction for your institution, and for your editors, writers,artists,and designers. You will be asked to submit two consecutive issues published between June 1989 and May 1990. Deadline for entry is June 1, 1990. For more details and an entry form, contact: Jess Anderson Madison Academic Computing Center University of Wisconsin-Madison 1210 West Dayton Street Madison, WI 53706 (608) 263-6988 ANDERSON@MACC.WISC.EDU ANDERSON@WISCMACC.BITNET Technical Writing Competition If you have written or published a particularly good article in a computing newsletter, enter it in the Technical Writing Competition. Each computing center may enter one article. Deadline for entry is June 1,1990. To obtain entry forms and more details, contact: Donald J. Montabana University of Pennsylvania Computing Resources Center 1202 Blockley Hall Philadelphia, PA 19104-6021 (215) 898-9085 MONTABANA@A1.RELAY.UPENN.EDU Documentation Display The documentation room will feature an online system for submitted documentation. Conference attendees who have BITNET or INTERNET access will be able to email documentation to their university or college. Documentation may be submitted electronically to DOCUMENT@MIAMIU, by hardcopy, or diskette (IBM or Mac formatted) and must be received before September 1, 1990. Direct inquries to: Al Kaled Academic Computing Services Miami University Oxford, OH 45056 (513) 529-6226 AK75STAF@MIAMIU >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> More Information General Information Amin Shafie, Conference Chair University of Cincinnati e-mail: SHAFIE@UCBEH.BITNET phone: (513) 556-9001 fax: (513) 556-0035 Call for Participation Susan Jenkins Saari, Program Chair The Ohio State University e-mail: SIGPAPER@OHSTVMA.BITNET phone: (614) 292-4843 fax: (614) 292-7081 Registration Ken Maccarone, Registration Chair University of Cincinnati e-mail: MACCARON@UCBEH.BITNET phone: (513) 556-9098 fax: (513) 556-0035 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ACM SIGUCCS The Association of Computing Machinery's (ACM) Special Interest Group for University and College Computing (SIGUCCS) is one of ACM's organizational units devoted to the technical activities of its members. SIGUCCS provides a link for guidance and the interchange of ideas among computing professionals in the full range of small to large institutions. Its newsletter, annual conferences, and workshops promote the discussion of mutual problems. networks, user services, and computer center management. This SIGUCCS conference emphasizes practical ways to improve services for those who use university and college computing centers. Amin Shafie Assistant Director Academic Computing Services UCBEH::SHAFIE University of Cincinnati SHAFIE@UCBEH.SAN.UC.EDU Cincinnati, Ohio 45221 SHAFIE@UCBEH.BITNET (513) 556-9022 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest Special: SIGUCCS Conference *****************************   Date: Mon, 15 Jan 90 1:10:38 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #28 Message-ID: <9001150110.aa00260@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 15 Jan 90 01:10:00 CST Volume 10 : Issue 28 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Archives Has Relocated (TELECOM Moderator) Home PBX/KSU Info. Requested (Curtis E. Reid) CLASS Approved in TN & FL (Ken Jongsma) FCC Threat Not For Real? (Dag Zalhastra) Re: Where Can I Buy a Caller*ID Box Now? (Bill Cerny) Re: Why 8-digit Numbers Are Impossible in North America (Paul Sutcliffe) Re: Free Local Phone Calls (Tom Napoletano) Re: Caller ID (Keith Vitek) Re: BBS as a Business (William Degnan) Re: Customer Support (Tony Carrato) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 15 Jan 90 0:32:19 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Archives Has Relocated The TELECOM Archives has relocated to lcs.mit.edu. This change was required because the size of the archives was such that Boston University was no longer able to accomodate us. The usual ftp rules apply in the new location: 'ftp lcs.mit.edu' login anonymous; give your name and site as password; i.e. 'name@site.domain'. 'cd telecom-archives' 'dir' to see the selections 'get (your selections)' 'bye' One sad problem was discovered. Over the years, the archives have been stored at various locations, and the Digest itself has been produced from various locations; each with different machinery and different operating systems. This would pose no problem except that the 'compress' algorythms (we are now discovering) are not the same, and many cannot work with each other. What this means is a few of the old files compressed at cs.bu or maybe rutgers will not uncompress properly at lcs.mit.edu. I spent most of the day Sunday constructing what I could of the archives from various sources; archives here at eecs, some from cs.bu, some from jsol, etc.... and as a result of the corruption in some of the older files, we only have portions of volumes 1 through 5 at this time. We have none of volume 6 yet; all of volume 7; most of volume 8 and all of volumes 9 and 10. Persons with substantial experience in reconstructing corrupted files are welcome to go to the archives, to the directory 'oldarc' within the archives, and take the compressed files therein and see what they can do. Help will be appreciated. Likewise, if you have complete or partial sets of volumes 1 through 8 and would not mind sending a copy to the archives, let me know first, and I will arrange to get them. Fortunatly, at lcs.mit.edu there is enough space that there is no need to compress the files -- so eveything is easily accessible. What we have of the old files available is listed in the directory. Mike Patton, a system administrator at lcs.mit.edu tells me a mail server will soon be on line, so that our many non-internet users will also be able to access the archives files. Watch for news on this when it is ready to be used. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Jan 90 10:35 EST From: "Curtis E. Reid" Subject: Home PBX/KSU Info. Requested Greetings, Telecom Folks! I have searched several TELECOM Digests but I found no comprehensive listing of PBXs/Key Systems for home use. I would like to seek your assistance in compiling this information by replying it to me. The typical configuration and requirements will be: Two-story house with Basement <= 3 telephone lines Six rooms and Basement excluding bathrooms (possible number of extensions: 7 ) Configurable to include voice, data, and fax. (Either separately or singularly.) SMDR, Hold, Forward, Pickup, Toll Restriction, intra calling, Memory dialing, Night service (to name a few) Reasonably Priced (Affordable) What I would like to ask you is to mail me directly the following information outlined below. Please try to limit to those that YOU have used it -- not those that you know about. For example, I know about but never used the AT&T Spirit and Merlin systems but I want to hear from someone who have used it. Make: Model: Price: Line/Trunk Capacity: Extension Capacity: Features: Product Reliability: Service Quality: Support Quality: Other: I would like to have all the information to me by January 19, 1990 so I can compile it. I will send the compilation by mail request. Thank you very much for your assistance!! Curtis Reid CER2520@RITVAX.Bitnet CER2520%RITVAX.Bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu (Internet) CER2520@vaxd.isc.rit.edu (Not Reliable-NYSernet) ------------------------------ From: ken@cup.portal.com Subject: CLASS Approved in TN & FL Date: Sat, 13-Jan-90 08:11:08 PST The Florida and Tennessee Public Service Commissions have approved the implementation of CLASS services, including Caller-ID. No availability dates or cities were listed in the announcement. Ken Jongsma ken@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ From: dag@pro-deli.cts.com (Dag Zalhastra) Subject: FCC Threat Not For Real? Date: 14 Jan 90 14:36:05 GMT There's been quite a bit of discussion going on about the FCC Modem use surcharge on the ProLine network.. here's a message I pulled that might be of interest... --- clip here --- CS-ID: #210.chat/net@pro-deli 1712 chars Date: Sat, 13 Jan 90 15:16:44 EST From: rich@pro-exchange.cts.com (Rich Sims) Subject: Why things should be checked out!! I don't usually do the "I told you so!" kind of stuff, but this is a prime example of what can happen when you see something and simply assume that because you read it on a computer screen, it must necessarily be true, without doing even the most rudimentary checking. This kind of mess may actually wind up doing harm, rather than just being ignored as "a bunch of idiots who don't know what they're talking about".... The following message was transmitted on the usenet 'news.announce.important' newsgroup in an effort to try and correct a problem that could have been avoided entirely with a bit of thought and effort.... ----- forwarded message follows ----- From: chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) Subject: FCC 'chain letter' -- please stop Recently a message announcing that the FCC is considering a surcharge on modem users has been showing up on USENET in various groups. Research has shown that there is no basis for this letter -- it seems to be an accidental re-release of a 2 year old message. The FCC is not considering any surcharge of any kind, and they are currently getting about 200 letters a day on the subject (that they would like to see stop coming). The Talk Show host mentioned in the letter (Jim Eason of KGO) has been pestered by a lot of calls (including the FCC) wondering what was going on, and hasn't been involved in the issue in two years. Please STOP posting or distributing this message. If you have a copy, destroy it. It is obsolete and causing problems on networks and BBSes nationwide. There is no proposal on the docket and none being considered. We need to wipe this silly thing out before things get further out of hand. chuq ----- end of forwarded message ----- --- clip here --- Dag Zalhastra Wyomissing, PA 215/777-8032 (pro-deli login: register) ProLine: dag@pro-deli Internet: dag@pro-deli.cts.com UUCP: {bungia, crash}!orbit!pnet51!pro-abyss!pro-deli!dag ARPANET: {bungia, crash}!orbit!pnet51!pro-abyss!pro-deli!dag@nosc.mil BITNET: dag%pro-deli.cts.com@nosc.mil ------------------------------ From: bill@toto.info.com (Bill Cerny) Subject: Re: Where Can I Buy A Caller*ID Box Now? Date: 15 Jan 90 00:36:22 GMT In article <2665@accuvax.nwu.edu> csense!bote@uunet.uu.net (John Boteler) writes: >My question: where can I buy any Caller*ID box now! Software Studios (Annandale, VA (703) 978-2339) is supposed to ship a device called "Clyde" this quarter. Clyde is a box with an RS-232 interface, and some pc software. Like thousands of others, I too am awaiting the product literature that was to be mailed last week. Btw, Colonial Data Systems (New England somewhere) has announced a Caller*ID RS-232 box with general availability in 2Q90. That's two vendors. Who else has announced a Caller*ID device? Bill Cerny bill@toto.info.com | attmail: !denwa!bill | fax: 619-298-1656 ------------------------------ Organization: Devon Computer Services, Lancaster, PA From: "Paul Sutcliffe Jr." Date: Sun, 14 Jan 90 23:14:14 EST Subject: Re: Why 8-digit Numbers Are Impossible in North America Daniel O'Callaghan at The University of Melbourne writes: +--------- | Cellular sevices could all be moved to say 229, allowing easy identification | of a number as mobile. +--------- You mean all cellular phones, those in both the A and B systems, in any given areacode should be 229-xxxx? That allows no more than 10000 phones. My "home" system covers less than 1/3 of the geography of the 717 areacode, yet has over 2500 subscribers alone. I'll leave the rest of the math to the reader. - paul INTERNET: paul@devon.lns.pa.us | If life's a bitch, then UUCP: ...!rutgers!devon!paul | we must be her puppies. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jan 90 08:05:07 est From: tsn@neoucom.EDU (Tom Napoletano) Subject: Re: Free Local Phone Calls Reply-To: tsn@neoucom.UUCP (Tom Napoletano) Organization: Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine The PUCO, public utility commission in Ohio, mandates that information calls be free to the user, however, the telco charges $0.30 to $0.60 per call to the cocot operator (1411 vs 5551212). [Moderator's Note: Really, I don't see how the telco can get away with charging the COCOT operator either, since technically the COCOT operator is the 'user' of the service he in turn is re-selling to his customer. If telco is required by PUCO to give information for free, then it has to be given for free to all, no? If the COCOT owners would push on this, I think they could get it for free also. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Jan 90 11:56:58 CST From: Keith Vitek Subject: Re: Caller ID In-Reply-To: message from kvitek@pro-party.cts.com Well, I saw on 20/20 or some show like that said that the technology to stop Caller ID was here. I was wondering if anyone knew what they were talking about... UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!kvitek ARPA: crash!pnet01!pro-party!kvitek@nosc.mil INET: kvitek@pro-party.cts.com Keith Vitek | Voice: 512/852-1841 | I want my NeXT... 5914 LiptonShire | or: 512/852-1780 | I want my AmigaUUCP... Corpus Christi, TX 78415 | FIDO: 1:160/40 | I want .......... [Moderator's Note: Well, it is news to me. Does anyone know of a way to legally (via some application of the tariff) avoid ID'ing themselves? I guess there are some places where possibly the more sensitive customers may be exempted, i.e. the 'women's shelter' example. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Jan 90 0:38:00 CST From: William Degnan Subject: Re: BBS as a Business In an article of <12 Jan 90 08:56:12 GMT>, iiasa!wnp@relay.eu.net (wolf paul) writes: wp>To illustrate their argument, they maintain that when a sysop imposes wp>online time limits, but then gives time credit for uploads, that wp>actually constitutes a business transaction. He accepts the upload as wp>payment for increased online time. We have yet to test this principle. It has been suggested that we send in floppies with shareware along with our Southwestern Bell bills -- marked "paid in full". If SWB would accept this as full payment, they could charge whatever they want and we would not complain. :) Last I knew, they were willing to confine the definition to "requires monitary compensation". Meaning you could take donations but you couldn't require pay- for-play and still be classified as a residence customer. H o w e v e r ... they are still holding to the arbitrary one-line per bbs/machine/whatever requirement. You apparently could have 99 machines as long as they didn't share files with each other and if you couldn't do interline chats. One of the major objections to this is that SWB doesn't really understand what they are trying to control and the only way they could insure tariff compliance is to come "look". It could get bloody. I feel that it is SWB's responsibilty to provide dial tone to the network interface. They have no business looking around on the customer side of it. They, considering their traditions, have a somewhat different opinion. Regards, Bill Disclaimer: Contents do not constitute "advice" unless we are on the clock William Degnan | wdegnan@mcimail.com !wdegnan@at&tmail.com Communications Network Solutions | William.Degnan@telenet.com P.O. Box 9530, Austin, TX 78766 | voice: 512 323-9383 UUCP: ...!rpp386!tqc!39!wdegnan ARPA: wdegnan@f39.n382.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ From: carrato@mhinfo.UUCP ( tony carrato) Subject: Re: Customer Support Date: 13 Jan 90 19:28:33 GMT Reply-To: carrato@.UUCP (mhis - tony carrato) Organization: Mile-High Information Services, Inc. In article <2828@accuvax.nwu.edu> levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org (Ken Levitt) writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 24, message 12 of 12 >I am about to embark on a new business venture and money is rather >tight. This venture requires that my partner and I provide an >incredibly high level of customer support for 16 hours a day 7 days a >week. I am seeking telecommunications solutions to this problem. ... bulk of inquiry deleted but what it asks is how to get a call without knowing where you might be at the time... Two solutions come to my mind, one that I use and one that one of the folks here uses. 1) There are getting to be a number of voice mail services out that will also page you. On your voice mailbox you can leave a greeting that instructs the caller to leave you a detailed problem report and tells him that you'll call back shortly. My experience is that you get paged withing 5 minutes of the call depending on congestion at the voice mail services (their computer and phone system mostly). 2) Get a portable, cellular phone and forward your office number to that. As long as you are in range you will get the call immediately. Naturally this assumes you are available to answer it at all times but you can probably get that phone to forward to voice mail if you don't answer in four rings. Tony Carrato Mile-High Information Services, Inc. uunet!mhinfo!carrato ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #28 *****************************   Date: Tue, 16 Jan 90 0:02:11 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #29 Message-ID: <9001160002.aa30554@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 16 Jan 90 00:00:02 CST Volume 10 : Issue 29 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Nationwide Long-Distance Outage (Rich Kulawiec) Who's Using Whom? (John Higdon) Hum Filter Needed (Ole J. Jacobsen) CCIS vs. Inband Signalling Question (Phil Lapsley) 900 and 976 Blocking (Andy Malis) Re: New Sleazy 900 Service (Peter Weiss) Re: Free Local Phone Calls (John Higdon) Re: Customer Support (Ken Levitt) Re: Cordless Phone User Vows New Fight (David Lewis) Re: Why 8-digit Telephone Numbers Are Impossible (David Leibold) Re: Why Can't I Use 1+10 Dialing For All Calls? (Jeff Woolsey) [Moderator's Note: Our Usenet gateway machine, accuvax@nwu.edu has been down for three days, and the Digest is not making it out to the comp.dcom.telecom newsgroup right now. When accuvax is back in service the unsent messages will be distributed. Please advise any Usenetters you may know of the problem. Thanks. PT] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 15 Jan 90 16:17:29 MST From: Rich Kulawiec Subject: Nationwide Long-Distance Outage CNN is reporting that AT&T says that some sort of major disruption of long-distance service started around 2:30 pm EST today. I've been unable to reach area codes 415, 317, 213, and 312; each attempt yields an "all circuits are busy" recording. CNN says that AT&T does not know the source of the trouble. Rich Kulawiec [Moderator's Note: As of 10 PM CST Monday night (as I am typing this), WGN-TV is interviewing an AT&T spokesperson who says the source of the problem is not yet known, but it is believed to be a software glitch. The problem is nationwide, resulting in many (most?) calls reaching an intercept message, 'Your call did not go through' (here in Chicago). The spokesperson said they are working frantically on the problem, but may not have service entirely restored before 'sometime Tuesday'. About half of my calls completed okay Monday evening, the other half failed. The network failure has caused considerable congestion on MCI/Sprint lines; and of course, as Higdon points out in the next message, some alternate carriers in fact use AT&T circuits for some of their calls. PT] ------------------------------ Subject: Who's Using Whom? Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 15 Jan 90 14:14:09 PST (Mon) From: John Higdon AT&T long distance has been severely disrupted today in the Bay Area due to a major cable cut, according to an AT&T operator I talked to. Why is this of any interest? Well, it seems that Sprint is down as well. Why? Sprint leases facilities from AT&T. So all of the ballyhoo about Sprint's fiber optics is, to some degree, actually AT&T's fiber optics. Sort of reminds one of the old story about how all gasoline comes from the same delivery truck. We have all of the advertising about product differentiation, and it turns out that aspirin is aspirin after all. So Sprint's advanced fiber optic network is, at least in part, AT&T's fiber optic network. Well, well. It is amazing what you can learn about someone when his pants are down! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: I really think the operator you interviewed spoke without full knowledge of the circumstances of the outage; that is, unless by coincidence there was also a major cable problem out there as well as the nationwide network problem. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon 15 Jan 90 20:04:08-PST From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" Subject: Hum Filter Needed I have a problem with hum on some of my telephones. This is probably caused by too long horizontal runs of unshielded "satin" cable (line cord). (I use that' instead of twisted pair since it is easier to install). 60hz is supposed to be outside the audible portion of the phone "spectrum", so can I get a filter (ready-made or I'll build it) to take care of this problem, or should I bite the bullet and rewire? Ole ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jan 90 09:52:01 PST From: Phil Lapsley Subject: CCIS vs. Inband Signalling Question Does anybody know what percentage of interoffice trunks now send signalling information out of band via CCIS? Before the breakup, Bell Labs made some comment like it would be 100% CCIS by 1988, but I still hear those MF tones in the background occasionally. Phil Lapsley phil@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU ...!ucbvax!phil ------------------------------ Subject: 900 and 976 Blocking Date: Mon, 15 Jan 90 13:23:20 -0500 From: Andy Malis In their recent phone bills, New England Telephone included information about Information Delivery Service lines, and offering free blocking (once you get blocking, you are charged for future changes). I just signed up for their comprehensive blocking; it blocks: 1-900-XXX-XXXX (general long-distance information programs) 976-XXXX (general local information programs) 940-XXXX (adult local information program) 550-XXXX (group talk lines) I have a five-year-old at home that's as gullible for TV ads as any other kid his age. When, for example, he wanted to call Santa on one of those 900 numbers advertised during December, we told him our phone didn't work for that phone number. Now, I'll be telling him the truth! By the way, 940 calls are automatically blocked unless you send a written request to have it enabled. Andy Malis UUCP: {harvard,rutgers,uunet}!bbn!malis ------------------------------ Subject: Re: New Sleazy 900 Service Organization: Penn State University Date: Sunday, 14 Jan 1990 13:57:15 EST From: Peter Weiss Found in ALT.PEEVES - From: bobc@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Bob Calbridge) Newsgroups: alt.peeves Subject: 1-900 come-on Message-ID: <10917@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> Date: 10 Jan 90 03:56:38 GMT Organization: The Unix(R) Connection, Dallas, Texas I just saw one of the most disgusting commercials today. Disgusting because it seems to say that anyone who falls for the line is a sucker. But I'm sure there are a few people who will follow through. If anyone out there does so plase post the result. The commercial has some jerk saying that there is a 1-900 number at the bottom of the screen. Whatever you do, don't call it. The guy jumps up and down repeating this plea. Finally he says he's getting down on his knees to plead for you not to call the number. Another voice is heard telling you to call the number. Guy number 1 hollers "NO! Don't listen. This guy is crazy." There is no mention of what you would hear on the other end. Of course, there is a charge for the call. I think it was about $2.95 for the first minute. Any takers? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- = More stupid questions available on request from = - bobc@attctc Your humble servant (real humble) - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Free Local Phone Calls Date: 15 Jan 90 11:19:50 PST (Mon) From: John Higdon tsn@neoucom.EDU (Tom Napoletano) writes: > The PUCO, public utility commission in Ohio, mandates that information > calls be free to the user, however, the telco charges $0.30 to $0.60 > per call to the cocot operator (1411 vs 5551212). Sounds like all the good people of Ohio need to save up all of their inquiries, walk down to their local COCOT, and make all those DA calls they were too cheap to make at home. They'll get two benefits for the price of none.:-) John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jan 90 15:26:08 EST From: Ken Levitt Subject: Re: Customer Support I received a lot of traffic on my customer support posting. Here is a summary of responses. 90% if the responses and people that I have talked to seem to think that answering services should be avoided at all costs. The list of horror stories could fill an entire digest. Sony, Panasonic and Phone Mate make answering machines that will call another number to indicate that a message has come in. Radio Shack and STARTEL have machines that will do call forwarding if you have two lines. You can subscribe to a voice mail service that will activate a beeper when a message come in. Many people have recommended using a PC based voice mail system. After considering all of the above options, the one that seems worth doing for me seems to be the PC based voice mail system. (since I have an old PC clone that I'm not using now for anything else.) I believe that my requirements are as follows: 1. Runs on dedicated 8mhz XT clone with 20mb (slow) hard disk. 2. Can call out to a beeper number. 3. Has good voice quality. 4. Allows calling in to pick up messages 5. Allows me to call in remotely and alter programming to some other pre-defined program. 6. Allows callers to specify the priority or disposition of a call by pressing a number on a Touch-Tone phone. 7. Security code for remote operations. 8. Costs under $1000 for all hardware & software excluding the PC. 9. Can answer a call on one line and forward it out on a second line. 10. Able to do different things based on the time of day. Items 1-8 are absolute requirements. Items 9-10 are highly desireable. I have been told that the Watson system will do all of this. Jeff Cochran reported having both the Watson and "The Complete PC". He reports the Watson is far superior. Mark Earle recommended "The Complete Answering Machine". Is this the same as "The Complete PC"? I've also been told about a product called BigMouth. If anyone has other devices to add to the list or experiences with any of the above devices, please send Email. I will summarize for the digest. Any information about suppliers having good prices on this type of equipment would also be greatly appreciated. Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 UUCP: zorro9!levitt INTERNET: levitt%zorro9.uucp@talcott.harvard.edu ------------------------------ From: David Lewis Subject: Re: Cordless Phone User Vows New Fight Date: 15 Jan 90 15:17:55 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ Sorry, but there are a couple of comments I feel I can't pass up... In article <2794@accuvax.nwu.edu>, csense!bote@uunet.uu.net (John Boteler) writes: > Excerpted from: > UPce 01/08 1709 Phone user vows new court fight > DIXON, Iowa (UPI)... > "The cellular phone, the rich man's phone, is covered, but the > average man's isn't," Tyler said. Hmm. The "average man" is going out and buying $150 cordless phones, but telcos are still compelled to provide virtually free lifeline service to low-income households... > Cellular phones are entirely broadcast over radio while cordless > phones are merely transmitted from the headset to the base unit, which > is plugged into a regular phone jack. Sorry, UPI. Cordless phones are *broadcast* from the handset, and the base unit merely happens to be tuned to the proper frequency to pick it up. This "merely transmitted from the headset to the base unit" implies some sort of directional link... David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center) "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower." ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Why 8-digit Telephone Numbers Are Impossible in North America Date: Mon, 15 Jan 90 14:37:06 EST From: woody covert@covert.enet.dec.com (John R. Covert 10-Jan-1990 0822) writes: > Unlike countries where most telephone service is provided by either > ancient step-by-step or modern electronic offices, the North American > Integrated Numbering Plan Area (U.S., Canada, and the 809 Caribbean) > is chock full of central offices of an intermediate type. These > common control offices store the number dialled, the _entire_ number, > in what is known as an Originating Register. This is a hardware > register made out of relays, and it has the capability of storing > three, seven, or ten digits, plus a flag indicating whether "1" or "0" > was dialled first. How then would overseas numbers work? I believe the international standard for those would be 12 digits or so, including country code (after dialing the 01 or 011), at least the cutoff in dialing after the 011 here is 12 digits. Also, what about the 10XXX+ dialing for other carriers in the U.S.; would these intermediate switches not have the 10XXX+ dialing at all? Actually, it might get hard to remember local numbers if they were more than 7 digits (this might be the reason for the length of tel. #s in North America). Perhaps 4 digit area codes might be used instead (take an old Mexico code like 706, and use a 4th digit to make something like (7064) 555-0000). Of course, the country code could always be split (11 for Canada, 12 for eastern U.S., and California seems to be its own country :->). That gets to be a bit much, though. || David Leibold "That's not reality, but that, too, is news" || djcl@contact.uucp ------------------------------ From: Jeff Woolsey Subject: Re: Why Can't I Use 1+10 Dialing For All Calls? Date: 15 Jan 90 17:55:01 GMT Organization: NetCom - The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 249-0290} The moderator missed the point completely in his footnote to the article about not being able to dial local 1+10D calls in one's home NPA. The rest of the world cares very little about which end of the L platform is in which areacode relative to the issue of why one is universally prevented from dialing the local area code in North America. In the Dialing Instructions article appearing elsewhere in this newsgroup I noted that the dialing of which I speak was listed as permissive, yet I know of nowhere that permits it. This dialing restriction is a problem for widely distributed communications programs and other applications that deal with autodialing modems. (It can be addressed with 800 and 900 numbers which can be dialed the same way almost everywhere, the leading 1 being the only variant.) It is also a problem, crudely handled, for pocket autodialers that travellers carry. I hope there's a really good reason and not just some silly technical problem somewhere, such as old stupid switches immediately handing the number off to a tandem, if indeed there is any reason at all. Jeff Woolsey Microtec Research, Inc +1 408 980-1300 ...!apple!netcom!woolsey ...!amdcad!sun0!woolsey ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #29 *****************************   Date: Wed, 17 Jan 90 0:25:27 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #30 Message-ID: <9001170025.aa01616@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 17 Jan 90 00:25:19 CST Volume 10 : Issue 30 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson AT&T Reliability (System Administrator) Reporting of the AT&T Outage (David Tamkin) Reach Out and Touch Someone? (Al Donaldson) Re: Nationwide Long Distance Outage (Bill Berbenich) Re: Who's Using Whom? (John McHarry) Re: Who's Using Whom? (John Higdon) USA Direct from France -- Terrible Service (eli@ursa-major.spdcc.com) Comparative Evaluation of Voice, Data Integration Over LANs (M. Yamajako) Help! T1 Advice in NYC (Owen Scott Medd) Who Owes Whom For 900 Services? (Anthony E. Siegman) $outhwe$tern Bell (Jordan Marc Kossack) Re: Area Code 908 Lives! (Or Does It?) (Bob L.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: AT&T Reliability Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 15 Jan 90 21:45:45 PST (Mon) From: System Administrator It appears that AT&T has solved their "software" problem, since calls now go through. Their original statement about a cable cut was certainly an understatement. My question is this: what about those 800 customers who were promised (in all the TV ads) that if for any reason their 800 number went down, they would bring it up on one of their other lines within one hour. There are an awful lot of 800 numbers around here that were down all day without being restored on POTS lines, mainly, of course, because the entire network was down. Any recouse available to the customers? This whole mess sure points out the fact that even Mother has her days! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Reporting of the AT&T Outage Date: Tue, 16 Jan 90 22:16:30 CST One thing has caught my attention about news reports of Monday's AT&T outage, whether on radio, on television, or in print: invariably promotions for upcoming news about it and the first few sentences of the item itself have talked about "problems for long-distance callers" or "long-distance troubles." It's presented as a problem with long-distance calling and then it segues to "AT&T spokespeople are saying" or "according to AT&T" as if the two were one in the same. Longer discussions of it get around to bringing up MCI and Sprint's situations (being overloaded because AT&T customers were seeking alternatives, for example), but most do not. Moreover, none introduced the item as an AT&T-only problem, nor even as an AT&T problem. It is called a long-distance problem with little or no acknowledgment that "long distance" and "AT&T Long Distance" are not synonymous these days. David Tamkin PO Box 813 Rosemont IL 60018-0813 708-518-6769 312-693-0591 dattier@chinet.chi.il.us BIX: dattier GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 [Moderator's Note: The {Chicago Sun-Times} had as their headline in Tuesday's paper, "Calls Waiting!" and part of the human-interest side of the story were interviews with business people -- particularly telemarketing organizations -- who were pretty well out of action Monday. The airline and hotel reservation people with their 800 numbers were also pretty hard hit by the events of the day. The {Chicago Tribune} noted that AT&T spokespeople had *not* ruled out 'a "computer virus" or act of sabatoge by a phreak unknown...' as the source of their problem. PT] ------------------------------ From: Al Donaldson Subject: Reach Out and Touch Someone? Date: 16 Jan 90 04:05:48 GMT Organization: ESCOM Corp., Oakton, VA Word tonight that AT&T is having computer problems affecting phone service nationwide. I can just see it now: "Hello, Phoenix?" "No, this is Fiji..." Maybe they should spend more money on systems and less on advertising. Al Donaldson (ATT customer) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 90 10:33:37 EST From: Bill Berbenich Subject: Re: Nationwide Long Distance Outage Does anyone know how AT&T is handling their 800 WATS customers who are inaccessible as a result of this outage? I recall a television ad which said something like 'if you are an AT&T 800 WATS customer and there is an outage, we GUARANTEE that your service will be restored within an hour.' --Bill Berbenich ------------------------------ Date: Tuesday, 16 Jan 1990 18:40:07 EST From: John McHarry Subject: Re: Who's Using Whom? John Higdon wrote in V10 #29 that US Sprint was unaccessable during the AT&T outage yesterday due to their leasing facilities from AT&T. I don't know the specific access arrangements in his area, but I believe the following to be generally true. Carriers do lease trunks to one another; however, these are non-switched services. I don't think AT&T has a tariff for switched access carriage for other IECs. (Not too sure on that one) If that is the case, unless there was indeed a cable cut, the common mode failure lies elsewhere. Of course, this leasing of trunks doesn't obviate US Sprint's claim regarding an ALL fiber optic network if they lease only fiber optic trunks. There doesn't seem to be any claim that other networks don't have some, or even lots, of fiber trunks. What may be interesting here is the possibility of a shared BOC-AT&T switch being in the common path, eg. the access tandem. Unless I misread an old copy of Notes on the BOC Intra LATA Networks, or things have changed in the meantime, there are some switches that are either BOC owned and used by AT&T or (the interesting case) AT&T owned and used by the BOC. These are an artifact of the pre-1984 state of affairs, and represent cases where the split could not be neatly made on one side or the other of the switch. If Mr. Higdon's LATA is such a case, then US Sprint could be receiving service from the LEC, but with an AT&T owned and operated switch in the middle. In this case it is the LEC that is providing service by leasing switch capacity from AT&T. US Sprint might well be using all their own trunks to the point of presence. Beyond that, they have no choice or control. Of course, to the end user, this is cold comfort. If there is only one access tandem, you have no protection from a failure affecting it. I suppose large users could use direct trunks to two or more IECs, but, in most cases, that sounds like overkill, especially given the probablility of the failure being guarded against vs the probablility of backhoe fade knocking down both trunk groups. These are only my own speculations, of course, and don't necessarily reflect the views of anyone else. If I have erred, I am sure I'll be corrected. On second thought, omit the if clause. *************************************************************** * John McHarry (703)883-6100 McHarry@MITRE.ORG * *************************************************************** ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Who's Using Whom? Date: 16 Jan 90 01:57:09 PST (Tue) From: John Higdon After writing: > AT&T long distance has been severely disrupted today in the Bay Area > due to a major cable cut, according to an AT&T operator I talked to. The Telecom Moderator wrote: > [Moderator's Note: I really think the operator you interviewed spoke > without full knowledge of the circumstances of the outage; That's, of course, an understatement. But it will be interesting to see over the next few days and weeks how that AT&T PR department will handle this one. It should also be fascinating to find out what the *real* problem was, if it ever is to be known by the public. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Subject: USA Direct from France -- Terrible Service Date: Tue, 16 Jan 90 06:25:08 -0500 From: eli@ursa-major.spdcc.com Here are a few quick observations about USA Direct, after using it for one week from France: o About 20% of calls get cut off. o Service quality is the worst I've ever experienced. ATT must buy their stat-mux equipment from K-Mart. o Usually, the callee's voice was cut off for about 20% of their words. It was IMPOSSIBLE to hold a normal conversation. o I wonder if the problems are solely with ATT equipment? o I asked an ATT operator two questions: 1. Why was service so poor? Answer: it must be the lines. (duh?) 2. Is the inability to connect to 800 numbers a technical problem or a policy decision. Answer: both. ------------------------------ From: Mireille Yamajako Subject: Comparative Evaluation of Voice, Data Integration Over LANs Date: 16 Jan 90 13:52:04 GMT Organization: INRIA, Rocquencourt, France. I am interested in experience results and papers on comparative performance of LANs in data and voice integration. ------------------------------ From: Owen Scott Medd Subject: Help! T1 Advice in NYC Organization: Ocwen Trading, Inc. Date: Tue, 16 Jan 90 17:52:11 GMT From our office in Purchase, NY, we lease voice grade lines to several locations in nearby New York City. We have been looking into a NY Tel T1 line to save money while providing additional capacity for 56Kb data circuits. However, we do not have a location in NYC where we could terminate the T1 line. A "CO mux" has been recommended to us: our own T1 multiplexer in our Purchase office talking to a NY Tel owned multiplexer in a NY Tel CO, with analog lines fanning out from the CO. The problem seems to be that (in its infinite wisdom) NY Tel has determined that only analog data can be passed through such a configuration, which kills our idea of 56Kb data circuits. (Also in its infinite wisdom) NY Tel has offered to accept $1400 for a "feasibility study" of inserting a digital DS0 card into their CO mux. If they decide the idea is feasible, they'll then quote a price for providing us with this "special assembly" (in NY Tel terminology). Is NY Tel serious about (in these modern times) favoring analog over digital data? Are we looking at the right product? ------------------------------ From: "Anthony E. Siegman" Subject: Who Owes Whom For 900 Services? Date: 13 Jan 90 23:48:17 GMT Reply-To: "Anthony E. Siegman" Organization: Stanford University Suppose I make (or someone makes on my phone) an expensive 900 call and the charge shows up on my next phone bill. As I understand it, my phone company (Pac Tel) is not providing the "services" involved in this 900 call, merely acting as billing agent for the provider. So, if I refuse to pay, except maybe paying Pac Tel some small amount for the actual phone services involved, does Pac Tel have any further claim on me? I never contracted with them for anything except phone service. Can they shut off my phone service if I refuse to pay for this non-phone service that they just happen to be billing agent for? [Moderator's Note: No, they cannot make you pay, and they cannot cut your service. Make sure you let them know you are refusing to pay the 900 portion (or whatever AOS you are challenging), so that the payment you do send them is applied correctly, and not taken as a partial payment against the whole bill, thus leaving the bill partially unpaid. Here in Chicago, if you refuse payment on the 900 portion, Illinois Bell will charge it back uncollectible to the Nine Hundred Service Corporation, which is the service provider for many or most of those services here. On notice that you did not pay, the Nine Hundred Service Corporation will send you a direct bill. They are entitled, under the tariff, to have your name and address for their records from the telco, even if you have a non-pub number. When you then refuse to pay them, in most instances they will place you with a collection agency; you will ultimatly pay or they will sue you for theft of their services and get a civil judgment against you. Of course you may choose to defend the suit. And how far this is carried depends of course on the size of the bill and how much resistance you offer, your defenses, etc. But Illinois Bell is out of the picture once you notify them of your stance. It is no skin off their nose. The same thing has always been the case with Yellow Pages advertising. PT] ------------------------------ From: Jordan Marc Kossack Subject: $outhwe$tern Bell Date: 16 Jan 90 21:40:36 GMT Reply-To: kossackj@rice.edu Organization: Students for a Negative Population Growth Why does Southwestern Bell charge so @*!#-ing much to turn on telephone service? I could understand the $75- charge if I actually needed a phone lines to be installed in my apartment, but this is not the case. I think that $75- is a wee much to charge for some clerical type to do the magnetic media work ... uhhh 'paperwork' involved in setting up an account. I mean, hey, HL&P didn't charge me to begin service. OK, so they required a deposit - but I'll be able to transfer that deposit if I change apartments and if I should move out of town I'll get my deposit refunded. The same is not true with the SWB 'installation' fee. HA! Installation?! They didn't install anything in my apartment! ow, I guess some bozo is going to say that I have the option to not pay the HUGE fee and thus not recieve telephone service. True, but that is not the point. Why does the gov't allow them to have a _monopoly_ if they insist on making such huge profits. A case in point follows. ... ... ... 