Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24356; 21 Jul 90 2:50 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03522; 21 Jul 90 1:01 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25581; 20 Jul 90 23:57 CDT Date: Fri, 20 Jul 90 23:07:09 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #501 BCC: Message-ID: <9007202307.ab31966@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 20 Jul 90 23:06:51 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 501 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Pseudo PBX For the Home? [Martin Ewing] PC Card Satellite Receiver/Data Demodulator [Maurice R. Baker] Switching Device With Different Rings [David Dodell] COCOTs, FCC, DPU, etc [Monty Solomon] Moderator's 800 Service [Jack Powers] Intelligent Network [Ken Donow] California PUC Sets Guidelines For COPTs [Steve Rhoades] Terradine Fortel System [ie09@vaxb.acxzs.unt.edu] Caller ID Illegal in NC, Says NC AG [Henry E. Schaffer] Cellular Standby Power [Matt Carpenter] 38.4kbps Async Limited Distance Modems [Jean-Francois Lamy] E911 Service: Data From the Horse's Mouth [Clayton Cramer] DJs and Telephone Humor [Matt Simpson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Martin Ewing Subject: Pseudo PBX For the Home? Date: 20 Jul 90 21:22:43 GMT Reply-To: Martin Ewing Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept, New Haven CT In our new house we have expanded to quite a number of phone devices, about six, using two lines. As you might expect, the ringing voltage is down. We also don't get full value out of the second line, since we have only one-line phones except at our Macintosh. So much for introduction, now the question: Is there such a thing as a box that takes two normal residential lines in on one side and six extensions in to the other side? (All our extensions are radially connected to a central phone block.) The box would function as a wannabee PBX, giving dialtone, handling intercom calls, and dealing with incoming and outgoing calls. (I assume a REAL PBX with trunk lines to SNET would be expensive if possible at all.) I have not seen such a home "PBX" advertised in consumer channels, but I think it may exist. The technology ought to permit it at a reasonable price. Thanks for any leads. Martin Ewing, Yale University, Ewing@Yale.Edu [Moderator's Note: There are indeed some 'home PBX' units available. Mitel is one example which comes to mind. The Melco 212 is another, with its provision for two CO lines and twelve extensions. I think Melco is over around Seattle somewhere. Of course, you might also consider centrex, or Intellidial, or whatever it is called there. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Jul 90 13:52:24 EDT From: Maurice R Baker Subject: PC Card Satellite Receiver/Data Demodulator Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Hi --- This question falls in the "I saw an ad for it once when I didn't need it, and now that I need it....." category: Could anyone out there direct me towards a company (or companies) which make a "PC" (ISA bus, for the purists) plug-in card that accepts L-band (950-1450 MHz.) from a standard satellite dish LNB and demodulates serial data from one of the received signals? I'm not sure if it used audio subcarriers or vertical blanking interval, and other details. I guess some manufacturer's names and addresses would be the most useful info. at this time. If memory serves me correctly, the ad. was in a recent issue of BYTE magazine. Thanks in advance for your help! Maurice Baker homxc!jj1028 -or- jj1028 at homxc.att.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Jul 90 07:47:11 mst From: David Dodell Subject: Switching Device With Different Rings Now that they are offering custom ringing in my area, I understand there are some devices that "route" the call to various devices (ie two different answering machines) based on the type of ring. Anyway have any information on where I can pick one of these devices up, or does anyone have any experience with them? 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 FAX: +1 (602) 451-1165 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Jul 90 15:49:14 EDT From: Monty Solomon - Temp Consultant Subject: COCOTs, FCC, DPU, etc I wish to complain (loudly) about various local COCOTs practices of prohibiting access to long distance carriers via 10XXX or 950-10XX and of disabling the keypad after the call is completed. Who should I write to? The FCC? The local DPU? Both? What is the correct person/address to write to at the FCC? Does anyone have any useful boilerplate to use for such a letter? Thanks. # Monty Solomon / ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Jul 90 17:11:23 PDT From: POWERS@ibm.com Subject: Moderator's 800 Service Pat, From what carrier do you buy 800 service with ANI? How is the ANI delivered? Jack Powers [Moderator's Note: I subscribe to Telecom*USA out of Cedar Rapids, IA. It costs me $2.75 per month, plus about twenty cents a minute or so on calls received. It rings in on my regular line. The ANI comes with the monthly billing; however it is only about 75-80 percent complete. They cannot seem to provide it on some of the calls. One recent peculiarity was a call I received via the 800 number from 'Toll Station #2' in one of the teeming metropolis' of Nevada. It came on the ANI report as 702-XXX-0002 with the place name 'Reno Microwave, NV'. Usually the places they miss take the form 405-278-XXXX, for example. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Jul 90 17:42:57 -0700 From: kdonow@cdp.uucp Subject: Intelligent Network Hi. I need some help puzzling out what the political issues are regarding CCS7 and Inteligent Network architectures in an Open Network Architecture environment. I'm guessing that the more advanced the network technologies become, the trickier are the issues regarding jurisdiction and tariffing, but I don't know for sure or why. Is this the place to make an appropriate posting? Perhaps you can refer me to someone who knows the topic intimately. In either or any case, thanks for your help. Yours, Ken Donow ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Jul 90 17:08:24 PDT From: Steve Rhoades Reply-To: "Steve L. Rhoades" Subject: Calififornia PUC Sets Guidelines For COPTs The following is an excerpt from a Pacific*Bell bill insert I received today: "The California Public Utilities Commission, on June 6, 1990, established specific rules and guidelines to standardize the pay telephone industry. "This agreement between the CPUC, local telephone companies, independent telephone owners and consumer groups assures public telephone users of similiar rates and conditions when using any pay telephone in the State of California. "After August 5, 1990, all pay telephones will be required to provide: - Basic local calls costing 20 cents (Probably limited to 1 minute :-) ) "Free access to: - 911 emergency service - 411 information service - "O" operator service - "OO" long distance operator service - 800 services (I wonder if there'll be a requirement to leave the TT pad on?) - 950 dialing ( " ) - repair service "Clear, easy-to-read signs that explain: - dialing instructions - cost and any time limits that apply - Company indentification "Local phone companies and idependent private providers of pay phones may charge 25 cents extra for completing calls that do not require coins, such as Calling Card and collect calls. "The agreement sets limits on pricing and establishes guidelines for enforcing those limits." [...] (End of quote) The bill insert doesn't specify any specific remedies if a customer should find a phone in non-compliance. Admittedly, the above does SOUND promising. This being California, I won't be holding my breath though. !Steve US mail: Post Office Box 1000, Mount Wilson, Calif. 91023 UUCP: ...elroy!tybalt!slr Internet: slr@tybalt.caltech.edu voice-mail: (818) 794-6004 ------------------------------ From: ie09@vaxb.acs.unt.edu Subject: Terradine Fortel System Date: 20 Jul 90 01:42:49 GMT While up at North Texas this weekend, I needed have my phone ring, So I entered the ringback number (971 3#) But this time after I entered 971, I got a message that said: "Terradine Fortel System..... Enter ID code" WHAT is THAT? ------------------------------ From: "Henry E. Schaffer" Subject: Caller ID Illegal in NC, Says NC AG Reply-To: "Henry E. Schaffer" Organization: NCSU Computing Center Date: Fri, 20 Jul 90 13:13:20 GMT My morning newspaper has an article that the NC Attorney General's office has issued an opinion to the PUC that Caller ID is illegal in this state. Southern Bell (our local RBOC, a division of Bell South) was asking the PUC to ok the offering of Caller ID. henry schaffer n c state univ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Jul 90 14:29:08 EDT From: Matt=Carpenter%LAB%CON@nursing.con.ohio-state.edu Subject: Cellular Standby Power I can only speak for the company I interned at a year ago, Cellular Communications, Inc. (Cellular One, serving Cincinnati, Columbus, Cleveland) but almost all of our current cell sites had provisions for backup power. Specifically, the "standard" sites had a battery rack AND a backup diesel generator. Unfortunately, I was not involved in the configuration, so I cannot provide specifications, but I would say the site could remain up under most power failures. Interesting to note, that power was not as big of a problem as were the microwave links. Being the alternate cellular provider in the service areas, we interconnected the cell sites using 2 GHz T1's. A map would look similar to a tree branching out; a particular cell site close to the CO would receive T1's from other sites and feed it to the switch. If anything should disrupt this particular site's communications, it would effectively sever communications of other sites with the CO. Alternate routes were not planned for (especially since we had our hands full maintaining growth). During one nasty thunderstorm, the weather and rain was so dense we lost communication with one of the cell sites that acted as the hub. Half of Columbus was without service for over an hour! Matt Carpenter carpenterm@nursing.con.ohio-state.edu ------------------------------ From: "j.lamy" Subject: 38.4kbps Async Limited Distance Modems Organization: Sobeco Group - Montreal, Canada Date: Fri, 20 Jul 90 19:24:07 GMT Does anyone make such beasts? We want to connect a MIPS box with an Equinox serial board to a Cisco terminal server for an el-cheapo slip link. Both will apparently do 38.4bps. The two end-points of the connection are within 500m of each other, in the downtown core, so we would expect that limited distance data sets would work (i.e. we would be within the few miles limit typical for synchronous data sets -- I'd expect async modems to have the same range). I've seen sync data sets from Amdahl that do 48kbps over a few miles, but nothing so far that does 38.4. We could go for a 56kbps digital connection, provided we could find a cheap enough capacity splitter (a full-blown mux would be overkill and overpriced). Anyone got any experience with these things? Jean-Francois Lamy lamy@sobeco.com, uunet!sobeco!lamy Groupe Sobeco, 505 ouest, bd Rene-Levesque, Montreal Canada H2Z 1Y7 ------------------------------ From: Clayton Cramer Subject: E911 Service: Data From The Horse's Mouth Date: 20 Jul 90 18:32:58 GMT Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA I attended a meeting last night, set up by our local police department to inform and educate the public about our local gang problem. One of the people present was the E911 dispatch supervisor for our city. She explained that the reason they usually request name and address information, even though it is already on the screen is: 1. The information comes out of the phone company data base, and may not be 100% accurate. 2. You may be calling from a different phone number than your own. (Example: you return home to find evidence of a burglary, and go to the neighbor's house to request police assistance). 3. You may have moved, and it takes a few days for the information to make it into the 911 data base. Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer Disclaimer? You must be kidding! No company would hold opinions like mine! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Jul 90 09:49:12 EDT From: Matt Simpson Subject: DJs and Telephone Humor Organization: UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COMPUTING CENTER The joke about telling people to put plastic bags over their phone so the phone company could blow dirt out of the lines has been around for a while. Several years ago, when I lived in Dayton, Ohio, one of the morning DJs on a local radio station made that announcement several times one morning. I'd heard about the joke before, but this was the first time I'd actually heard it on the radio. Since it was an old joke, I figured it needed some originality added to it. So after about the third time he made the announcement, I called in, identifying myself as "calling from the phone company" ... I didn't say what phone company, so I couldn't be sued for impersonation. I thanked him for his public service announcements, but reminded him that he'd left out one important instruction, and asked him to please ask the users to make sure the plastic bag fit loosely enough for the dirt to blow into. If the bag was too tight, the resulting back-pressure when we blew the lines would cause the dirt to feed back into the lines, causing their neighbors to receive dirty phone calls. He taped that, and played it on the air. Apparently, he later got a call from the "real" phone company. The next day, he mentioned something about the conversation he had with the Ohio Bell people, and promised to play that, but I never got a chance to hear it. Apparently, the station didn't get the message that it's not wise to mess around with Ma Bell. About a year later, same station, their traffic reporter was touting their new cellular traffic reporting system. They had an arrangement with Cellular One, the non-wireline carrier in the area, so that Cellular One customers could press *-something on their phones to call the station to report traffic conditions, and not be billed for the air time. He pointed out that this would work only for Cellular One customers, and that it wouldn't work if "you have Ameritech or some other inferior brand of phone' (Ameritech is the mid-west RBOC which was the wire-line cellular carrier for the area, and also sold cellular phones through a subsidiary). Needless to say, the friendly folks at Ameritech were not amused. Their attorneys contacted the station, and settled for a retraction the next day, in the same time slot, explaining that there was nothing really wrong with Ameritech phones or service in the same general vein as blowing dirt out of the lines, one prank we used to pull when I was a kid was call someone and identify ourselves as telephone repair service. We would tell them that we would be working on their line for about the next hour, and it was very important that they not use the phone during that time. They should not make or answer any calls. If the phone rang, they should not answer it. This was very important. If they lifted their receiver in the next hour, our lineman would possibly receive a severe, even fatal shock. After about 15 minutes, we would call back. Let the phone ring long enough, and they'' eventually decide to pick it up ... when they do, scream like a dying lineman. [Moderator's Note: Aaargh! Enough already! PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #501 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25575; 21 Jul 90 3:47 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18071; 21 Jul 90 2:06 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab03522; 21 Jul 90 1:02 CDT Date: Sat, 21 Jul 90 0:13:41 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #502 BCC: Message-ID: <9007210013.ab20538@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 21 Jul 90 00:13:19 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 502 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Fun With ANI [John Higdon] Re: Fun With ANI [Henry Troup] Re: PollenTrak [ie09@vaxb.acs.unt.edu] Re: PollenTrak [Tom Perrine] Re: Tracing Calls Back to College Dorm Phones [Daniel M. Rosenberg] Re: Reference Book Wanted on Telephones [Henry E. Schaffer] Re: Cellular/Cordless Phones in Computer Room [Nick Sayer] Re: A Couple Tech Questions About Cellular Phones [John Higdon] Re: AT&T Interstate Rates [Wayne Scott] Re: Telecom Peeves [Ben Knox] Re: Rate Request - No Joy For New York Telephone [Bob Hale] Re: Nicad "Memory" [Paul Elliott] Re: ANI From a Cellular Phone [Steve Forrette] Re: Cellular/Cordless Phones in Computer Room [Amanda Walker] Last Laugh! Dan Rather [Steve Elias] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Fun With ANI Date: 20 Jul 90 12:17:54 PDT (Fri) From: John Higdon Jim Budler writes: > Earlier in this thread someone entered from 408 called and got a > report from Sacramento, 100 miles away. When I called I got a report > from Berkeley for "The Bay Area". It was I, and as of last night PollenTrak was once again automagically giving me the "Woodland Clinic's" Sacramento area report. I would think that the Berkeley report would be a little more sensible for a Bay Area city such as San Jose. But then a lot of those east coast types think that LA is the first freeway exit south of San Francisco. Like when I called a firm in New Jersey to ask about availability of their product. "Sir, you should call your LOCAL sales office. Here's the number--213...." BTW, PollenTrak returned a busy all morning. I think they are getting more response than they bargained for. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: Either that, or everyone reading our little digest is having fun and games! :) PT] ------------------------------ From: Henry Troup Subject: Re: Fun With ANI Date: 20 Jul 90 21:12:57 GMT Reply-To: Henry Troup Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ltd. In article <9811@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: >An OTC pharmacutical company is sponsoring something called "Pollen >Trak" (with the same announcer on the machine that did "Weather >Trak"). You call the number and you get a pollen report for your >area. Based on the ANI data obtained in real time you are given, Well, our private net has access to U.S. 800 service (from Canada). So I tried it. Interestingly enough, it prompted me to enter my phone number - indicating some odd ANI property of private networks? Then it told me that service was not available to my zip code area ... and tried to give me product id. Henry Troup - BNR owns but does not share my opinions uunet!bnrgate!hwt%bwdlh490 HWT@BNR.CA 613-765-2337 ------------------------------ From: ie09@vaxb.acs.unt.edu Subject: Re: PollenTrak Date: 20 Jul 90 05:23:39 GMT I called the 'Pollen Update' number and it did not prompt me for my phone number. It gave me the pollen report for Dallas, which is where I live. Looks like it works fine here. ------------------------------ From: Tom Perrine Subject: Re: PollenTrak Date: 20 Jul 90 17:34:18 GMT Reply-To: Tom Perrine Organization: Logicon, Inc., San Diego, California In article <9945@accuvax.nwu.edu> cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 500, Message 9 of 12 >I called the PollenTrak number myself, and when I made a wrong entry >of the phone number, it said it didn't have information available >about the ZIPCODE area I selected? That's funny. I gave it a San Diego phone number (area code 619). I got the "national pollen report", which was rather vague, to say the least! That's life in this Pac*Bell backwater :-) Tom Perrine (tep) |Internet: tep@tots.Logicon.COM Logicon |UUCP: nosc!hamachi!tots!tep Tactical and Training Systems Division |-or- sun!suntan!tots!tep San Diego CA |GENIE: T.PERRINE |+1 619 455 1330 ------------------------------ From: "Daniel M. Rosenberg" Subject: Re: Tracing Calls Back to College Dorm Phones Date: 19 Jul 90 17:38:46 GMT Organization: World Otherness Ministries In <9892@accuvax.nwu.edu> ie09@vaxb.acs.unt.edu writes: >So if the phone company tries to trace a call that originated from, >say a college dorm, all they would get if the number to that dorms >switchboard? I think I have found the source of my annoying calls. An organization I work for at the University has the periodic need to trace phone calls through the Stanford DMS-100 switch. The last time we did it, a call went from Pac Bell land through to Stanford, and it took forty minutes to trace (after calling 911). Things are supposed to be set up now so that the trace works almost instantly, through special lines to the E911 center that have been discussed here before. (CLID? ANI? Some funky acronym.) So anyway, for 911 (at least), yes, you can get the number of an "extension" off of some PBX's. # Daniel M. Rosenberg // Stanford CSLI // Chew my opinions, not Stanford's. # dmr@csli.stanford.edu // decwrl!csli!dmr // dmr%csli@stanford.bitnet ------------------------------ From: "Henry E. Schaffer" Subject: Re: Reference Book Wanted on Telephones Reply-To: "Henry E. Schaffer" Organization: NCSU Computing Center Date: Fri, 20 Jul 90 13:20:25 GMT In article <9620@accuvax.nwu.edu> varney@ihlpf.att.com (Al L Varney) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 475, Message 9 of 9 >In article <9506@accuvax.nwu.edu> sgtech!adnan@ico.isc.com (Adnan >Yaqub) writes: >>Could some kind body please point me to a suitable reference which >>describes the signaling between the main office and my home phone. ... >There is no true reference for this, since the answer depends on where >you look at the subscriber loop; central office or customer end. ... However, there are some references which give quite a lot of info and which are a good place to start. One book which I have given to many people as a way to get started is: Understanding Telephone Electronics Developed and Published by Texas Instruments Learning Center J. L. Fike, et al 1983 Radio Shack catalog number 62-1388 I haven't checked lately to see if there is a new edition or even if it is still available. This is a self-teaching type of text with quizzes and answers for each chapter. henry schaffer n c state univ ------------------------------ From: Nick Sayer Subject: Re: Cellular/Cordless Phones in Computer Room Date: 20 Jul 90 17:54:48 GMT Organization: The Duck Pond, Stockton, CA PMW1@psuvm.psu.edu (Peter M. Weiss) writes: >Please relate your experiences in using either cellular or cordless >phones in a computer room, especially as it relates to any EMI that >affected the operation of a computing or electronic media device. I