053/061 09 Jan 90 19:18:04 From: News Desk @ 382/39 NYNEX AUDIT -- When Nynex ... set up a subsidiary to buy supplies for them, the idea was to save money: The purchasing unit could buy in volume, and the savings would be passed on to customers. From the start, regulators worried that it wouldn't work that way. Because profits of the purchasing unit wouldn't be regulated, Nynex might be tempted to have this unit charge the phone companies inflated prices. ... It was a temptation Nynex apparently couldn't resist. A year-long federal audit has concluded that ... Nynex has overcharged its own companies this way to the tune of $120 million. The FCC ... may act against Nynex as early as this week. ... The complex web of intramural transactions at Nynex ... reminds regulators of the cozy ties that AT&T's Western Electric unit had with the Bell operating companies, a relationship that helped prompt the breakup of AT&T. Since the breakup, such relationships have become increasingly common with the ... Baby Bells. ... New York Times, A1. ... ... ... I'll admit that just because NYNEX is doing this kind of stuff doesn't mean that Southwestern Bell is too. However, both companies are BOCs and I wouldn't be surprised if this was something they both learned from their mother (Ma Bell). What would surprise me is if this wasn't being done by SWB. Disclaimer: This article contains theory, conjecture and opinion in addition to the occasional fact. You try and figure out which is which. In fact, this entire article may very well exist only in your mind; Staring at a CRT for too long can cause you to hallucinate ... or was that the 'shrooms? As usual, flames and other forms of communication are welcomed by: kossackj@rice.edu (The Master of Sureality) - JK ------------------------------ From: bobl@pro-graphics.cts.com (System Administrator) Subject: Re: Area Code 908 Lives (or does it?) Date: 16 Jan 90 08:56:22 GMT Lines: 29 In-Reply-To: message from tad@ssc.UUCP > I tried calling 908 from my office (served by GTE in WA state) and got > nowhere. Also my Sprint line at home will not accept 908 calls. I > have the Bellcore letter announcing 908, but it seems to have a LONG > period of permissive dialling...til June 1991! > When I called GTE about it, they claimed that there was NO 908 area > code. When I read the Bellcore letter, I was passed to a supervisor > who claimed that New Jersey Bell had decided not to implement it "just > yet"! Yes, I also tried to dial several NJ numbers using 908 instead of 201 and got nothing but a fast busy. I guess that indicates that it's not hooked up at this time. Where is the split happening anyway? Is the northern part of 201 becoming 908 or is it another area? Bob _____________ Pro-Graphics BBS 201/469-0049 ______________ InterNet: bobl@pro-graphics.cts.com | ProLine: bobl@pro-graphics UUCP: ..crash!pro-graphics!bobl | CServe: 70347,2344 ARPA/DDN: ..crash!pro-graphics!bobl@nosc.mil | Amer. Online: Graphics3D Raven Enterprises - 25 Raven Ave. Piscataway, NJ 08854 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #30 *****************************   Date: Wed, 17 Jan 90 22:16:01 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #31 Message-ID: <9001172216.aa08352@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 17 Jan 90 22:15:10 CST Volume 10 : Issue 31 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Questions and Answers on Network Service (AT&T Public Relations Department) Bulletin to Employees, re: Outage (AT&T Public Relations Department) AT&T Operator Policy During Outage (Ken Jongsma) The AT&T Problem (Ole J. Jacobsen) Tricky 900 Tactics (John Higdon) More on the Panasonic KX-T61610 PBX (Bob Clements) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: AT&T Public Relations via TELECOM Moderator Date: Wed, 17 Jan 90 14:12 EST Subject: Questions and Answers on Network Service [Moderator's Note: AT&T has provided the following questions and answers regarding the outage. Another source of PR is 1-800-2ATT-NOW. PT] QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON NETWORK SERVICE ... The following should provide answers to any additional questions employees have, and also may be useful for salespeople in responding to customers' concerns: Q. How does this outage compare with others AT&T has experienced? A. This was the first event in which all network switches were affected. Previous outages have been local or regional in nature, caused by cable cuts, problems with individual offices, or natural disasters. Q. Could this happen to MCI or Sprint? A. AT&T believes all carriers are potentially vulnerable to software problems in their networks, and have acknowledged such problems at one time or another. Q. How does this outage compare with MCI's recent 800 service outage? A. Since AT&T and its competitors do not ordinarily share such information, there is no way of comparing the two events. Q. How did this outage affect customers? A. There was a significant impact on customers nationwide on their regular long-distance service, as well as business services such as 800 and Software Defined Network services, which use AT&T's public switched network. Private-line services were not affected. Q. Was AT&T able to honor customers' requests to have their 800 or other services terminated on another carrier's lines? A. A few requests like this came in. However, AT&T was unable to switch these customers because restoring the entire network to normal operation was being given highest priority. Q. Is it accurate that AT&T operators refused to give callers access codes for other carriers? A. That was true during the early part of the day. However, authorization to give out codes was given later in the day in the spirit of doing whatever was necessary to help customers complete their calls. Q. Was AT&T able to meet its service guarantees? A. AT&T will honor its service assurance commitments on 800 service, even though the warranty doesn't cover this kind of network event. Q. Will AT&T adjust bills to help compensate for any inconvenience customers may have experienced? A. AT&T plans to file an emergency tariff with the Federal Communications Commission that will permit the company to have a special day of discounted calling, which will provide some compensation for customers. The exact offer and date have not yet been determined. Q. Does AT&T have a liability to compensate customers for losses sustained during the network problem? A. No, but the company will honor the 800 service assurance guarantee, and will look for other ways to demonstrate to customers that it recognizes service expectations held by customers and the company were not met during the problem. Q. Does that mean AT&T may compensate individual customers for their losses? A. Something like that has to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Q. What was done to restore service on Monday? A. A software override was used to stabilize the network, and that restored full service by 11:30 p.m. EST on Monday. The fix is working fine and enabling the network to handle full business- day volume. Q. What is being done to prevent this from happening again? A. AT&T's most urgent priority is to assure that all AT&T customers receive the world's most reliable telecommunications service. Every technical resource available, including Bell Labs scientists and engineers, has been devoted to assuring it will not occur again. The chances of a recurrence are small--a problem of this magnitude never occurred before. AT&T's engineers have collected an enormous amount of data and are extensively analyzing it. Q. Does the outage put the lie to AT&T's claims of having the world's most reliable network? A. Not at all. Despite the fact that AT&T experienced an unprecedented, nationwide service problem, millions of calls on the network still went through. All switches continued to function, and AT&T's software experts were able to put in fixes that brought the network back to normal operation before the day was out. AT&T is confident it has the technological and human resources to meet unexpected contingencies. Q. Are there plans for a promotion or advertising campaign to reinforce the company's reliability image? A. While something like that may be contemplated in the future, the priority now is to ensure full service for all customers, and to make sure the problem doesn't occur again. Q. How many calls were completed on the day of the outage? A. On a typical business day, 110 million calls are handled on the network, with 80 million to 85 million completed. ("Handled" means calls that receive busy signals, that are blocked, that the caller decides in mid-call not to complete, etc.). On Jan. 15, 148 million calls were handled and 83 million of them were completed--a call completion percentage of 56 percent. Some 35 million of the 83 million calls were completed during the outage period. ------------------------------ From: AT&T Public Relations via TELECOM Moderator Subject: Bulletin to Employees, re: Outage Date: Wed, 17 Jan 90 14:00:00 EST Moderator's Note: Following is the full text of an all-employee bulletin distributed Tuesday. PT] AT&T NETWORK RESTORED AFTER TEMPORARY OUTAGE ... AT&T's public switched network is functioning normally again after a suspected signalling system problem cut call completion rates across the country to slightly more than 50 percent yesterday. AT&T Chairman Bob Allen and Network Services Division Senior Vice President Ken Garrett held a press conference today from the Network Operations Center in Bedminster, N.J., to explain the situation. "Even though it was a one-time 'hit' to the network, it was certainly the most far-reaching service problem we've ever experienced," said Allen. "We didn't live up to our customers' standards of quality," he said. "It's as simple as that. That's not acceptable." Preliminary indications are that a software problem developed about 2:25 EST yesterday in a processor connected to a 4 ESS switch in New York City, part of the new Signalling System 7 network that carries such call completion data as originating and destination phone number separate from the call itself. The problem spread rapidly through the network, affecting the regular long-distance network, 800 service and the Software Defined Network (SDN). Private lines and special government networks were not affected. After eliminating a number of suspected causes, software overrides applied about 10 p.m. last night finally restored normal network capabilities over the next couple hours. Allen said people at AT&T Bell Laboratories and in the Network Engineering network capabilities over the next couple hours. Allen said people at AT&T Bell Laboratories and in the Network Engineering organization are studying the volumes of data accumulated. "We are confident the root cause will be identified, at which time we will take appropriate steps to make certain it doesn't happen again." While he did not want to speculate until all the analysis is in, Allen said there is a "growing level of confidence" that no computer "virus" was involved. Allen said AT&T is talking to major customers affected by the outage to explain what happened, and to detail the company's response. And, he said, AT&T will file an emergency petition with the Federal Communications Commission calling for a special day of discount calling to help compensate both residence and business customers who were inconvenienced. Garrett added that call attempts were near normal levels yesterday, despite the holiday, and that "there are no indications of any problems today." ------------------------------ From: ken@cup.portal.com Subject: AT&T Operator Policy During Outage Date: Wed, 17-Jan-90 09:57:57 PST While it will be interesting to find out the actual reason for the failure (NBC implied it was related to a new software release that failed under load in New York and propagated through the rest of the country), it is even more interesting to hear about AT&T "policy". That is, AT&T operators would not give instructions for using alternative carriers or even hint that it might be possible to get through other carriers. Now, when I go to a Hilton and they are full, they will check with Ramada and any other area hotels to see if their are rooms available. I understand the reasons they won't! Once a customer learns how to use an alternative carrier, they may not go back... Ken Jongsma ken@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed 17 Jan 90 13:44:37-PST From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" Subject: The AT&T Problem What amazed me the most about the AT&T outage the other day was people's inability to live with the situation and use 10xxx dialling. One business guy interviewed on CNN said he "lost several hours and lots of money" because of the long distance problems. I have never figured out why the RBOCs have been so unwilling to teach the public about 10xxx dialling, there must be at least a dozen carriers available to the average customer (allright maybe 6, but stilll....) Ole ------------------------------ Subject: Tricky 900 Tactics Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 16 Jan 90 02:11:52 PST (Tue) From: John Higdon For some weeks now, there has been a spot on late night TV that features Tony Franciosa hawking a "free" booklet on non-surgical thinning hair prevention methods. He says, "the booklet is free, and the phone call is free", and an 800 number is displayed at the bottom of the screen. A number of us have been speculating concerning the purpose of the pitch. We figured that the booklet was an advertisement for some fly-by-night hair scam. Tonight we got the answer. The spot has been changed slightly. The pitch for the booklet is the same minus any mention of "free". And then a (you guessed it) 900 number shows up. Tony says that you can now solve your hair loss problems with a phone call. And that call now costs you $3.00. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Subject: More on the Panasonic KX-T61610 PBX Date: Wed, 17 Jan 90 13:07:43 -0500 From: clements@bbn.com A couple of months ago there was a flurry of messages about the Panasonic KX-T61610 PBX. At the time I said that I might attack the problem of disassembling the code to fix some features. Well, I've taken a first whack at it and I've learned some interesting things. But I'm probably not going to be able to finish the job unless I can get some more technical info. I'm working just from the hex dump itself and the owner's manual. I have no board schematics, no pinouts for the custom chips, no protocol spec for the signals on the lines to the smart phones. I do have a manual for the microprocessor (6300 series) and the data sheet for the time-of-day chip. So the question for the group is: Is it possible to get schematics for this thing? Is there a technical manual? (What do they do when one breaks? Ship the board back to Japan, or do techs in the US have the info?) Some things I've found: Amazingly, there is no copyright statement on the ROM chip or in the code. (At least not in clear text -- all the other messages are in clear text.) The code is pretty big. The ROM has 64K bytes, there is memory mapping so 32K is always present and the other 32K is a pair of 16K overlays. One overlay has most of the feature-programming logic (commands from extension 11) and the other has the SMDR accounting generation logic. At that, there is not a lot of spare space in the ROM. There's a couple hundred bytes which is plenty for minor changes, though. There are a bunch of factory diagnostics driven by commands from the serial port. It's not just a printer port. They are enabled by changing one pin on an I/O port, but without a schematic I haven't found what drives that pin. It isn't the "program" switch. The fact that all programming must be done from extension 11 is compiled into the code in MANY places. Too bad -- I hoped I could change that easily. The undocumented program codes 50 through 53 actually DO affect something, but I haven't figured out what. More than one guy wrote this. There are two different but equivalent BCD-to-binary routines, for example. I've figured out why the manual says you may have to hit the reset button a few times to get it to start up: They have a bum value in the power-on reset vector! It runs some junk instructions for a little while and with luck gets a program trap which then correctly reinitializes the program. But I doubt that I'll spend the time to work on this much more unless I can get some more technical info. Any help gratefully accepted. Bob Clements, K1BC, clements@bbn.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #31 *****************************   Date: Thu, 18 Jan 90 0:00:27 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #32 Message-ID: <9001180000.aa22035@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 18 Jan 90 00:00:15 CST Volume 10 : Issue 32 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Area Code 908 Lives (or does it?) (David Tamkin) Re: Area Code 908 Lives (or does it?) (Daniel M. Rosenberg) Re: Area Code 908 Lives (or does it?) (Carl Moore) Re: Help! T1 Advice in NYC (David Lesher) Re: "Calling" Card Charges (Carl Moore) Re: Caller ID (Dave Platt) Re: Why 8-digit Telephone Numbers Are Impossible in N. America (J. Higdon) No. 5 XBar, Overseas, and Four Digit Area Codes (John R. Covert) Public Watchdog is Asleep (John Higdon) NPA 604 Used as NXX in Bay Area (Ole J. Jacobsen) TPC (The Phone Company) (Craig Wilson/alt.fax via eli@ursa-major.spdcc.com) Last Laugh: Steven Wright on Call-Waiting (Victor Schwartz) [Moderator's Note: The gateway machine to Usenet is still a little flakey. We managed to get about fifty backlogged comp.dcom.telecom messages sent out Wednesday before the machine shut down again. About twenty more will be sent once accuvax's human attendants come in Thursday. PT] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: Area Code 908 Lives (or does it?) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 90 17:21:23 CST On Thursday night, January 4, I tried telephoning a friend in Piscataway, dialing area code 908. My 1+ carrier is Telecom*USA. Apparently my local telco (Central Telephone of Illinois) honored 908, because the intercept message was from Telecom*USA, not from Centel. I phoned my friend via MCI and got through. Afterward I called Telecom*USA's customer service about it. They checked into it while I was on the line. It turned out that when the representative made a direct call from Cedar Rapids, they accepted 908; when she "placed the call as if it came from Chicago," it was indeed intercepted as an unrecognized area code. She apologized and said it would be fixed later that evening. David Tamkin PO Box 813 Rosemont IL 60018-0813 708-518-6769 312-693-0591 dattier@chinet.chi.il.us BIX: dattier GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 ------------------------------ From: "Daniel M. Rosenberg" Subject: Re: Area Code 908 Lives (or does it?) Date: 18 Jan 90 01:40:20 GMT Organization: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford U. bobl@pro-graphics.cts.com (System Administrator) writes: >In-Reply-To: message from tad@ssc.UUCP >> I tried calling 908 from my office (served by GTE in WA state) and got >> nowhere. Also my Sprint line at home will not accept 908 calls. I >Yes, I also tried to dial several NJ numbers using 908 instead of 201 >and got nothing but a fast busy. I guess that indicates that it's not I called grandma today on 908-665-xxxx, and she was fine. No delays, no fast busy -- just "How's the weather out there?" This from 415-321. # Daniel M. Rosenberg // Stanford CSLI // Eat my opinions, not Stanford's. # dmr@csli.stanford.edu // decwrl!csli!dmr // dmr%csli@stanford.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jan 90 9:19:01 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Area Code 908 Lives (or does it?) I believe the southern and western part of 201 will become 908. The urban area in the northeast (Newark, etc.) will stay in 201. ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Re: Help! T1 Advice in NYC Date: Wed, 17 Jan 90 19:49:45 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher |We have been looking into a NY Tel T1 line to save money while |providing additional capacity for 56Kb data circuits. However, we do |not have a location in NYC where we could terminate the T1 line. Monday I visited the switch of a LD carrier that WAS working. They rent rack space, and simple "push the reset button" support to a customer's term equipment. Maybe you could do the same. A host is a host & from coast to coast...wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu no one will talk to a host that's close..............(305) 255-RTFM Unless the host (that isn't close)......................pob 570-335 is busy, hung or dead....................................33257-0335 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jan 90 14:58:37 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: "Calling" Card Charges The "local" (in your case, USWest) part of your bill gets intra-LATA calls, including those within a LATA which does not include your phone. I live in Delaware (all of which is in the Philadelphia LATA) and work in a part of Maryland in the Baltimore LATA, and I wondered what would happen on a call from my office to Baltimore. It showed up in the "local" bill. (The Philadelphia LATA also covers most of 215.) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jan 90 14:52:57 PST From: dplatt@coherent.com Subject: Re: Caller ID Organization: Coherent Thought Inc., Palo Alto CA > Well, I saw on 20/20 or some show like that said that the technology to stop > Caller ID was here. I was wondering if anyone knew what they were talking > about... > [Moderator's Note: Well, it is news to me. Does anyone know of a way > to legally (via some application of the tariff) avoid ID'ing > themselves? I guess there are some places where possibly the more > sensitive customers may be exempted, i.e. the 'women's shelter' > example. PT] There was a small news-blurb re Caller-ID on the evening news here a few weeks ago. A Pacific Bell representative was discussing the upcoming availability of Caller-ID (sometime late this year or early next, I believe). The issue of privacy, ID-hiding, and blocking was discussed. Apparently, the system as PacBell intends to install it will permit a caller to request ID-hiding by dialing a specific prefix-sequence (*67, I believe, but I could well be wrong). PacBell apparently does _not_ have plans to allow people to set their lines up to default to ID-hiding; the caller will have to do it on a call-by-call basis. My impression is that you'll have to pay a monthly charge to receive the caller-ID information on incoming calls, but that you will not need to pay a fee to block the outbound ID if you use the prefix-code on an individual call. The PacBell representative interviewed on the report said that they believed that this compromise is both effective and fair. I suspect that if PacBell were to take the position that _all_ calls would send ID, with no option to inhibit ID-sending, then somebody would probably take them to court based on the California state constitution's right-to-privacy provisions. I don't know which way the courts would rule on this issue... but I can well imagine that PacBell doesn't want to go to the expense of finding out the hard way. Dave Platt VOICE: (415) 493-8805 UUCP: ...!{ames,apple,uunet}!coherent!dplatt DOMAIN: dplatt@coherent.com INTERNET: coherent!dplatt@ames.arpa, ...@uunet.uu.net USNAIL: Coherent Thought Inc. 3350 West Bayshore #205 Palo Alto CA 94303 ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Why 8-digit Telephone Numbers Are Impossible in North America Date: 16 Jan 90 02:32:42 PST (Tue) From: John Higdon woody writes: [responding to comments about the limitations of originating registers] > How then would overseas numbers work? I believe the international > standard for those would be 12 digits or so, including country code > (after dialing the 01 or 011), at least the cutoff in dialing after > the 011 here is 12 digits. > Also, what about the 10XXX+ dialing for other carriers in the U.S.; > would these intermediate switches not have the 10XXX+ dialing at all? I don't know how other BOCs handle the problem, but the bail-out used by Pac*Bell so that they could keep their crossbar equipment well into the next century was CONTAC. This is a glue-on that uses one channel for each OR in the switch. Subscriber comes off hook, the diode matrix attracts the attention of the marker and an OR is seized and connected to the subscriber line. But instead of sending dialtone to the subscriber direct, the CONTAC channel for that OR provides dialtone. The subscriber dials, and CONTAC stores the digits, not the OR. Being a stored-program device, the incoming digit requirements are programmable. Let's use as our first example a local call. Subscriber dials the seven digits. CONTAC sees that the call requires no special handling and simply repeats the digits to the OR via 2 of 7 and cuts the audio through. The call proceeds normally. But if the call requires special handling, such as any long distance (has to route to appropriate carrier), 10XXX, or international, the CONTAC takes the necessary action. It signals to OR to have the marker connect the customer to the correct trunk and the CONTAC signals the tandem via CCIS. In this manner, virtually any type of call can be handled by crossbar. Any CONTAC-equipped crossbar switch could be easily programmed to handle any amount of digits. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jan 90 11:37:23 -0800 From: "John R. Covert 16-Jan-1990 1928" Subject: No. 5 XBar, Overseas, and Four Digit Area Codes >>These common control offices store the number dialled, the _entire_ number, >>in what is known as an Originating Register. This is a hardware register >>made out of relays, and it has the capability of storing three, seven, or ten >>digits, plus a flag indicating whether "1" or "0" was dialled first. >How then would overseas numbers work? I believe the international >standard for those would be 12 digits or so, including country code Customers served by No. 5 XBar must place all their overseas calls via the operator. Although a couple of C.O.s in Manhattan were converted, it was determined that it was not worth the cost. Placing a call through the operator is fast: You dial "00" (XBars can handle that), and say "Overseas 49-89-123456" or whatever, and the call goes through almost as fast as had you dialled it. The AT&T database knows that your office can't handle direct dial, and you're given the direct dial rate. >Also, what about the 10XXX+ dialing for other carriers in the U.S.; >would these intermediate switches not have the 10XXX+ dialing at all? No. 5 XBars also cannot handle this. >Perhaps 4 digit area codes might be used instead (take an old Mexico code like >706, and use a 4th digit to make something like (7064) 555-0000). Again, the No. 5 XBars cannot handle this. >Of course, the country code could always be split (11 for Canada, 12 for >eastern U.S., and California seems to be its own country :->). Again, the No. 5 XBars cannot handle this. /john ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Public Watchdog is Asleep Date: 17 Jan 90 10:49:43 PST (Wed) From: John Higdon After speaking to one of my Pac*Bell contacts this morning, it is now obvious that the holdup of CLASS features in this area is the result of political forces, not technical limitations. Pac*Bell had hoped to be offering a panoply of advanced features during this quarter. In all fairness to Pac*Bell, on whose case I have been as of late, there could be some truth to this. After all, SS#7 signaling (a prerequisite for CLASS) between Bay Area COs has been commonplace for more than a year. Of course, our PUC is the problem here. It is influenced by all of the usual forces from the common man to prestigious organizations such as the ACLU. But in all of its efforts to weigh all the issues (while taking a bloody huge amount of time to do so) it usually screws up. I give you, as exhibit A, the 976 debacle. California was one of the last places in the country to have 976, and when it finally arrived it was one of the worst manifestations of the beast. So while the rest of the country is enjoying CLASS and ISDN, the CPUC is drawing cartoon pictures on its desk pads. Or so it seems. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Wed 17 Jan 90 14:01:57-PST From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" Subject: NPA 604 Used as NXX in Bay Area Yesterday I tried calling a friend at NASA Ames: 694-xxxx. Got a recording which said "the number has been changed to 604-xxxx". Great so I call that number, she's not there. So I figure I'll call her later from the cellular on my way to the city, and what happens: "we're sorry, you must first dial a '1' when calling this number, please hang up and try again". To amuse myself I dial 1 604-xxxx, and get "your call can not be completed as dialled" So I call *611 and explain that the switch needs to have 604 entered in the valid prefix table. (That took at least 10 minutes, but *611 is on *their* penny). Finally, they call me back and say, "try it again, it should work, it is a new prefix and we entered it a few days ago". I say: "If you entered it several DAYS ago and you have not done something magic in the last 10 minutes, it is NOT going to work". Needless to say, it did not work, in fact it still does not work today, and I have given up trying to explain to them what they need to do. I bet their software is too stupid to parse an NPA as an NXX. For this we pay lots of money each month.... grrrr Ole ------------------------------ Subject: TPC (The Phone Company) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 90 11:15:09 -0500 From: eli@ursa-major.spdcc.com from alt.fax: From: craig@com2serv.C2S.MN.ORG (Craig S. Wilson) So, for awhile at least, be prepared to be satisfied with GIII capabilities, build a private network, or purchase services from someone else's network. .... >The telcos view ISDN as a "revenue enhancement" opportunity as opposed to >a universal service commitment and are acting accordingly. There are no >plans afoot to bring this technology to small businesses and small >communities that I know of. > Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy Oh, I am sure that they have plans to improve the communications capabilities of ALL of us. It will be a matter of when. The large markets will be first so that the return on investment will be highest. Once the amount of installed equipment reaches a certain point, the cost to install will drop to a point where they can provide smaller markets with the new equipment and services. "Competition" may speed the installation, but by how much, I do not know. I must say that I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of a "telephone" company. I just use their services. My opinion of THE TELEPHONE COMPANY is expressed best in the movie: "The President's Analyst" with James Colburn. /craig [[ I always thought that this movie summed things up rather nicely! -- eli ]] It sure was a good argument for divestiture! ------------------------------ Subject: Last Laugh: Steven Wright on Call-Waiting From: Schwartz.osbunorth@xerox.com Date: Wed, 17 Jan 90 00:00:00 CST (I couldn't resist sharing this line from bizarre comedian Steven Wright:) Steven Wright reports that now that he's had "Call Waiting" installed in his home, he needs TWO answering machines! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #32 *****************************  From telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Sat Jan 20 00:50:01 1990 Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP id AA01959; Sat, 20 Jan 90 00:49:55 EST Resent-Message-Id: <9001200549.AA01959@gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU> Date: Thu, 18 Jan 90 23:09:47 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #33 Message-Id: <9001182309.aa30152@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Jan 90 23:51:03 CST Resent-From: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Resent-To: ptownson@gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU Status: RO TELECOM Digest Thu, 18 Jan 90 23:08:45 CST Volume 10 : Issue 33 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Reporting of the AT&T Outage (Mark Robert Smith) Re: The AT&T Problem (Otto Miller) Re: The AT&T Problem (Bill W. Putney) Re: The AT&T Problem (John Higdon) Re: Nationwide Long Distance Outage (Fangli F. Chang) Why Not Republish the 10xxx Listing? (Jamie Hanrahan) Light Up My Phone (Alan McKay) Delay Times in DDS and T1 Spans (Michael Dorl) Info Request -- Sydis Voicestation One (Josh Rovero) Special Edition: LONDON Script (TELECOM Moderator) 3 Digit Zipcode Correlation (Carl Moore) Last Laugh! (was: Re: The New Decade) (Dan Schlitt) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Robert Smith Subject: Re: Reporting of the AT&T Outage Date: 18 Jan 90 14:05:17 GMT Organization: Rutgers - The Police State of New Jersey In the NYC area, the media did a better job of explaining the difference between "long-distance service" and "ATT LD Service". As a matter of fact, a few stations and newspapers (WABC-TV and The Bergen Record for certain) gave out instructions for using a carrier code before the number, and gave out the codes for MCI and Sprint. Thus, it would seem, NYC area viewers got a clear picture of which long distance customers were and were not working. Mark Smith, KNJ2LH All Rights Reserved RPO 1604 You may redistribute this article only if those who P.O. Box 5063 receive it may do so freely. New Brunswick, NJ 08903-5063 msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jan 90 10:44:57 EST From: Otto Miller Subject: Re: The AT&T Problem In TELECOM Digest V10 #31, Ole J. Jacobsen writes: >I have never >figured out why the RBOCs have been so unwilling to teach the public >about 10xxx dialling, there must be at least a dozen carriers >available to the average customer (allright maybe 6, but stilll....) I understand the concept of 10xxx dialling to get to other carriers, *BUT* don't you need an account with the carrier to do this? It just came to mind (what little I have left), do these 'other' carriers just bill the local service provider based on originating phone number? For us novices, please explain how! ------------------------------ From: "Bill W. Putney" Subject: Re: The AT&T Problem Date: 18 Jan 90 18:36:20 GMT Organization: Network Equipment Technologies In article <2906@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 30, message 1 of 12 >My question is this: what about those 800 customers who were promised >(in all the TV ads) that if for any reason their 800 number went down, >they would bring it up on one of their other lines within one hour. >There are an awful lot of 800 numbers around here that were down all >day without being restored on POTS lines, mainly, of course, because >the entire network was down. Any recouse available to the customers? Oops... A lot of customers got sold this bill of goods. What the 800 redirect services really do is to back up the local loop from the AT&T (other carriers have this service too) POP to the destination customer premise. The redirect gets done at the serving POP. This helps a local loop problem but doesn't do a thing for problems in the carrier's network. The recent unpleasntness with AT&T is only one example of where this doesn't work. We S.F. Bay area folks had the same problem during the recent shakin'. Calls to destinations inside the the area were cut off from outside even though most of the local lines and CO's were OK. The only way around this is calling party end redirection. Unfortunately that would require redirecting calls in every carrier switch in the country and by the time that got done the problem would probably have been corrected. So... Just sit back and enjoy the quiet. (I know it's not really funny, but then again there isn't much to be done either.) - Bill Putney ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: The AT&T Problem Date: 18 Jan 90 00:31:07 PST (Thu) From: John Higdon ken@cup.portal.com writes: > That is, AT&T operators would not give instructions for using > alternative carriers or even hint that it might be possible to get > through other carriers. The San Jose Mercury in a scathing editorial blasted AT&T for this "policy". But at the risk of being landed upon like a thousand of brick by all and sundry, I really question whether it is AT&T's (or any other carrier's) responsibility to nursemaid the public concerning "how to use the telephone". The newspaper pointed out that communications were society's vital link and that AT&T should have done whatever was necessary to "get the calls through, even by directing callers to another carrier" [paraphrased]. I'd like to turn that around. If communications are that vital (and I don't doubt that they are), then isn't it "society's" responsibility to learn how to use them effectively? There is a double standard here. It hasn't been so long ago that MCI, Sprint, et al, were about as reliable as a Morris Minor, and their customer service attitude was best described as "so what, you can always use AT&T." AT&T, on the other hand, has acknowledged that this outage was a totally unacceptable breach of faith and service to its customers, and I seriously doubt if we see anything like it in the forseeable future. But AT&T is being blasted because it didn't just say, "oh, well, you can always use MCI". "Ole J. Jacobsen" writes: > What amazed me the most about the AT&T outage the other day was > people's inability to live with the situation and use 10xxx dialling. Yes, and I put the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the public, not AT&T. > One business guy interviewed on CNN said he "lost several hours and > lots of money" because of the long distance problems. I have never > figured out why the RBOCs have been so unwilling to teach the public > about 10xxx dialling, there must be at least a dozen carriers > available to the average customer (allright maybe 6, but stilll....) Spokespersons for Pac*Bell answer this question by saying that a customer should obtain the code from his or her long distance carrier; that the telco is not responsible for issuing or revealing these codes. When I opened my secondary accounts with Sprint and MCI, the representatives for both were very careful to tell me what the access code for their respective service was. During the day of the outage, spokespeople for Pac*Bell were interviewed by media. Without mentioning any carriers or codes, they emphasized that anyone could, by using a code *obtained from the carrier* dial calls through that carrier without having to have that carrier as his long distance company. Privately I was told that if they had given out specfic codes, that could be construed as recommending a carrier which they consider to be the biggest of no-nos. There was one area where casual dialing didn't help, and that was 800 inwats service. Major customers such as Sheraton, Hilton, the airlines, marketing companies, and even ATTMail suffered big time. I had material that just "had to go out" via ATTMail, and it sat in my computer all day, prompting calls from clients the next day. No amount of 10XXX dialing could get my messages to ATTMail. One bright spot: the outage didn't even slow down my Hilton wrong numbers:-) John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Fangli F Chang Subject: Re: Nationwide Long Distance Outage Date: 18 Jan 90 16:54:12 GMT Reply-To: fangli@cbnewsc.ATT.COM Organization: AT&T BL In article <2909@accuvax.nwu.edu> bill@shannon (Bill Berbenich) writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 30, message 4 of 12 >Does anyone know how AT&T is handling their 800 WATS customers >who are inaccessible as a result of this outage? I recall a television >ad which said something like 'if you are an AT&T 800 WATS >customer and there is an outage, we GUARANTEE that your service >will be restored within an hour.' Last evening, I saw Bob Allen on PBS (WTTW Channel 11 in Chicago). He said he'll honor that GUARANTEE. Which means customer will be refunded for their 800 charges for up to a month. For other AT&T business customers, they'll be handled on a case by case basis. He's also planning a compensation tariff for all AT&T customer, something like a one day discounted (or free?) call, if approved by FCC. BTW, the problem was found,isolated and corrected. It was a bug (what a costly one), not virus and no sabotage, in the SS7 code. The internal data shown even after the problem broke out there were 43% of the call completed nation wide. It just that a customer not only had to compete with other user but also had to compete with the bug that pured numerous control message into the network. Fangli Chang Disclaimer: If you want to know the official line, Bob Allen said it all. I'm here only to entertain comp.dcom.telecom readers. attmail!ihlpl!fangli (708)979-1734 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jan 90 15:29:48 PST From: Jamie Hanrahan Subject: Why Not Republish the 10xxx Listing? Pat, I have no easy anon. ftp access -- but can do it if absolutely necessary. Is it possible to receive the 10xxx list which was posted here many months (years?) ago? Is this even available in a separate file in the archives, or do the archives simply contain copies of entire digests? Thanks... --- Jamie Hanrahan, Simpact Associates, San Diego CA Chair, VMSnet [DECUS uucp] and Internals Working Groups, DECUS VAX Systems SIG Internet: jeh@simpact.com, or if that fails, jeh@crash.cts.com Uucp: ...{crash,scubed,decwrl}!simpact!jeh [Moderator's Note: I went to look in the archives for the 10xxx listing, and was unable to find it anywhere! It no doubt got lost somehow in the move from BU to MIT. In light of the AT&T troubles of this past week, this might be a very opportune time to republish the entire list. Will someone please send a copy, and cc: to Jamie at the same time? Regards the archives, it contains past issues of the Digest, but many other articles, essays and features as well. PT] ------------------------------ From: Alan McKay <840445m@aucs.uucp> Subject: Light Up My Phone Reply-To: Alan McKay <840445m@aucs.uucp> Organization: School of Computer Science, Acadia Univ., Nova Scotia Date: Thu, 18 Jan 90 00:10:28 GMT It seems that every *damn* time I am on the phone with my computer my roomate decides to pick up the other bloody line! Sometimes I think she does it on purpose! Anyway, I want to build a little device that I can plug into the phone jack, then plug the phone into it. The device will basically be a little light which will light up (preferably flash) when the line is in use. Unfortunately I have not got a clue how to do this. Could someone please enlighten me? Oh, send me email, don't post because I never read this group. If there is enough interest I'll post the results. Thanks in advance. + Alan W. McKay + VOICE: (902) 542-1565 + + Acadia University + "Courage my friend, it is not yet too late + + WOLFVILLE, N.S. + to make the world a better place." + + 840445m@AcadiaU.CA + - Tommy Douglas + [Moderator's Note: And if you *were* a regular reader here, you'd know that this topic was covered in depth some time ago....perhaps one of the readers will send you the messages which described the technical details of what you wish to accomplish. PT] ------------------------------ From: Michael Dorl - MACC Subject: Delay Times in DDS and T1 Spans Date: 17 Jan 90 22:20:24 GMT Organization: University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center Does anyone know what typical delay times are for short (say 100 mile) 56K DDS and T1 lines? I'd like to know the delay between the time a bit goes in one end and the time the same bit comes out the other end. I assume that the propogation delay is about 0.5 C but I wonder if there are additional delays introduced by repeaters or other vendor supplied hardware. Please respond by E-mail to the following address: Thanks, Michael Dorl (608) 262-0466 fax (608) 262-4679 dorl@vms.macc.wisc.edu dorl@wiscmacc.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jan 90 11:19:55 MST From: Josh Rovero Subject: Info Request -- Sydis Voicestation One I am looking for technical information on the Sydis Voicestation One, an integrated terminal/workstation and telephone. It has connections for a printer, mouse, telco (not real telco, perhaps a custom pbx port), and an unidentified 9 pin DB style connector with an undecipherable icon(all the other ports have semi-decipherable icons, but no textua labels). I am interested in using this as a terminal if that is possible. Your assistance is greatly appreciated. Josh Rovero Internet: PRovero@wsmr-simtel20.army.mil Packet Radio: KK1D@WD4MIZ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jan 90 22:33:44 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Special Edition: LONDON Script Another special edition of the Digest is planned for later this week. Carl Moore has kindly provided a copy of LONDON Script, and it will be distributed probably on Friday or Saturday. LONDON Script is a program which will correct telephone numbers in London, England following the scheduled division of areas there. LONDON Script will tell you if a number is in the inner or outer area, and the proper code to be used. After distribution to the list, it will be available in the archives for future retrieval. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jan 90 9:42:43 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: 3 Digit Zipcode Correlation I could not get a note thru to Tad Cook , and I figure this is of enough general interest to send on to telecom: Where did you get a list for cross reference of first THREE zipcode digits to telephone area code? In this Digest, I previously referred to a book correlating the 5 digit zipcode with telephone area code. As is the case with your list, it needs updating for the new 908 area code (and others). ------------------------------ From: Dan Schlitt Subject: Last Laugh! (was: Re: The New Decade) Organization: City College of New York - Science Computing Facility Date: Thu, 18 Jan 90 22:35:45 GMT It is clear why people are confused about the start of the new decade. Do you program in C or Fortran? Dan Schlitt Manager, Science Division Computer Facility dan@sci.ccny.cuny.edu City College of New York dan@ccnysci.uucp New York, NY 10031 dan@ccnysci.bitnet (212)690-6868 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #33 ***************************** From telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Sat Jan 20 00:50:05 1990 Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP id AA01962; Sat, 20 Jan 90 00:49:58 EST Resent-Message-Id: <9001200549.AA01962@gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU> Date: Fri, 19 Jan 90 0:41:05 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #34 Message-Id: <9001190041.aa13058@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Jan 90 23:51:07 CST Resent-From: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Resent-To: ptownson@gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU Status: RO TELECOM Digest Fri, 19 Jan 90 00:40:00 CST Volume 10 : Issue 34 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: How To Dial Long Distance (William Clare Stewart) Re: How To Dial Long Distance (Gregory K Johnson) Re: How To Dial Long Distance (Carl Moore) Re: Why Can't I Use 1+10 Dialing For All Calls? (Ilya Goldberg) Re: Why Can't I Use 1+10 Dialing For All Calls? (Vance Shipley) Re: Number 5 XBar, Overseas, and Four Digit Area Codes (John Higdon) Re: Number 5 XBar, Overseas, and Four Digit Area Codes (Carl Moore) Re: Why 8-Digit Numbers Are Impossible in North America (W. T. Sykes) Re: Caller ID (Vance Shipley) Re: Caller ID (Thomas E Lowe) Re: 976 in Massachusetts (Daniel Senie) Need Info on E-Mail (Katherine Astels) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Clare Stewart Subject: Re: How To Dial Long Distance Date: 19 Jan 90 00:11:05 GMT Reply-To: wcs@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (Bill Stewart 201-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs) Organization: Conspiracy? What conspiracy? In article <2740@accuvax.nwu.edu> goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) writes: ]In article <2724@accuvax.nwu.edu>, covert@covert.enet.dec.com (John R. Covert) ]> From: Greg Monti, National Public Radio; forwarded by John R. Covert ]>Syntax 1: "1 for toll" ]>Syntax 2: Local within area code: 7 digits ]> Toll within area code: 7 digits ]Or, "1 for area code" ]>Syntax 3: Local within area code: 7 digits ]> Toll within area code: 1 + 10 digits ]Or, "1 for area code, but you dial your own for toll calls) ]I don't think so; rather, Syntax 2 is the "standard". Syntax 3 is ]a hack for people who are so used to "1 for toll" that intra-NPA calls ]must be dialed as inter-NPA. I think it's a bad idea, and not the More precisely, Syntax 3 is a hack for area with old step-by-step local offices that are too dumb for Syntax 2. The old steppers couldn't do toll on their own; the "1" routes the call to a toll switch, and is eaten by the stepper. Syntax 2 and 3 both use the 1+ to indicate 10 digits. There was a while that switches commonly used 3-digit translation to tell area codes (NYX) from exchange codes (NNX) (N:2..9, Y:0,1, X:0..9). This lets you differentiate between 7-digit and 10-digit calls after the 1 has been eaten. The upgrade from NYX-NNX-XXXX to NYX-NXX-XXXX requires every switch in a given area code to either support 7-digit toll-within-area (Syntax 2) or force 1+NPA (Syntax 3), but doesn't affect other area codes (which only need to use the NPA, and don't have to care about the exchange, though it may be more efficient to do 6-digit translation for neighboring area codes.) Area codes with number shortages are generally in large enough areas to have modern equipment anyway. The change to NXX area codes forces every switch in EVERY area code to do this, even if their area code is nowhere near running out of numbers, because you can't tell 1+7 from 1+10 by the first three digits any more (or at all!) For the large, sparsely populated states like Wyoming and Utah, this may be a problem - you have a lot of small, independent telephone companies that can't cost-justify a switch upgrade, so you have to force them to use 1+10 dialing within their own NPA. Actually, there's a bit of slack that you have before having to do real upgrades: all the telcos in the NANP work from a common list of exchange codes, and the first NNX area codes to be assigned are the last NNX codes on that list. So if your area code only uses 400 of the 800 NNXs, you COULD slack off while the first few NNX area codes get assigned. But there's a lot of demand for special-applications NPAs. Bill # Bill Stewart AT&T Bell Labs 4M312 Holmdel NJ 201-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs # ho95c has gone the way of all VAX/785s, so I'm now on erebus.att.com ------------------------------ From: Gregory K Johnson Subject: Re: How To Dial Long Distance Date: 18 Jan 90 06:46:42 GMT Reply-To: Gregory K Johnson Organization: Columbia University In article <2859@accuvax.nwu.edu> kent%tfd@uunet.uu.net (Kent Hauser) writes: >Syntax U (universal): 1 NPA NXX XXXX > Should connect me with the unambiguously specified line. >For all of you that feel that 1+ dialing is a numbering plan issue & >not a `toll call' issue, I suggest that you add the lack of `Syntax U' >to your pet peeves. As an experiment, I have tried this. My experience was that dialing 1+NPA NXX XXXX would always connect me with the number I was dialing, but the call would always be routed to a long distance carrier regardless of the fact that the number I was calling may have been in the same LATA, or even in the same central office. This may have been a result of the fact that, in the area of New Jersey in which I lived, all out-of-area code calls were inter-LATA calls. So, the switch automatically assumed that 1+ dialing meant inter-LATA, therefore the calls were routed to the long distance carrier. Your mileage may vary. Greg ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jan 90 15:23:34 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: How To Dial Long Distance To Greg Monti: You wrote > Most places with Syntax 2 now had Syntax 4 up until about 1980 > when the first interchangeable codes were issued as prefixes. The first N0X/N1X prefix usage dates from July 1973 in area 213 (now 213/818, with 213 to divide again to form 310). In Nov. 1980, NYC (area 212, later 212/718) started N0X/N1X prefix usage. ------------------------------ From: Ilya Goldberg Subject: Re: Why Can't I Use 1+10 Dialing For All Calls? Date: 18 Jan 90 11:37:38 GMT Reply-To: ilya@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (ilya.goldberg,sf,) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories The ability to use 1+10 digit dialing of numbers in the same area code depends on your location. I know because I have done it. A few months ago, I got home to find out that NJ Bell was having major problems with their lines/switches. When I tried to call my audix at work, I got a fast busy. This was unusual since it is a very local call (next town). When I tried 611, I got a fast busy. When I tried 0, I got a fast busy! I was finally able to reach the operator on the 4th or 5th try and he told me that they have just started being notified of the problem by customers and have no official word of its extent. He also got a fast busy when trying to dial a number for me. I then dialed a long distance (1+10 digits) call and it went through. So I tried calling the work number again prefixing it with 1-201- at presto it worked! The same number dialed using 7 digits still gave a fast busy. So not only does 1+10 local dialing works in my 201-740 prefix, but it also seems to use different routing for the calls. On a different issue, {NY Times} had a note in Tuesday's business section that its stock quotes were not the latest due to a disruption in communication caused by a flooded central office in NY City. They made a specific mention that this was not related to the problems being experienced by AT&T the same day. -Ilya ilya@attunix.att.com ------------------------------ From: Vance Shipley Subject: Re: Why Can't I Use 1+10 Dialing For All Calls? Reply-To: vances@xenitec.UUCP (Vance Shipley) Organization: SwitchView - Linton Technology Date: Thu, 18 Jan 90 08:42:51 GMT In article <2905@accuvax.nwu.edu> claris!netcom!woolsey@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Jeff Woolsey) writes: >universally prevented from dialing the local area code in North >America. >I hope there's a really good reason and not just some silly technical >problem somewhere, such as old stupid switches immediately handing the >number off to a tandem, if indeed there is any reason at all. Well, it's probably a case of extra effort in most of the cases now. why waste all that extra memory storing many times more routing info than needed? Vance Shipley uucp: ..!{uunet!}watmath!xenitec!vances SwitchView - Linton Technology INTERNET: vances@xenitec.uucp tel: (519)746-4460 (soon) vances@ltg.uucp ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Number 5 XBar, Overseas, and Four Digit Area Codes Date: 18 Jan 90 02:10:44 PST (Thu) From: John Higdon "John R. Covert 16-Jan-1990 1928" writes: > Customers served by No. 5 XBar must place all their overseas calls via > the operator. Although a couple of C.O.s in Manhattan were converted, > it was determined that it was not worth the cost. Placing a call > through the operator is fast: But extremely hokey. I have to hand it to Pac*Bell: some years ago they converted virtually all of their crossbar switches to handle FGD and international calling with CONTAC. I have a line on #5 crossbar and it handles all "10XXX" and international with the greatest of ease. All I can say is if Pac*Bell could see fit to install CONTAC on all of its crossbar, NYNEX must really be feeding its customers a line of bull. Somebody recently told me that Pac*Bell had a much higher percentage of FGD-compliant exchanges than NYNEX; I see now that it might be true. > >Also, what about the 10XXX+ dialing for other carriers in the U.S.; > >would these intermediate switches not have the 10XXX+ dialing at all? > No. 5 XBars also cannot handle this. CONTAC-equipped crossbar can. > >Perhaps 4 digit area codes might be used instead (take an old Mexico > >code like 706, and use a 4th digit to make something like (7064) 555-0000). > Again, the No. 5 XBars cannot handle this. Again, CONTAC-equipped crossbar can, no sweat. > >Of course, the country code could always be split (11 for Canada, 12 for > >eastern U.S., and California seems to be its own country :->). > Again, the No. 5 XBars cannot handle this. Sounds like NYNEX ought to give Pac*Bell a call and find out how it's done. While I am furious that Pac*Bell has found such a great work-around to avoid upgrading its COs, it certainly beats being deprived of equal access and having to place international calls through the operator. What hokem... John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jan 90 10:31:30 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Number 5 XBar, Overseas, and Four Digit Area Codes That "direct-dial rate for overseas calls if your exchange is not equipped for such" applies unless you need OTHER operator assistance (i.e. aside from merely placing the call). ------------------------------ From: W T Sykes Subject: Re: Why 8-digit Numbers Are Impossible in North America Date: 18 Jan 90 14:57:37 GMT Reply-To: wts@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (wts) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories >Daniel O'Callaghan at The University of Melbourne writes: >| Cellular sevices could all be moved to say 229, allowing easy identification >| of a number as mobile. My home phone here in the sprawling metropolis of Burlington, NC is 919-229-XXXX! (The West Davis St. Southern Bell CO also has 222, 226, 227, & 228.->the old CAnal exchange) :-) Maybe 23X-XXXX for CEllular? :-). William T. Sykes AT&T Federal Systems R&D (AT&T Bell Laboratories) UUCP: att!winken!wts ------------------------------ From: Vance Shipley Subject: Re: Caller ID Reply-To: vances@xenitec.UUCP (Vance Shipley) Organization: SwitchView - Linton Technology Date: Thu, 18 Jan 90 08:21:05 GMT In article <2890@accuvax.nwu.edu> kvitek@pro-party.cts.com (Keith Vitek) writes: >[Moderator's Note: Well, it is news to me. Does anyone know of a way >to legally (via some application of the tariff) avoid ID'ing >themselves? I guess there are some places where possibly the more >sensitive customers may be exempted, i.e. the 'women's shelter' >example. PT] It seems to me that it is quite likely that people will be able to make calls without sending a meaningful CLID for quite some time. Present networks don't have the stuff to send that info around as calls go on and off their networks. I'm thinking primarily not of AT&T, MCI, etc. but of the big corporate networks and smaller OCC's. They shouldn't be required to obsolete their 3 year old equipement just to pass info to speed up someone's ACD! As long as these cases can be pleaded it will be entirely posible for some one to make money running a phone mail drop just as they do with the post office! Vance Shipley uucp: ..!{uunet!}watmath!xenitec!vances SwitchView - Linton Technology INTERNET: vances@xenitec.uucp tel: (519)746--4460 (soon) vances@ltg.uucp ------------------------------ From: Thomas E Lowe Subject: Re: Caller ID Date: 18 Jan 90 22:01:43 GMT Reply-To: tel@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (thomas.e.lowe,ho,) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories >Well, I saw on 20/20 or some show like that said that the technology to stop >Caller ID was here... >[Moderator's Note: Well, it is news to me. Does anyone know of a way >to legally (via some application of the tariff) avoid ID'ing >themselves? ... The way I understand it is that the software in most switches that are currently offering Caller ID has the ability to allow a subscriber to disable his ID from going out for a specific call...similar to disabling call waiting for a specific call. However, the telephone companies don't enable this feature for one reason or another. Maybe I'm wrong, but who really knows!!! :-) Tom Lowe tel@cdsdb1.ATT.COM attmail!tlowe 201-949-0428 AT&T Bell Laboratories, Room 2E-637A Crawfords Corner Road, Holmdel, NJ 07733 (R) UNIX is a registered trademark of AT&T (keep them lawyers happy!!) ------------------------------ From: Daniel Senie Subject: Re: 976 in Massachusetts Date: 18 Jan 90 19:06:12 GMT Reply-To: Daniel Senie I just want to see how they are going to program all of the Step offices in Massachusetts to block anything! Outside the major cities, a large number of small towns suffer the poor quality and high noise of poorly maintained step offices. ------------------------------ From: Katherine Astels Subject: Need Info on E-Mail Date: 18 Jan 90 21:07:55 GMT Organization: Acadia University - School of Computer Science I am working on a project for a fourth year operation systems course on the implementation of the e-mail system. If anyone knows of some good books or papers on this topic please send me references by e-mail. Thanks. Katherine Astels Internet: 880039a@AcadiaU.CA Bitnet: 880039a@Acadia UUCP: {uunet:watmath:utai}!cs.dal.ca!aucs!880039a ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #34 ***************************** From telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Sat Jan 20 00:50:10 1990 Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP id AA01976; Sat, 20 Jan 90 00:50:05 EST Resent-Message-Id: <9001200550.AA01976@gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU> Date: Fri, 19 Jan 90 1:36:17 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #35 Message-Id: <9001190136.aa18543@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Jan 90 23:51:11 CST Resent-From: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Resent-To: ptownson@gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU Status: RO TELECOM Digest Fri, 19 Jan 90 01:33:58 CST Volume 10 : Issue 35 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Who's Using Whom? (Robert Gutierrez) Re: ISDN Chat Show (Danny Wilson) Re: Area Code 908 Lives (or does it?) (Thomas E. Lowe) Re: Hum Filter Needed (Macy M. Hallock, Jr.) Re: USA Direct from France -- Terrible Service (Robert Gutierrez) Re: Free Local Phone Calls (Macy M. Hallock, Jr.) Re: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid (Dell Ellison) That Which is Colored Between Red & Green and Like Leaves (David Kuder) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Gutierrez Subject: Re: Who's Using Whom? Date: 18 Jan 90 21:26:11 GMT Reply-To: Robert Gutierrez Organization: NASA Science Internet Project Office m21198@mwvm.mitre.org (John McHarry) writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 30, message 5 of 12 >John Higdon wrote in V10 #29 that US Sprint was unaccessable during >the AT&T outage yesterday due to their leasing facilities from AT&T. >I don't know the specific access arrangements in his area, but I >believe the following to be generally true. Carriers do lease trunks >to one another; however, these are non-switched services........ Don't know about Sprint, but MCI definitely leases switched services from AT&T (Megacom, to be exact) for overflow or their own outages. I know, I saw the San Francisco switch configuration, and sure enough, one of the last route choices was a group of Megacom Wats lines. >I suppose large users could use direct trunks to two or more IECs, >but, in most cases, that sounds like overkill, especially given the >probablility of the failure being guarded against vs the probablility >of backhoe fade knocking down both trunk groups. That's not overkill, that's good common sense to big corporate Telcom managers, and that's exactly what more and more are doing, especially since Ma Bell bit the big one last week I would assume. Alert: I heard from good sources that it was AT&T's SS7 STP's (Signal Transfer Points) that bit the dust this week due to a bad software load/upgrade. Not nice, since it implies that AT&T took out or permanantly disabled the old manual routing tables from the 5ESS's, or the 5ESS's have no way to fall back to those old routing tables if the SS7 network crashes. MCI made sure that their old routing tables were kept in the DMS-250's, since they didn't trust the IBM's that were being used for the STP's. My sources at MCI have heard zilch, but would you tell your competitor what went wrong at your place one day??? John, Patrick....you have the good connects. What's up??? | Robert Gutierrez -- NSI Network Ops Center | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------| | '1997.....United States becomes 47th prefecture of Japan' | | ("Psychic Predictions", Tom Toles/The Buffalo News) [Editorial Cartoon] | ------------------------------ From: Danny Wilson Subject: Re: ISDN Chat Show Organization: IDACOM Electronics Ltd. Date: Wed, 17 Jan 90 19:27:26 GMT In article <2353@accuvax.nwu.edu> euatdt@euas17c10.ericsson.se (Torsten Dahlkvist) writes: > But I must ask a question to the net, U.S. readers in particular: I > know for a fact (= I was there when it happened!) that Ericsson has > been approached by one of *the* major Japanese electronics > manufacturers (no, I'm NOT going to say which one - I'm far out on a > limb as it is already!) which wanted to sell a line of ISDN phones > with built-in TA functions. Essentially a small feature-phone with a > V.24, X.21 or (I think, but memory is vague) X.25 connector. The NTT "Netmate-64" ISDN phone has been the standard phone for all of their ISDN subscribers for about 1.5 years now. The phone itself is manufactured by two companies (Hitachi&Fujitsu ??) and depending who made your own particular phone, each comes with a unique set of bugs. As for the connectors on the back, a V.24 connector which can run SYN and ASYN from 200bps to 48kbps as I recall. Rate adaption is _not_ supported however, most Japanese companies I've talked to are currently working on V.110. Dipswitches on the bottom on the phone as well as menus in the LCD display configure parameters of this port such as speed, parity, stop-bits, PAD protocol etc. There is also a 15 pin Dsub connector using V.11 signal levels. This connector uses a proprietary pinout to supply raw access to the 64 kbps B-Channels plus clocks and framing etc. Danny Wilson danny@idacom.uucp IDACOM Electronics alberta!idacom!danny Edmonton, Alberta X.400 danny@idacom.cs.ubc.cdn C A N A D A Voice +1 403 462 4545 ------------------------------ From: Thomas E Lowe Subject: Re: Area Code 908 Lives (or does it?) Date: 18 Jan 90 22:07:03 GMT Reply-To: tel@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (thomas.e.lowe,ho,) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories >> I tried calling 908 from my office (served by GTE in WA state) and got >> nowhere. ... >Yes, I also tried to dial several NJ numbers using 908 instead of 201 >and got nothing but a fast busy. I guess that indicates that it's not >hooked up at this time. ... I tried calling some places that I know are 908 numbers (I have a list of them somewhere) from my home (609-698-XXXX) and it worked. Yet I tried it from a public (NJ Bell) payphone somewhere in 201 (I forget where) and it didn't work. It is up to the administrators of the local switches to turn on acceptance of 908 area code. It really is in place and does exist, but not all switches know that yet. Tom Lowe tel@cdsdb1.ATT.COM attmail!tlowe 201-949-0428 AT&T Bell Laboratories, Room 2E-637A Crawfords Corner Road, Holmdel, NJ 07733 (R) UNIX is a registered trademark of AT&T (keep them lawyers happy!!) ------------------------------ From: fmsystm!macy@cwjcc.ins.cwru.edu Date: Thu Jan 18 14:58:24 1990 Subject: Re: Hum Filter Needed Organization: F M Systems Inc. Medina, Ohio USA In article <2896@accuvax.nwu.edu> Ole writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 29, message 3 of 11 >I have a problem with hum on some of my telephones. This is probably >caused by too long horizontal runs of unshielded "satin" cable (line >cord). (I use that instead of twisted pair since it is easier to >install). 60hz is supposed to be outside the audible portion of the >phone "spectrum", so can I get a filter (ready-made or I'll build it) >to take care of this problem, or should I bite the bullet and rewire? Sounds like an impedance imbalance to me. The silver satin base cord wire you mention is actually tinsel wrapped around a cotton/polyester core. It has some very strange electrical characteristics...among them are: high resistance and longitudinal imbalance. Please install twisted pair inside wire, 24 AWG ASAP, and PLEASE, PLEASE use rounded staples to fasten it down (or plastic wire clips). Best is the Arrow T-25 staple gun. Flat staples pinch the wire and cause the PVC/plastic to cold flow and ultimately fail... Now that I think about it... Do we need to post a basic phone wiring tutorial to the Digest? (No sarcasm intended here...I am constantly amazed at the poor quality installation done by -some- non-telephone people. Particulary electricians and computer people, it seems. Should some type of "how-to" reference article for installation of standard single line phones be posted? ....am I unintentionally volunteering myself by keying in this comment?...) Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy F M Systems, Inc. {uunet!backbone}!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!fmsystm!macy 150 Highland Drive Voice: +1 216 723-3000 Ext 251 Fax: +1 216 723-3223 Medina, Ohio 44256 USA Cleveland:273-3000 Akron:239-4994 (Dial 251 at tone) (Insert favorite disclaimer here) (What if I gave a .sig and nobody cared?) ------------------------------ From: Robert Gutierrez Subject: Re: USA Direct from France -- Terrible Service Date: 18 Jan 90 21:26:11 GMT Reply-To: Robert Gutierrez Organization: NASA Science Internet Project Office eli@ursa-major.spdcc.com writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 30, message 7 of 12 >Here are a few quick observations about USA Direct, after using >it for one week from France: >o About 20% of calls get cut off. >o Service quality is the worst I've ever experienced. > ATT must buy their stat-mux equipment from K-Mart. "Attention K-Mart shoppers......We have a Blue Light (tm) special going on right now.....for a limited time, we have genuine Western Electric statistical multiplexers on sale for the low price of $9.95.....that riiiight, just $9.95...." >o Usually, the callee's voice was cut off for about 20% of > their words. It was IMPOSSIBLE to hold a normal conversation. >o I wonder if the problems are solely with ATT equipment? Doubtful. MCI always got some of the sh*$$yest lines from France's telco, aside from India.... >o I asked an ATT operator two questions: > 1. Why was service so poor? Answer: it must be the lines. (duh?) > 2. Is the inability to connect to 800 numbers a technical problem > or a policy decision. Answer: both. Wrongo. There's no technicial problem (aside from the fact that the TSPS board knows the line is from outside the country, and WON'T let the operator position make the 800 call). There is a policy decision, definitely, because AT&T isn't tarrifed to carry 800 calls over those lines by both the FCC and the originating country's telco. The problem is that somebody has to pay for the calls, and with 800, it's the callee (the destination party), and I doubt the business will want to pay for that call. Yes, what if you want to pay for it yourself. Do you?... Really?!? Most of the time, the caller (originating party) doesn't want to pay for it after all, he's just looking for a way to call the business for free. For the few who do want to pay, it's just not good business sense to re-program the numerous software to accomodate those few. Read: not cost effective. | Robert Gutierrez -- NSI Network Ops Center | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------| | '1997.....United States becomes 47th prefecture of Japan' | | ("Psychic Predictions", Tom Toles/The Buffalo News) [Editorial Cartoon] | ------------------------------ From: fmsystm!macy@cwjcc.ins.cwru.edu Date: Thu Jan 18 15:16:52 1990 Subject: Re: Free Local Phone Calls Organization: F M Systems Inc. Medina, Ohio USA In article <2900@accuvax.nwu.edu> John (telecom-critic-at-large) Higdon writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 29, message 7 of 11 >tsn@neoucom.EDU (Tom Napoletano) writes: >> The PUCO, public utility commission in Ohio, mandates that information >> calls be free to the user, however, the telco charges $0.30 to $0.60 >> per call to the cocot operator (1411 vs 5551212). >Sounds like all the good people of Ohio need to save up all of their >inquiries, walk down to their local COCOT, and make all those DA calls >they were too cheap to make at home. They'll get two benefits for the >price of none.:-) Yeah, but there are an awful lot of COCOT's in this state that DO charge for local info calls illegally. Definitely a poor practice that has helped bias the public against COCOT's... IMHO, this is another illustration of the Ohio PUC's blatant favoritism of the telcos... In Ohio a COCOT is supposed to use a specially tarriffed line, that is actually MORE expensive than most business lines. And for this, the COCOT owner still has to pay for local info calls, while a telco provided paystation does not have this expense (its actually absorbed by the all ratepayers, since telco paystations are tarriffed and regulated). FYI - its my opinion that most states permit and even endorse this kind of anti-competitive croos subsidization...because the telcos use scare tactics ("We gonna take out all the payphones and tell the public its your fault cause we're losing money" is the common threat) When and if ALL payphones receive the same service (including answer supervision!) at the same cost, with a some kind of separation/accounting in the telco cost accounting, the situation (and level of service to the public) may become equitable. Don't even think of getting me started on this issue when it comes to sales of telephone equipment.... (I tend to foam at the mouth and wave my arms about when discussing this, too) Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy F M Systems, Inc. {uunet!backbone}!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!fmsystm!macy 150 Highland Drive Voice: +1 216 723-3000 Ext 251 Fax: +1 216 723-3223 Medina, Ohio 44256 USA Cleveland:273-3000 Akron:239-4994 (Dial 251 at tone) (Insert favorite disclaimer here) (What if I gave a .sig and nobody cared?) ------------------------------ From: Dell Ellison Subject: Re: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid Date: 18 Jan 90 19:14:28 GMT Organization: gte In article <2779@accuvax.nwu.edu>, lloyd!sunfs3!kent@husc6.harvard.edu (Kent Borg) writes: > In article <2632@accuvax.nwu.edu> ddodell@stjhmc.fidonet.org (David Dodell) > writes: > >Checking with AT&T, the country code to Fuji is 679... > Wow! I knew Fuji had their own blimp, and I knew there were a lot of > big and powerful multinational corportions out there, but this is the > first time I have heard a company having its own *country* code! Now, don't be silly! Of course, he was talking about the mountain in Japan! Everyone on the mountain have a country code to themselves! (Mt. Fuji) Great, huh? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jan 90 17:04 PST From: David Kuder Subject: That Which is Colored Between Red & Green and Like Leaves We just got some Sun gear in with a big yellow sticker on it that says: "Yellow Pages" is a registered trademark in the United Kingdom of British Telecommunications plc. and may also be a trademark of various telephone companies around the world. Sun will be revising future versions of software and documentation to remove references to "Yellow Pages". I have some questions: Looks like a law suit. Who filed? Who cared enough to file? Did Sun lose? Concede? Why did Sun run into this before? What will that which is colored between red & green and is like leaves of a book be called in future versions? Just YP? DDDDBS (Dat Dam Distributed DataBase)? David A. Kuder Now what coach? 415 438-2003 david@indetech.com {uunet,sun,sharkey,pacbell}!indetech!david ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #35 ***************************** From telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Sat Jan 20 00:50:16 1990 Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP id AA01982; Sat, 20 Jan 90 00:50:07 EST Resent-Message-Id: <9001200550.AA01982@gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU> Date: Fri, 19 Jan 90 22:12:57 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #36 Message-Id: <9001192212.aa14963@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Jan 90 23:51:16 CST Resent-From: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Resent-To: ptownson@gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU Status: RO TELECOM Digest Fri, 19 Jan 90 22:12:10 CST Volume 10 : Issue 36 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes (John Gilmore) Re: Caller ID (David Lewis) Re: Caller ID (C. Brent Hyde) Re: Why Can't I Use 1+10 Dialing For All Calls? (Dave Levenson) Re: Area Code 908 Lives (or does it?) (Dave Levenson) Re: Free Local Phone Calls (John Higdon) Re: $outhwe$tern Bell (Doug Davis) Re: USA Direct From France -- Terrible Service (Herman R. Silbiger) Intercepts When Dialing 703-455 (Carl Moore) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 19 Jan 90 00:57:36 PST From: John Gilmore Subject: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes 'Tis my sad duty to report to you-all that three folks, Kevin Poulsen, Mark Lottor (mkl@sri.com), and Robert Gilligan (gilligan@sun.com) have been charged by the San Jose US Attorney with nineteen counts (mostly bogus) of telephone and computer crimes. I got a copy of the 3-page press release from a friendly newspaper reporter, as well as the 15-page indictment. Curiously, the defendents have not been given a copy of the indictment yet, though it is being blasted out to the press (the reporter got it by fax!). The press release is from the US Attorney's office; you can call Robert R. Crowe at +1 408 291 7221 to complain about it. The press seems to have been taken in by this and is giving it a lot of coverage; one report was that 20 cameramen showed up at the "scene of the crime" this morning in an attempt to interview a defendent. The indictment starts off with a conspiracy charge in a feeble attempt to tie the three defendents together, then proceeds through a bunch of separate "counts". Many of these are completely bogus, e.g. they are three separate charges under Title 42, USC 408(g)(2) with: "...for the purpose of obtaining telephone service from Pacific Bell Telephone under a false name, with intent to deceive, falsely represented his social security account number to be 549-64-3121, when in fact, such number was not his social security number". There are three other charges under 18 USC 1342 with: "...for the purpose of defrauding Pacific Bell Telephone Company, used, assumed and requested to be addressed by a fictitious, false, and assumed name other than his own proper name and received from any post office or authorized depository of mail matter a letter addressed to such fictitious, false and assumed name other than his own proper name, specifically, Robert E. Gilligan assumed, used and requested to be addressed and to receive mail in the name of John Billings...". Not all the charges are this much hot air, but it really looks to me like the prosecuters are more interested in writing press releases than in serving justice. In short, the charges are: 1 count conspiracy 1 count "possession of access devices", 18 USC 1029(a)(3), (b)(2) 1 count "ownership of a test circuit pack", 18 USC 2512 3 counts giving the phone company a fake SS# 3 counts giving the phone company a fake name 1 count use of calling cards in fake names, 18 USC 1029(a)(2), (b)(2) 1 count use of a testset to intercept a call 1 count intercepting a Pacbell security person's conversation 1 count attempted access to US Army MASNET, 18 USC 1030(a)(3) 1 count "intent to transfer" MASNET access codes, 18 USC 1030(a)(6) 1 count "obtained with intent to convert to his use or gain" Secret classified orders from a Ft Bragg military exercise, 18 USC 641 2 counts intercepting specific phone calls, 18 USC 2511(1)(a) 1 count "stole a computer printout which was in the custody of PacBell pursuant to a contract with the FBI and which contained cable/pair assignments and phone numbers of Ferdinand Marcos and others who were target of an FBI investigation" 18 USC 641 1 count possession of access-device making equipment (including a POS terminal for verifying credit card limits!), 18 USC 1029(a)(4), (b)(3) In short, there is little computer crime in here -- mostly the normal life of a private person (not giving your name to the phone company, not giving out your SS# to people who have no legal need for it), having an interest in phones, some possible phreaking, and some fantasies about innocent stuff they found in searching an apartment. I find it quite interesting that they are charging these guys with intercepting calls when it's clear that that's exactly what the FBI was doing with Ferdinand Marcos's cable pair assignments...but don't worry, it's against the law for anyone but Big Brother to listen in on you. I'll find a copy of these laws sometime soon and see how bad they are. 18 USC 1029 and 1030 are new laws and are specifically mentioned in the "press release". 1029, on "access devices", is being used to charge these folks with possession of keys; use of calling cards issued under false names; and possession of a POS terminal and locksmith tools. Sounds like most modern laws -- broad enough to charge anybody who they want to "get"...and broad enough to be tacked on to any other charge to give them more to plea bargain with. And the ones on use of an incorrect SS# "with intent to deceive"! Last I heard, it was not illegal to deceive (lie to) private companies about your SS#, though it is illegal to defraud (cheat) them. Welcome to New Amerika! ------------------------------ From: David Lewis Subject: Re: Caller ID Date: 18 Jan 90 17:31:53 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ In article <2890@accuvax.nwu.edu>, kvitek@pro-party.cts.com (Keith Vitek) writes: > In-Reply-To: message from kvitek@pro-party.cts.com > > Well, I saw on 20/20 or some show like that said that the technology to stop > Caller ID was here. I was wondering if anyone knew what they were talking > about... They're talking about Calling Number Delivery Blocking, which is part of the Bellcore Requirements for the CLASS feature package. Available either on a subscription basis or a per-call basis, it sets a flag in the SS7 message indicating that the calling number is not to be delivered to the called party. The called party gets an indication on the display that the calling number is being blocked by the calling party. As I've said before, the fact that it's in the requirements doesn't mean it's been implemented; and the fact that it's been implemented (which, as far as I know, all the major switch vendors implementing CLASS have) doesn't mean that any telco is offering it or trying to tariff it. In other words, the technology's there, but that doesn't mean it's here, if you know what I mean. David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center) "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower." ------------------------------ From: 4036 Subject: Re: Caller ID Date: 19 Jan 90 20:26:20 GMT Reply-To: "C. Brent Hyde ISO 5-4036" Organization: Southwestern Bell Tele. Co. - Advanced Technology Lab - St. Louis There are some significant public policy issues that must be ironed out with Caller's ID. This feature becomes generally available after your local switching office is converted to ISDN, although there are some other ways of delivering it using other technologies. Whose rights are being violated? The customer who pays for Calling Line ID expects to receive it on every call. The customer who paid for an unlisted number doesn't want his/her number splayed all over zillions of ISDN terminals. Which service is more important? Technically speaking, the serving switch can be translated to prevent the calling number from being forwarded to the terminating station. The capability is in the 5ESS and is probably available in the DMS switches also. The problem of who gets what rights is the big issue. Until the court(s) (sadly enough) rule on the issue you may not be able to subscribe to a "privacy service". However, I would still suggest you first contact your local telephone company and request a "privacy service" which will prevent the calling number from being forwarded to the terminating station. If the phone company cannot, or will not provide you with the service, then contact your state Public Service Commission and make your opinions known. If you are not able to get satisfaction that way, write the chairman of the FCC, Al Sikes. These organizations are supposed to exist to protect the best interest of the public, but they have a difficult time doing it without adequate input. Good luck! ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Why Can't I Use 1+10 Dialing For All Calls? Date: 19 Jan 90 04:33:59 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <2905@accuvax.nwu.edu>, claris!netcom!woolsey@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Jeff Woolsey) writes: > In the Dialing Instructions article appearing elsewhere in this > newsgroup I noted that the dialing of which I speak was listed as > permissive, yet I know of nowhere that permits it. This probably won't satisfy Mr. Woolsey, but there is at least one place where permissive 1+10D works for intra-npa calling: most of New Jersey. NJ Bell, for at least several years, has allowed me to dial even an intra-office call as 1+201+xxx-xxxx if I wanted to. I have tried this from a number of different central offices of different kinds, and it appears to work from all that I have tested. I assume, therefore, that NJ Bell does this on purpose. Dave Levenson Voice: (201 | 908) 647 0900 Westmark, Inc. Internet: dave@westmark.uu.net Warren, NJ, USA UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave [The Man in the Mooney] AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Area Code 908 Lives (or does it?) Date: 19 Jan 90 04:42:02 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <2918@accuvax.nwu.edu>, bobl@pro-graphics.cts.com (System Administrator) writes: > Yes, I also tried to dial several NJ numbers using 908 instead of 201 > and got nothing but a fast busy. I guess that indicates that it's not > hooked up at this time. Where is the split happening anyway? Is the > northern part of 201 becoming 908 or is it another area? The split divides what has been the 201 area into two areas. The northern portion will remain 201, while the southern portion is now becoming 908. (In other words, southern north New Jersey!) Dave Levenson Voice: (201 | 908) 647 0900 Westmark, Inc. Internet: dave@westmark.uu.net Warren, NJ, USA UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave [The Man in the Mooney] AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Free Local Phone Calls Date: 19 Jan 90 03:20:20 PST (Fri) From: John Higdon fmsystm!macy@cwjcc.ins.cwru.edu writes: > When and if ALL payphones receive the same service (including answer > supervision!) at the same cost, with a some kind of separation/accounting > in the telco cost accounting, the situation (and level of service to > the public) may become equitable. Well, in California COCOT lines don't get answer supervision, but they do get a reduced local rate, free intraLATA DA, and international DDD blocking. And still the COCOT slime charge for DA and commit every other tariff violation imaginable. While I agree with you that technical interface between telco and COCOT is a farce and could be greatly improved, the basic problem with COCOTs is the scum that owns and operates them. This being the case, improving the nature of COCOT class of service would be putting lipstick on a pig. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Doug Davis Subject: Re: $outhwe$tern Bell Date: 18 Jan 90 02:35:21 GMT Reply-To: doug@letni.lonestar.org Organization: Logic Process Dallas, Texas. In article <2917@accuvax.nwu.edu> kossackj@rice.edu writes: >Why does Southwestern Bell charge so @*!#-ing much to turn on >telephone service? I could understand the $75- charge if I actually >needed a phone lines to be installed in my apartment, but this is not >the case. I think that $75- is a wee much to charge for some clerical >type to do the magnetic media work ... uhhh 'paperwork' involved in >setting up an account. I wouldn't complain, sometimes they have to do much more than just "throw a switch" When I installed my modem line they had to run a new cable from the CO 5 miles away! The cost? 65.00 (this was a couple of years ago) For some time I was the only person on that trunk. The installer and I still keep in touch, he used to read news on this machine but he hasn't logged in for some time. Anyway, the last time I had this conversation with SWB they have the same rate regardless of who/what or how much work has to go into getting the network interface box to the house. Of course, when you are in an apartment it seems really steep but wait until that second line for your modem requires that they spend two weeks running cables just to get to you ;-) Doug Davis/1030 Pleasant Valley Lane/Arlington/Texas/76015/817-467-3740 {texsun, motown!sys1, uiucuxc!sys1 lawnet, attctc, texbell} letni!doug "Clists? Clists? we don't need no stinken clists!" ------------------------------ From: hrs1@cbnewsi.ATT.COM (herman.r.silbiger) Subject: Re: USA Direct from France -- Terrible Service Date: 19 Jan 90 20:51:01 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <2913@accuvax.nwu.edu>, eli@ursa-major.spdcc.com writes: > Here are a few quick observations about USA Direct, after using > it for one week from France: > o About 20% of calls get cut off. > > o Service quality is the worst I've ever experienced. I have used AT&T Direct from the following countries: UK, France, FR Germany, Switzerland, Netherlands, Denmark, Japan, and Australia. I have not noticed a ny difference in quality between operator handled calls an USA Direct dialed calls when calling from these countries, and I have been a heavy international traveler for many years. I have used it to make data calls fm m many of these countries, which was difficult when operators were involved. I have never! been cut off. Herman Silbiger ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Jan 90 11:29:32 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Intercepts When Dialing 703-455 A recent posting to telecom told of getting intercept when trying to reach 703-455 in area code 202. It should always have gotten an intercept when dialing it that way; 703-455 is Engleside, and does not have full DC metro local service (only DC and Va. suburbs), and is outside area code 202. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #36 ***************************** From telecomlist-request@mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu Sat Jan 20 02:03:19 1990 Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP id AA04710; Sat, 20 Jan 90 02:03:09 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab29027; 20 Jan 90 0:17 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab20889; 19 Jan 90 23:12 CST Date: Fri, 19 Jan 90 23:03:09 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest Special: LONDON Script Message-Id: <9001192303.ab01974@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> Status: RO TELECOM Digest Fri, 19 Jan 90 23:00:52 CST Special: LONDON Script Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson LONDON script (Carl Moore) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 17 Jan 90 9:09:49 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: LONDON script Enclosed is the London script, which I did NOT write. #! /bin/sh # This is a shell archive, meaning: # 1. Remove everything above the #! /bin/sh line. # 2. Save the resulting text in a file. # 3. Execute the file with /bin/sh (not csh) to create: # /staff/pkh/bin/general/london # /staff/pkh/telephones/LONDON # This archive created: Fri May 19 09:20:47 1989 export PATH; PATH=/bin:/usr/bin:$PATH echo shar: "extracting 'london'" '(1264 characters)' if test -f 'london' then echo shar: "will not over-write existing file 'london'" else sed 's/^X//' << \SHAR_EOF > 'london' X#! /bin/sh X XPROG=$0 XDB=/staff/pkh/telephones/LONDON X Xerror () { echo "$PROG: $1" 1>&2 ; exit "$2" ; } X Xb=`echo $* | sed "s/-/ /g"` Xset $b X Xcase $# in X 2) case $1 in X 0*) error "Usage [AREA] EXCHANGE NUMBER X (space or - separated)" "2" ;; X *) AREA="01" ;; X esac ;; X 3) AREA=$1; X case $AREA in X 01) shift;; X *) error "Area code $AREA does not need conversion." 3 ;; X esac ;; X *) error "Usage AREA EXCHANGE NUMBER X (space or - separated)" "2" ;; Xesac X XEXCHANGE=$1 XNUMBER=$2 Xc=`grep $EXCHANGE $DB | grep -v \#` X Xif [ $? -eq 1 ] X then echo "The $EXCHANGE exchange code is outside of the range used in London." X exit Xfi X Xset $c XN_AREA=$2 Xif [ "$N_AREA" = "071" ] X then LOCATION="Inner London" X else LOCATION="Outer London" Xfi X Xcase $N_AREA in X U) echo "The $EXCHANGE exchange code is at present unused in London, Xthough it is in the range of other codes that will be in the new 071 area." ;; X V) echo "The $EXCHANGE exchange code is at present unused in London, Xthough it is in the range of other codes that will be in the new 081 area." ;; X W) echo "The $EXCHANGE exchange code is at present unused in London." ;; X *) echo "The new number for London $AREA-$EXCHANGE $NUMBER from Sunday 6th May 1990 will be: X $LOCATION $N_AREA-$EXCHANGE $NUMBER" ;; Xesac SHAR_EOF if test 1264 -ne "`wc -c < 'london'`" then echo shar: "error transmitting 'london'" '(should have been 1264 characters)' fi chmod +x 'london' fi echo shar: "extracting 'LONDON'" '(7683 characters)' if test -f 'LONDON' then echo shar: "will not over-write existing file 'LONDON'" else sed 's/^X//' << \SHAR_EOF > 'LONDON' X# U=Unused exchange code, but in the 071 region of codes. X# V=Unused exchange code, but in the 081 region of codes. X# W=Unused exchange code. X# X# 20x 081 X200 081 X201 V X202 081 X203 081 X204 081 X205 081 X206 081 X207 081 X208 081 X209 081 X# 21x 071 X210 071 X211 U X212 U X213 U X214 071 X215 071 X216 U X217 071 X218 071 X219 071 X# 22x 071 X220 071 X221 071 X222 071 X223 071 X224 071 X225 071 X226 071 X227 071 X228 071 X229 071 X# 23x 071 X230 071 X231 071 X232 071 X233 071 X234 071 X235 071 X236 071 X237 071 X238 071 X239 071 X# 24x 071 X240 071 X241 071 X242 071 X243 071 X244 071 X245 071 X246 071 X247 071 X248 071 X249 071 X# 25x 071 X250 071 X251 071 X252 071 X253 071 X254 071 X255 071 X256 071 X257 071 X258 071 X259 071 X# 26x 071 X260 071 X261 071 X262 071 X263 071 X264 U X265 071 X266 071 X267 071 X268 071 X269 071 X# 27x 071 X270 071 X271 071 X272 071 X273 071 X274 071 X275 U X276 071 X277 071 X278 071 X279 071 X# 28x 071 X280 071 X281 071 X282 U X283 071 X284 071 X285 U X286 071 X287 071 X288 071 X289 071 X# 29x 081 X290 081 X291 081 X292 V X293 081 X294 081 X295 081 X296 V X297 081 X298 081 X299 081 X# 30x 081 X300 081 X301 081 X302 081 X303 081 X304 081 X305 081 X306 V X307 V X308 081 X309 081 X# 31x 081 X310 081 X311 081 X312 081 X313 081 X314 081 X315 V X316 081 X317 081 X318 081 X319 081 X# 32x 071 X320 071 X321 071 X322 071 X323 071 X324 071 X325 071 X326 071 X327 071 X328 071 X329 071 X# 33x 081 X330 081 X331 V X332 081 X333 V X334 V X335 081 X336 081 X337 081 X338 V X339 081 X# 34x 081 X340 081 X341 081 X342 081 X343 081 X344 V X345 081 X346 081 X347 081 X348 081 X349 081 X# 35x 071 X350 071 X351 071 X352 071 X353 071 X354 071 X355 071 X356 071 X357 071 X358 071 X359 071 X# 36x 081 X360 081 X361 081 X362 V X363 081 X364 081 X365 081 X366 081 X367 081 X368 081 X369 V X# 37x 071 X370 071 X371 071 X372 071 X373 071 X374 071 X375 071 X376 071 X377 071 X378 071 X379 071 X# 38x 071 X380 071 X381 071 X382 071 X383 071 X384 071 X385 071 X386 071 X387 071 X388 071 X389 071 X# 39x 081 X390 081 X391 081 X392 081 X393 081 X394 081 X395 V X396 V X397 081 X398 081 X399 081 X# 40x 071 X400 071 X401 071 X402 071 X403 071 X404 071 X405 071 X406 071 X407 071 X408 071 X409 071 X# 41x Unused X410 W X411 W X412 W X413 W X414 W X415 W X416 W X417 W X418 W X419 W X# 42x 081 X420 081 X421 081 X422 081 X423 081 X424 081 X425 V X426 081 X427 081 X428 081 X429 081 X# 43x 071 X430 071 X431 071 X432 071 X433 071 X434 071 X435 071 X436 071 X437 071 X438 071 X439 071 X# 44x 081 X440 081 X441 081 X442 081 X443 081 X444 081 X445 081 X446 081 X447 081 X448 081 X449 081 X# 45x 081 X450 081 X451 081 X452 081 X453 081 X454 V X455 081 X456 081 X457 V X458 081 X459 081 X# 46x 081 X460 081 X461 081 X462 081 X463 081 X464 081 X465 V X466 081 X467 081 X468 081 X469 081 X# 47x Mixed X470 081 X471 081 X472 081 X473 071 X474 071 X475 081 X476 071 X477 W X478 081 X479 W X# 48x 071 X480 071 X481 071 X482 071 X483 071 X484 071 X485 071 X486 071 X487 071 X488 071 X489 071 X# 49x 071 X490 071 X491 071 X492 071 X493 071 X494 071 X495 071 X496 071 X497 071 X498 071 X499 071 X# 50x 081 X500 081 X501 081 X502 081 X503 V X504 081 X505 081 X506 081 X507 081 X508 081 X509 081 X# 51x Mixed X510 W X511 071 X512 071 X513 W X514 081 X515 071 X516 W X517 081 X518 081 X519 081 X# 52x 081 X520 081 X521 081 X522 V X523 081 X524 081 X525 V X526 081 X527 081 X528 V X529 081 X# 53x Mixed X530 081 X531 081 X532 081 X533 081 X534 081 X535 W X536 081 X537 071 X538 071 X539 081 X# 54x 081 X540 081 X541 081 X542 081 X543 081 X544 081 X545 081 X546 081 X547 081 X548 V X549 081 X# 55x 081 X550 081 X551 081 X552 081 X553 081 X554 081 X555 081 X556 081 X557 V X558 081 X559 081 X# 56x 081 X560 081 X561 081 X562 081 X563 081 X564 081 X565 V X566 081 X567 081 X568 081 X569 081 X# 57x 081 X570 081 X571 081 X572 081 X573 081 X574 081 X575 081 X576 081 X577 081 X578 081 X579 081 X# 58x 071 X580 071 X581 071 X582 071 X583 071 X584 071 X585 071 X586 071 X587 071 X588 071 X589 071 X# 59x 081 X590 081 X591 081 X592 081 X593 081 X594 081 X595 081 X596 V X597 081 X598 081 X599 081 X# 60x 071 X600 071 X601 071 X602 071 X603 071 X604 071 X605 071 X606 071 X607 071 X608 071 X609 071 X# 61x 071 X610 U X611 U X612 U X613 U X614 U X615 U X616 U X617 U X618 071 X619 U X# 62x 071 X620 071 X621 071 X622 071 X623 071 X624 071 X625 071 X626 071 X627 071 X628 071 X629 071 X# 63x 071 X630 071 X631 071 X632 071 X633 071 X634 071 X635 071 X636 071 X637 071 X638 071 X639 071 X# 64x 081 X640 081 X641 081 X642 081 X643 081 X644 081 X645 081 X646 081 X647 081 X648 081 X649 V X# 65x 081 X650 081 X651 081 X652 V X653 081 X654 081 X655 081 X656 081 X657 081 X658 081 X659 081 X# 66x 081 X660 081 X661 081 X662 V X663 081 X664 081 X665 081 X666 081 X667 081 X668 081 X669 081 X# 67x 081 X670 081 X671 081 X672 081 X673 081 X674 081 X675 081 X676 081 X677 081 X678 081 X679 081 X# 68x 081 X680 081 X681 081 X682 081 X683 081 X684 081 X685 081 X686 081 X687 081 X688 081 X689 081 X# 69x 081 X690 081 X691 081 X692 081 X693 081 X694 081 X695 081 X696 V X697 081 X698 081 X699 081 X# 70x 071 X700 071 X701 071 X702 071 X703 071 X704 071 X705 U X706 071 X707 071 X708 071 X709 071 X# 71x Unused X710 U X711 U X712 U X713 U X714 U X715 U X716 U X717 U X718 U X719 U X# 72x 071 X720 071 X721 071 X722 071 X723 071 X724 071 X725 071 X726 071 X727 071 X728 071 X729 071 X# 73x 071 X730 071 X731 071 X732 071 X733 071 X734 071 X735 071 X736 071 X737 071 X738 071 X739 071 X# 74x 081 X740 081 X741 081 X742 081 X743 081 X744 081 X745 081 X746 081 X747 081 X748 081 X749 081 X# 75x 081 X750 081 X751 081 X752 081 X753 V X754 081 X755 081 X756 081 X757 V X758 081 X759 081 X# 76x 081 X760 081 X761 081 X762 V X763 081 X764 081 X765 V X766 081 X767 081 X768 081 X769 081 X# 77x 081 X770 081 X771 081 X772 V X773 081 X774 V X775 V X776 081 X777 081 X778 081 X779 V X# 78x 081 X780 081 X781 V X782 V X783 081 X784 V X785 081 X786 081 X787 V X788 081 X789 081 X# 79x 071 X790 071 X791 071 X792 071 X793 071 X794 071 X795 U X796 071 X797 U X798 071 X799 071 X# 80x 081 X800 081 X801 081 X802 081 X803 081 X804 081 X805 081 X806 081 X807 081 X808 081 X809 081 X# 81x Unused X810 W X811 W X812 W X813 W X814 W X815 W X816 W X817 W X818 W X819 W X# 82x 071 X820 071 X821 071 X822 071 X823 071 X824 071 X825 U X826 071 X827 U X828 071 X829 071 X# 83x 071 X830 U X831 071 X832 071 X833 071 X834 071 X835 071 X836 071 X837 071 X838 U X839 071 X# 84x 081 X840 081 X841 081 X842 081 X843 081 X844 081 X845 081 X846 081 X847 081 X848 081 X849 V X# 85x 081 X850 081 X851 081 X852 081 X853 081 X854 081 X855 081 X856 081 X857 081 X858 081 X859 081 X# 86x 081 X860 V X861 081 X862 V X863 081 X864 081 X865 V X866 081 X867 V X868 081 X869 081 X# 87x 081 X870 081 X871 081 X872 V X873 V X874 081 X875 081 X876 081 X877 081 X878 081 X879 081 X# 88x 081 X880 V X881 081 X882 081 X883 081 X884 081 X885 081 X886 081 X887 V X888 081 X889 081 X# 89x 081 X890 081 X891 081 X892 081 X893 081 X894 081 X895 V X896 V X897 081 X898 081 X899 V X# 90x 081 X900 081 X901 V X902 081 X903 081 X904 081 X905 081 X906 081 X907 081 X908 081 X909 081 X# 91x Unused X910 W X911 W X912 W X913 W X914 W X915 W X916 W X917 W X918 W X919 W X# 92x 071 X920 071 X921 071 X922 071 X923 071 X924 071 X925 071 X926 U X927 071 X928 071 X929 071 X# 93x 071 X930 071 X931 071 X932 071 X933 071 X934 071 X935 071 X936 071 X937 071 X938 071 X939 U X# 94x 081 X940 081 X941 081 X942 081 X943 081 X944 081 X945 V X946 081 X947 081 X948 081 X949 081 X# 95x 081 X950 081 X951 081 X952 081 X953 081 X954 081 X955 V X956 V X957 V X958 081 X959 081 X# 96x 081 X960 081 X961 081 X962 V X963 081 X964 081 X965 081 X966 V X967 V X968 081 X969 081 X# 97x Mixed X970 W X971 W X972 W X973 W X974 081 X975 W X976 071 X977 081 X978 071 X979 081 X# 98x Mixed X980 081 X981 081 X982 W X983 081 X984 081 X985 081 X986 081 X987 071 X988 081 X989 081 X# 99x 081 X990 V X991 081 X992 081 X993 081 X994 081 X995 081 X996 V X997 081 X998 081 X# X# 20x 081 X# 21x - 28x 071 X# 29x - 31x 081 X# 32x 071 X# 33x & 34x 081 X# 35x 071 X# 36x 081 X# 37x & 38x 071 X# 39x 081 X# 40x 071 X# 41x Unused X# 42x 081 X# 43x 071 X# 44x - 46x 081 X# 47x Mixed X# 48x & 49x 071 X# 50x 081 X# 51x Mixed X# 52x 081 X# 53x Mixed X# 54x - 57x 081 X# 58x 071 X# 59x 081 X# 60x - 63x 071 X# 64x - 69x 081 X# 70x 071 X# 71x Unused X# 72x & 73x 071 X# 74x - 78x 081 X# 79x 071 X# 80x 081 X# 81x Unused X# 82x & 83x 071 X# 84x - 90x 081 X# 91x Unused X# 92x & 93x 071 X# 94x - 96x 081 X# 97x & 98x Mixed X# 99x 081 SHAR_EOF if test 7683 -ne "`wc -c < 'LONDON'`" then echo shar: "error transmitting 'LONDON'" '(should have been 7683 characters)' fi fi #exit 0 # End of shell archive **********************remove all below, including this line****************** [Moderator's Note: My thanks to Carl Moore for sending along the material for this special issue of the Digest. In Digests on Saturday, the 10xxx table is re-printed in case you missed it the first time; a response is made to 'More Net Friends', and further information from AT&T regards the outage, and a compensation day for subscribers. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest Special: LONDON Script ***************************** From telecomlist-request@mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu Sat Jan 20 05:47:43 1990 Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP id AA12147; Sat, 20 Jan 90 05:47:38 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24609; 20 Jan 90 4:21 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23094; 20 Jan 90 3:18 CST Date: Sat, 20 Jan 90 2:27:38 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #37 Message-Id: <9001200227.ab18522@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> Status: RO TELECOM Digest Sat, 20 Jan 90 02:25:47 CST Volume 10 : Issue 37 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes (Pat Townson) Should I Abandon AT&T For MCI's Offer of $0.59/Minute to Europe? (C.Seline) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 20 Jan 90 1:37:01 CST From: Patrick Townson Subject: Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes The purpose of this message is NOT to give an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the persons discussed in the original message. Only the court can rule upon the facts, and detirmine the guilt or innocence of the defendants. This message is intended ONLY to address Mr. Gilmore's presentation itself, and discuss what he feels are frivolous charges. In volume 9, issue 36 John Gilmore writes: >'Tis my sad duty to report to you-all that three folks, Kevin >Poulsen, Mark Lottor (mkl@sri.com), and Robert Gilligan >(gilligan@sun.com) have been charged by the San Jose US Attorney with >nineteen counts (mostly bogus) of telephone and computer crimes. >The indictment starts off with a conspiracy charge in a feeble attempt >to tie the three defendents together, then proceeds through a bunch >of separate "counts". Many of these are completely bogus, e.g. >they are three separate charges under Title 42, USC 408(g)(2) with: > "...for the purpose of obtaining telephone service from > Pacific Bell Telephone under a false name, with intent to > deceive, falsely represented his social security account > number to be 549-64-3121, when in fact, such number was not > his social security number". >There are three other charges under 18 USC 1342 with: > "...for the purpose of defrauding Pacific Bell Telephone > Company, used, assumed and requested to be addressed by a > fictitious, false, and assumed name other than his own > proper name and received from any post office or authorized > depository of mail matter a letter addressed to such > fictitious, false and assumed name other than his own proper > name, specifically, Robert E. Gilligan assumed, used and > requested to be addressed and to receive mail in the name of > John Billings...". When an application is made for an extension of credit, it is illegal to misrepresent who you are. In this case, telco would be the creditor. Credit is not a *right*. It does not have to be given to anyone. Telco must provide service to all *qualified* applicants, and in this instance, a qualified applicant is one who has demonstrated an ability and willingness to pay for the service. More on this later. >In short, the charges are: (list edited, to address only certain issues) > 3 counts giving the phone company a fake SS# > 3 counts giving the phone company a fake name > 1 count use of calling cards in fake names, 18 USC 1029(a)(2), (b)(2) Here again, the use of a calling card is the use of an extension of credit given by telco. It is a crime to apply for credit under a fake name or using fake credentials, period. No actual loss to the creditor has to occur. The fact is, the creditor is entitled to set whatever parameters he desires to define 'credit worthy'; this is not an option left to the subscriber or purchaser of the service. If you misrepresent who you are for the purpose of obtaining an extension of credit, you have committed a federal felony. If you place your written misrepresentation in a US Postal Service receptacle, you have committed mail fraud as soon as the envelope lands in the basket inside. If your oral misrepresentation causes the creditor to place something inside a mail receptacle, i.e. your monthly bill, then again, *you* have committed mail fraud. By 'extension of credit' I mean that these gentlemen could have been obliged by telco to make a sizeable down payment of earnest money -- or deposit against future charges -- before service was established. Or, they could have been obliged to make calls from pay stations, on a pay- as-you-go basis. > 1 count use of a testset to intercept a call > 1 count intercepting a Pacbell security person's conversation Interception of calls is illegal, whether it is by a private party or the government without the permission of a court. If these charges are proven to be factual, then they are very serious matters. I would ask Mr. Gilmore if he would like to be the victim of such an intercept. Even 'security persons' have the right to assume their conversation on the phone is private. > 1 count attempted access to US Army MASNET, 18 USC 1030(a)(3) > 1 count "intent to transfer" MASNET access codes, 18 USC 1030(a)(6) > 1 count "obtained with intent to convert to his use or gain" Secret > classified orders from a Ft Bragg military exercise, 18 USC 641 Another way of phrasing it is a charge of attempted burglary; a charge of attempted theft; plus a charge of theft by deception. If Mr. Gilmore feels this is not all that serious, perhaps he will share his modem phone number and personal passwords with us; or not raise too much of a fuss if someone finds them and uses them. > 2 counts intercepting specific phone calls, 18 USC 2511(1)(a) As above; only a court can authorize a wire; would you want it any other way? > 1 count "stole a computer printout which was in the custody of > PacBell pursuant to a contract with the FBI and which > contained cable/pair assignments and phone numbers of Ferdinand > Marcos and others who were target of an FBI investigation" 18 USC 641 So now we have another charge of theft. Yes, that is what it is called when some sleaze on the subway gets into your pockebook -- why not call it that when someone rifles an office or a briefcase? Does the fact that the offender is smart enough he doesn't have to strong-arm you on the street make a difference in the seriousness of the crime? > 1 count possession of access-device making equipment (including a > POS terminal for verifying credit card limits!), 18 USC 1029(a)(4), > (b)(3) What business does anyone have verifying the credit limits of some other person lacking some business transaction involving credit? Who the hell are you -- or anyone -- to verify my credit standing unless we are transacting business with each other? >In short, there is little computer crime in here -- mostly the normal >life of a private person (not giving your name to the phone company, >not giving out your SS# to people who have no legal need for it), I would suggest that electronic burglary, i.e. breaking and entering into the military computers and the theft of the information in the one computer is a 'computer crime', and a rather serious one at that. If Mr. Gilmore does not regard breaking and entering into a computer to be a 'computer crime' what does he consider to be such a crime? I would suggest that tampering with a communications computer, i.e. a central office ESS to intercept phone calls is a computer crime, if indeed the alleged interception was done in that manner. >mostly the normal life of a private person (not giving your name to the >phone company, not giving out your SS# to people who have no legal >need for it..... Most people do not try to defraud the phone company. Most people do not give bogus identification to the phone company. Telco will list (or not) the service under any name desired, within reason. They will send the bill to any third party. But the person who ultimatly guarentees the payment *must* be known to telco, like any other creditor. If these allegations of the government are found to be factual, then I'd say these fellows have a problem: if they intended to deal in good faith with telco, their true identities would have been part of telco's service record. >not giving out your SS# to people who have no legal need for it. Legal need is one thing; consideration for an extension of credit is another; or does Mr. Gilmore assume telco should just take the word of everyone who comes in that everything will be alright and telco will get paid? As stated above, when the creditor *gives consideration to* your request for credit, he requires something by which to positively identify yourself and your history of meeting your obligations. It is a perfectly acceptable trade off: identify yourself to your creditor's satisfaction and your creditor will give consideration to your request for credit. This is something that has confused many people in the past: do you, or don't you have to produce an SSN on the request of a merchant? NO, YOU DO NOT! But....the merchant is NOT obliged to do business with you on any basis other than CASH. No checks, no credit cards, no open account -- just cold hard cash, deposit twenty five cents for the first minute please..... You don't like those terms, and want to cash your checks, use your credit or otherwise pay in a more convenient way? Then meet the creditor's terms. And the federal government says if you decieve the creditor in *any way*, they have a beef with you. >just like the normal life of a private person... And as a further example, he gives... >having an interest in phones, some possible phreaking, About 95 percent of the public has no idea how phones work, could care less how they work (until the CO burns down, the employees go on strike, or the software gets a bug in it), and do not phreak. Most people do not know anything more than listen for dial tone, dial the number, talk and hang up. The defendants here are hardly 'normal living private persons', if their knowledge of telecom is any indicator. >some possible phreaking, Note how casually Mr. Gilmore dismisses this. Instead, substitute the phrase, 'some possible burglaries; some possible thefts by deception; possibly some breaking and entering....' >normal lives of private persons..... Most people do not burglarize the space of others, be it electronic or physical in nature. They do not practice theft by deception. >and some fantasies about innocent stuff they found in searching >an apartment. Oh! And, uh, if its not asking too much, WHO authorized the searching of the apartment? If this is shown to be factual, and if no one can be found who authorized the 'search', then the 'search' becomes a burglary...this time of a physical place rather than an electronic one. But perhaps I mis-read this. Perhaps the defendants had been invited by someone to come to their home and search through their possessions. >I find it quite interesting that they are charging these guys with >intercepting calls when it's clear that that's exactly what the FBI was >doing with Ferdinand Marcos's cable pair assignments... The difference is, the one wire was authorized by a court; the other one was not. I personally find all wires distasteful -- particularly those committed by unauthorized persons -- but at least the FBI took the trouble to do it legally I assume. And if the FBI did not do it legally? None of us here have virgin ears and eyes; we all know about the stink at Cincinnatti Bell; the Chicago Police Red Squad of the 1960's; the marginal legality of some aspects of the 'war on drugs', etc.... but is the writer saying the current defendants were no more naughty than the FBI, therefore they should not be punished if they are found guilty? >but don't worry, >it's against the law for anyone but Big Brother to listen in on you. Let's quit playing games and pointing fingers. Yes, it is illegal for anyone to listen to your private conversations except the government, and then, only by specific court order. Mr. Gilmore seems to be almost confessing for the defendants now, by his admission that the alleged acts were illegal. But that isn't what he meant. He meant since it is okay for the government to break the law, it should be okay for the defendants to do so also. I think otherwise. >use of calling cards issued under >false names; and possession of a POS terminal and locksmith tools. >Sounds like most modern laws -- Maybe, but it hardly sounds like the normal life of your average private person who typically does not carry credit cards with false names; does not possess a POS terminal unless he is a merchant using it in his legitimate business; does not have locksmith tools unless he is a locksmith by trade; and doesn't go around tapping phones, burglarizing computers and stealing documents. >broad enough to charge anybody who they want to "get" Why should the government 'want to get' these chaps? It sounds to me like the government doesn't need any excuses to 'get' them....if the claims by the government are factual, then these fellows are hardly model citizens being persecuted by an evil government. >And the ones on use of an >incorrect SS# "with intent to deceive"! Last I heard, it was not >illegal to deceive (lie to) private companies about your SS#, though >it is illegal to defraud (cheat) them. It is illegal to deceive anyone for the purpose of obtaining an extension of credit. If some attorney told you it was not illegal to deceive your creditor, I suggest you ask for your retainer back and go find another attorney. Actual loss to the creditor is not required. The creditor's victimization begins when he grants you credit you should not (by his standards) be given. He is at risk at that point. And the feds will back up the creditor *every time* on this. Conduct business by mail and you can add mail fraud to the rap. >Welcome to New Amerika! Isn't that precious..... I'll repeat: quit the game playing and the role of martyr. If your 'net friends' are found to be guilty, tell them to quit their belly-aching and take their medicine like a man-child. A couple years Federal Probation might just hit the spot. If they follow your line of reasoning, and get too arrogant in court, that Federal Probation might turn into a couple years in the custody of the Attorney General or his authorized representative instead. And if they are not guilty, and all these things the government has said about them are just damnable lies, by a government 'out to get them....' Well then, they can take comfort in the words of Oscar Wilde, who once said, "Injustice? Well I can live with injustice. I've had it heaped on me many times... But justice.....its justice that stings..... " Patrick Townson **This message was NOT intended to express an opinion about the guilt or innocence of the defendants. Only the court can detirmine the facts. It was intended to address tbe recent remarks by Mr. Gilmore.** ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Jan 90 00:55 EST From: CJS@cwru.bitnet Subject: Should I Abandon AT&T For MCI's Offer of $0.59/Minute to Europe? MCI is now offering service to Europe for $0.59/minute plus a three dollar monthly surcharge. I would like to call Bonn West Germany twice a month for twenty to forty minutes between 3PM and 6PM. I'm concerned that there must be major drawbacks to a deal that sounds so good. Can anyone comment on this? Please spare the bandwidth and reply directly to me. I'll summarize and post in about 10 days. Thanks in advance, Christopher Seline cjs@cwru.cwru.edu cjs@cwru.bitnet bellcore!oberlin!cjs ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #37 ***************************** From telecomlist-request@mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu Sat Jan 20 14:46:13 1990 Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP id AA29920; Sat, 20 Jan 90 14:46:08 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29275; 20 Jan 90 13:26 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24559; 20 Jan 90 12:22 CST Date: Sat, 20 Jan 90 11:29:07 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #38 Message-Id: <9001201129.ac27576@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> Status: RO TELECOM Digest Sat, 20 Jan 90 11:25:42 CST Volume 10 : Issue 38 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson AT&T Special Discounts on Valentine's Day (Jeffri Frontz) Re: Who's Using Whom? (Macy M. Hallock, Jr.) SS7 Problems Not Unique to ATT (Steve Elias) Re: CCIS vs. Inband Signalling Question (David Lewis) Re: The AT&T Problem (David Lewis) Re: The AT&T Problem (John R. Levine) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jhf@cblpe.att.com Date: Fri, 19 Jan 90 11:49 EST Subject: AT&T Special Discounts on Valentine's Day [Following is the full text of an all-employee bulletin being distributed beginning this afternoon.] AT&T PLANS SPECIAL CALLING DISCOUNTS FOLLOWING SERVICE DISRUPTION To underscore its commitment to customers in the wake of Monday's service disruption, AT&T will file a special tariff with the Federal Communications Commission to offer its residential, business and international customers special Valentine's Day discounts on long-distance telephone service. In its filing, AT&T is asking the FCC for approval to declare Wednesday, February 14, as an additional day of holiday calling. Citing the impact of Monday's service disruption, Chairman Bob Allen said, "We are making this gesture to underscore how much we value our relationship with our customers, knowing there is no way to make up for the inconvenience they may have experienced." AT&T's special holiday prices, discounted on average 33 percent from regular weekday prices, will apply on all out-of-state, direct-dialed, long-distance calls made by residence and business customers on AT&T's public network. Evening rates will apply to all other out-of-state switched business services except those that do not have time-of-day discount schedules, such as 900 Service. In addition, the economy rate will apply to all direct-dialed international calls. AT&T also will extend its 800 Service Assurance Plan to cover this extraordinary situation. Under this program, customers of AT&T's 800 Services are eligible to receive a credit on their bills up to the monthly service charge. Under the discount plan, a 10-minute, direct-dialed, coast-to-coast call between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. on Valentine's Day will cost $1.58. At normal weekday prices between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. that call would usually cost $2.50. On international calls, the economy rate will apply all day for calls to all 158 countries and areas that can be dialed directly through the AT&T network. For example, a five-minute direct-dialed call from anywhere in the mainland United States to Japan ordinarily costs $8.01 from 2 p.m. to 8 p.m., $6.51 from 8 p.m. to 3 a.m., and $5.40 from 3 a.m. to 2 p.m. On Valentine's Day, a five-minute call will cost $5.40 at any time. An open letter to customers from Bob Allen (the text of which appears following this bulletin) will be published tomorrow in 22 cities across the country. The following newspapers, among others, will feature the letter: Wall Street Journal, USA Today, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Philadelphia Inquirer, San Francisco Chronicle Examiner, Boston Globe, Dallas Morning News, Detroit Free Press, Washington Post, Houston Chronicle, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Atlanta Journal Constitution, Minneapolis Star Tribune, St. Paul Pioneer Press Dispatch, Seattle Times/Post Intelligencer, Tacoma News Tribune, Miami Herald, Pittsburgh Press, St. Louis Post Dispatch, Denver Post, Phoenix Republic Gazette and Tampa Tribune. ================================================= Text of Bob Allen's Open Letter to Customers Dear AT&T Customer: AT&T had a major service disruption last Monday. We didn't live up to our own standards of quality, and we didn't live up to yours. It's as simple as that. And that's not acceptable to us. Or to you. Once we discovered the problem, we responded within minutes with every resource at our disposal. By late evening, normal service was restored. Ironically, the problem resulted from a glitch in software designed to provide back-up in a new signaling system we were installing to bring even greater reliability to our network. It has now been fixed. We understand how much people have come to depend upon AT&T service, so our AT&T Bell Laboratories scientists and our network engineers are doing everything possible to guard against a recurrence. We know there's no way to make up for the inconvenience this problem may have caused you. But in an effort to underscore how much we value our relationship with you, we've filed with the FCC to offer a special day of calling discounts on Valentine's Day, Wednesday, February 14: Discounts all-day for residence and business customers on most out-of-state calls made on the AT&T public network throughout the U.S., and on international calls to all 158 direct-dial countries. We've also extended the provisions of our AT&T 800 Assurance Policy to cover this extraordinary situation. For more than 100 years, we've built our reputation on superior quality, reliability and technological innovation. Our goal is to ensure that you always regard us that way. Sincerely, R. E. Allen, Chairman ====================================================== CONCERNING AT&T ... Clarification: The final question-and-answer section in Tuesday's flash edition contained some figures on network performance that need to be clarified. On Monday, Jan. 16, there were 148 million call attempts, 83 million of which were handled by AT&T's long-distance network ("calls handled" means calls that reach their destination, get a busy signal or are not answered--in other words, calls where the network did its job). Approximately 60 million of these attempts resulted in revenue- producing messages. ... Updating things, the AT&T long-distance network continues to function normally following Monday's nine- hour service impairment. ------------------------------ From: fmsystm!macy Date: Thu Jan 18 14:45:08 1990 Subject: Re: Who's Using Whom? Organization: F M Systems Inc. Medina, Ohio USA In article <2895@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 29, message 2 of 11 >AT&T long distance has been severely disrupted today in the Bay Area ... >Why is this of any interest? Well, it seems that Sprint is down as >well. Why? Sprint leases facilities from AT&T. So all of the ballyhoo >about Sprint's fiber optics is, to some degree, actually AT&T's fiber >optics. Sprint leases T1 and T3 dedicated lines from AT&T and many other carriers. They also use switched access services from the BOC's and local telcos to originate and complete calls. To the best of my knowledge, they lease little or no switched serivces from AT&T, although they do interrconnect with some other carriers (mostly regionals, and a little bit from MCI). Unless AT&T's Digital Cross-connects were affected, this seems unlikely. The SS7 failure that AT&T had should not affect the DACS. Sprint did take some heavy surges in traffic when AT&T went down, and may just have been overloaded. I have a couple of AT&T Megacom (T1 fed) customers, whose PBX's I have programmed to use Sprint in cases like this. For some reason, most of my customers whose do not use Sprint as a primary carrier specify them as a secondary "overflow" carrier. This may explain it, in part. BTW - in the Cleveland/Akron Ohio area here, my Sprint, MCI, Charter, and Litel users reported little or no disruption. Maybe a few of our legislators who want a return to the days before deregulation should bear this in mind... Now, what can we do about this GTE GTD-5 central office I am in that falls on its face twice a year...Thank goodness I have FX lines and cellphones or we'd be off the map. Frankly, local CO's are fast becoming the weak link in telecom...I've had several major CO failures in the area this past year, not to mention cable cuts... Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy F M Systems, Inc. {uunet!backbone}!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!fmsystm!macy 150 Highland Drive Voice: +1 216 723-3000 Ext 251 Fax: +1 216 723-3223 Medina, Ohio 44256 USA Cleveland:273-3000 Akron:239-4994 (Dial 251 at tone) (Insert favorite disclaimer here) (What if I gave a .sig and nobody cared?) ------------------------------ Subject: SS7 Problems Not Unique to ATT Date: Fri, 19 Jan 90 08:49:44 -0500 From: eli@pws.bull.com ATT is not the only one to have had problems with SS7 switches. When a certain other carrier was installing SS7 switches, software problems were experienced. That's all I'll say for now -- I'm trying to avoid threats of legal action for the beginning of the 1990s, at least. ; Steve Elias ; work phone: 508 671 7556 ; email: eli@pws.bull.com , eli@spdcc.com ; voice mail: 617 932 5598 ------------------------------ From: David Lewis Subject: Re: CCIS vs. Inband Signalling Question Date: 18 Jan 90 17:27:42 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ In article <2897@accuvax.nwu.edu>, phil@east.berkeley.edu (Phil Lapsley) writes: > Does anybody know what percentage of interoffice trunks now send > signalling information out of band via CCIS? Before the breakup, Bell > Labs made some comment like it would be 100% CCIS by 1988, but I still > hear those MF tones in the background occasionally. So far as I know, AT&T is 100% CCS (I *think* they've entirely cut over to Signaling System 7 from Signaling System 6 a.k.a. CCIS). MCI and US Sprint, also so far as I know, are 100% SS7 connected. Local telcos have limited SS7 connectivity and, of course, there's a wide variance. In general, they have high SS7 connectivity between tandem switches and limited connectivity to the end office. Some LECs are aagressively deploying SS7 to the end office; others aren't. When you consider there are on the order of 10 000 end offices in the USA (about 5000 in BOCs and 5000 in Non-Bells), it'll take a while... Especially when you consider that a significant fraction of those switches are No. 5 Crossbars or older and *can't* handle SS7, and another significant fraction are 1AESSs which cost on the order of a million bucks to make SS7-compatible... The MF you hear are generally EAMF (Equal Access MultiFrequency) signaling tones going from an end office to an Access Tandem for handoff to an interexchange carrier, or MF signaling going to a tandem for further moving around the LEC's network. David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center) "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower." ------------------------------ From: David Lewis Subject: Re: The AT&T Problem Date: 18 Jan 90 17:20:11 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ What kind of information have people been able to glean from the popular press about the AT&T problem? My information to date consists of: * A software problem (fact), which occured in New York City (fact), due to new software (fact) (conjecture -- a new generic). * A problem in one "computer" (fact) (conjecture -- either a tandem, a Signaling Transfer Point (STP), or network management system. I'd put money on tandem, though. Question -- back in the days of hierarchical routing, AT&T Long Lines, now ATT-C, had two "class 1" offices. Was one of them in NYC?) which caused congestion to propagate throughout the network (fact). * The problem was in (not a direct quote) "the software that determines where to send calls." (Conjecture -- the Dynamic Non-Hierarchical Routing (DNHR) routines in a tandem switch). Put this all together, and my best guess is that there was a flaw in the DNHR portion of the new 4ESS generic which didn't appear in system testing. This flaw appeared on a large tandem in NYC, preventing that tandem from routing any calls. As this tandem was unavailable, other switches attempted to circumvent the problem and route around it, but this bogged down the whole network. Problem with this theory: * Single failure points shouldn't be sufficient to drag down the whole network. (From what I read, approximately 44% of calls on AT&T were getting intercept or reorder.) Perhaps the fault appeared in other tandems as well? As I said, this is a best guess. I don't work for AT&T, and they certainly don't tell *me* what's going on. Anyone with more accurate information, please tell us... Another point of interest: in one of their analysis articles, the NY Times had a headline with the line "1-800-NOTHING". I wonder who has the number 1-800-668-4464 and just how they felt about this... David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center) "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower." ------------------------------ From: "John R. Levine" Subject: Re: The AT&T Problem Date: Fri, 19 Jan 90 16:13:39 GMT Reply-To: johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA In article <2956@accuvax.nwu.edu> olmiller@xibm.asd.contel.com (Otto Miller) writes: >I understand the concept of 10xxx dialling to get to other carriers, >*BUT* don't you need an account with the carrier to do this? It just >came to mind (what little I have left), do these 'other' carriers just >bill the local service provider based on originating phone number? If you make a 10XXX call to a carrier with whom you do not have an account, they have four choices: -- block the call (TDX, now C&W, seems to do this) -- have the local telco bill for them on a separate page of the regular phone bill (the most common) -- use the billing information provided by the local telco and send you a bill directly -- eat the cost of the call (far less common than it used to be, shucks) John R. Levine, Segue Software, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, +1 617 864 9650 johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {ima|lotus|spdcc}!esegue!johnl "Now, we are all jelly doughnuts." [Moderator's Note: Speaking of which -- 10xxx I mean, not jelly doughnuts -- several people have sent the table which appeared some time ago, and later today, a Digest will include it for those who have never seen it. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #38 ***************************** From telecomlist-request@mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu Sat Jan 20 23:59:22 1990 Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP id AA20979; Sat, 20 Jan 90 23:59:16 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04869; 20 Jan 90 22:31 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30124; 20 Jan 90 21:27 CST Date: Sat, 20 Jan 90 21:01:27 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #39 Message-Id: <9001202101.ab24381@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> Status: RO TELECOM Digest Sat, 20 Jan 90 21:00:29 CST Volume 10 : Issue 39 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson How To Dial an OCC: 10xxx List (TELECOM Moderator) Sprint Stuff (John Higdon) NCN Communications, INC (Bill Huttig) Re: Should I Abandon AT&T For MCI's Offer? (John Higdon) Re: Caller ID (Dave Levenson) Re: Faxnet Info Request (Tad Cook) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 20 Jan 90 11:40:45 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: How To Dial an OCC: 10xxx List In response to my request for a copy of the 10xxx table, several people responded by sending a copy, and it appears below, for those of you who have never received a copy. This is your answer to 'what do I do when my carrier of choice is not operating, etc....' Not all of these companies offer originating service in all locations, and many require an account on their system. To use these (where use is possible, based on the above stipulations), you would dial 10xxx, where 'x' is the three digit code shown, followed by 1, then the area code and number desired. In many cases the bill will come on your local telco bill; in others, the carrier will bill you separately. Please note the tariff provides these companies are entitled to receive your name, address and telephone number from your local telco, even if your service is non-published. My thanks to the following who submitted copies of this list as of Saturday evening: Robert P. Warnock Bill Fenner Juan Leon Daniel Senie Yoram Eisenstadter Jeffrey M. Schweiger (And others whose copies may be in transit. If you have not sent one, don't!) If you spot any corrections or updates, please send them along. 