have a Sun 2/170 in my living room and a cordless phone. The "magnetic media devices" I use are built like an aircraft carrier and are pretty immune to RF (as an example, my 300 MB hard disk weighs 165 lbs [70 kg or so]). However, depending on your location, it's nearly impossible to talk on the cordless when its within about six feet of the Sun. Computers use lots of square waves rich in harmonics. Really yucky. Can't comment on cellular. I am a Ham, and the highest frequency I deal with on a regular basis is 162.995 MHz. Everything from there down gets trashed pretty good unless you use an outdoor antenna (which is forbidden in my #&^@&#@^#*^*@!! condo complex) or cable (catv/cafm). Nick Sayer quack!mrapple@uop.edu 209-952-5347 (Telebit) ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: A Couple Tech Questions About Cellular Phones Date: 20 Jul 90 12:06:29 PDT (Fri) From: John Higdon Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269 writes: > Do cellular nodes have emergency power? If so, for how long? > Obviously some are at CO's and will be up for a long time, but what > about my neighborhood site? Any "standard" answers? All GTE Mobilnet cell sites have emergency power. The outfit that installed their's installed mine. Cliff Yamamoto writes: > This may be > a rumor, but I've heard that *all* cellular phones have the capability > to have their microphones/xmitters activated by the switching office? Not true. When your unit is address by the system, a two way audio path is indeed enabled, but your transmitter is not turned on until you answer the call. > Secondly, I haven't had any dropped calls yet, but can anyone explain > the heuristic used for the following: say you are leaving a cell and > the cell you are approaching is completely tied up. If the target site is busy, the current site will hold on to you until there is an opening or until the call drops due to lack of signal. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Wayne Scott Subject: Re: AT&T Interstate Rates Date: 19 Jul 90 16:52:19 GMT Organization: Bell Communications Research In article <9477@accuvax.nwu.edu>, covert@covert.enet.dec.com (John R. Covert) writes: > AT&T's new rates as of 1 July 1990: > Residential Reach-out-America: That's good information to have. Where did you get it from? I subscribed to the ATT Reach Out program a few months ago and I'm not sure that I'm saving any money. I compared many charges to those on bills that I've been saving since last summer and there's little or no difference. Could it be that the standard rates have risen and the Reach Out rates are now what the old rates were? Wayne Scott wws@bcr.cc.bellcore.com ------------------------------ From: dircon!sys0001@relay.eu.net Subject: Re: Telecom Peeves Reply-To: sys0001@ukc.ac.uk (Ben Knox) Organization: The Direct Connection, UK Date: Fri, 20 Jul 90 09:19:19 GMT In article <9649@accuvax.nwu.edu> Bill Berbenich writes: >I was just reminded of one of my pet telecom peeves. Ever get on the >phone with someone and have them just barely whisper instead of >speakly clearly and plainly? One thing that drives me up the wall is when the person on the other end of the phone holds the handset so the microphone part is under their chin instead of in front of their mouth. I've seen many people doing this (when I've been in their office and they've taken a call). Don't they realise that they should speak directly into the mouthpiece for the best transmission? sys0001@dircon.UUCP or sys0001%dircon@ukc.ac.uk ------------------------------ From: Bob Hale Subject: Re: Rate Request - No Joy For New York Telephone Reply-To: hale@btree.UCSD.EDU (Bob Hale) Organization: Brooktree Corporation, San Diego Date: Fri, 20 Jul 90 23:21:05 GMT In article <9756@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: >Last year, you'll recall, Pac*Bell was given the keys to the kingdom >by the CPUC. In exchange (no pun intended), Pac*Bell would hold off >residential rate increases, remove charges for touch tone, and widen >the Zone 1 (local) calling area. The latter two have yet to come to >pass. Our most recent Pac*Bell bill had an announcement that charges for touch tone were eliminated. Bob Hale ...!ucsd!btree!hale 619-535-3234 ...!btree!hale@ucsd.edu ------------------------------ From: Paul Elliott x225 Subject: Re: Nicad "Memory" Date: 20 Jul 90 18:03:42 GMT Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA In article <9888@accuvax.nwu.edu>, rpw3%rigden.wpd@sgi.com (Rob Warnock) writes: > In article <9807@accuvax.nwu.edu> forrette@sim.berkeley.edu (Steve > Forrette) writes: > | Can someone recap the discussion of "memory" in nicad batteries? I'm > | having a problem with my HT5300 AT&T cordless phone. I had it > | [description of battery problem] > [reverse-charging, etc] There is urban legend to > the effect that you can cure a back-biased NiCd cell by zapping it > with a very strong (but brief!) forward charging current (as from a > large capacitor), supposedly to "blow the whiskers", but as I said, I > consider this in the urban legend category. This isn't really a legend; it does work. Unfortunately, It doesn't work often or well. You will occasionally get lucky, but my experience has been that the restored cell is not reliable, and will likely have excessive leakage (self-discharge), and will probably short out again. If you want a battery you can depend on, just replace it. > | It's been charging for over two days, and > | reads only 2.65 volts. The battery is rated at 3.6V, 720mAh. When I Definitely a shorted cell. NiCd cells charge up to about 1.3 to 1.45V when they are charging and fully charged (in the "overcharge" state), so the voltage you are measuring corresponds to two fully-charged cells and one shorted cell. Paul M. Elliott Optilink Corporation (707) 795-9444 {uunet, pyramid, tekbspa}!optilink!elliott ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Jul 90 23:35:45 PDT From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: ANI From a Cellular Phone Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article <9893@accuvax.nwu.edu> TELECOM Moderator writes: >[Moderator's Note: I tried it a couple months ago from my cell phone >to my 800 number (on which I get ANI). It reported back some wierd >number, and when I called the Name and Address Service, it came back >listed to 'IBT Company', at an address on the southwest side of town >which also happens to be a central office building with a cellular >antenna on the roof. Dialing the number produced an intercept: "The >number your have dialed, xyz-abcd is not in service for incoming >calls." PT] Was the number you got on one of the cellular carrier's dedicated prefixes? Or was it from a "regular" prefix, that local POTS subscribers might be on? [Moderator's Note: It was an Illinois Bell prefix. 312-229 in fact. Apparently it is the place where Ameritech connects with IBT. PT] ------------------------------ From: amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) Subject: Re: Cellular/Cordless Phones in Computer Room Reply-To: amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) Organization: InterCon Systems Corporation, Herndon, VA Date: Fri, 20 Jul 90 17:16:58 GMT In article <9939@accuvax.nwu.edu>, PMW1@psuvm.psu.edu (Peter M. Weiss) writes: > Please relate your experiences in using either cellular or cordless > phones in a computer room, especially as it relates to any EMI that > affected the operation of a computing or electronic media device. I haven't tried one in an actual computer room, but our company regularly uses cell phones from the floors of computer trade shows, which are pretty rich in EMI from all of the computers and jury-rigged cabling. The biggest factor we've found is that it *really* helps to have a 3W radio. 1.5W units don't seem to be as good at punching out of the building to the nearest cell site. Amanda Walker InterCon Systems Corporation ------------------------------ Reply-To: eli@pws.bull.com Subject: Last Laugh! Dan Rather Date: Fri, 20 Jul 90 12:01:03 -0400 From: Steve Elias Kenny Crudup wrote: >Don't worry. Beat you to it. What *I* need are frequencies.... "KENNETH! WHAT IS THE FREQUENCY?" [Moderator's Note: Its a laugh, all right! Dan Rather came off the innocent party in that incident, but am I the only person who has a gut-reaction that Rather knows more about that incident than he admitted to the police and press? PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #502 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11840; 21 Jul 90 23:02 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12363; 21 Jul 90 21:13 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19090; 21 Jul 90 20:09 CDT Date: Sat, 21 Jul 90 20:07:37 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #503 BCC: Message-ID: <9007212007.ab25841@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 21 Jul 90 20:07:23 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 503 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Pseudo PBX For the Home? [John Higdon] Re: Pseudo PBX For the Home? [Dave Platt] Re: Fun With ANI [Jack Winslade] Re: ANI From Cellular Phone [Blake Farenthold] Re: COCOTs, FCC, DPU, etc [John Higdon] Re: Rate Request - No Joy For New York Telephone [John Higdon] Re: Magneto Telephones [Joe Talbot] PT's Moment of Fame [Mark Seiden] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Pseudo PBX For the Home? Date: 21 Jul 90 01:17:50 PDT (Sat) From: John Higdon Martin Ewing writes: > I have not seen such a home "PBX" advertised in consumer channels, but > I think it may exist. The technology ought to permit it at a > reasonable price. The "king" of small PBXes, the Panasonic KX-T series is readily available once again. The new units are flowing right readily out of Great Britain. The 308 handles three trunks and eight stations. It is a most capable unit that can perform any way you require. Needless to say, I'm still delighted with my KX-T1232, although it now looks as though I could outgrow it at some point in the future. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Dave Platt Subject: Re: Pseudo PBX For the Home? Date: 21 Jul 90 18:28:31 GMT Reply-To: Dave Platt Organization: Coherent Thought Inc., Palo Alto CA In article <9952@accuvax.nwu.edu> Martin Ewing writes: > Is there such a thing as a box that takes two normal residential lines > in on one side and six extensions in to the other side? (All our > extensions are radially connected to a central phone block.) The box > would function as a wannabee PBX, giving dialtone, handling intercom > calls, and dealing with incoming and outgoing calls. (I assume a REAL > PBX with trunk lines to SNET would be expensive if possible at all.) One such unit that I've heard about (and researched slightly) is the Panasonic KXT-308 ... a three-trunk-line, eight-extension unit. It does everything you're asking for, and also has music-on-hold if you want to wire it in. It's intended for sale to small businesses, but can be used in the home just as easily. There's a larger unit (the 616) for folks with >>LOTS<< of extensions. Both units work with plain old telephone sets (tone-phones are preferred) as well as with Panasonic's proprietary LCD-display phones. What are the catches? Price and availability, mostly. The 308 lists for $900, and the 616 lists for $1600. If you want to be able to program special features into the system, you must buy one of the top- of-the-line LCD phones for use as your master station, at an additional $300 or so. I've been told that the 308 and 616 are among the models that AT&T complained about in a "dumping" allegation, and that they are [a] subject to a tariff and/or [b] are in short supply. The Northern California sales-rep for this line of equipment told me that Panasonic is shifting production of this line to its facilities in England ... apparently only units manufactured in Japan are subject to the anti-dumping tariff ... but that some equipment in the line is in short supply at the moment. Not many Panasonic dealers carry this line ... it's only sold by those who can do installations and can service the equipment. Normal consumer-type Panasonic dealers cannot special-order it, I'm told. It sounds like nice equipment ... but it's a bit pricier than I want to invest in at the moment. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Jul 90 18:36:31 EDT From: Jack Winslade Subject: Re: Fun With ANI Reply-to: Jack.Winslade@p0.f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537 In a message of <17 Jul 90 02:48:10>, John Higdon (200:30102/2) writes: >An OTC pharmacutical company is sponsoring something called "Pollen >Trak" ... You call the number and you get a pollen report for your >area. Based on the ANI data obtained in real time ... I've determined that it depends on the specific prefix from which you are calling if you will or will not be prompted for your number. This morning I tried that number from work, 559 prefix in midtown Omaha, newer ESS, not sure exactly which type. After hearing (ring) (supervise) (ring), I received a recording '... we are sorry, the pollen count is not available for your ZIP {sic} code'. I tried it again from home this evening, 895 prefix in west Omaha, an aging 1A ESS (I think). Again I got (ring) (supervise) (ring), but was prompted for my phone number. I entered a valid Omaha number and was then told no pollen count was available. I tried again using a valid NYC area number -- I was SURE they had data for that city -- but again, not available. I tried the third time using a valid Chicago number and it worked. I guess the conclusion is that some of the older ESS machines do not give on-the-fly calling number ID to those 800 services. Comments ?? Good Day! JSW [1:285/666@fidonet] DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha (1:285/666) --- Through FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 Jack.Winslade@f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Jul 90 13:30:32 CDT From: Blake Farenthold Subject: Re: ANI From Cellular Phone >[Moderator's Note: I tried it a couple months ago from my cell phone >to my 800 number (on which I get ANI). It reported back some wierd >number... Do you get realtime ANI from your 800 service or just detailed billing? I'd be curious as to the details if you get it realtime. For example who is your service provider, is it a readyline type service or dedicated service? Is ANI available from your local BOC? Is the format of the ANI data compatible with the inexpensive (relatively) adapters that give it to you in RS-232? My 800 number (National Telecommunications in Austin) provides "ANI" on my readyline-type 800 bumber by printing the number on my monthly bill or a supplement they send six weeks later because only about 30% of the numbers show on my bill because they 'don't get the data in time' Still about 5% show the incomming number and location as 000-000-0000 *** NOT AVAILIBLE ***. I can think of a lot of applications for realtime ANI on both my home and work lines. UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!blake Internet: 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 [Moderator's Note: All I get is detailed billing each month from Telecom*USA. See the comments in the Digest yesterday. PT] ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: COCOTs, FCC, DPU, etc Date: 21 Jul 90 01:09:04 PDT (Sat) From: John Higdon Monty Solomon - Temp Consultant writes: > I wish to complain (loudly) about various local COCOTs practices of > prohibiting access to long distance carriers via 10XXX or 950-10XX and > of disabling the keypad after the call is completed. > Who should I write to? The FCC? The local DPU? Both? Oh, brudder. Get in line. Line forms to the right, down the block, left at the second star and on till morning. Realistically, don't bother. The FCC has on two major occasions admitted that COCOTs stink. They issued a bunch of guidelines, followed by a bunch of regulations with no teeth in them. Guess what! No improvement. I could give you a list a half-inch thick (in fact, the size of the document I submitted to the CPUC) of COCOT deficiencies. The CPUC sent me back a form letter thanking me for my thoughts and ASSURED me that my complaints would be turned over to the appropriate people involved. That was over two years ago. What's changed? Hint: An infinitely small number of things. Oh yes -- the FCC has decreed that COCOTs will allow access to all long distance carriers doing business in the area. That really got the COCOT owners worried. I believe the real penalty for non-compliance is that the FCC will think bad thoughts about the guilty COCOT owner. Has anyone ever--repeat EVER--found a COCOT that allows 10XXX access to multiple carriers? I rest my case. At either the Federal or state level, there will be no change in COCOTs until the agencies devise some mechanism for detection and enforcement of rule violations. The ultimate weapon, disconnection of service, is seldom used since the procedures are so cumbersome and the real arm of enforcement, the local telco, has many other things to worry about. Besides, why would they care? Disconnecting a COCOT would just mean less revenue. In the meantime, the CPUC's latest blatherings about new COCOT rules and regulations are just so much hot air. Frankly, short of tactics that are not to be mentioned in this forum, I have pretty much dropped the COCOT cause. The slimeball COCOT owners are laughing at us all the way to the bank, and the government that can seize computers, throw rock musicians in jail, grab the life's work of a San Francisco photographer, etc., etc., is powerless against the teflon owners and operators of fraudulent one-armed bandits masquerading as payphones. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Rate Request - No Joy For New York Telephone Date: 21 Jul 90 01:46:58 PDT (Sat) From: John Higdon Bob Hale writes: > Our most recent Pac*Bell bill had an announcement that charges for > touch tone were eliminated. Then why are they still appearing on your bill? Read that announcement again. It says that Pac*Bell is holding discussions on how it will replace the revenue from the dropping of the TT charge. Pac*Bell is still some distance away from actually dropping the charge (you know -- so that it doesn't show up in your itemized list of services anymore.) Until that happens, it's not dropped. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Joe Talbot Subject: Re: Magneto Telephones Date: 21 Jul 90 10:02:00 GMT Reply-To: Joe Talbot Organization: Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan In article <9810@accuvax.nwu.edu> davidb@pacer.com (David Barts) writes: >The telephone at the rest area looked like a normal Western Electric >pay phone, except that it had no dial mechanism and there was a >wooden box with a hand-crank magneto mounted beneath the phone. >The instruction sheet for the phone was either typed or handwritten >and said to announce that you were calling from "Fenner Roadside Box >Number 4", after successfully ringing up the operator. (It has been >about ten years, so I may not have remembered the name 100% >correctly.) The "Fenner roadside rest stop" phones were Fenner #1 and #2. They finally went away last year and became very unreliable Baker phone numbers. It was part of Pac*Bells project to eliminate toll stations. The projest involves the construction and use of many new microwave sites and disital carrier. Here's a summary of what happened to the toll stations: Amargosa #1,3,5, - were converted to something dial (probably Baker.) Halloran Springs/Summit - were changed to Baker numbers. Ludlow - Baker numbers (out of service all the time, the whole town dies for days at a time. The service comes from a van parked near town with a dish on the roof and a fence around it. Odd.) Amboy - Baker numbers (frequent outages). Essex, Saltus - Baker numbers. Lanfair Valley - Baker numbers. Fenner - Baker numbers. Chiriaco Summit - GTE numbers from Desert Center (on Pac*Bell carrier and lines. Imagine paying for Pac*Bell service and getting GTE piped in. Frightening!) Some just turned into charge a calls (so they wouldn't have to collect the coins I'll bet). With the restriction being done IN THE SET! Smart pay phones! On POTS (plain olde telephone service) lines. Amazing. Those of us who frequent the desert are pleased that cellular service is coming even to the most remote area due to the heavy traffic on I-15 and I-40. The landline service isn't reliable enough yet. Joe Talbot "What am I doing here?" Voice Mail 011-813-222-8429 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Jul 90 01:37:01 EDT From: Mark Seiden Subject: PT's Moment of Fame Patrick: I've just received the governments's response to the motions of Electronic Frontier Foundation and the defendant Neidorf to dismiss the indictment. You may not be aware that an article by you in Phrack 21, entitled "Non-Published Numbers" is mentioned in a recitation of the icky and allegedly felonious stuff Neidorf has been indicted for distributing. I quote: "On November 4, 1988, "Phrack 21" was published containing a tutorial on how to obtain non-published numbers from Illinois Bell, and an article by Neidorf outlining the critical role played by the telephone company's Network Management Center in telecommunications and "the protection of essential services such as 911, during abnormal network situations."