001 MidAmerican LD (Republic Telecom) 002 AmeriCall LDC 003 RCI Corporation 007 Tel America 011 Metromedia Long Distance 012 Charter Corporation (Tri-J) 013 Access Services 021 Mercury 022 MCI Telecommunications 023 Texnet 024 Petricca Communications Systems 028 Texnet 030 Valu-Line of Wichita Falls 031 Teltec Saving Communications 033 US Sprint 036 Long Distance Savers 039 Electronic Office Centers of America (EO/Tech) 042 First Phone 044 Allnet Communication Services (LDX, Lexitel) 053 American Network (Starnet) 056 American Satellite 057 Long Distance Satellite 059 COMNET 060 Valu-Line of West Texas 063 COMNET 069 V/COM 070 National Telephone Exchange 080 AMTEL Systems 084 Long Distance Service (LDS) 085 WesTel 088 Satellite Business Systems (MCI) 089 Telephone Systems 090 WesTel 093 Rainbow Communications 095 Southwest Communications 099 AmeriCall 122 RCA Global Communications 137 All America Cables and Radio (ITT) 142 First Phone 146 ARGO Communications 188 Satellite Business Systems 201 PhoneNet 202 ExecuLines 203 Cypress Telecommunications (Cytel) 204 United Telephone Long Distance 206 United Telephone Long Distance 211 RCI 212 Call US 213 Long Distance Telephone Savers 214 Tyler Telecom 215 Star Tel of Abilene 217 Call US 219 Call USA 220 Western Union Telegraph 222 MCI Telecommunications (SBS) 223 Cable & Wireless Communication (TDX) 224 American Communications 227 ATH Communications (Call America) 229 Bay Communications 232 Superior Telecom 233 Delta Communications 234 AC Teleconnect (Alternative Communication) 237 Inter-Comm Telephone 239 Woof Communications (ACT) 241 American Long Lines 242 Choice Information Systems 244 Automated Communications 245 Taconic Long Distance Service 250 Dial-Net 252 Long Distance/USA 253 Litel Telecommunications 255 All-State Communications 256 American Sharecom 260 Advanced Communications Systems 263 Com Systems (Sun Dial Communications) 268 Compute-A-Call 276 CP National (American Network, Starnet) 284 American Telenet 286 Clark Telecommunications 287 ATS Communications 288 AT&T Communications 298 Thriftline 302 Austin Bestline 303 MidAmerican LD (Republic Telecom) 311 SaveNet (American Network, Starnet) 318 Long Distance Savers 321 Southland Systems 322 American Sharecom 324 First Communication 331 Texustel 333 US Sprint 336 Florida Digital Network 338 Midco Communications 339 Communication Cable Laying 343 Communication Cable Laying 345 AC Teleconnect (Alternative Communication) 350 Dial-Net 355 US Link 357 Manitowoc Long Distance Service 362 Electronic Office Centers of America (EO/Tech) 363 Tel-Toll (Econ-O-Dial of Bishop) 369 American Satellite 373 Econo-Line Waco 375 Wertern Union Telegraph 385 The Switchboard 393 Execulines of Florida 400 American Sharecom 404 MidAmerican LD (Republic Telecom) 412 Penn Telecom 428 Inter-Comm Telephone 432 Lightcall 435 Call-USA 436 Indiana Switch 440 Tex-Net 441 Escondido Telephone 442 First Phone 444 Allnet Communication Services (LDX, Lexitel) 455 Telecom Long Distance 456 ARGO Communications 462 American Network Services 464 Houston Network 465 Intelco 466 International Office Networks 469 GMW 472 Hal-Rad Communications 480 Chico Telecom (Call America) 488 United States Transmission Systems (ITT) 505 San Marcos Long Distance 515 Burlington Telephone 529 Southern Oregon Long Distance 532 Long Distance America 533 Long Distance Discount 536 Long Distance Management 550 Valu-Line of Alexandria 551 Pittsburg Communication Systems 552 First Phone 555 TeleSphere Networks 566 Cable & Wireless Communication (TDX) 567 Advanced Marketing Services (Dial Anywhere) 579 Lintel System (Lincoln Telephone LD) 590 Wisconsin Telecommunications Tech 599 Texas Long Distance Conroe 601 Discount Communications Services 606 Biz Tel Long Distance Telephone 622 Metro America Communications 634 Econo-Line Midland 646 Contact America 654 Cincinnati Bell Long Distance 655 Ken-Tel Service 660 Tex-Net 666 Southwest Communications 675 Network Services 680 Midwest Telephone Service 682 Ashland Call America 684 Nacogdoches Telecommunications 687 NTS Communications 700 Tel-America 704 Inter-Exchange Communications 707 Telvue 709 Tel-America 717 Pass Word 726 Procom 727 Conroe-Comtel 735 Marinette-Menominee Lds 737 National Telecommunications 741 ClayDesta 742 Phone America of Carolina 743 Peninsula Long Distance Service 747 Standard Informations Services 755 Sears Communication 757 Pace Long Distance Service 759 Telenet Communication (US Sprint) 760 American Satellite 766 Yavapai Telephone Exchange 771 Telesystems 777 US Sprint 785 Olympia Telecom 786 Shared Use Network Service 787 Star Tel of Abilene 788 ASCI's Telepone Express Network 789 Microtel 792 Southwest Communications 800 Satelco 801 MidAmerican LD (Republic) 827 TCS Network Services 833 Business Telecom 839 Cable & Wireless Communication (TDX) 847 VIP Connections 850 TK Communications 852 Telecommunicatons Systems 859 Valu-Line of Longview 866 Alascom 872 Telecommunications Services 874 Tri-Tel Communications 879 Thriftycall (Lintel Systems) 881 Coastal Telephone 882 Tuck Data Communications 883 TTI Midland-Odessa 884 TTI Midland-Odessa 885 The CommuniGroup 888 Satellite Business Systems (MCI) 895 Texas on Line 897 Leslie Hammond (Phone America) 898 Satellite Business Systems (MCI) 910 Montgomery Telamarketing Communication 915 Tele Tech 933 North American Communications 936 Rainbow Commuinications 937 Access Long Distance 938 Access Long Distance 951 Transamerica Telecommunications 955 United Communications 960 Access Plus 963 Tenex Communications 969 Dial-Net 985 America Calling 986 MCI Telecommunications (SBS) 987 ClayDesta Communications 988 Western Union Telegraph 991 Access Long Distance ------------------------------ Subject: Sprint Stuff Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 19 Jan 90 19:16:03 PST (Fri) From: John Higdon While waiting at the vets the other day (don't ask), I decided to kill time by playing with the Pac*Bell pay phone in the lobby (my vet has class). I dialed a number in Orange County by using "10333+0+714+NNX+XXXX". There was the KaBong, so I entered my FO(O)N card number (Sprint's calling card number). A recording told me that I had entered an invalid number and an operator came on the line (after much waiting). I gave the operator my FO(O)N card number and was told that the number was "unbillable". At this time I was given the number of Sprint customer service. I dialed the customer service number and FIFTEEN MINUTES later someone came on the line. I recited my problem and gave the rep my FO(O)N card number. I was told that the number was a good, working number, but that to use it I would have to dial the 800 number that has been provided for its use. When I hung up, I tried the "10333" sequence again, only this time I used my AT&T calling card number. This resulted in, "Thank you for calling on Sprint", and my call went through. Is there now some question why AT&T remains the *real* long distance company? Why can't Sprint accept its own cards on "standard" 0+ dialing, instead of requiring FO(O)N card victims to dial 35 digits with that silly 800 number that is reminiscent of the old FGA days? And a question for those who feel that AT&T was a stinker for not giving out 10XXX codes during its outage: when was the last time you saw an MCI or Sprint commercial that mentioned "10XXX"? Answer: Never. They don't want you to know how easy it is to try them out WITHOUT having to sign up for dial "1" service. Don't blame AT&T when its competitors are doing a most effective job of shooting themselves in the foot. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: NCN Communications, INC Date: 20 Jan 90 05:23:05 GMT Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL I have a friend that just got involved with National Communications Network, a mult-level marketing organzation selling Long Distence Service. They have the typicl MLM idea of everyone you know is a potential customer. Anyway, the claim that AT&T provides the service and they do the billing. By calling 1-800-525-3413 you get a special recording that says they are a customer of AT&T and by AT&T Tarrif they may resell AT&T services. They claim to be cheaper then AT&T ReachOut Plan and MCI Prime Time, but do not offer any rate examples. (This is with a quick payment discount of 10-17.5 percent). All they offer is a chart of savings vs. ATT & US Sprint and MCI by percent. The other strange thing is that their Travel Card service is through MCI (They give the MCI 950-1022 access number). I believe their office number to be 1-800-442-8600 but there was no answer this evening. I would like to find the Carrier Acess Code (PIC) for them as their signup requires them as a primary. Is there any other info you might have regarding them or their subsidiary ATF?. Thanks, Bill Huttig la063249@zach.fit.edu ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Should I Abandon AT&T For MCI's Offer of $0.59/Minute to Europe? Date: 20 Jan 90 10:52:58 PST (Sat) From: John Higdon CJS@cwru.bitnet writes: > I'm concerned that there must be major drawbacks to a deal that sounds > so good. Can anyone comment on this? Why abandon AT&T? Simply dial "10222" + your international access and number and give it a test drive. If MCI requires that the billing be handled by them rather than telco, set up a secondary account with them. A secondary account is exactly like a "dial 1" account (the billing records look identical) except that the CO does not route calls to the secondary carrier by default. You consciously direct them there with "10XXX". My default has always been AT&T, but if I use "10222" or "10333", the bill for the call comes from MCI or Sprint directly, just as if I was one of their "dial 1" customers, with discounts and all. This is one of the reasons the LD carriers don't make any kind of a big deal about the customer's ability to dial "10XXX": they don't want the public to know that callers can casually use LD services without having to be "locked in" as a "dial 1" customer. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Caller ID Date: 20 Jan 90 13:41:12 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <2947@accuvax.nwu.edu>, dplatt@coherent.com writes: ... >> Well, I saw on 20/20 or some show like that said that the technology to stop >> Caller ID was here. I was wondering if anyone knew what they were talking >> about... >> [Moderator's Note: Well, it is news to me. Does anyone know of a way >> to legally (via some application of the tariff) avoid ID'ing >> themselves? I guess there are some places where possibly the more >> sensitive customers may be exempted, i.e. the 'women's shelter' >> example. PT] I think the technology under discussion is the optional CO feature, not offered to the public in NJ, but under consideration in CA, allowing the calling party to suppress ID on a call-by-call basis. > Apparently, the system as PacBell intends to install it will permit a > caller to request ID-hiding by dialing a specific prefix-sequence > (*67, I believe, but I could well be wrong). > My impression is that you'll have to pay a monthly charge to receive > the caller-ID information on incoming calls, but that you will not > need to pay a fee to block the outbound ID if you use the prefix-code > on an individual call. I don't know how much you'll have to pay in CA for receiving Caller-ID, but in NJ we pay about $6.00 per month per line. I'd be a bit upset if I had to pay for Caller-ID and then found that any subscriber who wanted to could suppress the service I'm paying for when he/she calls me. Can I get credit applied against next month's Caller-ID surcharge for each ID-Suppressed call I received? (Just kidding, of course. I already know the answer to this one, but I thought I'd raise the question anyway...) Dave Levenson Voice: (201 | 908) 647 0900 Westmark, Inc. Internet: dave@westmark.uu.net Warren, NJ, USA UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave [The Man in the Mooney] AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Faxnet Info Request Date: 20 Jan 90 19:56:02 GMT Organization: very little I have been using the FAX feature from MCI Mail to send messages to a fax machine at CODETEL in the Dominican Republic. CODETEL is the local GTE telco there. One reason that I like to use MCI Mail is that when I use my regular fax machine, I often get "all circuits busy" or just no ringing. It is also easier to take a file and send it to MCI from my desk, rather than print it out and walk it to the fax machine. I have been getting rejections from MCI Mail that say that the fax transmission could not be delivered because of "voice answer". When I call the machine on the phone, there is never a voice answer, but there is often the "all circuits busy" message. I believe that MCI Mail should be able to tell the difference, since the all circuits busy message should not return answer supervision. I have contacted MCI Mail HELP, but they don't seem to understand what I am talking about. They say if the system hears voice, it assumes it has reached a non-fax number, and dumps an error message back into my mailbox. Multiple messages questioning the inability to detect the difference between network messages and "hola!" have drawn the same canned message from them. Any ideas? If MCI Mail cannot tell the difference, what happens if I use MCI long distance telephone service to call internationally? Tad Cook tad@ssc.UUCP MCI Mail: 328-8544 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #39 ***************************** From telecomlist-request@mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu Sun Jan 21 12:00:59 1990 Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP id AA15406; Sun, 21 Jan 90 12:00:51 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09363; 21 Jan 90 10:38 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04839; 21 Jan 90 9:33 CST Date: Sun, 21 Jan 90 9:03:18 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #40 Message-Id: <9001210903.ab20715@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> Status: RO TELECOM Digest Sun, 21 Jan 90 09:00:24 CST Volume 10 : Issue 40 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes (Thomas Narten) Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes (David Tamkin) Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes (Steve Elias) Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes (John Higdon) Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes (D. Smallberg) Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes (John Levine) Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes (Kelly Goen) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes Date: Sat, 20 Jan 90 09:45:35 -0500 From: Thomas Narten First, I resent the subject of this message. I don't personally know these folks, and considering the charges, "net friends" hardly seems an appropriate choice of words. If convicted, the consequences will hardly be "friendly" to the networking community. Second, the "bogus"ness of the charges are for the courts to decide, not us. Mr. Gilmore's interpretation of the charges cetainly don't match what I've read in the papers, and quite frankly, I have a lot of respect for the New York Times. Overall, they've been right on the mark in this area before. I haven't forgotten how quickly they got to the bottom of the Worm Incident of 1988. The name "Robert Morris Jr." appeared on the front page of their paper before it began circulating around the net. Third, the charges are serious; among other things, Mr. Poulsen is charged with obtaining "classified flight orders for a military exercise in Ft. Bragg." This is apparently the first time that classified information has been obtained by computer trespassers (though its not clear exactly how the information was obtained). Regardless of what Mr. Poulsen's intentions were, or the relevence of the actual information, if the information is (or was at the time) classified, someone has some explaining to do. Mr. Paulsen is also charged with "burglarizing the offices of Pacbell to obtain access codes and equipment, much if which he stored in an apartment shared with Mr. Lotter. He also obtained a computer printout with telephone numbers and other details related to an inquiry by the FBI into Ferdinand E. Marcos, the late Philippine President, and his associates." Hardly kid stuff. Finally, Mr. Paulson is apparently no newcomer to this "hacking" game. The NYT reports that he "has a history as a 'hacker', who began trespassing in university and Government computers as a teen-ager using the assumed name Dark Dante, according to a profile in California magazine in 1984". Anyone who thinks that such trespassing is harmless fun & games might want to ask Mr. Morris if his current legal troubles bolster that view. The Moderator wrote: >This is something that has confused many people in the past: do you, >or don't you have to produce an SSN on the request of a merchant? NO, >YOU DO NOT! But....the merchant is NOT obliged to do business with >you on any basis other than CASH. It turns out that for major credit cards (like Visa), a merchant can't refuse your card if you don't want to give your phone number, SSN, etc. The merchant/Visa contract specifies that the merchant cannot refuse a card request if the customer won't give personal information. I believe that the only exception to this rule is if the merchant can't verify (electronically) that the customer is authorized to make the purchase of the desired amount. Indeed, a New York state law went into effect this month that prohibits merchants from requesting such information. It seems that few persons (myself incuded) were aware of the above fact. Thomas Narten [Moderator's Note: You cloud the issue a little in your last paragraph. For the major cards, with *already assigned credit limits*, the merchant is guarenteed his money. Therefore he need not make these inquiries since he is not holding the paper. But if you ask a merchant for an open account, or check-cashing privileges, then *if he is expected to carry the paper* he is entitled to background information on you, i.e. a credit report. PT] ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: More Net Friends Charged with Telephone/Computer Crimes Date: Sat, 20 Jan 90 11:28:38 CST Patrick Townson responded to John Gilmore in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 37: | >and some fantasies about innocent stuff they found in searching | >an apartment. | | Oh! And, uh, if its not asking too much, WHO authorized the searching | of the apartment? If this is shown to be factual, and if no one can be | found who authorized the 'search', then the 'search' becomes a | burglary...this time of a physical place rather than an electronic | one. | | But perhaps I mis-read this. Yes, Mr. Townson, perhaps you did. | Perhaps the defendants had been invited by someone to come | to their home and search through their possessions. No, Pat, that isn't the misreading I meant. When I read John Gilmore's submission I took that phrase to mean "and some fantasies [in the minds of the prosecutors] about innocent stuff [the state] found in searching [a defendant's] apartment." You took it to mean stuff the defendants stand accused of finding in some other party's apartment. I have no idea how you came up with that interpretation from Gilmore's pronouns. Note that the indictments did not include burglary, robbery, breaking and entering, nor anything involving the theft of personalty. *Possession* of suspect or illegal items was listed, but not the theft thereof. | Oh! And, uh, if its not asking too much, WHO authorized the searching | of the apartment? Oh, I imagine the state went to the trouble of issuing itself a warrant. | If this is shown to be factual, and if no one can be found who authorized | the 'search', then the 'search' becomes a burglary...this time of a | physical place rather than an electronic one. Well, yes, if the state went through a defendant's apartment without a search warrant and took property, you could term it burglary. Pat, I really believe that the prosecutors have all the zeal they need. You disagree with John's opinion that the charges are insignificant acts which should be perfectly legal, but please stick to the point and don't heap in unarguably illegal acts that aren't even on the state's mind. The defendants aren't under suspicion of rape, murder, or solicitation for prostitution either. Let's discuss the indictments that were actually handed down and not invent any new ones. David Tamkin PO Box 813 Rosemont IL 60018-0813 708-518-6769 312-693-0591 dattier@chinet.chi.il.us BIX: dattier GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes Date: Sat, 20 Jan 90 13:34:54 -0500 From: eli@pws.bull.com I hope it turns out that the San Jose Three are legit. The circumstantial evidence in the indictment looks damned strong against these guys, though. It doesn't look good for them. Responsibility goes hand in hand with computer/telecom expertise. Keep on keeping on, everyone. Stay *LEGIT*. ; Steve Elias ; work phone: 508 671 7556 ; email: eli@pws.bull.com , eli@spdcc.com ; voice mail: 617 932 5598 ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes Date: 20 Jan 90 12:38:42 PST (Sat) From: John Higdon John Gilmore writes: > [details about the arrest of alleged phone phreaks and computer > hackers] > Sounds like most modern laws -- broad enough to > charge anybody who they want to "get"...and broad enough to be tacked > on to any other charge to give them more to plea bargain with. And > the ones on use of an incorrect SS# "with intent to deceive"! Last I > heard, it was not illegal to deceive (lie to) private companies about > your SS#, though it is illegal to defraud (cheat) them. Welcome to > New Amerika! When I first read Mr. Gilmore's post, I was incensed. How dare these Keystone Kops run around and harrass fellow techno-nerds. But then some thoughts began to emerge. And here they are: I have always considered myself to be more than casually interested in the telephone. To this end, I have cultivated contacts in the telco, have owned and operated an equipment vending company, done consulting work for commercial telecommunications customers, been active on various telecom forums, testified and submitted briefs to the PUC, am associated with a firm that designs and produces advanced telecommunications equipment, and have, in general, taken an active interest in the state of telephony. I have in my possession a lot of telephone equipment (telephone line test sets, MF/DTMF analyzers, PBX equipment, computers, etc.) that could be used for illegal activies. Such equipment was obtained legitimately and is used in my profession and trade. I have accounts with a number of LD companies, have ten residential phone lines with many modems. I could go on and on. But the point is that *never* have I been disturbed by the local gendarmarie. It occurred to me that there was a message here. The key difference: all accounts are in my legal name, with all credit information correct and up-to-date. I have been completely above-board with the telco. I do not hide behind psuedonyms, fake SSN numbers, or engage in federal, state, or local law violations. My home computer logs into and is called by fifteen other computers, including Pac*Bell's own VAX many times every day. Now THIS is normal, legal activity. I am not intercepting conversations, trying to hack my way into forbidden areas of private or public computer systems, or masquerading behind clever psuedonyms on sinister-sounding sites. At some point, everyone grows up. With the TELECOM Moderator, I agree that the court will have to decide the guilt or innocence of the defendants. If they are indeed innocent, then you will find me at the front of the activist line. I know how I would feel over harrassment by law enforcement for simply having the artifacts of my trade and hobby. Furthermore, I personally know of people who have had their computer equipment literally seized in a raid of their residence when they had committed no violations at all. It took them a year to regain their property, all the while being told that they had better not press the issue because of "charges" that *could* be filed against them. This, of course, is iniquitous. But, if the defendants are quilty of law violations, you can write off my support. Laws against phreaking and hacking were written to protect everyone, not just the government. If someone hacked his way into my computer, causing me loss or inconvenience, I would demand that the book be thrown at him. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Jan 90 15:32:40 PST From: David A Smallberg Subject: Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes The name Kevin Poulsen is not unfamiliar to some of us at UCLA, since in 1983 (or '84?), he and Ronald Austin apparently cracked some accounts with trivial passwords on some machines at UCLA. [I say "apparently" for legalistic reasons. Austin was convicted; Poulsen was not prosecuted, but with Austin on one stolen account addressing his friend "Kev" in North Hollywood on another, along with other evidence, most people here involved with the case are certain of Poulsen's involvement.] The crackers of our system did destroy some files of one of our grad students. The prosecution of Austin was sensationalized, but the key charges were justified. Austin's people tried to project a "computer genius, good kid, meant no harm" image, but he was convicted and got three (?) years' probation. No one here at UCLA would dignify him with the appellation "genius". I was never clear on why Poulsen was not prosecuted, since there seemed to be enough evidence to convict him, too. Since Austin also cracked some computers at Stanford, making news in the S.F. Bay area, I wonder if SRI knew of Poulsen's apparent involvement in the case when they hired him? David Smallberg, das@cs.ucla.edu, ...!{uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!cs.ucla.edu!das ------------------------------ Subject: Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes Reply-To: johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA Date: 20 Jan 90 23:56:29 EST (Sat) From: "John R. Levine" In article <3017@accuvax.nwu.edu> ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu (Patrick Townson) writes: >> 1 count possession of access-device making equipment (including a >> POS terminal for verifying credit card limits!), 18 USC 1029(a)(4), (b)(3) A credit card verification terminal is no more than a microcomputer with a 300 baud modem, if that's illegal to posess we're all criminals. I have programmed PCs to talk the simple ASCII protocol POS terminals use and submitted literally millions of dollars of entirely legitimate charges. It would be more interesting to hear if they had private access codes, though the merchant's acccount number used by the terminal is the same one printed on their paper slips, the security on them is terrible. Regards, John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl PS: It's spelled "determine." ------------------------------ From: Kelly Goen Subject: Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes Date: 20 Jan 90 13:44:39 GMT Reply-To: Kelly Goen Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA Without answering specific points in this posting, I will make one comment at this time and others at later times as appropriate. It is quite apparent that Patrick is totally unfamiliar with local (i.e. Santa Clara County) law enforcement procedures. Well sir, I can assure you that trumped up charges and false imprisonment are the NORM in this county with full cooperation along with illegal acts by the FBI. IN ADDITION it is quite normal given the population in Silicon Valley to have MANY of the items they were indicted for. So before you get on your HIGH horse Mr. net.gestapo, I suggest YOU come out to this area and experience the reality for yourself THEN and only then will you be familiar with what goes on out here and qualified to comment on John Gilmores posting. Until then your reply to John is just so much HOT air by another self-annointed net.lawyer By the way do you in fact practice or study law???? Somehow I don't think so!! BTW warrants are rarely obtained out here by law enforcement prior to monitoring telephone conversations. You want to espouse your opinion of what happened fine... I suggest you come out here and experience the reality. I live in Santa Clara County and have been innocently on the wrong end of the law myself. After 3 years the JUDGE threw the charges out of court. My story is by no means unique. As far as access codes go how many of the readers of this newsgroup have unknowingly committed exactly that same crime of simple unauthorized possession of same? Cheers, kelly Disclaimer: I speak only for myself and release my employers from any liability for the content of my postings. I am solely responsible for the content of same!! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #40 ***************************** From telecomlist-request@mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu Sun Jan 21 13:06:31 1990 Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP id AA18208; Sun, 21 Jan 90 13:06:26 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30276; 21 Jan 90 11:43 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab09363; 21 Jan 90 10:38 CST Date: Sun, 21 Jan 90 9:36:54 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #41 Message-Id: <9001210936.ab18857@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> Status: RO TELECOM Digest Sun, 21 Jan 90 09:35:58 CST Volume 10 : Issue 41 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: The AT&T Problem (Steve Bellovin) Re: The AT&T Problem (A Reader) Re: The AT&T Problem (Thomas Narten) Re: Who's Using Whom? (John Higdon) Re: AT&T Advertisement Is Stupid (Nicholas J. Simicich) Re: Where Can I Buy A Caller*ID Box Now? (W. L. "Lance" Ware) Disabling Extensions for Modem Use (Stephen Fleming) 10XXX - A BOC SECRET (William Degnan) MCI Mail promotion (Boston Agency) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: smb@ulysses.att.com Subject: Re: The AT&T Problem Date: Sat, 20 Jan 90 17:11:03 EST Although I do work for Bell Labs, I don't know anything more about what the problem was than what has been stated elsewhere, that it was something in the SS7 code. However, for an example of how a single-point failure can take out a network, I suggest that folks read (or reread) the paper in the January '81 issue of Software Engineering Notes (the ACM SIGSOFT publication) on an ARPANET outage. I won't try to summarize it beyond saying that a hardware failure in one node resulted in the generation of lots of bogus, but correct-seeming, routing packets that congested every other IMP. Mind you, I *don't* know that what happened is anything similar. It's just an example of what can happen. --Steve Bellovin ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Jan 90 03:26:33 EST From: A Reader Subject: Re: The AT&T Problem [ Note to the moderator!! I mailed this reply to John and cc'ed telecom. If you decide on using any of this in the digest, (I realize it's a bit longish) please remove my name/address before redistributing -- I might have to deal with these people again :-) ] [Moderator's Note: I do not usually like to do this. I am making an exception and printing your anonymous submission because it is an interesting article. Please do not ask for this favor again. Ordinarily, an article to be printed anonymously must have a *very good reason* for the request. PT] In article <2958@accuvax.nwu.edu> (John Higdon) writes: >Spokespersons for Pac*Bell answer this question by saying that a >customer should obtain the code from his or her long distance carrier; >that the telco is not responsible for issuing or revealing these >codes. [...] >During the day of the outage, spokespeople for Pac*Bell were >interviewed by media. Without mentioning any carriers or codes, they >emphasized that anyone could, by using a code *obtained from the >carrier* dial calls through that carrier without having to have that >carrier as his long distance company. Privately I was told that if >they had given out specfic codes, that could be construed as >recommending a carrier which they consider to be the biggest of >no-nos. Everyone can agree that the (local) telco is not responsible for issuing the 10xxx codes; that job is probably done on a national scale (Bellcore? FCC?). However...as for *revealing* the carriers or codes, I will disagree with your Pac*Bell spokespeople. Now just exactly where are you to get the names of the carriers that serve your CO ??? Sure, you can call a long distance company, inquire as to whether they serve your area and get the 10xxx code; but which long distance companies do you call in the first place? An illustration: I tend to "gypsy dial" (use 10xxx codes) for several reasons: cost, line-noise, and (I'll admit it) the delayed billing some carriers are prone to provide. I have not made any explicit account arrangements with any long distance companies -- I use those that permit 10xxx access up front and will figure out how to bill you later. One day, armed with the list of 10xxx codes reposted to Telecom by Dave Esan @ MOSCOM, I set out to chart my "equal access" world. After trying 10xxx-1-700-555-4343 for a few likely candidates, I realized that this approach had its drawbacks -- first off, my fingers were getting tired and second, what if "Fred&Harry's Telco" (10xyz) had some really great deal but I could only access them if I called and made a billing arrangement? Why, I could call my local telco, C & P Telephone, couldn't I? I mean it's their switch which passes me out to the wonderful world of equal access, their programming, and occasionally their billing, they could help me out...Couldn't they??? I called C&P with two simple (I thought) questions: 1) What are the names of the long distance companies I can reach from (301) 854 ? 2) What long distance companies do their billing through C&P ? Over the course of three weeks I talked to seven C&P "service" reps or supervisors, some more than once. I still do not have the answer to either question. A typical exchange: [I ask question 1, going into some depth to hopefully show the rep I know what I'm talking about ] "Well, you're in an equal access area. You can choose whatever long distance company you like." [At this point it's obvious the rep is stuck on the primary "1+" service selection -- I adapt, go with the flow, try to get the info I want by asking what are my "1+" choices, but I get the "whatever long distance company you like" parroted back again. So I try a new tact: ] "What if the company I like doesn't serve my exchange?" "Then you can't choose them." "Right! That's why I called -- you can help me by telling me who I can choose." "You can check your genuine C&P Yellow Pages for the numbers of your favorite long distance carriers and give them a call; they will be able to tell you if they serve your area." "What if a company doesn't advertise in the genuine C&P Yellow Pages, or even (heaven forbid) The One Book? How can I contact them? There are a quite a few companies out there. "You can call directory assistance." "What use is directory assistance if don't know what the names are??" "Well, Sir, directory assistance does require a name. How do you expect us to tell you the number if you don't tell us the name?" By this point I am sure I've discovered another long-lost member of Monty Python working at C&P, and try asking for a supervisor. Or give up and try some other day. When I do manage to outlast a hold for a supervisor, the results are the same. By trying some other C&P business office numbers, I finally talked to two C&P employees who knew what I was talking about. Sort of. The first acknowledged 10xxx dialing existed, but insisted that I needed to contact the long distance companies before using their services. He wasn't going to answer my question anyway calling the information "C&P proprietary", and he demanded to know where I got the 10xxx list. I half expect the C&P "phone police" are hot on his tip about a subversive "Telecom-Digest". The second 10xxx cognizant employee was wonderful. I thought I'd found the Holy Grail in a company of Monty Python players. She even admitted to using 10xxx dialing once to call her daughter when she couldn't get though on her primary carrier. (She diplomatically omitted the two companies' names). She did seem relieved when I told her I only wanted names, not the 10xxx codes. She made the effort and dug up a list of companies that served my CO. It took awhile, but the time on hold allowed me to consider whether I should send flowers or not. Finally she got back on line, list in hand, *but* she was told she could not simply read it to me. If she read the list in a particular order, that could be construed as favoring one service over another. I said, "OK, I'll pick -- how 'bout alphabetical?" "No can do", came the reply. She really wanted to help and almost sounded 'pained' that she wasn't permitted. She told me that if I mentioned a company's name, she could tell me if it was on her list, but she admitted this could take some time and I still might not get them all since the list contained some not very well known names. She thought for a few minutes, said she had an idea, but she'd have to take it through 'channels'. She took my number and promised to get back to me. An hour and a half later, she called my answering machine and left a victory message -- she could mail me the list, and *I* could read the names in any order I wanted! A storybook ending? Well, not exactly...the list arrived two days later with company names and contact numbers, all 6. Two of the numbers were no longer in service. Two long distance companies I gypsy dial with weren't even listed (they even bill through C&P). How many others are missing? I don't know for sure. I guess I could always call directory assistance. :-) ------------------------------ Subject: Re: The AT&T Problem Date: Sun, 21 Jan 90 08:55:23 -0500 From: Thomas Narten >* Single failure points shouldn't be sufficient to drag down the whole >network. (From what I read, approximately 44% of calls on AT&T were >getting intercept or reorder.) Perhaps the fault appeared in other >tandems as well? This misconception is common, but incorrect. In complex software systems consisting of many interacting parts, "single failures" can bring down everything. One such example was an Arpanet failure documented in Eric Rosen's article in the Jan '81 SIGSOFT Software Eng. notes. A combination hardware/software error in *one* machine brought down the entire network. Thomas Narten ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Who's Using Whom? Date: 20 Jan 90 13:21:32 PST (Sat) From: John Higdon fmsystm!macy writes: > Now, what can we do about this GTE GTD-5 central office I am in that > falls on its face twice a year...Thank goodness I have FX lines and > cellphones or we'd be off the map. Frankly, local CO's are fast > becoming the weak link in telecom...I've had several major CO failures > in the area this past year, not to mention cable cuts... Funny you mention that. The EAX1 in Los Gatos went down AGAIN the other day (Wed, I think). This happens with such regularity that Pac*Bell has a special recording that they can put up on the Los Gatos trunks at a moment's notice. I wish it would say, "Due to General Telephone incompetence...", but it is just a bit more diplomatic. I can't recall a Pac*Bell CO failure (other than quake overload) in the rememberable past, not even my CO. I have been told by parties who would like to remain anonymous that one of the reasons that Los Gatos GTE is so unreliable is that there are no on-site people who really know anything about the equipment. It is a GTE "outpost" and when they experience trouble, someone has to come up from Santa Monica or Thousand Jokes. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: "Nicholas J. Simicich" Subject: Re: AT&T Advertisement Is Stupid Date: 21 Jan 90 03:39:09 GMT Reply-To: "Nicholas J. Simicich" Organization: Nick Simicich, Peekskill, NY In article <2856@accuvax.nwu.edu> dattier@chinet.chi.il.us (David Tamkin) writes: >There is no alternate implication. The caller dials to Phoenix twice >and reaches the same phone in Fiji both times. Clearly AT&T's fantasy >has the carrier at fault. I don't know whether or not this is a new version of the commercial, but I heard an extended version of this commercial today (with the same old Fiji segment, plus a bunch of others) where the caller clearly says that he misdialed. I personally can't figure out how, but that is what they said. Also, they spoke about trouble with being on endless hold when dealing with other companies' customer service departments. Makes me think that they had been reading Telecom..... Nick Simicich --- uunet!bywater!scifi!njs --- njs@ibm.com (Internet) ------------------------------ From: W.L. Ware Subject: Re: Where Can I Buy A Caller*ID Box Now? Date: 19 Jan 90 21:34:12 GMT Reply-To: W.L. Ware Organization: Information Systems and Computing @ RIT, Rochester, New York I am looking for a simple caller ID box wthout RS232 (for my parents) and one with RS232 and preferably a DTMF decorder, so you know who calls in and where calls are made out to. Lance ************************************************************************ *W.L.Ware LANCEWARE SYSTEMS* *WLW2286%ritvax.cunyvm.cuny.edu Value Added reseller* *WLW2286%ultb.isc.rit.edu Mac and IBM Access. * [Moderator's Note: One you can think about is in the 'Hello Direct' Catalog currently available. Call them at 1-800-HI-HELLO. PT] ------------------------------ From: fleming@cup.portal.com Subject: Disabling Extensions for Modem Use Date: Sat, 20-Jan-90 05:13:39 PST I just bought one of the 'Phone Slashers' from DAK to plug into my modem line so my daughter would no longer knock me off line by picking up an extension. No good; I'm sending it back. You can't just plug one into your modem's wall jack -- you need to plug one into *every other phone in the house* to prevent disruptions! At $10 each and 7 extensions, I'll pass. Now -- my needs are very simple. Is a product available (or a simple circuit that I can cobble together at Radio Shack) so that an off-hook line in one room disables all phones in all other rooms of the house? Stephen Fleming [Moderator's Note: What you have to do is wire it so the incoming feed from the outside goes *first* to the phone with the modem; then feed *everything* -- all other extensions -- back out through the thing you got from DAK. In other words, all phones have to wired in series -- not parallell -- behind the 'master' phone, which is the one with the modem. Maybe someone will write a more detailed, technical explanation and send it in. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Jan 90 2:31:00 CST From: William Degnan Subject: 10XXX - A BOC SECRET In an article of <17 Jan 90 21:44:37 GMT>, OLE@csli.stanford.edu (Ole J. Jacobsen) writes: OJ>I have never figured out why the RBOCs have been so unwilling to teach OJ>the public about 10xxx dialling For the same reason the AT&T operators kept a tight lip. You can dial intraLATA calls via 10XXX too. With a few possible exceptions, the IXC's will carry that traffic at a significant saving over the BOC rates. Regards, Bill Disclaimer: Contents do not constitute "advice" unless we are on the clock William Degnan | wdegnan@mcimail.com !wdegnan@at&tmail.com Communications Network Solutions | William.Degnan@telenet.com P.O. Box 9530, Austin, TX 78766 | voice: 512 323-9383 William Degnan -- via The Q Continuum (FidoNet Node 1:382/31) UUCP: ...!rpp386!tqc!39!wdegnan ARPA: wdegnan@f39.n382.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Jan 90 05:38 EST From: Boston Agency <0002740106@mcimail.com> Subject: MCI Mail Promotion MCI Mail is currently offering a promotion to attract new business subscribers. They are waiving the $25 signup fee and up to $100 of service in the first month of use. They are calling it a "test drive" of MCI Mail's ability to send electronic mail, faxes, laser-printed paper mail, and telex. MCI Mail also interfaces with the Internet, Compuserve, Dialcom, Telemail, and other mail services. Many MCI Mail subscribers receive the Telecom Digest via their MCI Mail accounts. I can provide more information if you contact me offline. [Moderator's Note: This might be a good opportunity to get aquainted with MCI Mail if you are not already, considering the month of free service. And, as correspondent notes, they are fully connected with all other networks, including AT&T Mail. I've had an MCI Mail account equipped with telex for several years, and find it quite satisfactory. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #41 ***************************** From @delta.eecs.nwu.edu:telecomlist-request@mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu Mon Jan 22 14:33:04 1990 Received: from MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP id AA02930; Mon, 22 Jan 90 14:32:59 EST Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25960; 22 Jan 90 4:17 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29816; 22 Jan 90 2:49 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29050; 22 Jan 90 1:45 CST Date: Mon, 22 Jan 90 1:22:59 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #42 Message-Id: <9001220122.ab21494@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> Status: RO TELECOM Digest Mon, 22 Jan 90 01:22:03 CST Volume 10 : Issue 42 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Legal Status of 900 Charges? (Anthony E. Siegman) Junk Phone Calls (Steve Kass) Has AT&T Caught the "Sprint" Disease? (John R. Covert) Information Needed Ahout POCSAG (Walter Doerr) Free DA Using Pay Phones (John Clarke) 911 and Pay Phones (Jay Maynard) Sprint & FON Card (Ken Jongsma) Re: 10XXX - A BOC Secret (John Higdon) Re: 10XXX - A BOC Secret (David Tamkin) Re: 10XXX - A BOC Secret (Steve Kass) Re: 10XXX - A BOC Secret (Evelyn C. Leeper) Re: $outhwe$tern Bell (David Lewis) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 21 Jan 90 10:05:04 PST From: "Anthony E. Siegman" Subject: Legal Status of 900 Charges? Two questions re 900 charges: 1) I make an expensive 900 call, the charge shows up on my local (PacTel) bill, I pay PacTel a buck or two for the telephone toll part of the call, but refuse (for whatever reason) to pay the rest. Can PacTel cut off my _phone_ service for not paying this part of the bill (which is for services _they_ didn't provide)? When did I enter into a legal agreement with PacTel allowing for this? 2) I hear only part of a radio ad, or see a printed newspaper ad for a 900 service with the existence of charges being an illegible smear in a bottom corner (not an unusual situation!). I dial the number, and get no initial warning of charges in the call itself. When is a contract (in the legal sense) created for those services? Can anyone name any other common situation where a contract for services can be created without the purchaser knowing it's happening? [Moderator's Note: No, they cannot cut off your service. You must tell them specifically what portion of the bill you are refusing to pay, otherwise your entire payment will be applied as a short payment and you will become delinqent with them. They will reverse, or chargeback the uncollectible portion to the information provider. Under the tariff, the 900 service, or information provider, is entitled to have your name and address, as well as your phone number. They will bill you direct. If you do not pay, you will be placed with a collection agency, then ultimatly sued. But no, your local telco is out of the picture once you tell them you will not pay. Some of the 900 services are quite agressive legally in getting their money however. And if they told you on the television what the call would cost, then a contract exists when you dial the number. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Jan 90 13:05 EDT From: "No gas will be sold to anyone in a glass container." Subject: Junk Phone Calls Junk phone call - "Jimmy Barnes Satellite Cruises" I get the same recorded junk phone call (advertising cruises) about once a month. After my December call, I managed to get an address, then a number, by asking the person who answered at 1-800-837-8989, the number I was supposed to call in 10 minutes to get my prize (after being hung up on for asking for an address a couple of times first). I spoke to someone who seemed to be higher up than just a phone representative, and asked that my number be removed from their database. He said "sure thing." Well, I just got my January call. Same outfit, same recorded message, same 1-800 number. The associated address is: Royal American Holidays 311 University Dr., Suite 305 Coral Springs, FL 33065 (305)-753-8305 Now is this outfit breaking the law, or should I have followed up my request to be deleted from the database with a letter and recorded the latest junk call to have a chance to get on their case (I can't imagine why it could be illegal anywhere to record a recording)? What I'm really asking is for someone in the know to post a list of appropriate steps to take against this sort of thing. I don't get too upset over a random, isolated junk call, but when it's a monthly affair, continuing despite a request to stop, I get riled. How about real, legal steps to take, not just games and gags to play with the people on the phone (which don't work much for recorded junk calls anyway)? Steve Kass [ 2014083614, 2015141187, skass@Drew.bitnet ] Department of Mathematics and Computer Science Drew University Madison, NJ 07940 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Jan 90 12:48:18 -0800 From: "John R. Covert 21-Jan-1990 1544" Subject: Has AT&T Caught the "Sprint" Disease? Since AT&T had a rate change effective 1 January 1990, I decided to update my information on their rates. One of the many advantages I have always felt AT&T had over many of the other carriers was their ability to quote correct rates quickly and efficiently. Something seems to have happened. The table which follows was quoted to me by AT&T Customer Service (800 222-0300) and was verified by calling the number from a different part of the country: Mileage Day Evening Night/Weekend 1-10 .18 .17 .1206 .1139 .1000 .0975 11-22 .20 .20 .1407 .1340 .1130 .1100 23-55 .21 .20 .1541 .1474 .1200 .1200 56-124 .22 .215 .1541 .1474 .1200 .1200 125-292 .22 .215 .1541 .1541 .1215 .1215 293-430 .23 .23 .1580 .1541 .1250 .1225 431-925 .24 .239 .1582 .1582 .1300 .1260 926-1910 .25 .25 .1582 .1582 .1325 .1300 1911-3000 .25 .25 .1582 .1582 .1350 .1325 3001-4250 .31 .30 .2077 .2010 .1650 .1600 4251-5750 .33 .32 .2211 .2144 .1750 .1700 However, these rates _do_not_ agree with the rates operators are quoting. For example, the 1911-3000 band, according to the operators, is the same in the daytime, but .18/.18 evening and .14/.15 night/weekend. These quoted differences are large enough that mere rounding errors cannot account for the discrepancy. Does anyone know what's really going on? /john ------------------------------ From: Walter Doerr Subject: Information Needed About POCSAG Date: 21 Jan 90 16:27:05 GMT Organization: infodn, Dueren, West Germany While reading data sheets on paging receivers, I stumbled across the term POCSAG which apparently describes the protocol/message format used in paging applications. A short explanation of what POCSAG is and what parameters it defines would be very helpful. I am especially interested in the following items: - What Baud/Bitrate is used in transmitting messages? - What modulation scheme is used (FSK, PSK etc.)? - What type of errordetection/correction is used (if any)? - Are messages sent several times to increase the chance of being received correctly? - Any other parameters (such as message format, message length etc.) - Reliability Thanks. -Walter ------------------------------ From: Stripper Subject: Free DA Using Pay Phones Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Date: Sun, 21 Jan 90 21:06:06 EST There was some discussion about free directory assistance from COCOTs (which I assume are non-Bell operated payphones). Up here in Bell Canada territory, directory assistance is $0.60 per number, but it is free if you call from a payphone. This has always struck me as being really dumb! Of course, the assumption is that the pay phone might not have a phone book, but then again, maybe I don't either! So every time I need to look up a number, I just jog out to the pay phone on the corner, and do it for free! John Clarke cs3ga3ab@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca ------------------------------ From: Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard Subject: 911 and Pay Phones Reply-To: Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX Date: Sun, 21 Jan 90 14:03:29 GMT I found this one in misc.emerg-services, and thought the COCOT (Customer Owned Coin Operated Telephone) experts on comp.dcom.telecom could address the issue... In article vanembur@ porthos.rutgers.edu (Bill Van Emburg) writes: >Something I've noticed that I find completely ridiculous... >Some of the third party pay phones that you see around nowadays (in >particular, Intellicall pay phones) won't let you make 911 calls >without depositing 20 cents!!! This, I feel, is completely ridiculous >and unacceptable. Anybody know if there are any laws on the books >relating to this? (If not, there should be!) > Sincerely, > Bill Van Emburg > Rutgers University > (vanembur@cs.rutgers.edu) > (...!rutgers!cs.rutgers.edu!vanembur) I think this one is covered in the COCOT regs, but am not sure of that. If it is, these are prime candidates for disconnection... (Followups to misc.emerg-services, please...) Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jay@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. {attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- "There is no doubt I should be tarred and feathered." - Richard Sexton ------------------------------ From: ken@cup.portal.com Subject: Sprint & FON Card Date: Sun, 21-Jan-90 09:11:46 PST For what it's worth, I've had the same experience as John Higdon has had with my FON card. That is, Sprints' computers don't seem to recognize the FON card number as a valid 0+ calling card number. I had a Sprint Operator say that it should work, but it obviously didn't. I had also tried it from a RBOC payphone that was presubscribed to Sprint with no luck. Haven't had the time to call Sprint and ask why. Ken Jongsma ken@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: 10XXX - A BOC Secret Date: 21 Jan 90 11:40:03 PST (Sun) From: John Higdon William Degnan writes: > You can dial intraLATA calls via 10XXX too. With a few possible > exceptions, the IXC's will carry that traffic at a significant saving > over the BOC rates. Not in Pac*Bell land, you can't. If you dial such a call you get, "It is not necessary to dial a long distance company access code when calling this number. Please try your call again." If Pac*Bell can figure out how to block, so can any other company. If a BOC doesn't want customers to bypass on intraLATA, it would be better to block than to try to keep a standard Bellcore spec. a secret, don't you think? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: 10XXX - a BOC Secret Date: Sun, 21 Jan 90 23:36:23 CST William Degnan wrote in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 41: | You can dial intraLATA calls via 10XXX too. With a few possible | exceptions, the IXC's will carry that traffic at a significant saving | over the BOC rates. About two months ago I tested that out of curiosity, placing 10XXX calls through each of four carriers. AT&T and MCI refused to complete an intra-LATA call; US Sprint and Telecom*USA were perfectly content to. I have accounts with MCI, US Sprint, and Telecom*USA; that may have made differences in the latter two cases, and my not having an account with AT&T may have made a difference in the first. David Tamkin PO Box 813 Rosemont IL 60018-0813 708-518-6769 312-693-0591 dattier@chinet.chi.il.us BIX: dattier GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Jan 90 13:34 EDT From: "No gas will be sold to anyone in a glass container." Subject: Re: 10XXX - A BOC Secret Every now and then a list of access codes for long distance carriers appears here. What would be more useful would be an annotated list. Just knowing the name of a company doesn't tell me much. What I'd like to know is whether the carrier is going to accept my call without my having an account, whether I'll be charged $2.50 a minute or something more reasonable, whether the carrier has different discount periods than the big three, and so on. I'd be happy with a list of 10 or 20 useful carriers with a paragraph or two about each. In fact, I'd be happy to summarize (but not verify) responses. If you have used an obscure long distance carrier by dialling 10XXX+, let me know what happened and what else you know about the company. If anyone out there already feels able and willing to post an annotated list, go ahead, and I'll add an addendum from what I get. Steve Kass | Telephone: 2015141187, 2014083614 Math. & Comp. Sci. Dept.| Email: skass@drew.bitnet Drew University | Madison, NJ 07940 | "No gas will be sold to anyone in a glass container" [Moderator's Note: You're on. Readers! Send your 10xxx information to Mr. Kass. A paragraph should be sufficient, and include their 800 number for information if you have it; also the territory they serve, etc. Mr. Kass, we will be watching for your annotated list in the near future. PT] ------------------------------ From: Evelyn C Leeper Subject: Re: 10XXX - A BOC Secret Date: 22 Jan 90 03:28:18 GMT Reply-To: ecl@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Evelyn C. Leeper) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories I will say right up front that I work for AT&T, so I am perhaps not totally unbiased, but... Why do people feel that AT&T has an *obligation* to give out the access codes for its competitors? Yes, giving them out may be good PR (consider the film MIRACLE ON 34TH STREET), but if MCI has an outage, do people think they should be *required* to explain to their customers how to access AT&T? If my video store has just rented its last copy of BATMAN, do you think they're going to tell me where to find another one elsewhere? Do you think they're obliged to? Maybe I'm preaching to the choir here. Maybe the readers of this group agree with me. (If so, it's the only group I've found where that's the case. :-) ) But the media and the government certainly seem to think AT&T is obliged to direct customers to its competitors. Evelyn C. Leeper | +1 201-957-2070 | att!mtgzy!ecl or ecl@mtgzy.att.com If I am not for myself, who is for me? If I am only for myself what am I? And if not now, when? --Hillel ------------------------------ From: David Lewis Subject: Re: $outhwe$tern Bell Date: 22 Jan 90 05:26:00 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ In article <2917@accuvax.nwu.edu>, kossackj@narwhal.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack) writes: > Why does Southwestern Bell charge so @*!#-ing much to turn on > telephone service? I could understand the $75- charge if I actually > needed a phone lines to be installed in my apartment, but this is not > the case. I think that $75- is a wee much to charge for some clerical > type to do the magnetic media work ... uhhh 'paperwork' involved in > setting up an account. Well, there's also the craftsman going down to the MDF (Main Distribution Frame) in your local and moving a couple of jumpers... at IBEW rates, that's probably $50 right there... But seriously... this topic's been gone over before in the Digest and some good points were made. Like... (1) The $75 is a flat fee, regardless of the amount of work required to turn up your service. (Mandated by the PUC, generally -- can't have discriminatory pricing...) Whether it's moving a couple of jumpers in an MDF or installing a digital loop carrier because there's not enough copper in the local loop to handle another line or, heaven forbid, running an entirely new cable because your house is out in the back of beyond but you're still in the Bell's service area, the charge is $75. (Generally.) In other words, you're subsidizing all those other clowns out there who need more than $75 worth of work, but the government says it's OK. (2) There's actually more than just "moving some magnetic media" around. There's a lot of information that has to be created, and setting up the appropriate records all over the place is a very big job. (I don't know how many operations systems are involved in service provisioning -- setting up a new line and account -- but Bellcore alone has several hundred people developing and supporting the software.) I leave other facts to the diligent readers of the Digest... (and just 'cause I work for Bellcore doesn't mean I always defend the Bells... hell, I gotta deal with 'em every day.) (Oops -- gosh, sorry, Mr. Marano, didn't mean to say anything nasty...) David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center) "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower." ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #42 ***************************** From @delta.eecs.nwu.edu:telecomlist-request@mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu Mon Jan 22 14:33:24 1990 Received: from MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP id AA02950; Mon, 22 Jan 90 14:33:17 EST Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27921; 22 Jan 90 5:21 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05847; 22 Jan 90 3:52 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab29816; 22 Jan 90 2:49 CST Date: Mon, 22 Jan 90 2:01:45 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #43 Message-Id: <9001220201.ab00837@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> Status: RO TELECOM Digest Mon, 22 Jan 90 02:00:00 CST Volume 10 : Issue 43 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: The AT&T Problem (Ken Jongsma) Re: The AT&T Problem (Peter Weiss) AT&T 800 Guarantee (Ken Jongsma) Panasonic VA-8055 Answering Machine (Mike Morris) Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes (John Higdon) Should One Switch to MCI For Their $0.59/min Rate to Europe (Chris Seline) NEEDED: CCD Camera Supplier & Panasonic Door Phone Information (C. Seline) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ken@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: The AT&T Problem Date: Sat, 20-Jan-90 14:26:57 PST This week's {Business Week} has an interesting article with details on the AT&T network problem. A few of the high points: ...A workhorse 4ESS switch in lower Manhattan malfunctioned and sent out trouble messages to others across the country. It recovered quickly and sent out a burst of backlogged calls. That burst overwhelmed another switch, which needlessly shut itself down because of a bug in its' software. The second switch then sent out trouble messages, starting the cycle all over. Soon, every switch on the network was affected, coming back into service, only to be knocked down by a burst from another switch. It was nearly midnight before engineers stamped out the problem by sending overriding software to the switches... The bug... arrived in software that was loaded into the company's long distance switches in early December... The bug eluded three layers of testing, lying dormant for over a month until a confluence of conditions brought it to life. I didn't find any technical errors in the article, a refreshing change for a general interest publication. Ken Jongsma ken@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ Subject: Re: The AT&T Problem Organization: Penn State University Date: Sunday, 21 Jan 1990 13:08:12 EST From: Peter Weiss In article <3051@accuvax.nwu.edu>, narten@cs.albany.edu (Thomas Narten) says: >This misconception is common, but incorrect. In complex software >systems consisting of many interacting parts, "single failures" can >bring down everything. One such example was an Arpanet failure >documented in Eric Rosen's article in the Jan '81 SIGSOFT Software >Eng. notes. A combination hardware/software error in *one* machine >brought down the entire network. Did I miss something? Single failures _shouldn't_ bring the network down as opposed to _couldn't_. I wonder how software engineering will solve this problem in complex software/hardware systems such as in the Strategic Defense Initative? Peter M. Weiss | (this line intentionally left blank) 31 Shields Bldg (the AIS people) | Don't FAX me, I'll FAX you! University Park, PA 16802 | Disclaimer :1 * applies herein ------------------------------ From: ken@cup.portal.com Subject: AT&T 800 Guarantee Date: Sat, 20-Jan-90 14:06:15 PST I want to preface this by saying that while I don't use AT&T as my primary carrier, I don't necessarily think they are as bad as some think they are. Whatever "bad" means... Something that does bother me regarding their recent problem though are the statements by AT&T that problems like the ones recently are not covered under AT&T's 800 service guaranty. I understand that AT&T has agreed to compensate its' customers for the outage. What I don't like is the postscript that implies that AT&T is doing this as a favor. I opened up a two page ad in this weeks' Insight with text as follows: Did you know that if you're not using AT&T and your 800 service goes out, it could be down for hours? If your 800 calls can't get through whether it's because of problems with your telephone equipment, your local telephone line, *or the AT&T Network*, AT&T will provide alternate service. Now, I just play a lawyer on the net :) but that sounds pretty clear cut to me... Seems to me they should just admit that this was exactly the type of event they were guaranteeing against, admit they couldn't meet the terms of their guarantee and get on with it. Want to bet if there wasn't an escape clause before, there will be in any new contracts? Ken Jongsma ken@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ From: Mike Morris Subject: Panasonic VA-8055 Answering Machine Date: 20 Jan 90 22:42:51 GMT Reply-To: Mike Morris levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org (Ken Levitt) writes: > >I received a lot of traffic on my customer support posting. Here is a >summary of responses. ...some stuff deleted... >Sony, Panasonic and Phone Mate make answering machines that will call >another number to indicate that a message has come in. I have a Panasonic VA-8055 Answering machine/speakerphone (The VA-8050 is the same except less speakerphone) that is about 6-8 years old. It does have a "page" function which dials the number in memory #10 after it takes a "valid" message. There is a major bug in the design to where it is almost useless, and other problems which reduce the functionality of the whole machine to not much better than a $59.95 special: 1. It has no way to detect that the destination number is busy, even though it can detect reorder (and therefore busy) in incoming call (i.e. answering machine mode) . Hence the outgoing call to the pager is made once, and that's it. My paging system has a bank of incoming lines that answer with a beep, at which time you enter the beeper number, then the return number. This occasionally results in busy signals, which resulted in my missing about 1 on 4 messages. This made the "page" function worthless, and I ended up polling the machine hourly. Since there was no way to detect the beep, I ended up programming memory # 10 with "5-7-9-0-6-3-1-pause-pause-pause-1-4-6-4-6-0" which filled all 16 digits, and left me with a "TONE ONLY" readout on the pager as the "call home message". Reducing the pauses (the "*" key on the dial) resulted in errors. 2. The reorder/dial tone hangup is disabled for the first 10 seconds of record time. And there is no howler detect. On my exchange (818-447, ESS but make/model unknown to me) if the caller hangs up on my outgoing message immediately, by the time it starts recording the line is feeding dial tone to the machine. Four to five seconds later it drops to a loud, distorted recording: "We're sorry, your call did not go through. Please hang up and try your call again. This is a recording". "Ah-ha" the machine thinks - "voice!" The recording plays once, then drops to reorder. The machine hangs up after 4-5 seconds of reorder. Annoying. When I had a longer outgoing message that gave an alternate number for me and another for my roommate, and the calling party hung up immediately, the reorder would time out and feed howler to the machine. The first time this happened it filled up the C-30 tape! (the machine was set in VOX mode. It was switched to 1 minute mode immediately!) 3. The machine has a 2-ring/4-ring mode which delays the answering if you any "valid" messages waiting. Note that an abandoned call can result in a "valid" message... Unfortunately I like to leave the machine on all the time, and 4 rings isn't always enough time to get to the phone. There is no way it can be changed short of reverse engineering the firmware in the microprocessor. 4. The machine is cheaply built. The handset is thin and cannot be held by your shoulder at all, and the dial is a rubber membrane that has serious key-bounce problems. Dialing a sequence like 1-800- could easily result in getting 11-8000. This problem has resulted in the unit being used almost exclusively as a regular plain-jane answering machine, and occasionally an incoming-call speakerphone. The handset has one of the microprocessors in it and cannot be replaced with a more useable one (assuming you were willing to sacrifice the dial). ...other options deleted... >After considering all of the above options, the one that seems worth >doing for me seems to be the PC based voice mail system. (since I >have an old PC clone that I'm not using now for anything else.) ... requirements deleted... mentions Watson, "The Complete Answering Machine", the "Complete PC" and "Big Mouth" >If anyone has other devices to add to the list or experiences with any >of the above devices, please send Email. I will summarize for the >digest. Any information about suppliers having good prices on this >type of equipment would also be greatly appreciated. I'd be interested also, but another couple of items is important: 1. Will it work behind 1A2 (i.e. A and A1 leads) 2. Can it control a couple of external relays? I'd like to be able to switch a couple of things on and off remotely. 3. Can it detect calling party hangup? 4. Can it interface with a caller-ID box or will the company offer a caller ID option? (Yeah, I know, unlikely...) Geez - this message ended up getting long, but I thought I'd let people know that answering machines that page don't always work like the sales propaganda says, especially if you don't have a direct dial pager. And I'll never get another Panasonic machine, unless I can try it for a weekend first. Mike Morris Internet: Morris@Jade.JPL.NASA.gov Misslenet: 34.12 N, 118.02 W #Include quote.cute.standard Bellnet: 818-447-7052 #Include disclaimer.standard Radionet: WA6ILQ ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes Date: 21 Jan 90 11:25:57 PST (Sun) From: John Higdon Kelly Goen writes: > It is quite apparent that Patrick is totally unfamiliar with local (i.e. > Santa Clara County) law enforcement procedures. Well sir, I can assure you > that trumped up charges and false imprisonment are the NORM in this county > with full cooperation along with illegal acts by the FBI. Oh, really? I have lived in Santa Clara County for thirty-three years and I hadn't noticed. If all this happens, then it has missed the papers, which is interesting since this is just the sort of story that the Mercury loves to cover. Perhaps you could point me to someone who was arrested in the south bay in recent history on trumped-up "techie" charges. > IN ADDITION it is quite normal given the population in Silicon > Valley to have MANY of the items they were indicted for. Agreed. I own virually everything mentioned in the news story--minus the printouts, lock-picking equipment, and credit verification terminals. BTW, to the person who couldn't understand why a credit terminal would be a no-no, please remember that a merchant credit terminal has his *merchant authorization* imbedded in it. Use of that terminal would be unauthorized access of a computer (unless you were the merchant). Anyway, as mentioned in a recent post, the gendarmarie have yet to come to my door, yet I make no secret about my vocation or avocation. It is not just the possesion of the things that are in question; it is the manner in which they were obtained and the use to which they were put. > So before you get on your HIGH horse Mr. net.gestapo, I suggest YOU > come out to this area and experience the reality for yourself THEN and > only then will you be familiar with what goes on out here and > qualified to comment on John Gilmores posting. Until then your reply > to John is just so much HOT air by another self-annointed net.lawyer Although Patrick can defend himself, the only conclusion that he seems to draw is that a court of law would ultimately have to decide guilt and, in essence, whether the charges were trumped up. What would you suggest--just drop the charges because all "techies" are persecuted? > BTW warrants are rarely obtained out here by law > enforcement prior to monitoring telephone conversations. Do you have hard evidence of that? I have several friends with the ACLU and I seriously would like to put them on that one immediately. As a life-long resident of Santa Clara County, one who is active in political and civic affairs (if you read the paper, you will notice that I am a frequent contributor to the editorial page as well), and one who has a vested interest in maintaining and improving the quality of life in Silicon Valley, I insist that you substantiate your charges of constitutional violations in my home town so that action can be taken immediately against the appropriate agencies and individuals. > As far as access codes go how many of the readers of this newsgroup > have unknowingly committed exactly that same crime of simple > unauthorized possession of same? What???!!! How do you unknowingly steal and use unauthorized access codes? Every access code in my possession has a purpose known to me and is legitimate. I would suspect that would be true of the vast majority of citizens. I repeat, if you have evidence that the authorities in this area are engaged in illegal wiretap activities, are obtaining evidence improperly, or are manufacturing charges and evidence against people, I can bring considerable influence to bear to help get to the bottom of this. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: In an additional follow-up, Mr. Gilmore has written me a long, very extensive rebuttal to my rebuttal of his article. It is undergoing some modifications now (with his cooperation) to edit it somewhat -- it will take a full Digest to print -- and I hope to present it later this week, perhaps as a special edition. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jan 90 02:06 EST From: CJS@cwru.bitnet Subject: SUMMARY: Should One Switch to MCI for their $0.59/min Rate to Europe Last week I posted a question about whether I should switch from AT&T to MCI so I could take advantage of MCI's new $0.59/minute rate to Europe. The problem is that you have to subscribe to MCI's "Call Europe" calling plan to take advantage of the $0.59/minute rate. The monthly plan surcharge is on $3/month so I assume the surcharge exists merely to dissuade people from staying with their current carrier and using MCI solely for European connections. I'd like to thank everyone for their responses. To summarize: "Set up a secondary account with MCI. The secondary account is exactly like a "dial 1" account (the billing records look identical) except that the CO does not route calls to the secondary carrier by default. You consciously direct them there with "10XXX". In fact, MCI refers to their secondary accounts as "Ten triple-X" accounts. Thanks again! cjs ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jan 90 02:11 EST From: CJS@cwru.bitnet Subject: NEEDED: CCD Camera Supplier & Panasonic Door Phone Information I realize these questions are not strictly telecom material, however since telecom readers as a group seem to have a higher tech IQ than the other groups I thought this might be the best place to ask. 1) I'm interested in getting a hold of a very small CCD camera (for in house surveillance security). Can anyone recommend specific camera/dealers? The smaller the camera the better. Black and white is OK, color would be better. The over riding concern is small. 2) So far, the only inexpensive ($299) small CCD I can find is the one embedded in the Panasonic Doorphone Camera Unit. I was wondering if anyone knew much about this unit? How good a chance do I have a extracting a workable CCD camera from this unit? What sort of output (format) does this unit have (i.e. can I use it purely as a camera)? Please respond directly and I will summarize and post. Thanks in advance! Christopher Seline cjs@cwru.cwru.edu cjs@cwru.bitnet bellcore!oberlin!cjs ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #43 ***************************** From telecomlist-request@mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu Tue Jan 23 15:33:40 1990 Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP id AA05843; Tue, 23 Jan 90 15:33:22 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ak13729; 23 Jan 90 14:32 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23834; 23 Jan 90 2:02 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab11995; 23 Jan 90 0:56 CST Date: Tue, 23 Jan 90 0:01:40 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #44 Message-Id: <9001230001.ab24394@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> Status: RO TELECOM Digest Tue, 23 Jan 90 00:00:07 CST Volume 10 : Issue 44 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson AT&T Chairman: "We Will Start Giving Access Codes" (AT&T via Don H. Kemp) Re: 10XXX - A BOC Secret (Marvin Sirbu) Re: How To Dial an OCC: 10xxx List (Andy Russo) AT&T Network Topology (David Homon) Re: The AT&T Problem (David Lewis) Re: The AT&T Problem (Scot E Wilcoxon) Residence Prevails (John Higdon) New Idea For Defeating Caller*ID (Steve Elias) Telephone Line Voltage Question (Lawrence D. Sher) Auto Out Calling (clare@cdp.uucp) Re: Area Code 908 Lives (or does it?) (Tad Cook) Re: $outwe$tern Bell Charges (Stanley M. Sutton) Re: NEEDED: CCD Camera Supplier & Panasonic Door Phone Info (Gary Sanders) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: AT&T Chairman: "We Will Start Giving Access Codes" Date: Mon, 22 Jan 90 14:06:52 EST From: Don H Kemp How they're not going to screw up if it happens again... FOR RELEASE MONDAY, JANUARY 22, 1990 NEW YORK -- AT&T today announced that in the unlikely event of another serious service disruption to its long distance network, AT&T operators will help customers complete calls by providing access information for other long distance carriers. "AT&T's goal has always been to do whatever it takes to satisfy our customers," said AT&T Chairman Robert Allen. "We regret that at the start of last week's service disruption AT&T operators were unable to help customers because we did not have adequate procedures in place for such an unprecedented situation." At the same time, AT&T said a formal interconnection arrangement among competitors covering service disruptions in the industry, as reported in an Associated Press story over the weekend, is unrealistic. However, AT&T's operators now have procedures in place to help customers during times of serious service problems. Regarding operator information during service disruptions, the company said that if a customer requests the access code for a specific alternative carrier, its operators will provide the code if they have this information. Alternatively, they will refer the customer to their local telephone directory or local directory assistance for that carrier's phone number. If the customer does not request a specific company, the AT&T operator will provide access information for one of the other major national carriers. The company pointed out that it cannot equip its operators with the more than 700 access codes now in effect for long distance companies, so they will be provided with a list of codes for the major national carriers. Operators will be instructed to give out these codes within minutes after the company determines that it has a serious service problem that cannot be quickly repaired. "We're doing everything we can to minimize the possibility of a service disruption like last week's ever happening again," Allen said. "But we also want additional options in place to ensure that our customers will always receive the kind of service they have come to expect from AT&T." # # # # # Don H Kemp "Always listen to experts. They'll B B & K Associates, Inc. tell you what can't be done, and Rutland, VT why. Then do it." uunet!uvm-gen!teletech!dhk Lazarus Long ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jan 90 11:26:33 -0500 (EST) From: Marvin Sirbu Subject: Re: 10XXX - A BOC Secret Whether you can use 10XXX to dial an INTRALATA call varies from one State to another depending upon the policies of the State PUC. For example, I believe California has been opposed to intra-LATA competition. They have asked the IECs either to block intra-LATA calls or ruled that they must effectively give all the profits from intra-LATA calls to the LEC. Whether the LEC or IEC blocks intra-LATA calls, or simply pays the penalty may vary. Marvin Sirbu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jan 90 17:08:23 EST From: Andy Russo Subject: Re: How To Dial an OCC: 10xxx List Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Do you happen to know why there are several listings for Sprint? Are these multiple codes results of mergers or something? Thanks, Andy ------------------------------ From: David Homon Subject: AT&T Network Topology Date: 22 Jan 90 12:03:01 GMT Organization: STC Telecoms, London N11 1HB. There has been recently much comment relating to the sad demise of the AT&T trunk network last Monday. However, I am a little alarmed that most informed comment in this group seems only concerned about the loss of the 0800 service. Nobody seems to be asking the questions: How did it happen? Why was the network topology so design such that simple upgrade or line fault could cause such devastating results? Also what lessons should be learnt with regards to system proving, system trialling etc? Informed comments welcome. Dave Homan ------------------------------ From: David Lewis Subject: Re: The AT&T Problem Date: 22 Jan 90 05:31:07 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ In article <2956@accuvax.nwu.edu>, olmiller@xibm.asd.contel.com (Otto Miller) writes: > I understand the concept of 10xxx dialling to get to other carriers, > *BUT* don't you need an account with the carrier to do this? Nope. 10XXX is for "casual" use. The LEC routes the call to the appropriate IC along with the billing ID (your phone #, generally). The IC creates the billing record and passes it back to the LEC sometime downstream (not in real-time), so the LEC can put the phone bill together with all those nifty separate pages for each IC (at least that's what NJBell does) (someday when I'm feeling particularly grouchy I think I'm going to place 1-minute calls on about 200 different IC and see if I really do get a 210-page phone bill...) (Disclaimer: actual billing arrangements are much more complex and machiavellian, and I don't pretend to know all the ins and outs...) > It just > came to mind (what little I have left), do these 'other' carriers just > bill the local service provider based on originating phone number? > For us novices, please explain how! Uh, that's sort of it. Technically, it's all part of the equal access signaling, like I explained above. I don't know enough about billing and AMA (Automatic Message Accounting) do describe it in any more detail, tho, and I definitely don't know enough about the legal machinations that surround carrier access billing and revenue distribution on intercompany interLATA calls and all that. David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center) "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower." ------------------------------ Subject: Re: The AT&T Problem Organization: Data Progress, Minneapolis, MN Date: 21 Jan 90 21:38:32 CST (Sun) From: Scot E Wilcoxon >... Pac*Bell ... >emphasized that anyone could, by using a code *obtained from the >carrier* dial calls through that carrier ... If your call to the carrier won't go through then you can't get the code. Scot E. Wilcoxon sewilco@DataPg.MN.ORG {amdahl|hpda}!bungia!datapg!sewilco Data Progress UNIX masts & rigging +1 612-825-2607 uunet!datapg!sewilco I'm just reversing entropy while waiting for the Big Crunch. ------------------------------ Subject: Residence Prevails Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 22 Jan 90 11:23:11 PST (Mon) From: John Higdon A friend of mine runs a free voice BBS out of his home. It has at least eight lines and callers can talk in groups, one-on-one, leave messages on a bulletin board or in private mail boxes. Being a gadgeteer, he does this strictly as a hobby and for personal amusement. The other day, he got the dreaded letter from Pac*Bell, "It has come to our attention that your residential phone numbers may be being used as a business..." Conveniently, the applicable tariff was enclosed. My friend appointed me as spokesperson, so I made the call this morning. I am fully aware of the flap going on with SWB, and I had to summon it up to prepare for what I was sure to be an unpleasant conversation. After establishing my authority to speak on my friend's behalf, I explained to the gentleman at Pac*Bell the purpose and intent of the voice BBS. He said, "Oh, say no more. I've done that sort of thing myself." He noted "personal BBS" on the file and that was that. He also told me that the reason the service came into question in the first place was that some irate person complained that "his daughter had left her phone number on this thing and was getting a lot of calls." The possibility of a business-oriented venture was something they were obligated to investigate. The man from Pac*Bell chuckled and said, "Well, what would he expect?" He then indicated that if the complaitant called in again, he would be advised to have more control over his daughter leaving the family phone number posted in public places. All in all, it was a most satisfactory conversation, and my friend can continue his hobby at residential rates. BTW, the CPUC tariff very clearly defines a personal BBS as qualifying for residental class of service. Apparently Pac*Bell has no problem with that. SWB customers: read it and weep! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Subject: New Idea For Defeating Caller*ID Date: Mon, 22 Jan 90 13:55:10 -0500 From: eli@pws.bull.com I think I've got a solution for those who don't want to have their phone number displayed to caller*id users. The solution will require a new sort of answering service -- a "3 way call" distributor. The paranoid caller could call someone with "3 way calling", that person could then dial the number that paranoid caller wanted to reach, and then set the receiver down, or otherwise put the call on "hold". Paranoid caller and his intended callee would then be connected, but the callee would see the third party's phone number on his Caller*ID box rather than the number of the paranoid caller. (Of course, the paranoid caller would have to "trust" the person with "3 way calling" not to divulge his phone number...) ; Steve Elias ; work phone: 508 671 7556 ; email: eli@pws.bull.com , eli@spdcc.com ; voice mail: 617 932 5598 [Moderator's Note: It sounds like a good idea. I think services like this will become as popular as remail services are today, for folks who want to have a 'blind number' just as they use remails for the 'blind address'. Anyone in New Jersey thinking about starting one? PT] ------------------------------ From: "Lawrence D. Sher" Subject: Telephone Line Voltage Question Date: 22 Jan 90 15:14:04 GMT Reply-To: "Lawrence D. Sher" Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA I have three telephone lines coming into my house. The patch block for each looks like ------------------- | O O | | | | O | ------------------- "A" "G" "B" (which I have named the three terminals) For each, the center terminal is locally grounded. The incoming two-wire line attaches to A and B. Because I have a new electronic thing that misbehaves on one (only) of the 3 lines, I was led to measure the voltages (using a Radio Shack analog VOM). What I found (all voltages expressed with respect to G): Line 1 or 2: A -50v DC A 110v AC B is 0v AC or DC Line 3 (which the electronic thing thinks is always ringing): A -75v DC A 170v AC B is 0v AC or DC Does anyone understand this? Why am I seeing such big AC voltages -- is it the meter? None of the lines was ringing when I made these measurements. On lines 1 and 3, I had taken the precaution of disconnecting all local equipment. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Jan 90 22:11:38 -0800 From: clare@cdp.uucp Subject: Auto Out Calling I'm looking for information on equipment that will automatically dial and leave a message for political calls to action. It must run on a IBM clone. I have seen information from Talking Technologies called Big Mouth. I would be interested any other such equipment that can work from a data base of 50 to 3000 phone numbers. I'm also interested in information about sources that will update existing addresses with current phone numbers. Thanks, CRL ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Area Code 908 Lives (or does it?) Date: 22 Jan 90 08:24:36 GMT Organization: very little I wanted to follow up on my previous postings about being unable to use 908 NPA from Redmond (GTE) and Seattle (U S West). It is working fine now, and I have had no problems using 908. Tad Cook tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ From: sms@ficc.uu.net (Stanley M. Sutton) Subject: Re: $outhwe$tern Bell Charges Reply-To: sms@ficc.uu.net (Stanley M. Sutton) Organization: Ferranti ICC/Hardware Engineering/Hardware Design Date: Mon, 22 Jan 90 15:30:33 GMT When I had my second line installed last year, the charge from SWB was $65 per quarter hour to install everything up to the telephone plug. However, there was a minimum quarter hour billing. If you did the house wiring yourself, it was the minimum charge. If you wanted it installed through the attic with a wall drop, they usually quoted about an hour and a half (and also suggested it would be much less expensive to get a contractor). Stanley M. Sutton, Hardware Design, Ferranti International Controls Corp. uunet.uu.net!ficc!sms, sms@ficc.uu.net, bigtex!texbell!sugar!sms, (C) 1989 There's no sense being exact about something if you don't even know what you're talking about... John von Neumann ------------------------------ From: gws@cbnews.ATT.COM (Gary W. Sanders) Subject: Re: NEEDED: CCD Camera Supplier & Panasonic Door Phone Information Date: 22 Jan 90 20:48:29 GMT Reply-To: gws@cbnews.ATT.COM (Gary W. Sanders,51236,cb,3D246C,6148605965) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <3080@accuvax.nwu.edu> CJS@cwru.bitnet writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 43, message 7 of 7 >1) I'm interested in getting a hold of a very small CCD camera (for in >house surveillance security). Can anyone recommend specific >camera/dealers? The smaller the camera the better. Black and white >is OK, color would be better. The over riding concern is small. DAK (you know the guy with the best job in the world) has CCD camera and monvitor for ~$180. The camera puts out nts video. I purchaced one over xmas and played with it. It does need a lot of light to work. in the daylight, outside it worked ok, but inside with room light it was almost unusable. You might want to look into this unit. DAK has a moneyback garantee so your not out anything. The unit is small and can be held in your hand. Hope this helps. Gary Sanders (N8EMR) AT&T Bell Labs, Columbus Ohio gws@cblph.att.com 614-860-5965 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #44 ***************************** From telecomlist-request@mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu Tue Jan 23 04:43:12 1990 Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP id AA08795; Tue, 23 Jan 90 04:42:59 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12075; 23 Jan 90 3:07 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab23834; 23 Jan 90 2:02 CST Date: Tue, 23 Jan 90 1:03:32 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #45 Message-Id: <9001230103.ab30386@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> Status: RO TELECOM Digest Tue, 23 Jan 90 01:02:20 CST Volume 10 : Issue 45 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson AT&T Find America (Will Martin) Globecom 90, What's The Deadline? (Anthony Lee) Telenet Rates to Overseas (Hank Nussbacher) TYMNET/MCIMail (Pushpendra Mohta) Re: Sprint Stuff (John Owens) Re: Sprint Stuff (John Bruner) Re: That Which is Colored Between Red & Green and Like Leaves (Lang Zerner) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 22 Jan 90 14:57:39 CST From: Will Martin Subject: AT&T Find America The following was in the Business section of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch for Jan. 15, 1990. (Didn't get a chance to type it in until today.) NEW SERVICE TO REPLACE OPERATOR WITH COMPUTER By Jerri Stroud of the Post-Dispatch staff Starting next month, AT&T plans to let businesses get directory assistance information by computer rather than by calling operators. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will be the first local telephone company to cooperate with AT&T in the new service, called AT&T Find America. If the FCC approves the service, it could start Feb. 1 in SW Bell's territory, a SW Bell spokesman said. Businesses who subscribe to the service would have access to more than 15 million listings in Missouri, Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, including listings for customers of independent telephone companies. What the businesses will see on their computers is the same thing directory assistance operators see: a screen full of names, addresses, and telephone numbers. Residential, business, and government listings will be available, except for unpublished or unlisted numbers. Bruce Reid, an AT&T spokesman in New Jersey, aid the service will allow companies to get directory information faster than by dialing a directory assistance operator. "It now takes 36 seconds to get a number from directory assistance," said Reid. Getting the information electronically will take 3.6 seconds. [I assume this means AFTER you dial up, make the connection, login, etc. -WM] "It saves the customer a lot of time," said Coral D. Smith, a SW Bell manager familiar with the service. She said the service will probably have little impact on customers' use of directory assistance. Smith said the directory service would be of interest to government agencies, collection bureaus, hospitals, credit agencies and telemarketing firms. [What a lovely bunch of potential customers! Aside from hospitals, we'd all be better off if the organizations listed lost their telephone service entirely, as opposed to getting more services tailored especially to their nefarious desires... :-) -WM] Customers could use the information to update mailing lists, verify credit applications, and reach customers who have moved. Businesses will pay plenty to get the information by computer. The service costs $500 per month plus $100 for a password for each of the company's locations. Companies also will pay $100 each time they change a password. [Whatever this is, it doesn't sound UNIX-based. However, I can see being charged to change a password opens the door to hackers and surreptitiously-traded passwords, because it discourages companies from changing them as frequently as they should. I can also see these high rates encouraging a company to share the use of one password among a lot of employees; I wonder what controls the telco has to force this "separate password for each location" restriction? -WM] AT&T will charge 35 cents for each screen full of information plus $22 an hour to transmit the information. A screen contains up to 13 listings. [Wow! What prices! People who think *this* way certainly cannot understand free BBS's and maybe *that* is one reason why SW Bell has been coming down so hard on BBS's, assuming they are businesses! -WM] But AT&T has a special introductory offer. Companies that sign up by April 16 will get the first password free. The first monthly charge also will be waived, if that month ends by April 30. Customers who sign up in April will pay no monthly charges for the rest of that month. [At those costs per screen for the data, they're not giving up much! :-) -WM] AT&T expects to sign agreements soon that will allow access to listings at the other six regional Bell telephone companies and possibly for telephone customers in other nations. AT&T would offer nationwide listings as one package, said James Crackel, an AT&T spokesman here. AT&T asked the FCC for permission to offer the service in a filing Dec. 4. A comment period on the filing ends at midnight Wednesday [17 Jan.]. The company will begin selling the service Thursday if there are no objections to the offering. Southwestern Bell also will offer access to its directory information to other long-distance companies and companies with private telephone networks for resale to their customers, said Smith. SW Bell calls its service DirectLine Custom. ***End of item*** I wouldn't be quite so sarcastic about this if I thought the ridiculous rates would help to reduce *my* personal phone bill, but I doubt they will do anything except pay for more waste and luxury at the local SW Bell HQ Building or for AT&T's equivalents. Regards, Will ------------------------------ From: Anthony Lee Subject: Globecom 90, What's the Deadline? Date: 22 Jan 90 10:27:49 GMT Reply-To: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au Could someone please post the details regarding Globecom 90 ? Submission deadline, where it is going to be held etc. Thanks in advance Anthony Lee (Humble PhD student) (Alias Time Lord Doctor) ACSnet: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz TEL:+(61)-7-371-2651 Internet: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au +(61)-7-377-4139 (w) SNAIL: Dept Comp. Science, University of Qld, St Lucia, Qld 4067, Australia ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jan 90 18:26:39 O From: Hank Nussbacher Subject: Telenet Rates to Overseas Can anyone supply me with the current rates in dollars for Telenet use from the USA and Canada to Europe and the Middle East? 2400 baud dial-up rates for connect time per hour and per kilosegment are what I need. Just to thank readers for their help, here is a handy table for your use (I have other tables comparing other telecommunications services in Europe such as 64kb/T1 links to the USA, national rates for 64kb or 2Mb links. If people ask, I can post them here): +-----------------------------------------+ | A comparison of X.25 9600 baud rates | | National, to USA, installation and | | yearly rental (in ECUs) | | | | Henry Nussbacher | | Israeli InterUniversity Computer Center | | May 12, 1989 | +-----------------------------------------+ +------------------+------------------+---------+-------- | NATIONAL | TO U.S.A. | ONE | YEARLY |------------------+------------------+ TIME | RENTAL | per | per | per | per | INSTALL | COSTS Country | hour | kilo | hour | kilo | COSTS | | | segment | | segment | | -------------+--------+---------+--------+---------+---------+-------- Austria *| 1.07 | 1.78 | 8.23 | 8.23 | 549 | 3292 Belgium *| .33 | .55 | 6.59 | 6.04 | 412 | 2786 Denmark *| .08 | .77 | 6.14 | 5.76 | 768 | 2559 Finland *| .35 | .98 | 8.25 | 8.25 | 844 | 1791 France *| .53 | .95 | 8.68 | 6.22 | 578 | 3334 Germany *| .29 | 1.59 | 4.33 | 6.26 | 192 | 2599 Iceland | .14 | .43 | 4.57 | 5.07 | 759 | 2030 Ireland | .39 | .39 | 10.04 | 7.72 | 425 | 3680 Italy *| .32 | 1.42 | 9.17 | 9.17 | 160 | 2987 Luxemberg | .35 | .58 | 5.54 | 4.62 | 173 | 2771 Netherlands *| .64 | 1.06 | 6.90 | 6.82 | 213 | 4346 Norway | .15 | .79 | 5.35 | 5.09 | 1452 | 2201 Portugal *| .41 | .52 | 10.14 | 7.36 | 219 | 2065 Spain *| .12 | 3.23 | 6.60 | 9.62 | 192 | 6461 Sweden *| .41 | .69 | 6.62 | 6.90 | 1104 | 3312 Switzerland | .34 | 1.44 | 8.63 | 8.63 | 49 | 3452 UK *| .40 | .40 | 7.35 | 7.35 | 1307 | 5391 -------------+--------+---------+--------+---------+---------+------- Europe Avg | .37 | 1.03 | 7.24 | 7.01 | 553 | 3239 Notes: 1) All rates are in ECUs 2) These rates are for prime time daytime usage of the X.25 packet switching network in each country. 3) All countries marked with a 'star' (*), provide discounts for national traffic during the evening, night and weekends. Discounts range from 20%-75%. Finland is the only country that provides discounts also on international traffic. 4) Source: IOS, Tariffs and Availability of PPSDNs in Europe, Report 6.1, Sept 1987, Braun & Bauerfeld 5) These prices include VAT for countries that charge VAT for telecommunication services. [Moderator's Note: Yes, please, send along your other tables. References such as this are more than welcome in the Digest, but please try to insure they are up-to-date and as accurate as possible when you send them in. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jan 90 02:17:37 PST From: Pushpendra Mohta Subject: TYMNET/MCIMail Hi, Is it possible to access TYMNET /MCIMail from Internet/Bitnet/Usenet? Email replies, please. Thanks Pushp ------------------------------ Organization: SMART HOUSE Limited Partnership Subject: Re: Sprint Stuff Date: 22 Jan 90 10:59:44 EST (Mon) From: John Owens > When I hung up, I tried the "10333" sequence again, only this time I > used my AT&T calling card number. This resulted in, "Thank you for > calling on Sprint", and my call went through. > Is there now some question why AT&T remains the *real* long distance > company? I wrote a message on this subject a month or so ago.... The number you used wasn't just your AT&T number, it was your Pac*Bell number. For 0+ calls from payphones, all the IECs I've tried (including AT&T, as always) take your BOC card number, and the BOC does the billing. C&P made a big point about this in literature it sent out recently to accompany its "new" (fancy graphics) calling cards; their number can be used from any C&P payphone, regardless of LD carrier. I'd suspect that one implication of this is that any discount calling plans, quantity discounts, or MCI "Around Town" calling you have might not apply to these calls. John Owens john@jetson.UPMA.MD.US uunet!jetson!john +1 301 249 6000 john%jetson.uucp@uunet.uu.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jan 90 14:47:50 CST From: John Bruner Subject: Re: Sprint Stuff John Higdon (john@zygot.ati.com) asks >And a question for those who feel that AT&T was a stinker for not >giving out 10XXX codes during its outage: when was the last time you >saw an MCI or Sprint commercial that mentioned "10XXX"? Answer: Never. I certainly have never seen this. On the other hand, I've seen a bunch of advertisements warning me to use 10288 from a payphone to be certain I'm getting AT&T. Last week I was visiting my brother in West Lafayette (IN), and I had occasion to place a collect long-distance call from his home. I wasn't too surprised to discover that there was no "ka-bong" when I dialed 0+NPA+NXX-XXXX -- after all, their home is "served" by GTE. However, I was surprised that the long-distance operator who came on the line didn't identify herself. I didn't realize this during my first attempt (which failed because the called party wasn't home), but for my second try I deliberately dialed 10288+0+. Again, no ID. I had to ask "is this AT&T?" (Yes, it was.) I'd thought it was AT&T's policy (in keeping with the above mentioned payphone ads) always to identify themselves. John Bruner Center for Supercomputing R&D, University of Illinois bruner@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu (217) 244-4476 ------------------------------ From: Lang Zerner Subject: Re: That Which is Colored Between Red & Green and Like Leaves Date: 22 Jan 90 20:30:49 GMT Reply-To: langz@asylum.UUCP (Lang Zerner) Organization: The Great Escape, Inc In article <2986@accuvax.nwu.edu> david@indetech.com (David Kuder) writes: >We just got some Sun gear in with a big yellow sticker on it >that says: > "Yellow Pages" is a registered trademark in the United Kingdom > of British Telecommunications plc. ... > Sun will be revising future versions of software and documentation > to remove references to "Yellow Pages". > Looks like a law suit. Who filed? Who cared enough to file? To the best of my knowledge, the story so far.... As a term of divestiture, AT&T had to give up certain trademarks such as Touch-Tone and Yellow Pages. British Telecom had accelerated its push to modernize their system, using AT&T's system as a model, and trademarked the various ex-AT&T marks in the UK. More recently, Sun's European sales have been increasing a great deal (50% of total now, I believe). BT somehow got wind of Sun's use of their trademark in the UK. A couple of months ago, BTs lawyers had a chat with Sun's lawyers. It didn't go to lawsuit because eventually Sun agreed to change the name. > Did Sun lose? Concede? Why did[n't] Sun run into this before? After considering the impact of a lawsuit, apparently Sun decided it would cost less to stop using the name. Rather than keep two editions of each manual, Sun will be revising all manuals so that they do not refer to the trademarked term. Why didn't Sun run into this problem before? Well, the term is in the public domain here, and before that was owned by AT&T. Would AT&T sue Sun? I don't know, but it seems to me that it would be counterproductive, seeing that AT&T has something like a 20% holding in Sun. > What will [Yellow Pages] leaves of a book be called in future > versions? Just YP? DDDDBS (Dat Dam Distributed DataBase)? Close. Sun's lawyers chatted with BT's lawyers about using YP, but got unenthusiastic response. Last stable buzzings I've heard say YP will be positioned as part of the suite of network services including NFS, and will have a similarly generic name such as NDS (Network Database Service). Be seeing you... Lang Zerner langz@asylum.sf.ca.us UUCP:bionet!asylum!langz ARPA:langz@athena.mit.edu "...and every morning we had to go and LICK the road clean with our TONGUES!" ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #45 ***************************** From @delta.eecs.nwu.edu:telecomlist-request@mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu Tue Jan 23 13:45:39 1990 Received: from MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP id AA01246; Tue, 23 Jan 90 13:44:59 EST Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14854; 23 Jan 90 5:00 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab12075; 23 Jan 90 3:09 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac23834; 23 Jan 90 2:03 CST Date: Tue, 23 Jan 90 1:54:02 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #46 Message-Id: <9001230154.ab06307@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> Status: RO TELECOM Digest Tue, 23 Jan 90 01:52:32 CST Volume 10 : Issue 46 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson AT&T Sues MCI Over Sign-ups (TELECOM Moderator) Request For Information on Panasonic Phone Accessory (Jerry Leichter) New Telephone Installation Query (Dan) Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes (David Troup) Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes (Kelly Goen) Re: 900 and 976 Blocking (W. W. Scott) Re: Faxnet Info Request (Dave Levenson) Re: Supreme Court Rules Cordless Phones Not Private (Dave Horsfall) Re: How To Dial Long Distance (Carl Moore) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 23 Jan 90 1:22:07 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: AT&T Sues MCI Over Sign-ups The mudslinging between AT&T and MCI has accelerated again. Now, AT&T has filed suit (one of several pending?) against MCI charging unfair and deceptive telemarketing practices in signing up long distance customers. Among other charges in the latest action, AT&T claims MCI is moving AT&T customers to MCI without the customer's consent. AT&T is also asking the Federal Communications Commission to amend its rules to protect consumers in their choice of a long-distance company. "People are being hoodwinked," Merrill Tutton, AT&T Vice President for Consumer Services said at a press conference recently. "A very significant number of them (customers who have been switched) have chosen to come back to AT&T once the truth was known. In fact, a large number of them have been very irate." The lawsuit charges that MCI and its telemarketing agent, Pioneer Teletechnologies, used "misrepresentations of fact to induce AT&T customers to switch their long-distance service." MCI owns 25 percent of Pioneer. AT&T charged that in some cases AT&T customers were told by MCI sales representatives that AT&T is no longer handling long-distance calls and in some cases that it had gone or was going out of business. AT&T said preliminary studies show that from February to November, 1989, between 10-15 percent of monthly conversions of residential customers to other long-distance companies involved customers who complained to their local telephone company or AT&T that they had never been contacted to make the switch, or in some cases had specifically said they would not switch.....yet found themselves on MCI. The lawsuit asks the court to order MCI to stop making false, misleading or deceptive claims about AT&T; to refrain from switching AT&T customers to MCI without authorization, and for MCI to help mitigate damage caused by its actions. AT&T claims the deceptive practices have resulted in confusion, inconvenience and expense to consumers, and have cost AT&T tens of millions of dollars in lost revenue. The suit did not specify the total amount of compensation AT&T was seeking. The proposed change in rules at the FCC would require all long-distance companies to obtain written customer permission before notifying local telephone companies of a customer selection of long-distance carrier. This written authorization would have to be provided on request in the event of a dispute by the customer regarding who was to handle their calls. AT&T said they did not plan to sue United Telecommunications, Inc.'s US Sprint unit at this time, but reserved the option to do so "if the problem occurs there also." Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jan 90 23:41 EST From: Leichter-Jerry@cs.yale.edu Subject: Request for Information on Panasonic Phone Accessory I recently picked up an old Panasonic Easa-phone, model number KX-T1235D. (It had been left abandoned in the garbage in an office about to be re-built.) From what I can see, this unit has two functions: It has a 60-number memory autodialer, and it MAY have a speaker phone. Instructions for programming the memory are written on the device, and the rest of what I've found seems clear. a) Does this device have any other features that I haven't noticed yet? b) How do I hook it up? (This is the interesting question.) The device has a single cord coming out of it, and no jacks. The cord terminates in an 8-pin (RJ-45?) connector. Inside the cord are wires of the following colors: Gray, orange, black, red, green, yellow, blue, brown. I've opened the device up and found that the orange and blue wires are cut short and aren't connected; the other six are attached to the printed circuit board. c) There are no switches on the device that would indicated that it can handle multiple lines, hold, or anything of that sort. d) Any clues as to why this thing was built with this unusual jack? Which lines are likely to be relevant to connecting the thing up, will I just have to experiment? -- Jerry ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jan 90 01:37:01 EST From: Dan Subject: New Telephone Installation Query I'm going to move into an apartment in Queens (in New York City). There are no phone jacks currently. We would like two lines that bounce if the other line is busy. We would also like to get an answering machine that would answer either/both line(s). A) Does this kind of service exist from NY Tel, and if so, (roughly) how much? B) Is there a way to accomplish this without bothering with NY Tel? (we are telecom novices) C) What would we have to do to get the answering machine set up this way? Is there a specific machine or a special adapter? ------------------------------ From: "David C. Troup - Skunk Works : 2600hz" Subject: Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes Date: 22 Jan 90 23:21:56 GMT Reply-To: "David C. Troup - Skunk Works : 2600hz" Organization: Carroll College Stealth Rock Climbing Club In article <3045@accuvax.nwu.edu> das@cs.ucla.edu (David A Smallberg) writes: >The name Kevin Poulsen is not unfamiliar to some of us at UCLA, since >in 1983 (or '84?), he and Ronald Austin apparently cracked some >accounts with trivial passwords on some machines at UCLA. Also, the public (to my knowledge) was NOT informed that "Kev" and "Ron" were hacking MILITARY computers through the UCLA connection and via TELENET. The DA had 4000 (yes, 4000) pages of TELENET logs of these fellows prior to the actual arrest. There was quite a bit of information on the DDN (Defense Data Network) about some site admin looking for info on these hackers (or CRACKERS if you prefer...) Just thought you would like to know... David C. Troup ! SkunkWorks ! 2600 hz |"Im going to work at an office dtroup@carroll1.cc.edu | that has no phone, and 414-524-6809(dorm)7343(work) | returning home with sandy The Surf Rat - DC 12 on Neil Pryde and Seatrend | feet." [Moderator's Note: Later this week in the Digest, as space permits, a rebuttal by Mr. Gilmore to my comments regarding his original article; also as space permits, a more detailed look at Kevin Poulsen, the person; his girlfriend Sean Randol; and the allegations that he tapped into the Randol family's telephone line and taped all their conversations without their consent over a two week period two years ago. These tapes are part of the indictment against him now pending. Did you know at one time the FBI asked Mr. Poulsen to help *them*, and he refused? PT] ------------------------------ From: Kelly Goen Subject: Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes Date: 22 Jan 90 06:20:50 GMT Reply-To: Kelly Goen Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA In article <3045@accuvax.nwu.edu> das@cs.ucla.edu (David A Smallberg) writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 40, message 5 of 7 >The name Kevin Poulsen is not unfamiliar to some of us at UCLA, since >in 1983 (or '84?), he and Ronald Austin apparently cracked some >accounts with trivial passwords on some machines at UCLA. [I say >"apparently" for legalistic reasons. Austin was convicted; Poulsen >was not prosecuted, but with Austin on one stolen account addressing >his friend "Kev" in North Hollywood on another, along with other >evidence, most people here involved with the case are certain of >Poulsen's involvement.] The crackers of our system did destroy some >files of one of our grad students. >The prosecution of Austin was sensationalized, but the key charges >were justified. Austin's people tried to project a "computer genius, >good kid, meant no harm" image, but he was convicted and got three (?) >years' probation. No one here at UCLA would dignify him with the >appellation "genius". I was never clear on why Poulsen was not >prosecuted, since there seemed to be enough evidence to convict him, >too. >Since Austin also cracked some computers at Stanford, making news in >the S.F. Bay area, I wonder if SRI knew of Poulsen's apparent >involvement in the case when they hired him? Dave, this is indeed interesting to read now that some more facts are surfacing and MY temper is cooling... IF these individuals are indeed guily of the offenses mentioned above then they are guilty of one very major error that of STUPIDITY... by going out and cracking again after already being caught and having their collective hand slapped... BTW I dont condone actions against privately owned computers... I feel however that all information held in government computers however should be freely accessible to citizens...after all WE citizens did foot the bill for their purchase and programming..... But again a jury of their peers will decide the guilt or innocence and the applicability of the charges against them... the Local news will be interesting indeed BTW I fully agree with A LOT of John Gilmore's postings he does seem to have the right attitude at least... Cheers, Kelly Disclaimer:I am not authorized to make representations for MY employers either overtly or implied...I am fully competant to offer my own opinions however(and often do!!). I release AMDAHL Corp. from any legal liability by my postings to the net and in fact accept that liability myself... ------------------------------ From: W W Scott Subject: Re: 900 and 976 Blocking Date: 22 Jan 90 21:38:06 GMT Organization: Bell Communications Research In article <2898@accuvax.nwu.edu>, malis@bbn.com (Andy Malis) writes: > In their recent phone bills, New England Telephone included > information about Information Delivery Service lines, and offering > free blocking (once you get blocking, you are charged for future > changes). I just signed up for their comprehensive blocking; it > blocks: Does anyone have any knowledge about how this is implemented (for example, in the switches, or some adjunct perhaps)? What about customer capacity? If everyone in a large metropolitan area requests this service, will many of them have to be denied because of a lack of switch capacity? Wayne Scott ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Faxnet Info Request Date: 23 Jan 90 03:45:06 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <3040@accuvax.nwu.edu>, tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) writes: > I have been using the FAX feature from MCI Mail to send messages to a > fax machine at CODETEL in the Dominican Republic. > I have been getting rejections from MCI Mail that say that the fax > transmission could not be delivered because of "voice answer". > Any ideas? If MCI Mail cannot tell the difference, what happens if I > use MCI long distance telephone service to call internationally? For what it's worth, we use the AT&T Mail fax delivery service. While I have not tried to send to the Dominican Republic, I've sent fax traffic all over the US without difficulty for about a year now. Twice in the past year I've gotten a message after about a hour saying that they're still trying to reach the destination (probably reaching a busy signal) but the messages always get delivered. Dave Levenson Voice: (201 | 908) 647 0900 Westmark, Inc. Internet: dave@westmark.uu.net Warren, NJ, USA UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave [The Man in the Mooney] AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave ------------------------------ From: Dave Horsfall Subject: Re: Supreme Court Rules Cordless Phones Not Private Date: 23 Jan 90 00:32:40 GMT Reply-To: Dave Horsfall Organization: Alcatel STC Australia, North Sydney, AUSTRALIA In article <2851@accuvax.nwu.edu>, jwb@cit5.cit.oz (Jim Breen) writes: | Of course, a ham with a scanner and recorder was listening in, and [...] | I believe the ham got a bit of a wrist slapping and was told not to do | it again. No charges were laid. Excuse me Jim, but it was *NOT* a "ham" (licenced amateur radio enthusiast). It was just a listener with a scanner. I get really agro when people attribute actions to "hams" merely because a receiver was involved! Had it have been an amateur, he would have lost his licence - period. I daresay there are more non-amateurs with scanners than amateurs... Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU), Alcatel STC Australia, dave@stcns3.stc.oz.AU dave%stcns3.stc.oz.AU@uunet.UU.NET, ...munnari!stcns3.stc.oz.AU!dave ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jan 90 15:59:18 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: How To Dial Long Distance You write: > In any case, 7 digits for inter-area is wrong, since you > have to specify _which_ area code you want. (NYC has 4, for instance.) There are some areas which have 7-digit local dialing to 3 area codes. One is at Hancock, Md. (301-678), which is local to some Md. points and to: Needmore, Pa. (717-573); Warfordsburg, Pa. (717-294); Berkeley Springs, W.Va. (304-258). I think there is another case at Port Jervis, NY (at point where NY, NJ, and Pa. come together, with local service to those). And previously written up in the Digest is the Washington, DC area, where the days of 7D dialing to 3 area codes are numbered because of prefix shortage (local calls across NPA lines will become 10 digits). ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #46 ***************************** From telecomlist-request@mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu Wed Jan 24 03:41:36 1990 Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP id AA04477; Wed, 24 Jan 90 03:41:31 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26282; 24 Jan 90 2:19 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14511; 24 Jan 90 1:15 CST Date: Wed, 24 Jan 90 0:21:17 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #47 Message-Id: <9001240021.ab14228@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> Status: R TELECOM Digest Wed, 24 Jan 90 00:20:44 CST Volume 10 : Issue 47 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Morris Found Guilty; Faces Five Years (TELECOM Moderator) The AT&T Problem and the Internet Worm Problem (Peter Capek) All Info on Gov't. Computers Should Be Public (Wolf Paul) ATT Network Outage Explained (Lars J. Poulsen) International High-speed Leased Circuit Rates (Hank Nussbacher) Computer Supported Telephony Application (Roald Lygre) 900 and 976 Blocking Questions (W. W. Scott) Various Comments (Fred E.J. Linton) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 23 Jan 90 23:49:40 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Morris Found Guilty; Faces Five Years A jury in Syracuse, NY found Robert T. Morris guilty of federal computer tampering charges for unleashing a rogue program that temporarily crippled the Internet in the fall of 1988. Morris, age 24, faces up to five years in prison, plus a fine of $250,000. He is the first person brought to trial under the 1986 federal computer computer fraud and abuse law that makes it a felony to break into a federal computer network. Morris, of Arnold, MD, testified he wrote the programming code that caused a 'worm' to travel througout the net, but he said it was an accident. The jury did not accept his account of the incident. Morris' father said he was disappointed in the outcome of the trial, but he believed his son had been treated fairly and given a fair trial. Imposition of punishment is scheduled for late February in federal court in Syracuse. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jan 90 21:44:40 EST From: CAPEK%YKTVMX.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu Subject: The AT&T Problem and the Internet Worm Problem Reading Ken Jongsma's summary of the Business Week summary of AT&T's problem, it occurs to me that the way in which the error propagated around the network, including back to nodes which had previously been hit, sounds a LOT like the way Robert Morris Jr's worm behaved, reinfecting nodes which had already been infected, with the concomitant exponential increase in network traffic. Sounds like the AT&T one wasn't quite as pronounced (less fanout?), but was very similar. Can anyone with more direct knowledge comment on this? Peter Capek IBM Research -- Yorktown Heights, NY ------------------------------ From: wolf paul Subject: All Info on Gov't. Computers Should Be Public? Date: Tue, 23 Jan 90 14:37:38 MET DST Organization: IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria In TELECOM Digest 10:46, Kelly Goen writes: > I dont condone actions against privately owned computers... I feel > however that all information held in government computers however > should be freely accessible to citizens...after all WE citizens did > foot the bill for their purchase and programming..... I am afraid I strongly disagree with you. Government computers in many instances hold information about private individuals, which the gov't may need (that can be disputed), but which should definitely NOT be freely accessible to all other citizens. To mention only a few types of information: Government computers hold information on my income situation (over at the IRS), they may hold manufacturers' proprietary information (i.e. in a summary of competing bids for some purchasing project), they hold people's educational and health records, etc. -- there is NO WAY that all of that information should be freely accessible to ALL citizens. Wolf N. Paul, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis Schloss Laxenburg, Schlossplatz 1, A - 2361 Laxenburg, Austria, Europe Phone: [43] (2236) 71521-465 BITNET: tuvie!iiasa!wnp@cernvax.BITNET UUCP: uunet!tuvie!iiasa!wnp INTERNET: wnp%iiasa.at@uunet.uu.net ------------------------------ From: Lars J Poulsen Subject: ATT Network Outage Explained Reply-To: Lars J Poulsen Organization: Advanced Computer Communications, Santa Barbara, California Date: Tue, 23 Jan 90 20:48:44 GMT An article in the Jan 22 issue of Network World describes the technical cause of the ATT Network Failure. The following is a summary of this article, with some additional explanation by me. The telephone system is hierarchically organized; the local central office, where the subscriber lines are attached, is a class 5 switch; the next level up is a class 4 office. The newer class 4 offices are all equipped with a switch designated as the 4ESS model. All switches of a particular model normally run identical software, referred to in telephone parlance as "the Generic" for the particular switch model. The network contains voice trunks and a separate data network, called the "Signaling System 7 Net", by which network management administrative data as well as billing data is transmitted. The switches keep each other informed about status changes over the SS7 network. When a switch goes offline, it sends a "going down" message to its neighbors, so that they can delete it from their routing tables. When a switch joins the network, it sends an "OK" message to indicate that it is available. During normal operations, the switch software periodically performs sanity checks, and if certain inconsistencies are found, it takes itself offline and reboots. The article says a reboot completes in two seconds. A new version of the 4ESS generic (identified in the article as "Generic 44E14 Central Office Switch Software" contained two bugs that interacted dramatically: (1) On a reboot, it could (sometimes?) send two "OK" messages, and (2) receiving an "OK" message from an already up neighbor could (sometimes ?) cause the sanity check to fail, thus triggering a reboot. It took about 10 minutes for the problem to cripple the entire network. Once the problem was identified, the network was restored by reverting to an older version of the Generic, until a corrected version of the new code could be distributed. Users familiar with network troubleshooting will appreciate the difficulty in locating the failed node, since all nodes in the network were rippling up and down. / Lars Poulsen soon to be ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jan 90 15:45:45 O From: Hank Nussbacher Subject: International High-speed Leased Circuit Rates +-----------------------------------------+ | International rates for high speed | | 64kb & 2Mb | | links to the USA | | (monthly rental in US dollars) | | | | Henry Nussbacher | | Israeli InterUniversity Computer Center | | May 12, 1989 | +-----------------------------------------+ Country | 56kb | 1.544Mb | Comments | Cost in local | 64kb | or 2Mb | | currency ----------------+------+---------+----------+------------------- France | 4531 | 45307 | TAT8 T1 | 28000, 280000FF UK - Mercury | 4559 | 50008 | SAT M1 | 2583, 28333P UK - BT | 5148 | N/A | TAT8 | 2917P France | 5501 | 45307 | SAT T1 | 34000, 280000FF UK - BT | 5810 | 54420 | SAT M1 | 3292, 30833P Switzerland | 5844 | 58441 | SAT M1 | 9000, 90000SF Netherlands | 5854 | 57195 | TER M1 | 12000, 117250DF Germany | 6043 | 55324 | SAT T1+L| 11180, 102350DM Netherlands | 7560 | 69390 | SAT M1 | 15500, 142250DF Japan | 9324 | 71383 | SAT T1+L| 1173000, 8980000Y Belgium | 9449 | 52493 | SAT M1 | 360000, 2000000BF Ireland | 9600 | N/A | SAT | Sweden |12581 | 99839 | SAT M1 | 78000, 619000SK Italy |19260 | 128404 | SAT M1 |25578000, 170520000L ----------------+------+---------+----------+ European Avg | 7933 | 65626 | | ----------------+------+---------+------------------------------ Canada | 4000 | 29761 | only to UK, US, NL, CH, FR USA - ITT | 3950 | 27000 | SAT USA - TRT | 3800 | 28000 | SAT USA - FTC | 3895 | 29925 | SAT USA - ATT | 4500 | 40000 | SAT USA - ITT or TRT| 4000 | 40000 | TAT8 ----------------+------+---------+------------------------------ Notes: 1) All rates are rates for connecting to the east coast in the USA. Japanese rate is for connecting to West Coast of the USA. 2) The rates only reflect half of the cost. The other half is the cost for the link from the United States to the stated country. The 2nd part of the table lists costs from Canada and USA to European destinations. 3) All rates are cost per month in US dollars 4) SAT: Satellite TAT8: Fiber cable TER: Terrestial T1: 1.544Mb M1: 2.0Mb +L: Cost includes additional local national link 5) Sources: Eurodata Foundation Yearbook 1987-1988, Revision of Tariffs, October 1987 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jan 90 14:24:45 +0100 From: roaldly@idt.unit.no Subject: Computer Supported Telephony Application I am a student at the Norwegian Institute of Technology (NTH),division of Computer Science and Telematics in Trondheim, Norway. At present I am working on my diploma with which the main objective is to evaluate the concepts of Computer Supported Telephony Application (CSTA) (or Computer Integrated Telephony(CIT) which is Digital Equipment Corp.'s name). CIT is defined as: "The functional integration of end-user applications with telephone switching." The idea is to make applications that integrate telephony and computing without having to buy integrated hardware. This is accomplished through establishing a link between the computer(s) and the telephone switch(es). Switches from several major vendors are able to communicate with DEC's CIT software. European Computer Manucaturers Association (ECMA) is working on a standard for computer-PABX signalling in CSTA/CIT. Most of what I know about CSTA/CIT I have learned from material supplied by Digital Equipment Corporation, and I am very interested in reading about other people and organisations' opinions on CIT/CSTA. I am seeking the following information: 1. Your opinions about the idea of CIT/CSTA in general. 2. Experiences with developing and/or using CIT/CSTA applications. 3. Have CIT/CSTA ever been a subject in this or any other newsgroup?, (Maybe I can find the article(s) in the archives) 4. References to published works about CSTA/CIT. 5. Anything else about CIT/CSTA that is not mentioned here, that you think may be of interest. Please email or "hardmail" directly to me, or post to the group if you want to start a discussion about this subject. Roald Lygre Adr: Magnus Den Godes gt 2,7030 Trondheim-Norway Phone: +47 7 51 74 97 Fax: +47 7 59 44 66 Email: roaldly@idt.unit.no ------------------------------ From: W W Scott Subject: 900 and 976 Blocking Questions Date: 23 Jan 90 16:33:53 GMT Organization: Bell Communications Research I have a few questions about the article that was posted on the blocking features from NE Telephone. Does anyone know if these features are supported? >In their recent phone bills, New England Telephone included >information about Information Delivery Service lines, and offering >free blocking (once you get blocking, you are charged for future >changes). I just signed up for their comprehensive blocking; it >blocks: >1-900-XXX-XXXX (general long-distance information programs) >976-XXXX (general local information programs) >940-XXXX (adult local information program) >550-XXXX (group talk lines) >By the way, 940 calls are automatically blocked unless you send a >written request to have it enabled. Does this service allow selective blocking of numbers, not just the comprehensive blocking? Is there any customization allowed for each line? For example, some customers may only want selective numbers blocked since the telephone companies offer some of the services (e.g., 976 numbers for weather and time)? Does this service allow blocking of calls to particular NPA-NXXs other than the 900, 976 types of numbers? Does the service allow "Mom" or "Dad" to override the blocking when they want to use the blocked numbers. Does it allow for time-of-day blocking to allow access to numbers after "Johnnie" is asleep, as well as PIN override. Just curious, Wayne Scott [Moderator's Note: The version offered by Illinois Bell blocks everything in the 976 group, the 1-900 group, or both. It does not allow selective blocking based on the last four digits, or the 900 prefix. There is no override code, and calls from a blocked phone are unable to get the call completed through an operator. I think this is pretty customary for all the Bell companies which offer blocking. We do not have the other special categories here, yet. The default here is all numbers are dialable unless a request is made to block. In some communities with 940 service, on that exchange, the default is calls are blocked unless a request is made to make the services available. PT] ------------------------------ Date: 23-JAN-1990 03:46:58.61 From: "Fred E.J. Linton" Subject: Various Comments Regarding "USA Direct" from France -- I've never been able to get through to the US operator, always either a busy or a recording (in French) telling me to try at a later time. I thought the French PTT just didn't want the business siphoned off. Regarding the 10XXX list -- for some time NJ Bell ran radio spots in the NYC area urging listeners to use the 10-code 10NJB ; yet I see no 10652 in the list. Is 10NJB no longer a valid 10-code? Regarding caller-ID boxes: in its most recent catalogue HelloDirect now lists _two_ such, one with 35-number memory, one with 70-number memory, both "under" $100.- (though probably over $100.- once you add tax and S/H). Another caller-ID remark: in the CBS NightWatch discussion of caller-ID recently, a rep from a Jersey phone co said minimal caller-ID boxes could be had for as little as $29.95 or so; anyone know from what vendor(s)? [I tried calling his 800 number, but that proved inaccessible from (203).] -- Fred Fred E.J. Linton Wesleyan U. Math. Dept. 649 Sci. Tower Middletown, CT 06457 ARPA/Internet: FLINTON@eagle.Wesleyan.EDU Bitnet: FLINTON@WESLEYAN[.bitnet] on ATT-Mail: !fejlinton ( ...!attmail!fejlinton ) Tel.: + 1 203 776 2210 (home) OR + 1 203 347 9411 x2249 (work) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #47 ***************************** From telecomlist-request@mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu Wed Jan 24 03:44:37 1990 Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP id AA04590; Wed, 24 Jan 90 03:44:32 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab26282; 24 Jan 90 2:21 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab14511; 24 Jan 90 1:15 CST Date: Wed, 24 Jan 90 1:07:16 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #48 Message-Id: <9001240107.ab06939@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> Status: R TELECOM Digest Wed, 24 Jan 90 01:05:00 CST Volume 10 : Issue 48 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: How To Dial an OCC: 10xxx List (Martin J. Shannon) Re: How To Dial an OCC: 10xxx List (John Cowan) Re: How To Dial an OCC: 10xxx List (David Tamkin) Re: How To Dial an OCC: 10xxx List (Tad Cook) Re: ISDN Chat Show (Danny Wilson) Re: Need Info on E-Mail (Paul S. R. Chisholm) Re: 900 and 976 Blocking (John Higdon) Re: Auto Out Calling (John Higdon) Re: Globecom 90, What's the Deadline? (Greg Hackney) Dialing Procedures (Carl Moore) ANI on 800 Service (Marc T. Kaufman) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Martin J Shannon Subject: Re: How To Dial an OCC: 10xxx List Date: 24 Jan 90 00:05:05 GMT Reply-To: mjs@cbnews.ATT.COM (martin.j.shannon,59112,lc,4nr10,201 580 5757) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <3035@accuvax.nwu.edu>, telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) posted the 10xxx table, and made the request: >If you spot any corrections or updates, please send them along. Ok, NJBell offers a service from portions of area code 201 to most (all?) of the NYC 212 and 718 area codes (and perhaps portions of 914). In the interests of completeness (since from my phone the equal access code gets to the NJBell service), 652 (NJB) should be added to the list. Are there other OCs that offer similar plans using an equal access code? How many of these were in the list just posted? Marty Shannon; AT&T Bell Labs; Liberty Corner, NJ, USA (Affiliation is given for identification only: I don't speak for them; they don't speak for me.) ------------------------------ From: John Cowan Subject: Re: How To Dial an OCC: 10xxx List Reply-To: John Cowan Organization: ESCC, New York City Date: Tue, 23 Jan 90 19:25:53 GMT Correction to the 10XXX list (moderator, you might want to fix the archive copy): 488 is now assigned to Metromedia<>ITT, which is a subsidiary of Metromedia Inc., using the ITT name under license. Basically, ITT sold USTS to Metro- media. [Moderator's Note: This change, plus the one mentioned above will be edited into the archives copy, along with others which may arrive. PT] ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: How To Dial an OCC: 10xxx List Date: Tue, 23 Jan 90 17:57:51 CST David Lewis wrote in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 44: In article <2956@accuvax.nwu.edu>, olmiller@xibm.asd.contel.com (Otto Miller) writes: | > I understand the concept of 10xxx dialling to get to other carriers, | > *BUT* don't you need an account with the carrier to do this? | Nope. 10XXX is for "casual" use. [explanation of how 10XXX calls are | billed in care of the LEC followed] More like "yup and nope" than a flat "nope". The local telco doesn't need to know which IC's a subscriber has accounts with except for the primary carrier (to whom the LEC routes 1+ dialing). But the long-distance carriers themselves are not compelled to complete a 10XXX call originating from a telephone number not in their customer databases; if you are not already their customer in some way or another, they might not place the call for you once the local company has passed it to them. You don't have to have them as your primary carrier as well; some will open an account for 10XXX use or for calling card and 10XXX only. David Tamkin PO Box 813 Rosemont IL 60018-0813 708-518-6769 312-693-0591 dattier@chinet.chi.il.us BIX: dattier GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: How To Dial an OCC: 10xxx List Date: 23 Jan 90 06:03:48 GMT Organization: very little Otto Miller asked if you need an account with a carrier to use their 10XXX codes. No, you don't. I have experimented with alternate carriers, just to see how the "sound" of the call compared, and the charge always showed up eventually on my US West bill. Actually, I'll take that back...I recall trying one service where a recording came on asking that I contact the them and the telco to set up an account, but it doesn't seem to be a requirement of the major carriers. I helped a friend in an interesting situation using 10XXX codes. She is living with several roomates, and they had subscribed to AT&T. She thought it would be nice to get her own separate phone bill for her interstate toll charges, rather than hash out the calls at the end of every month. I told her to call Sprint, give them the phone number, and set up an account in her name. Then whenever she called out of the state (I didn't try to explain LATAs to her!) she would dial 10333 before dialing 1+ the number. There was no need to notify the local telco, as they were not requesting Sprint as their default carrier of choice. This has worked very well for her, and she likes the sound quality on the Sprint network. Tad Cook tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ From: Danny Wilson Subject: Re: ISDN Chat Show Organization: IDACOM Electronics Ltd. Date: Wed, 17 Jan 90 19:27:26 GMT In article <2353@accuvax.nwu.edu> euatdt@euas17c10.ericsson.se (Torsten Dahlkvist) writes: > But I must ask a question to the net, U.S. readers in particular: I > know for a fact (= I was there when it happened!) that Ericsson has > been approached by one of *the* major Japanese electronics > manufacturers (no, I'm NOT going to say which one - I'm far out on a > limb as it is already!) which wanted to sell a line of ISDN phones > with built-in TA functions. Essentially a small feature-phone with a > V.24, X.21 or (I think, but memory is vague) X.25 connector. The NTT "Netmate-64" ISDN phone has been the standard phone for all of their ISDN subscribers for about 1.5 years now. The phone itself is manufactured by two companies (Hitachi&Fujitsu ??) and depending who made your own particular phone, each comes with a unique set of bugs. As for the connectors on the back, a V.24 connector which can run SYN and ASYN from 200bps to 48kbps as I recall. Rate adaption is _not_ supported however, most Japanese companies I've talked to are currently working on V.110. Dipswitches on the bottom on the phone as well as menus in the LCD display configure parameters of this port such as speed, parity, stop-bits, PAD protocol etc. There is also a 15 pin Dsub connector using V.11 signal levels. This connector uses a proprietary pinout to supply raw access to the 64 kbps B-Channels plus clocks and framing etc. Danny Wilson danny@idacom.uucp IDACOM Electronics alberta!idacom!danny Edmonton, Alberta X.400 danny@idacom.cs.ubc.cdn C A N A D A Voice +1 403 462 4545 ------------------------------ From: "Paul S. R. Chisholm" Subject: Re: Need Info on E-Mail Date: 23 Jan 90 17:18:59 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <2978@accuvax.nwu.edu>, aucs!880039a@uunet.uu.net (Katherine Astels) writes: > If anyone knows of some good books or papers on this topic please > send me references by e-mail. (Okay, but I also sent it to the Telecom Digest.) Andrew S. Tanenbaum, COMPUTER NETWORKS, second edition, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1988, pp. 530-531 and pp. 546-558. Andrew Huffman (my old boss), "E-Mail -- the Glue to Office Automation", IEEE Network, volume 1, pp. 4-10 (and other articles in the same October 1987 issue). D. Taylor, "The Postman Always Rings Twice: Electronic Mail in a Highly Distributed Environment", Proceedings of the Winter USENIX Conference, 1988, pp. 145-154. Also, if you're using the UNIX(R) operating system, read the manuals (start with the mail(1) man page) on locking the mailbox file ($MAIL). Paul S. R. Chisholm, AT&T Bell Laboratories att!pegasus!psrc, psrc@pegasus.att.com, AT&T Mail !psrchisholm I'm not speaking for the company, I'm just speaking my mind. ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: 900 and 976 Blocking Date: 23 Jan 90 10:58:57 PST (Tue) From: John Higdon W W Scott writes: > [concerning 976/900 blocking] > Does anyone have any knowledge about how this is implemented (for > example, in the switches, or some adjunct perhaps)? > What about customer capacity? If everyone in a large metropolitan > area requests this service, will many of them have to be denied > because of a lack of switch capacity? I am told that blocking is a function of the FGD or equal-access mechanism. They set up a psuedo carrier that can't handle 976/900 calls and the call is simply rejected. If this is the case, there would be no limit to the number of subscribers that could request blocking, just as there would be no limit to the number of subscriber that could select, for example, MCI as their long distance carrier. In the case of #5 crossbar, it is the CONTAC adjunct that allows for blocking (at least here in Pac*Bell). Otherwise, it is just built into the generic for the particular switch. There was one glitch here, however. It took Pac*Bell more than a year after they announced the availability of general blocking to figure out how to implement it in Commstar II (mini-centrex). I got a letter when blocking became available that said that I had three choices: do without blocking; dump my Commstar II and get blocking; or wait several months to get blocking. As it turned out, it was over a year before I got another letter proclaiming that blocking was now available on my Commstar II service. Since I have motor control in my dialing finger, I opted to pass on blocking. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: Like yourself, I did not get blocking because I want the flexibility of using *some* services as desired. I get the weather from 162.55 on my scanner and I call the Talking Clock when I get nervous (1-202-653-1800, same difference as 900-410-TIME, but why pay extra for it?). Or, I may connect on Telenet to the British Telecom Master Clock expressed in GMT at @C 023421920100605,NAME,PWD. I don't do this with my PCP account though, not since the day Telenet Customer Service bawled me out. I gathered together the outlaws who live in this house and told them mis-use of 900/976 would cost someone dearly. At our office we had get blocking since some people were abusing the phones badly. PT] ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Auto Out Calling Date: 23 Jan 90 11:16:08 PST (Tue) From: John Higdon The Watson was obviously designed for outcalling. It will deliver messages to callers from a list, or for that matter, any interactive program you chose to create. (Callees can respond with voice or TT.) Even though I use the Watson for incoming calls, it is obvious that I am contorting its original design function. The Watson has superb call progress detection. It is much more sophisicated than the Big Mouth or the Compleat PC. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Greg Hackney Subject: Re: Globecom 90, What's the Deadline? Date: 23 Jan 90 20:30:21 GMT Reply-To: news1@tness7.uucp Organization: texbell gateway, dallas In article <3116@accuvax.nwu.edu> anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au writes: >Could someone please post the details regarding Globecom 90 ? >Submission deadline, where it is going to be held etc. Place: San Diego, California Dates: December 2-5, 1990 Submission Deadline for Papers: Complete Manuscript Due: March 15, 1990 Notification of Acceptance: May 30, 1990 Camera-Ready Manuscript Due: August 20, 1990 Technical Program Secretary: Dr. Arne Mortensen M/A-COM Government Systems 3033 Science Park Road San Diego, CA 92121 Phone: 619-457-2340 Telex: 910-337-1277 FAX: 619-457-0579 Technical Program Chairman: Thomas Seay Thomas Seay, Inc.` 982 Santa Florencia Solana Beach, CA 94583 Phone: 619-755-0062 Tech Program Vice-Chairman: Paul Moroney General Instruments 6262 Lusk Boulevard San Diego, CA 92121 Phone: 619-455-1500 Asian/Pacific Chairman: Dr. Tetsuya Miki NTT Telecommunication Networks Laboratories 3-9-11 Midori-cho.Musashino-shi Tokyo, 180 Japan Phone: +81-422-59-3020 Telex: +72-0282-2620 NTTECL J FAX: +81-422-59-2518 Greg Hackney hack@texbell.swbt.com Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. Dallas, Texas ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jan 90 15:38:50 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Dialing Procedures Feedback on notes "as of April 1, 1986" regarding use of N 0/1 X prefixes: Yes, 718 is using N 0/1 X prefixes. I don't recall 817 as using them, but 214 does. Perhaps 817's dialing procedures match those of 214 for the sake of area-wide uniformity (also, there are some N 0/1 X prefixes in 214 which are local to some prefixes in 817). >"Syntax 3" is the "new standard" for after "Time T". It is already in >effect in 404, 919, 703, 202, 301, 214 (and the new 903?) and soon 416. What about 817 (for the reasons just mentioned)? And are you saying that area 704 in North Carolina does NOT now have Syntax 3? (I know that 804 in Virginia does not, although 703 does due to DC area crunch.) "Syntax 2" notes include a reference to area 609 in New Jersey. When 201 prepared for the coming of N 0/1 X prefixes, 609's dialing instruc- tions also changed (for the sake of statewide uniformity and for the later case of Toms River getting two N0X prefixes). However, it is already noted that 609 has NOT since gotten 1 + 10 digits for local calls outside NPA. ------------------------------ From: "Marc T. Kaufman" Subject: ANI on 800 Service Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University Date: Tue, 23 Jan 90 23:41:34 GMT The following quotes are from an MCI ad in the January 22 issue of Communications Week: "Unlike AT&T, MCI 800 service offers real-time ANI today, using the standard signalling technology you already have. So now you can access a complete customer profile on your terminal before you even answer the call." "And MCI's Call Detail provides the complete phone number of virtually every call. Imagine what you could do with that information." [OK, as long as ordinary, unresponsible folks can't get the information... ;-> ] Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Neon.stanford.edu) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #48 ***************************** From telecomlist-request@mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu Wed Jan 24 04:48:16 1990 Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP id AA06741; Wed, 24 Jan 90 04:48:09 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27438; 24 Jan 90 3:24 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac26282; 24 Jan 90 2:21 CST Date: Wed, 24 Jan 90 2:07:11 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #49 Message-Id: <9001240207.ab05616@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> Status: R TELECOM Digest Wed, 24 Jan 90 02:05:28 CST Volume 10 : Issue 49 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson FCC & Modem Charges: It *Might* Still Happen! (Ken Levitt) Re: Sprint Stuff (Louis A. Mamakos) Re: Sprint Stuff (Carol Springs) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 23 Jan 90 14:42:07 EST From: Ken Levitt Subject: FCC & Modem Charges: It *Might* Still Happen! [Moderator's Note: We've had various articles on the 'modem tax' here in the Digest in recent weeks. Levitt first sent an article, and Digest contributor Fred Goldstein hastened to claim it was a dead issue. A few other correspondents have said much the same.....but is it really a dead issue? Here is another message on the subject, announcing a *new* docket at the FCC....decide for yourself where this is going. PT] I just found the following information in the FidoNet Law echo. It seems to be up-to-date on the latest status of things. Please don't reply to me. ============================================================================== FCC's Proposed Data Tax By JON, Sysop of GLIB, Washington DC., (703) 578-4542 January 13, 1990 OK ... most of us who read these messages recently have seen the somewhat hysterical missives warning that the FCC was about to impose a tax on the use of your modem. Then, shortly thereafter, you saw other messages denying that such a proposal existed, along with a supposed press release by the FCC confirming that fact. This morning, I spoke with a knowledgeable source who works for one of the major national communications services, and this is the information he provided. Because I operate a non-profit 501(c)(3) service, I take no official position whatever on this. I merely pass along his information for your enlightenment: There was, in fact, a proposal put forth by the FCC to impose a "modem charge tariff" in 1987. It was Docket #87-215. It died an unceremonious death, largely due to the outcry from those who would be affected by it. [Moderator's Note: We have a copy of 87-215 in the Telecom Archives if anyone wishes to review it. PT] HOWEVER ... On March 30, 1989, the FCC proposed a new surcharge (read federal tax) via Docket #89-79 covering "ONA Tariffing Policies". (In the legalese technospeak of the communications industry, "ONA" means "Open Network Architecture".) Bear in mind that the details of this docket have only been proposed, and not nailed down. But essentially it means that your government and mine, via the FCC, wants more money for data communications, and they now appear to be attempting to "back door" the failed docket #87-215 by proposing new "Carrier Switched Access Charges" (taxes) on ENHANCED SERVICE PROVIDERS (operators of on-line information services), for "Enhanced Subscriber Services" (anything other than voice calls). Thus, were this to pass, you could apparently wind up indirectly paying the same tax you would have paid under the failed proposal. Obviously, any taxes imposed on the suppliers of products and services you use are going to be passed along to you eventually. While it appears that this federal surcharge is aimed primarily at large corporate dial-up service bureaus such as CompuServe, Telenet, Tymnet, and others in that size range, the proposal is sufficiently nebulous at this time that it could be loosely interpreted to include dedicated private networks and even the small independent BBS on which you may now be reading this. Under this proposal, it would appear that information service providers would have to pay extra taxes on the phone lines they use for data communications, merely due to the fact that they are transmitting data rather than voice. (Incidentally, information systems technicians claim that, generally speaking, LESS, not more, technology is required to transmit data via telephone circuits than is required for voice transmission. If this is true, then those of us who use telephone services for data transmission are actually placing less of a burden on the telephone system than does your grandmother's regular Sunday afternoon call.) The FCC has historically claimed to foster the growth of enhanced services, rather than impeding it. This proposed tax seems to be a 180-degree turnaround from that position, in that it bears little practical relationship to the actual technology required for data transmission, but instead primarily addresses increased government revenue. Major communications companies of course have filed pleadings opposing any such surcharge. The FCC maintains a public docket reading room in their offices located at 20th and M Street in Washington DC, where all the information regarding these issues is open to public inspection. Just prior to writing this message, I decided to take a look at this docket myself, so I went over there. This docket presently consists of 6 2-inch binders totalling a foot high. And there, attached to volume #6, along with all the documents from AT&T, Southwestern Bell, Prodigy, Telenet and the others, are those individual letters from private citizens. All the letters recently received concerning the "modem scare" have been filed with Docket #89-79, even though they apparently refer to the earlier failed proposal, so that they can be considered as relevant input to that proposal currently under consideration. Your letters to them DO count, and they are routinely made a part of these official proceedings. Should you choose to write to them, however, it is very important that you name the appropriate docket number at the top of your letter so that they can correctly file it. Again, I pass this along as information, and not as any kind of "call to action". As a matter of fact, this proposal may die just as the previous attempt did, and it's passage is NOT expected in the near future. It appears to present NO IMMEDIATE THREAT. Many months of refinement and review precede any such tariff revision. This is, however, for those of us who may be affected by it, an issue worth watching. Jon ================================================================= Date: Sun Jan 21 1990 18:34:31 From: Bruce Wilson Subj: FCC "Modem Tax," Armed with some specifics, I spent a little time at the Drake law library. The citations are: CC Docket No. 89-79, FCC 89-105 Abbreviated Notice of Proposed Rule Making was published in the Federal Register of Monday, May 15, 1989, Vol. 54, No. 92, at pages 20873 - 20874. The full Notice of Proposed Rule Making is found in 4 FCC Record No. 10, at pages 3893 - 3994. Orders granting extensions of time to file comments are found in 4 FCC Record No. 13 at page 5097 and in 4 FCC Record No. 19 at page 6812. The comment period was last extended to October 11, 1989, for the National Association of Regulatory Utilities Commissioners (NARUC) and Compuserve. Of particular interest is the discussion in Divsion IV, Access Charge Treatment of ESPs, found at 4 FCC Record 3987 - 3989, with footnotes found at 4 FCC Record 3993 - 3994. In both the abbreviated and full Notices, the Commission stated that it *tentatively* had concluded "that the present enhanced service provider (ESP) exemption should be retained" but the Commission also said "Nevertheless, we invite comment on possible alternatives to the present exemption." and suggested the alternatives of "[1] Exemption from the carrier common line charge, while continuing to assess traffic sensitive charges for interstate switched access; and [2] a percentage discount on all switched access elements." With respect to comments, the full Notice states that "members of the public are advised that ex parte presentations are permitted except during the 'Sunshine Agenda' period. ... The Sunshine Agenda period is the period of time which commences with the public release of a notice that a matter has been placed on the Sunshine Agenda and terminates when this Commission (1) releases the text of a decision or Order in the matter; (2) issues a public notice stating that the matter has been deleted from the Sunshine Agenda; or (3) issues a public notice stating that the matter has been returned to the staff for further consideration, whichever occurs first." I presume we are now in the "Sunshine Agenda" period, notwithstanding that the official comment and reply periods have long since expired. "Any person who submits a written ex parte presentation must provide on the same day it is submitted a copy of that presentation to this Commission's Secretary for inclusion in the public record." (All such presentations should naturally refer to the matter by docket number.) Address: Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, NW, Washington, DC 20554. "For further information, contact: Regina Harrison, Policy and Program Planning Divison, Common Carrier Bureau, (202) 632-4047." ======================== End of Fidonet Posting ========================== Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 UUCP: zorro9!levitt INTERNET: levitt%zorro9.uucp@talcott.harvard.edu [Moderator's Note: The 'Bruce Wilson' mentioned above as the sender of the message is known to many of us. His credentials are good. He is an attorney in Des Moines, IA, and is active in public utility regulation matters in his state. He is very active in FIDO, and we've chatted via the Prometheus TBBS/Oak Park, IL on one occassion. If he says there may be a threat once again, I'm inclined to listen. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jan 90 18:19:29 EST From: "Louis A. Mamakos" Subject: Re: Sprint Stuff Organization: The University of Maryland, College Park In article <3119@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >C&P made a big point about this in literature it sent out recently to >accompany its "new" (fancy graphics) calling cards; their number can >be used from any C&P payphone, regardless of LD carrier. I got a new C&P telephone "Intelligent Network" card in the mail too. Funny that the number is identical to the AT&T card that I already have. What I really want, though, is just the reverse. I want a AT&T calling card with an account number that *ONLY* works with AT&T. I don't want some slime-ball AOS to intercept/ignore the 10288 prefix and complete the call. I suppose that I'd have to get AT&T to bill me directly, and not via the local RBOC. Anyone heard of such a thing? I tried asking the marketing dweeb on the other end of the AT&T 800 number, but (as expected) he said that such a card didn't exist. Louis Mamakos [Moderator's Note: Such a card does in fact exist, although it is not marketed for the reason you mention; it just works that way. AT&T has a type of 'institutional credit card', and has had for many years. It has a fourteen digit number on it, ten of which make up the account and four of which make up the PIN, like any phone card. They are sometimes referred to as 'non-subscriber calling cards', from the days when AT&T and the local Bells were one. They were issued to people on college campuses and in the military (and others) who did not have local phone service for billing purposes. Cincinnati Bell handled all the billing, and I think they still do handle it. Tell the AT&T rep you want 'a calling card which is billed separately, with a number other than your phone number.' See if that gets you what you want. Say nothing about your *true* intent, they won't understand you and it will only confuse the issue. PT] ------------------------------ From: Carol Springs Subject: Re: Sprint Stuff Date: 24 Jan 90 05:01:18 GMT Organization: DRI/McGraw-Hill, Lexington, MA In article <3036@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: > I dialed a number in Orange County by using "10333+0+714+NNX+XXXX". >There was the KaBong, so I entered my FO(O)N card number (Sprint's >calling card number). A recording told me that I had entered an >invalid number and an operator came on the line (after much waiting). >I gave the operator my FO(O)N card number and was told that the number >was "unbillable". At this time I was given the number of Sprint >customer service. >I dialed the customer service number and FIFTEEN MINUTES later someone >came on the line. I recited my problem and gave the rep my FO(O)N card >number. I was told that the number was a good, working number, but >that to use it I would have to dial the 800 number that has been >provided for its use. When I hung up, I tried the "10333" sequence >again, only this time I used my AT&T calling card number. This >resulted in, "Thank you for calling on Sprint", and my call went >through. >Is there now some question why AT&T remains the *real* long distance >company? Why can't Sprint accept its own cards on "standard" 0+ >dialing, instead of requiring FO(O)N card victims to dial 35 digits >with that silly 800 number that is reminiscent of the old FGA days? The answer lies in how the billing is done. I had basically the same problem as you a few weeks ago, using an airport "blue phone" for which the default carrier was listed as Sprint. When I entered my FONCARD number and got the recorded message, I cursed, moved over to a standard pay phone, and dialed the 1-800 number. But I could have used the first phone if I'd wanted--even though I don't have an AT&T card. New England Telephone, like (presumably) other NYNEX companies and all the other Baby Bell companies, offers its own calling cards-- your phone number followed by a four-digit suffix, like the AT&T card numbers. In fact, if you have an AT&T card, the number will be the same as the "local" card number in all cases. But the 14-digit number has become a sort of national default used by all major carriers for tracking you down and billing you through your local phone company. Had I used the first phone in the airport, the Sprint charges would have been billed to me via New England Telephone, and I wouldn't have got any volume discounts. (At least, this is the way such things used to work. Would the fact that I have a Sprint account mean that Sprint itself would bill me these days? On which bill did the charges for the call you finally completed show up?) Sure, the 1-800 number is a pain. But standardization of calling card access is a way of allowing carriers other than AT&T to handle long distance calls in situations where the average caller *isn't* signed up with them. Have you considered that part of the FONCARD's purpose may be to keep Sprint from having to publicize 10XXX access, for reasons that you yourself discuss? (Also, of course, not everyone has bothered to get a calling card from his or her local phone company, or knows that it can be used for interstate calling as well. And the Bell companies can't, of course, overtly publicize the fact that "their" cards will work this way...) It does seem silly, at first glance, that the operator you got after the recorded message was incapable of using your FONCARD code as an alternative. Are "regular" Sprint operators and "1-800" Sprint operators segregated groups, or does the problem have to do with the switching? Or maybe the operator who came on the line, who referred you to Sprint's customer service number, wasn't really a Sprint operator? Anyone have answers? Carol Springs carols@drilex.dri.mgh.com c/o DRI/McGraw-Hill, Inc. {bbn, uunet!atexnet}!drilex!carols 24 Hartwell Ave. Please use one of the above addresses. Lexington, MA 02173 ("From" lines may be munged.) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #49 ***************************** From telecomlist-request@mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu Thu Jan 25 01:10:42 1990 Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP id AA24681; Thu, 25 Jan 90 01:10:37 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23089; 24 Jan 90 23:33 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab20678; 24 Jan 90 22:30 CST Date: Wed, 24 Jan 90 21:31:10 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #50 Message-Id: <9001242131.ab13942@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> Status: RO TELECOM Digest Wed, 24 Jan 90 21:30:37 CST Volume 10 : Issue 50 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Fire Cuts Off St. Louis-area Phone Service (Will Martin) Interesting Magazine Article (Macy M. Hallock, Jr.) Panasonic KSU Technical Manuals (Macy M. Hallock, Jr.) Toronto and Area Running Out of Numbers (C. Harald Koch) ISDN S,T Interface Differences (Johnny Zweig) ISDN: Any Support From ISODE? (Jose Diaz-Gonzalez) Tariffs For 64kb National Service in European Countries (Hank Nussbacher) News Articles on DC Area From the Past (Carl Moore) Rate Increase? (John Higdon) [Moderator's Note: This is a *second* transmission of issue 50. The first issue (stopped midstream, some of you may not have received it) was flawed, and will not burst/post correctly. It should be dumped. Sorry for the confusion. PT] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 24 Jan 90 13:03:58 CST From: Will Martin Subject: Fire Cuts Off St. Louis-area Phone Service The following is paraphrased from news reports on local TV news and from an article in the St. Louis Sun dated today: Just before 5 PM Monday, three boys aged 10 - 13 threw a burning plastic bag on cables that run under a railroad bridge in Pagedale, a St. Louis suburb. The cables caught fire and the boys first tried to put them out and then panicked and ran. The result of the burning cables was that 70,000 SW Bell customers in St. Charles county (just next to St. Louis) had their phone service affected in various ways. About 2200 housholds in Pagedale itself lost phone service for 24 hours; many other regions had sporadic service during the repair effort. Problems were reported as far away as Poplar Bluff and Kansas City; local calls to areas of St. Charles experienced delays and difficulties. Many calls from the St. Charles area were rerouted through cables normally used only for St. Louis, causing telephone delays, intercept "all lines busy" recordings, or fast busy signals. 911 was affected, but the St. Charles county sheriff's department stated that SW Bell did a "good job" rerouting emergency calls to other lines. An industrial park near the site had no phone service most of Tuesday; the local TV news reported on a package-delivery service that lost their communication lines between their office and their dispatching transmitter site on top a local office building. They moved their dispatchers to the transmitter location and were able to continue operations that way (luckily the weather was mild enough that people could work in the unheated rooftop compartment). People who were without telephone service for more than 24 hours will be credited for the loss on next month's bill. The three boys have been arrested and charged with the crime. (I wonder if SW Bell will send their parents a bill? :-) Regards, Will Martin ------------------------------ From: fmsystm!macy@cwjcc.ins.cwru.edu Subject: Interesting Magazine Article Date: Wed Jan 24 12:41:06 1990 For those who might be interested: There is an article in the December 1989 _Unix Review_ entitled "At Your Telephone Service" describing the use of Unix and internal network support systems. It is authored by a member of Bell Labs tech staff. This article gives a brief description of many of the computer support systems used by telephone companies and carriers, with an emphasis on Unix's role and the use of X.25 /Datakit in this application. Certainly not the Bell Lab's _Record_, but worthwhile reading for the readers of this Digest. If you are unable to get a copy from a library or associate, drop me a line and I will try to assist. Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy F M Systems, Inc. {uunet!backbone}!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!fmsystm!macy 150 Highland Drive Voice: +1 216 723-3000 Ext 251 Fax: +1 216 723-3223 Medina, Ohio 44256 USA Cleveland:273-3000 Akron:239-4994 (Dial 251 at tone) (Insert favorite disclaimer here) (What if I gave a .sig and nobody cared?) ------------------------------ From: fmsystm!macy@cwjcc.ins.cwru.edu Subject: Panasonic KSU Technical Manuals Date: Tue Jan 23 22:17:32 1990 In article <2940@accuvax.nwu.edu>: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 31, message 6 of 6 >A couple of months ago there was a flurry of messages about the >Panasonic KX-T61610 PBX. At the time I said that I might attack the >problem of disassembling the code to fix some features. >....But I'm probably not going to be able to finish the job >unless I can get some more technical info. Panasonic does publish a service manual for the KXT308, 616 and 1232. At one time a single manual covered the entire series, but a new set of individual manuals is expected soon. These manuals include a basic circuit description and schematics. They are intended for hardware repair use. No signifcant information on software is included. As I recall, the cost the the manual was about $50.00. The manual has a part number and is supposed to be available to anyone who orders and pays for one. In practice, these have been difficult to obtain. I am told only a limited number were published, and the supply has been exhuasted (not an official answer BTW). I will take it upon myself to look into this in the next few days with my contacts at Panasonic. BTW - my tech contacts at Panasonic have hinted at a couple features in these systems that are intended for non-US use. I do know that there are no less that three major revisions of software for the 1232's. The latest revsion of the 1232 is known by a new part number to reflect several features and options that have been added, including DISA, remote maintenace capability, page over busy station operations (needs third pair), and a type of primitive auto-attendant. These features are not yet available in the 308 and 616. Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy F M Systems, Inc. {uunet!backbone}!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!fmsystm!macy 150 Highland Drive Voice: +1 216 723-3000 Ext 251 Fax: +1 216 723-3223 Medina, Ohio 44256 USA Cleveland:273-3000 Akron:239-4994 (Dial 251 at tone) (Insert favorite disclaimer here) (What if I gave a .sig and nobody cared?) ------------------------------ From: "C. Harald Koch" Subject: Toronto and Area Running Out of Numbers Date: Wed, 24 Jan 90 10:13:58 EST I got this in my latest phone bill from Bell Canada: (416) IS FEELING THE SQUEEZE SO WE'VE JUST MADE ROOM FOR MORE NUMBERS. The 416 calling area is one of the fastest growing regions in North America. This substantial and rapid growth in demand for residential, business, and cellular telephones makes it necessary to change dialing procedures for ling distance calls in the 416 dialing area. Beginning March 1 it will be necessary to dial 1 then 416, (or 0 then 416 for operator assisted calls) when making a long distance call within the 416 area. For Example: The old way to dial: 1 + 555-6789 The new way to dial: 1 + 416 + 444-6789 This simple change will allow us to use existing area codes such as 505 or 713 as new exchanges. And of course your long distance charges will in no way be affected by this change in dialing procedure. Because if this change it is very important that you remember to adjust your telephones and business machines: automatic dialers, fax machines and other equipment that may have pre-programmed telephone numbers. Don't forget to tell friends and family about this chage in dialing procedure, as we want to make sure that getting in touch with loved ones is as easy as ever. Get ready for March 1 and get started now! Dial 1 + 416 or 0 + 416 when dialing a long distance number within the 416 area code. Thanks for making this change and if you have any questions please give us a call at 1 + 800 + 465-1416. Bell ==================================== I particularly like the part where they remind you to reprogram all your autodialers... C. Harald Koch Alias Research, Inc., Toronto ON Canada chk%alias@csri.utoronto.ca chk@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu chk@chk.mef.org "There is no problem, no matter how large or how small, that cannot be solved by a suitable application of high explosives." -Leo Graf, 2298 ------------------------------ From: Johnny Zweig Subject: ISDN S,T Interface Differences Reply-To: zweig@cs.uiuc.edu Organization: U of Illinois, CS Dept., Systems Research Group Date: Wed, 24 Jan 90 17:29:42 GMT In looking at a number of books and papers on ISDN I have, there is mention made in several places of configurations in which the S and T reference points coincide. My understanding is that the S interface is how terminals talk to an NT2 (like a PBX or terminal-concentrator) and that the T interface is just the raw 2B+D bit-pipe to the network. So are the physical interfaces the same for S and T? That is, could I buy an ISDN terminal and plug the end of the cable that sticks out straight into my NT1 (or, rather, Illinois Bell's NT1) on Tuesdays and then plug it into our ISDN PBX's NT2 jack the rest of the week? Or, when mention is made of the setup in which S and T coincide, are they talking about a terminal that just happens to speak T-interface electrical signals instead of S? Also, it is still unclear to me if there is supposed to be a single electrical interface at each of S, T, U or whether these are just reference points in diagrams -- i.e. my AT&T terminal's S-interface is totally different from my Fujitsu's S-interface electrically and mechanically, but they are both S interfaces in the sense that they both define how a terminal talks to (in this case each respective) NT2? -Johnny Doubleplusunclearexplained ------------------------------ From: Jose Diaz-Gonzalez Subject: ISDN: Any Support From ISODE? Date: 24 Jan 90 18:49:47 GMT Organization: GTE Laboratories, Inc., Waltham, MA Hello there! Here is what I'm looking for: ISDN BRI card for AT bus with Unix SVR3 drivers (actually I already know about the Motorola, Mitel, and ICL cards, none of them come with Unix drivers). Public domain (or at least commercial versions that normal people can afford to buy) software written in a "standard" language, e.g. ANSI C, supporting Q.921, Q.931, and X.25. Is ISODE of any help here?. Is there such a thing as a standard API for these protocols?. Any comments or suggestions will be greatly appreciated. Thanks. -- Jose +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + + + + Jose Pedro Diaz-Gonzalez + + + GTE Laboratories, Inc. + Tel: (617) 466-2584 + + MS-46 + email: jdiaz@gte.com + + 40 Sylvan Rd. + + + Waltham, MA 02254 + + + + + +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jan 90 15:48:55 O From: Hank Nussbacher Subject: Tariffs For 64kb National Service in European Countries Cost comparison of 64kb digital service in various countries Henry Nussbacher Israeli InterUniversity Computer Center ======================================= Country 5km 10km 50km 200km 500km ----------------+---------+---------+----------+---------+---------+ Austria | 683.8 | 1025.6 | 2136 | 4346.2 | 6141 | Belgium | 372.5 | 683 | 1080 | 1652 | 3304 | Denmark | 174.6 | 293.9 | 1325 | 1770.5 | 2139.8 | France | 614 | 828.8 | 3388 | 5241.8 | 6838.6 | Germany | 795.2 | 1337.3 | 3226 | 8385.5 | 11638.6 | Norway | 242.2 | 242.2 | 516 | 602.5 | 869.6 | Spain | 1507.9 | 2356.5 | 3102 | 4996.9 | 6713.1 | Sweden | 332.2 | 387.6 | 1436 | 2214.8 | 2380.9 | Switzerland | 758.8 | 1523.5 | 1739 | 6604.4 | 8810.3 | United Kingdom | 412.6 | 515.3 | 705 | 824.3 | 1128.5 | ----------------+---------+---------+----------+---------+---------+ Average | 589.4 | 919.4 | 1865 | 3663.9 | 4996.4 | ----------------+---------+---------+----------+---------+---------+ Notes: 1) Rates are in dollars per month. 2) Sources: a) Report #219, "Tariff Analysis - National Digital Services at 64kb and 2Mb, Claude Laurens, La Gaude, France, December 14th, 1987 b) The numbers for 50km are from the Eurodata Foundation Yearbook (1987-1988). All other European numbers are from source (a). ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Jan 90 10:17:45 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: News Articles on DC Area From the Past These all refer to the Washington Post. I guess some of the following were from people not familiar with Md. and Va. beyond the DC area. June 1973--article appeared at the time of 703/804 split, but 804 does not come within 50 miles of DC. I have no problem with the contents. c. 1976 (President Ford was in office)--a slew of calls intended for White House (202-456-1414) are received by 703-451-1414; article says the latter number is in a different area code from DC, and fails to note that 451 is one of those suburban points reachable via 202. Aug. 6, 1987, page E1(a), announcing 11-digit long-distance effec- tive Nov. 1, 1987; only mentions calls from DC area and from Md. points which are beyond DC area. "Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. of Maryland plans to require an 11-digit number for customers dialing long-distance throughout Maryland, the District and Virginia beginning Nov. 1." PROBLEM, as I noted in earlier messages: in Va., 703 was affected, but not 804. May 10, 1989, page A1 col. 2, announcing that as of Oct. 1, 1990, will need area code on local calls in DC area which cross NPA lines. "C&P says the move could free up about 4 million numbers in the area. That is because under the current system, the three-digit prefixes that begin local numbers can only be used in one Washington jurisdic- tion. In the future, C&P will be free to use them in all three. The 457 exchange, for example, now limited to the District under the 202 area code, could then be used in Maryland's 301 area code and Virginia's 703 as well." NO--301-457 is in use in Darlington, in Harford County. Barring recent change, there is no 703-457 (804-457 is at Fife, west of Richmond). ------------------------------ Subject: Rate Increase? Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 24 Jan 90 13:53:29 PST (Wed) From: John Higdon According to Pac*Bell's employee news line, the company is going to go before the CPUC to ask for a basic rate increase. This will not be for the purpose of making more money (oh, no, of course not) but to offset the reduction of revenue caused by the future elimination of TT charges and the supposedly expanded local calling areas. Excuse me? How kind of them to eliminate TT charges and then turn around and raise *everyone's* bill to more than make up the difference! Didn't they agree to "rate freezing" if they could be regulated less? Well, at least I predicted that the TT charge elimination was a total scam. And speaking of scams, Pac*Bell has announced that they will be agreeable to competition within LATAs. The catch? There will be no "pre-subscription". The customer will have to dial 10XXX for each and every call that is not to be carried by Pac*Bell. And we were wondering why Pac*Bell seemed so hesitant to give out these codes. Now we know. Mark my words: over the next months and years we will see the real agenda behind the "regulation reduction" that the press, the CPUC, Pac*Bell, and even some gullible customers have been raving about. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #50 *****************************