... etc. The government lies. I just read the article. What it says is that if there's an emergency (or some other nontrivial reason) there is a *procedure* by which an authorized intermediary will get in touch with a nonpublished number and ask them if they want to talk to you, either by calling you back or by releasing their number for you to call them. I see no mechanism shown by which a nonpublished number can be obtained without the consent of the subscriber. I'm surprised you haven't been indicted over this one. Mark Seiden, mis@seiden.com, 203 329 2722 [Moderator's Note: There is nothing indictable about it. As you point out, that very old article by me (I stress this, since the procedures have changed somewhat in recent years), was a discussion of the procedure to follow in making emergency contact with a subscriber with a non-pub number, and the efforts taken by telcos (or at least IBT) to protect the privacy of their customers. Several years ago, much of the same information was distributed as a form letter response to people who called or wrote to complain, "why can't I get the number of so-and-so because my call is very important, etc". Interestingly enough, no, I did not know that it was picked up by Phrack and used in an issue of that publication. Since I was never a reader of Phrack, I really would not know what all of mine they published in the past. Truth be told, I can't remember now *who* I wrote that article for; I can't find it in the old issues of the Digest, however the Telecom Archives prior to October, 1988 is missing many old issues. I think I originally wrote it in 1982/83 for the BBS I sysopped briefly for the Chicago Public Library. I don't even have a copy of it in my old files, or I would re-run it here. The essence of it was that the Non-Pub Number Bureau was the keeper of subscriber phone numbers of that type. The Non-Pub Number Bureau itself had a non-pub number, available to a few employees at IBT with a 'need to know'. If such a number was needed in a dire emergency; i.e. a death in the family, a fire, something of catastrophic proportions, then the person needing to make contact could plead his case to a Directory Assistance supervisor. The supervisor would take the matter to the Chief Operator. Their stock answer was "don't call us, we'll call you back later", and after someone conferred with the non-pub subscriber, giving them *your name* and *your number*, then you would be called back and advised (a) of the phone number you were seeking, or (b) that the non-pub party had been alerted to your request and elected to call you instead, or (c) chose to ignore your request. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #503 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13274; 22 Jul 90 0:51 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20102; 21 Jul 90 23:20 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ae18731; 21 Jul 90 22:15 CDT Date: Sat, 21 Jul 90 22:07:14 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #504 BCC: Message-ID: <9007212207.ab15411@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 21 Jul 90 22:07:09 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 504 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson ANI Suggestions for Businesses [Inbound/Outbound via Lenny Tropiano] How Does ANI Get to Your System for Processing? [Lenny Tropiano] Is Centrex Secure? [Thomas Lapp] Using 'Other' Cellular Carrier [Jack Winslade] How Does Changing of Prefix by Telco Improve Service? [Todd Day] Call for Discussion: comp.dcom.fax [Steve Elias] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: ANI Suggestions for Businesses Organization: ICUS Software Systems, Islip, New York Date: 21 Jul 90 21:12:05 EDT (Sat) From: Lenny Tropiano In July 1990 issue of INBOUND/OUTBOUND magazine, devoted to ANI ("Improving the way America does business"), there was a column called "Yellow Pages ANI Directory". They stated, that there's not an industry or business that couldn't use 800 lines and ANI to forge closer ties to its customers. Here are but a few examples of how industries might use ANI. SPEEDING UP ORDER PROCESSING Pizza Delivery "Desperate for some pizza? Call the 800 pizza ordering number. As the call answers, the pizza company says, "Hello, Mr. Smith, would you like what you ordered last week? You still live at 123 Elm Street with that big black dog?" THE FREQUENT BUYER IDENTIFIER Manufacturer "90% of our sales are made by 10% of buyers. These frequent buyers generate a lot of revenue for our manufacturing company. How do we treat these important buyers like royalty? When they call, we get their ANI. We bounce them quickly to the top of the queue. We send them our most knowledgeable sales rep. We also hae identified 15 very special customers. When they call, we ring bells and alert our sales manager. If he's around, he gets on the phone and thanks them for the order -- even though they didn't ask for him. It's a nice touch. Our customers love it. High tech, high touch." AUTOMATIC DEALER ORDER ENTRY Food Wholesaler "We sell food to restaurants and small supermarkets. The owners of these businesses have no time to dilly-dally ordering from us. Most of their orders are the same from one week to the next. We've set up an automated ordering system with ANI and a voice processing system. Our buyers call up. Our machine starts with the presumption they want what they ordered last week with minor exceptions. With a touchtone pad, they can easily make their exceptions. Better yet, the system works 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Many of these people simply can't order during business hours." THE ANI TECHNICAL SUPPORT CENTER Software "When you wanted technical support from us in the past, you needed to register your software's serial number on business reply cards. An awful system. You often had to wait a week or two before you could make your first call. Now no more. All software registration is done over the phone. We no longer check serial numbers. ANI does it automatically for us. It tells us instantly if the caller is a registered user, and which of our other products he's bought. Even better, we only offer free service for 90 days. With ANI we can put our reports and target telemarketing campaigns to get our users to subscribe to our extended software support." ------------------ [Lenny's opinions -- although some of these ideas sound nice in practice, I'm wondering what happens to companies that have a PBX or many inbound and outbound telephone numbers, will the systems mention above keep track of all the numbers, or will I be FORCED to call from one extension only, each and everytime I call. It could be a problem, don't you think?] | Lenny Tropiano ICUS Software Systems lenny@icus.ICUS.COM | | {ames,pacbell,decuac,sbcs,hombre,rayssd}!icus!lenny attmail!icus!lenny | +------ ICUS Software Systems -- PO Box 1; Islip Terrace, NY 11752 ------+ ------------------------------ Subject: How Does ANI Get to Your System for Processing? Organization: ICUS Software Systems, Islip, New York Date: 21 Jul 90 21:41:52 EDT (Sat) From: Lenny Tropiano An example of multi-frequency inband ANI signaling (from INBOUND/ OUTBOUND magazine, July 1990): By the way, it appears that MCI is sponsering this -- but it obviously isn't just an MCI technique, we all know that. ANI and/or DNIS MCI Customer Telephone System +--------+ +--------+ | | | | | +--------------------------------------+ | | | | | +--------+ +--------+ -------------- SEIZE ----------------> <------------- WINK ----------------- ---------- KP + ANI + ST ------------> and/or -------- + KP + DNIS + ST -----------> <------------ ACK WINK --------------- <------------ OFF HOOK --------------- How in-band ANI gets from MCI to your equipment sounds complex. But it's not. It's a matter of simple signals. In telephony, they just have fancy names. When the phone call comes in, MCI sends your phone system a signal that says, "Something's about to happen." That's called seizing the line. Your phone system responds with a "wink." That's what they call acknowledging the call. MCI then sends a "key pulse" (a start signal) and the 10-digit ANI (phone number) plus a stop bit. When all the MCI ANI and/or DNIS signaling is done, your phone system (or the interface to your phone system) acknowledges it got the digits, and goes "off hook," i.e. lifts the handset and answers the incoming call. You also need to do something with the ANI you just go. The options are: 1. Record it; 2. Send it to a telephone sales agent computer screen; 3. Route it through your database, or; 4. Send it to a voice processing unit (VRU) HOW ANI IS CARRIED ACROSS THE COUNTRY FGD 800/900 MCI network 800/900 call SS#7 transport DAL ANI Local MCI MCI Phone --------> Network --------------> Network --------> PBX/ACD Company Switch Switch ANI Received ANI Transported ANI Delivered ANI Processed -------------------->|----------------------->|-------------->|<-------------> AN ANI GLOSSARY: ANI: Automatic Number Identification. The process whereby the long distance carrier provides its customers with the phone number of the incoming caller -- either as the call happens or in the next month's phone bill. DAL: Dedicated Access Line. A private tie line from your long distance phone company. The line may be analog or digital. If digital, it's probably a T-1 circuit. DNIS: Dialed Number Identification Service. The process whereby the LD carrier provides its customers with the 800 phone number the caller dialed. A customer calls an 800 number, e.g. 800-999-0345 DNIS signals the customer that the number the caller dialed was 800-999-0345. Why would you want this? A company might have many 800 numbers in one group of lines and not be able to distinguish them easily. Knowing the number dialed lets the customer know how to answer the call. FGD: Feature Group D. FGD lines carry ANI from your local, equal-access CO (central office) to your long distance carrier. A LD Carrier must subscribe to these lines to receive ANI. SS#7: Also SS7. Once called common channel signaling system 7. Now just called Signaling system 7. The telephone industry's electronic way of putting an address, a return address, a small message and a stamp on every phone call. SS#7 does basically four things. 1. It supervises the telephone network, monitoring lines to see which are busy, idle or requesting service; 2. It routes calls through the network, picking out one free circuit for that particular call; 3. It carries information about the call for billing and ANI; 4. And, finally it alerts the arrival of an incoming call. T-1: Also T1. Pronunced Tee-One. T-1 is a digital phone line delivering 1,544,000 bit per second (aka 1.544 Mbps). T-1 comes to your office over two pairs of phone lines. T-1 normally can handle 24 voice conversations with each conversation being digitized at 64 Kbps. | Lenny Tropiano ICUS Software Systems lenny@icus.ICUS.COM | | {ames,pacbell,decuac,sbcs,hombre,rayssd}!icus!lenny attmail!icus!lenny | +------ ICUS Software Systems -- PO Box 1; Islip Terrace, NY 11752 ------+ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Jul 90 09:06:44 EDT From: Thomas Lapp Subject: Is Centrex Secure? Reply-To: thomas%mvac23@udel.edu I know that the Centrex system is sort of a precursor to the Class features and so forth in that it is a PBX-type system where the PBX itself is "part of?" the CO's switching equipment. (Of course, I could be wrong here too...). Anyway, I've heard two rumours lately and would like someone to confirm/deny them or tell me what is truth and what isn't. The first is that it is possible for a customer (administrator?) off-site of the Centrex system to "program" the system, make changes to services allowed on a particular line, etc. Is this true? The second rumour comes from the assumption that the first part is true: How good is the security on this system -- in other words, if you CAN program from off-site, what keeps "phreaking joe" from cracking the security on the Centrex system and doing whatever he likes to lines on it? - tom internet : mvac23!thomas@udel.edu or thomas%mvac23@udel.edu uucp : {ucbvax,mcvax,psuvax1,uunet}!udel!mvac23!thomas Location : Newark, DE, USA [Moderator's Note: Almost all modern phone switches and/or central offices can be remotely programmed as the need may arise. How secure are any of these arrangements? Much depends upon the complexity of the password, and the use of call-back modems. The answer to your question is yes, unauthorized changes can be made. But the use of centrex or regular CO lines is not the issue: Phreaks have disrupted single line residential service also, using the same techniques. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Jul 90 18:37:26 EDT From: Jack Winslade Subject: Using 'Other' Cellular Carrier Reply-to: Jack.Winslade@p0.f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537 My cellular carrier here is US West, which gives good coverage in the city and to the east and northeast. However, there are a couple places just southwest of Omaha where their signal drops out and I get the ROAM light from Centel, the other carrier in the area. The other day, for the heck of it, I switched the unit over to the Centel system and tried to get through. I received a line busy tone after the expected delay. It was strange, since I knew the number I was calling was not busy. I tried using the normal US West service, and found the line clear to ring. I switched back and forth a few times and tried a couple of other numbers. Same thing. I'm puzzled as to why Centel would return LINE BUSY, as opposed to ATB or some type of voice intercept, for the 'foreign' carrier here in the area. Another thing that has me wondering -- the manual for the phone (an older Mitsubishi) states that for the way it is programmed, it will first try the assigned carrier, but if no channel is available it will attempt to place the call on an alternate carrier, if available. I wonder if any busy signals I have gotten during 'drive time' over the past few years have actually been due to this. Good Day! JSW [1:285/666@fidonet] DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha (1:285/666) --- Through FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 Jack.Winslade@f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org ------------------------------ From: Todd Day Subject: How Does Changing of Prefix by Telco Improve Service? (UCSB) Organization: QuickSilver Rallye Team, Santa Barbara, CA Date: Sat, 21 Jul 90 23:38:03 GMT Here is an interesting bit of information packed in with my latest GTE bill here in Santa Barbara, CA: UCSB Telephone Prefix Changes to 893 Beginning at 8 a.m. on August 4, you'll need to dial a new prefix when calling University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) telephone numbers. To meet increasing University telephone service needs, all 3,800 UCSB telephone numbers will change from the 961 to the 893 prefix at that time. The last four digits will remain the same. GTE is assisting UCSB in notifying you of the change to help make the transition a smooth one and lessen its impact on GTE's telephone number referral service, which also serves many other customers. Starting August 4, calls to UCSB's old 961 prefix will be intercepted by a message informing callers of the new prefix. UCSB is also publicizing the new prefix on campus, in the community and will notify students of the change prior to the start of classes on Sept. 20. GTE California Now, my questions for the net are: (1) Why did GTE feel it necessary to change UCSB at all when it appears that there were many numbers left in the current prefix? 9999 - 3800 = 6199 extensions left, right? (2) What does changing prefixes buy GTE? As far as I know, UCSB was the sole "owner" of the 961 prefix, although I had heard rumours that Delco GM and Santa Barbara Research Center had a couple of 961 phone lines that had something or other to do with the university. (3) If there is some kind of new magic box that GTE is installing to handle special needs of the univeristy, why couldn't they keep the 961 prefix and swap the lines from the old box to the new box on August 4? (4) If I call the university at 7:59am on August 4 using the 961 prefix, what will happen to my call at 8:00am? If we had caller ID out here, what would happen to an outgoing call? (5) Finally, a general question about intercepts. Why does it seem that the intercepts know exactly what you're trying to do, but just chastise you about dialing in the future and don't complete your call? Kinda reminds me of the parent who tells the child, "Now, go close the door again, and this time, do it GENTLY!" I've had this happen here where I forget to dial "1" to get out of the 805 area code. GTE knows I'm trying to dial long distance, 'cause they tell me that "calls to this number must be preceded by a '1'". But do they complete the call? NOOOO... Now, in the case of UCSB, instead of intercepting the 961, why don't they just tell the dialer about the change and complete his/her call to the 893 prefix anyway? Todd Day | temp@ ivucsb!todd@radius.com | soon@ ivucsb!todd@hub.ucsb.edu ------------------------------ From: Steve Elias Subject: Call for Discussion: comp.dcom.fax Date: 20 Jul 90 21:33:35 GMT Reply-To: eli@ursa-major.spdcc.COM (Steve Elias) Followup-To: news.groups This is a call for discussion for a newsgroup called "comp.dcom.fax", or just comp.fax. There is currently an "alt.fax" newsgroup, but it's my humble homey opinion that fax technology is real enough and interesting enough to warrant a "real" technical newsgroup. Fax technology involves modems, graphics, printing, bus interfaces, serial port interfaces, email, and "fax over internet", etcetera. I think that comp.fax might be a better idea than comp.dcom.fax, since there are some fax issues which have zero to do with datacomm, such as graphics-ish stuff like dithering and aliasing, and tcp-ish stuff like email2fax and fax2email. Perhaps these issues can be discussed individually in the "most relevant" newsgroup for each area listed above, and perhaps the alt.fax group does have enough "propagation" such that it will do the job. But if a comp.fax group would include more people in the discussions, I think it's worth considering. What do you think? Please follow up to news.groups. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Also, feel free to send junk (or funk) faxes to 508 294 0101 or 508 294 7447. eli@spdcc.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #504 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23968; 22 Jul 90 13:09 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19587; 22 Jul 90 11:34 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01962; 22 Jul 90 10:30 CDT Date: Sun, 22 Jul 90 9:45:55 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #505 BCC: Message-ID: <9007220945.ab27188@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 22 Jul 90 09:45:19 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 505 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: PT's Moment of Fame [John Higdon] Re: How Does Changing of Prefix by Telco Improve Service? [John Higdon] Re: How Does Changing of Prefix by Telco Improve Service? [Dave Levenson] Re: Reference Book Wanted on Telephones [Miquel Cruz] Re: Questions About Local Service and Long Distance Rates [David Wilson] Re: Switching Device With Different Rings [portal!cup.portal.com!MVM] Re: 38.4kb Limited Distance Async Modem [Hank Nussbacher] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: PT's Moment of Fame Date: 21 Jul 90 22:11:48 PDT (Sat) From: John Higdon Mark Seiden writes: > You may not be aware that an article by you in Phrack 21, entitled > "Non-Published Numbers" is mentioned in a recitation of the icky and > allegedly felonious stuff Neidorf has been indicted for distributing. Taken out of context, most of what appears in TELECOM Digest is at least as incriminating as the material published in Phrack. Think about it: over the past year alone there have been discussions of 911, telco plant security, billing procedures, unlisted numbers, "infinity transmitters", credit card verification and security, telco account records security, cellular billing and call verification procedures, campus phone systems, police mobile data systems, and much more. Some of the contributors have submitted detailed articles discussing these things. Now that I have seen what a flimsy case exists against Craig Neidorf, my paranoia has reached new heights. Never mind that my book shelves are filled with communication reference books. Never mind that my file cabinets are packed with Pac*Bell technical data. Never mind that my garage is filled with manuals for dozens of PBXes. Never mind that there are Bellcore books under the bed. What's really evil is that "secret and sensitive" material stored in my computer known as Cud, TELECOM Digest, and (probably) the USENET spool. If you think I'm over-reacting, consider Mr. DeArmond's detailed article on how to conduct clandestine surveilance. Or how about Mr. Townson's articles on how to program cellular phones to "get free service"? Just those two examples make the material in the Neidorf case look like a first grade class on how to use the telephone. Notice how just a slight shift in wording can change the entire context? Five minutes with vi and some bozo could make life very miserable for many Digest contributors. Now, for the moment, forget about the chilling effect on all of us die-hard telecom nerds. Consider instead the question: "Why is electronic communications treated in such an unwarranted manner by the government and law enforcement?" If I was inclined to be an auto mechanic, I would be trying to find out all I could about cars. If I was an aspiring banker or financier, I would be hanging around financial institutions, learning all I could about money. If photography turned me on, much of my conscious life would be spent around cameras and photographic equipment, as well as any professionals that would spare me their time. But those interested in computers and telephony are looked upon as sinister beings. Any digging for information is viewed as preparatory to an attack on the system. And heaven forbid that a telecompunerd would actually use the technology related to his interests to learn more more about it. For some reason, information on a computer disk is more sensitive, valuable, dangerous, and proprietary than the exact same information in a dusty book on a library shelf. Why is that? And now for a really scary question: What makes the information in Phrack more "criminal" than the information in the Digest? Wait until the Keystone Kops discovers THIS international ring of telephone hackers. Where are they going to store all the computers they seize that have Digest messages on them? IMHO, the Neidorf case could very well be a major turning point in the future of the freedom of electronic communications. We should all be watching this one very closely. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: You say it might well be 'a major turning point in the future of electronic communications', but I don't think it will be quite that dramatic. It may well (I think it already has) be the impetus which forces small electronic publishers to maintain the same (generally) responsible standards in publishing observed by the larger operations, i.e. Compuserve, Dow Jones, etc. You have to take an overview of the entire purpose, scope and production of an electronic publication; the individual articles won't tell the whole story. The name 'Phrack' seems to be a combination of the two words 'phreak' and 'hack', two words with a derogatory inference even to many of the people who use them to describe themselves. It is almost as though it was being stuck up under the government's nose with the attitude 'see if you can stop us'. And how do you address security flaws in telecom systems without at the same time giving hints to the no-goods who would abuse the system? You can't, so the question becomes one of intent: are the articles mainly there to educate the no-goods under the guise of 'improving security'? You do not need to print actual code numbers and complete descriptions of successful attacks to alert the security concious to the problem. You did not see any in-depth information about *which* phone numbers were exempt from serial checking in the cell phone articles, nor will you see that sort of detail here. Another thing that annoys the government and the telcos is the constant (and I think sick) swapping out of /f/ with /ph/ on words out of some misplaced reverence to the telephone network. This is a whole topic in itself: the swapping of /f/ and /ph/ to make some point to readers could be discussed in detail. PT] ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: How Does Changing of Prefix by Telco Improve Service? Date: 21 Jul 90 23:19:39 PDT (Sat) From: John Higdon Todd Day writes: > (4) If I call the university at 7:59am on August 4 using the 961 > prefix, what will happen to my call at 8:00am? If we had > caller ID out here, what would happen to an outgoing call? No matter when you make the call, it will be screwed up all day. Remember this is GTE. Why do you think they are making the change in the middle of summer? Since the CPID info is only transmitted at the beginning of the call, if you remained connected during the cut, nothing would happen on your display. I pity the university. > (5) Finally, a general question about intercepts. Why does it > seem that the intercepts know exactly what you're trying to > do, but just chastise you about dialing in the future and > don't complete your call? Obviously, you've never heard the Lily Tomlin routines or watched "The President's Analyst". Otherwise, you wouldn't ask such a silly question. I don't remember much about long distance calling before DDD, but I suspect that there was some truth to the routine. "Operator, I would like to call Washington, DC. The number is 736-5000." "Sir, the area code is 202" "Thank you, Operator" "What is the area code, please?" "Huh?" "The area code for Washington, DC is 202. Now what is the area code?" "202, Operator. The area code is 202." "Thank you, sir." > Now, in the case of UCSB, > instead of intercepting the 961, why don't they just tell the > dialer about the change and complete his/her call to the 893 > prefix anyway? Because, ultimately the caller WILL have to dial the 893 prefix. It's best to get them in the habit as early as possible. Otherwise, no one would change what they dialed until 961 actually became something else. And then you would have some customer really annoyed at the wrong numbers. I had a client move from the financial district to the south of Market area. This meant a change from the Bush/Pine CO to the Folsom St. CO and with it a number change. Their idea was to simply forward their old phone when they moved to their new number "to make the transition easier". I convinced them that it was a stupid idea. First, notification of the number change would become their sole responsibilty, since there would be no referral. If someone dials a number and it works, why change? All they would be doing is postponing the day of reckoning when the old number would eventually be disconnected. Second, they would be paying local charges for most of their incoming calls until they had the old number removed. Up until 1982, it was not necessary to dial an area code when calling across the 408/415 boundary within the metro Bay Area because it had been possible to avoid duplicating prefixes around the bay perimeter. Growth put an end to that, and a recording appeared that said "it is necessary to dial 415 when calling this number. Please hang up and dial your call again." There were the inevitable complaints about "if it knows that I need to dial 415, why not just put the call through?" Well, simply put, if that happened, suddenly that person would dial the seven digit number and find himself connected to a party in the wrong city since the prefix had been reused within his own area code. It's amazing how long a change has to be in place before the public gets the hang of it. 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: How Does Changing of Prefix by Telco Improve Service? Date: 22 Jul 90 12:29:35 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <9993@accuvax.nwu.edu>, todd@ivucsb.sba.ca.us (Todd Day) writes: > UCSB Telephone Prefix Changes to 893 > (1) Why did GTE feel it necessary to change UCSB at all when it > appears that there were many numbers left in the current prefix? > 9999 - 3800 = 6199 extensions left, right? I have no direct knowlege of the numbering plan used by GTE in the Santa Barbara area, but generally, these changes enable a larger block of numbers to be available to the customer. Perhaps some of those apparently-available 6,199 extensions are assigned somewhere else? Perhaps the university centrex is being re-implemented on a physically new switch. This might be done to enable new and exciting telecom services not available on the present switch. If the old switch is being kept in service for other subscribers, the two switches probably can't share a prefix. > (5) Finally, a general question about intercepts. Why does it > seem that the intercepts know exactly what you're trying to > do, but just chastise you about dialing in the future and > don't complete your call? Kinda reminds me of the parent For now, the telco knows what you're trying to do, so they have enough information to complete your call. But the new dialing procedure, whatever it is, is being done to accomodate future expansion. At some point in the future, your invalid call attempt will not give them the information you meant. You will, in fact, be placing a call to a valid number that wasn't the one you wanted. If they just intercept and redirect your call, a lot of subscribers will ignore the intercept message and continue to use the obsolete calling procedure. Eventually, this will lead to trouble as the old numbers get re-assigned. The apparently-unnecessary intercept is being done to condition subscribers before it leads to an annoyance to new subscribers. For example, here in NJ they've just turned on a new area code. If callers call my old 201 number, they still reach my 908 number, but only for a while. Eventually, they'll be given a recording telling them to place the call using the 908 area code. Why can't they continue to be redirected? Because my old 201 number will eventually be re-assigned to a subscriber elsewhere in the 201 area code, while I'll keep the same number in the 908 code. The interval between when 201 calls are no longer re-directed, and when my number gets re-used in the 201 area code is done to protect the new subscriber from the folks who call me and ignore the advertising that we and the telco are doing to convert them. Dave Levenson Voice: 201 647 0900 Fax: 201 647 6857 Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave [The Man in the Mooney] ------------------------------ From: mnc@us.cc.umich.edu (Miguel Cruz) Subject: Re: Reference Book Wanted on Telephones Organization: Univ. of Michigan ITD Consulting & Support Services Date: Sat, 21 Jul 90 23:36:00 GMT In article 9970, Henry Schaffer writes: >Understanding Telephone Electronics >Developed and Published by Texas Instruments Learning Center >J. L. Fike, et al 1983 >Radio Shack catalog number 62-1388 > I haven't checked lately to see if there is a new edition or even if >it is still available. This is a self-teaching type of text with >quizzes and answers for each chapter. Well, I saw this book at Radio Shack not a year ago ... bought it, in fact. It's a paperback with a red cover. Most likely they still have it - Radio Shack is has one of the less dynamic stocking systems - They still have the disco traffic strobe lights. Miguel Cruz ------------------------------ From: David E A Wilson Subject: Re: Questions About Local Service and Long Distance Rates Date: 22 Jul 90 05:20:48 GMT Organization: Dept of Computer Science, University of Wollongong, Australia noao!xroads!bakerj%mcdphx.UUCP@ncar.ucar.edu (Jon Baker) writes: >The first question regards the exhorbitant 'hook-up' fee. Although >establishing service may involve only a few data-entry operators, the >cost to lay wire to your residence is factored in there also. Even if >it's an existing residence, they need to average the cost out over all >new customers to avoid socking new home owners with a multi-hundred $ >bill. Here in Australia that is exactly how it is done. Back in 1982 the costs were: Providing new service: $150 or $15 if only exchange work is needed. (Handset and line still in place.) Moving service to new address: $75 or $15 (as above). By 1985 it had risen to $190/$30 and $110/$30 and in 1989 it was $225/$45. (No figure for moving.) Even though I had to pay the $225 I still think this reflection of the costs seems fairer. David Wilson david@wraith.cs.uow.edu.au ------------------------------ From: ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com!MVM@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Switching Device With Different Rings Date: Sat, 21 Jul 90 21:30:09 PDT > Now that they are offering custom ringing in my area, I understand > there are some devices that "route" the call to various devices (ie > two different answering machines) based on the type of ring. > Anyway have any information on where I can pick one of these devices > up, or does anyone have any experience with them? I use a RingDirector from: Lynx Automation, Inc P O Box 99068 Seattle, WA 98199 206 285-1754 It comes in dual (2) and quad (4) "line" versions. I have the quad-line one, and can easily recommend it; when you take yours apart and look at its construction you will see why. (It also functions quite well.) I believe the dual-line one is priced at $89.95 and the quad-line one at $149.95. mvm@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Jul 90 13:12:53 P From: Hank Nussbacher Subject: Re: 38.4kb Limited Distance Async Modem >Does anyone make such beasts? We want to connect a MIPS box with an >Equinox serial board to a Cisco terminal server for an el-cheapo slip >link. Both will apparently do 38.4bps. The two end-points of the >connection are within 500m of each other. RAD makes one called SRM-6DC which can go up 2.5 miles at 38.4kb. You can contact them at either 201-587-8822 or fax them at 201-587-8847. Hank Nussbacher Israel ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #505 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05241; 23 Jul 90 1:16 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01540; 22 Jul 90 23:42 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31673; 22 Jul 90 22:36 CDT Date: Sun, 22 Jul 90 21:48:08 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #506 BCC: Message-ID: <9007222148.ab26889@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 22 Jul 90 21:47:51 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 506 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Customers Have Long Memories [TELECOM Moderator] Comparison of U.S Sprint and ATT Phone Cards [Randy Day] Strange Reorder Signal With Speed Dialing [Jeff Wasilko] TeleMouse [John Higdon] E911 -- All Operators Are Busy [John C. Fowler] Security Risks Using IBM's RSCS-to-RSCS? [Joe Jesson] Re: AT&T Calling Card Discrimination [John C. Fowler] Re: Pseudo PBX For the Home? [Larry M. Geary] Re: Cellular/Cordless Phones in Computer Room [Dan Flak] Re: Touchtone History [Tad Cook] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 21 Jul 90 21:20:46 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Customers Have Long Memories Something that some telco employees learned long ago, and some telco employees will *never* learn is there is a direct relationship between how you treat your customers and how loyal they remain to your organization. Yes, there are some exceptions to this, and a few customers who are never happy about anything, but most will remember the good and bad parts of their relationship with you and be governed accordingly when shopping for telecom services. Since some of you enjoy those 'telco of the past' type stories, here is one for you to meditate on. April, 1968: Martin L. King was assassinated in Memphis. Everything that week was up for grabs, so to speak, and in Chicago, riots racked the west side of the city for several days. IBT people were on special alert for trouble, and the guys in 'night plant' were especially alert as they drove through the city to their tasks. One of the fellows, Ron, generally worked the west side, and he related to me some of the events from that week in April: "We never had much trouble with harassment or anything. Even though we were white, I think they knew we were not there to hassle them; we were just doing our work. They pretty much left us alone. I know they did harass the crews from People's Gas, because almost always the crew was out there to dig in the parkway and shut off service somewhere. But they never bothered us, or at least me. "Next to one of the Chicago Housing Authority buildings was a liquor store with a payphone. Some fool had ripped it right off the wall, and I put it up Tuesday night, only to find out the next evening it had been ripped down again. Now when it happened the second time, a lot of the guys I worked with would have said 'f--k the animals!' and let the phone stay down until the day crew could get to it later on. "But I figured a lot of innocent people were harmed by that. There was no other pay phone for about three blocks, and most of those people in the projects had no private service, so it was either use the phone at the liquor store or go without. They're entitled to service like anyone else, so we put the phone back up on the wall Wednesday night, but we did mount it a lot better the second time. "It was been about midnight when we finished. The office made us use a 'buddy system' during the riots, so my partner and I were ready to leave and he called the office to check in. The office patched through a call to us; it was the operator at Bethany Brethren Hospital, about half a mile from where we were then. [Moderator's Note: Bethany Brethren was located almost in the middle of the riot zone. During that decade it had become a hospital with a 95 percent black patient population and 50-60 percent black staff. PT] "The poor operator was in tears, almost hysterical. A water pipe had broken in a storage room with some phone wires. They got the water pipe shut off, but the flood had knocked out the switchboard. And she 'just knew' there was no way anyone from Bell was going to come out there and work on her board in the middle of a long night with the riots going on. "Generally the rioters left the hospitals alone and the old-people's home on Kedzie Avenue. At the Kedzie Bell everything was secure, but they sure torched everything else for a mile in all directions. [Moderator's Note: 'The Kedzie Bell' was an old nickname for the CO located at Kedzie and Monroe Sts. on the west side. PT] "My partner and I parked in the lot at Bethany and went inside. That poor woman would have kissed the ground we walked on, I think. "It turned out the trouble was not that severe. We had to replace a little bit of the cable run to the board and dry out some other stuff. It took us maybe an hour or so. I wanted to make sure the board was working okay, so I told the lady I'd run the board for a few minutes while she went to get coffee for us from the cafeteria. We drank the coffee, I ran the board and we just talked for about half an hour. I guess about 2:00 AM we decided to leave. The office had nothing for me and I was going home to get some sleep. "We went out to the parking lot ... I'll be damned if they hadn't broken into our truck and looted all of our tools and supplies. Then they had set the truck on fire. We went back inside and called the office; the supervisor had a couple of guys drive out to get us and bring us back downtown." [Moderator's Note: The west side was devasted in the rioting and burning of every business place. Today, 22 years later the community has not recovered, indeed, things are worse. A few things were rebuilt, but today there are still entire blocks totally empty. No place to work, no money in the community, nothing. People still get sick, and hospital bills go unpaid. The hospitals in the area are in very poor financial condition. To avoid bankruptcy and closing, they all merged a few years later ... PT] (Ron related this to me about 1977 or 1978) ... "The hospital is still out there; they don't call it Bethany Brethren any longer ... it merged with those other two or three when they were in bankruptcy; the parent company is the Evangelical Health Care System, and they call it the Bethany Medical Center of EHCS. "They were going to yank out those old switchboards they had in each hospital and get some modern stuff [Moderator's Note: By 1976 standards!], so I guess they got bids from from a few places for new equipment. One of our (IBT's) sales guys was over there to talk to the Board of Directors and this woman who was the Vice President - Telecom Services at Evangelical insisted -- absolutely insisted! -- that they go with our centrex service tying all their locations together under one centrex system. "Do you know she actually remembered my name from eight years before? I couldn't believe it! This lady knew my name, when I had been out to Bethany, that we had 'done the job right the first time', and she thought it best to 'stick with the people who cared enough to come out and make immediate repairs'. "When I heard this from someone at the office, I was absolutely floored. That's a million dollars in business per year. But it goes to show that when you really care about your customers, and make it obvious to them, they will stick around." ----------------- Are customers today still that loyal? Something tells me most of them are, if you put out a real effort to show you care about quality telecom service, and are responsive to their needs. PT ------------------------------ From: microsoft!randyd@uunet.uu.net Subject: Comparison of U.S Sprint and ATT Phone Cards Date: Sat Jul 21 21:31:18 1990 I have both a U.S. Sprint FON card and an ATT Universal Card, so I decided to do a simple price comparison of a six-minute call from Seattle WA to Boulder CO. The results: ATT: $1.57 U.S. Sprint $1.61 These results reflect the 10% discount that ATT gives to calls made using the Universal Card. These results do not include tax. Even more interesting: ATT charged only federal excise tax. Sprint charges state and local sales tax in addition to the federal excise tax. Since in this location the state and local sales tax is about 8.7%, ATT starts off with an 8.7% advantage! Randy Day (I do not represent the views of my employer.) ------------------------------ From: Jeff Wasilko Date: Sun, 22 Jul 90 01:31:44 EDT Subject: Strange Reorder Signal With Speed Dialing I've been having some strange problems with speed dialing since I moved from one part of Rochester to another (from south Henrietta to the northeast part of Rochester). About 25% of the time when I speed dial a number (particularly our terminal server's number), I just get reorder. I called repair service, and they said that there's not any problem with the switch (a 5E), and that if I want them to look into it, I'll have to pay if the problem turns out to be in my equipment. Is there any chance that a problem like this (that started when I moved, and occurs on two speed dialers) could be my problem? Should I go ahead and call it in? BTW, Rochester Tel decided to violate the standard (in the eastern part of the US) number for repair sevice: its 777-1611. Any advice on how best to approach this is appreciated. Jeff | RIT VAX/VMS Systems: | Jeff Wasilko | RIT Ultrix Systems: | |BITNET: jjwcmp@ritvax +----------------------+ INET:jjwcmp@ultb.isc.rit.edu| |INTERNET: jjwcmp@ritvax.rit.edu |____UUCP:jjwcmp@ultb.UUCP____| |'claimer: I speak only for myself. Opinions expressed are NOT those of RIT.| [Moderator's Note: It is quite likely that your speed dialers are going too fast for the exchange. Trying dialing numbers *as fast as you can* manually. Does the equipment lose track of you also? Conversely, can you slow down how fast the dialers work? Try tone dialing via your modem at different speeds. How fast can you go before the exchange loses some or all of the digits? PT] ------------------------------ Subject: TeleMouse Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 21 Jul 90 22:25:26 PDT (Sat) From: John Higdon Remember the data circuit that I mentioned last week that runs between GTE and Pac*Bell land? This morning the client reported the circuit down once again. As is my practice, I verify the customer's equipment before turning in the report to telco. This, of course, is just a formality since the trouble is always found to be somewhere in GTE's equipment or lines. A call to the studio in San Jose revealed that the unit was functioning properly, it just didn't have data. So I took off to the mountaintop site in Los Gatos. Again the unit was functioning and transmitting data that was not getting through to the studio. I called telco and reported that the Los Gatos-->San Jose direction was not functioning. In the meantime I decided to do a little on-site inspection of the telco facilities. Who knows, maybe a jumper came loose or something like that. Opening the 1.1 box cover revealed six (count em), six very startled mice huddled in among the wiring. Yucch! I beat on the box causing the mice to scatter in every direction and then located the jumper for the data circuit. It had been chewed through. Reconnection restored normal operation. I called and cancelled the trouble report. It was the usual Mickey Mouse GTE trouble, but with a slightly different twist. BTW, anyone know how to clean mouse p*ss off of a terminal box? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Jul 90 12:12 EST From: "John C. Fowler" <0003513813@mcimail.com> Subject: E911 -- All Operators Are Busy The County of Los Alamos (population approximately 20,000) has E911, one 911 operator, and five 911 lines available. My question is, what do 911 services do if there are more calls than operators available? Surely not "Thank you for calling 911. All of our operators are currently busy, but if you will hold, the next available operator will assist you." John C. Fowler, 3513813@mcimail.com [Moderator's Note: They've probably done a traffic analysis which gives them the information needed for staffing so that the problem you describe would be very rare. Additional incoming calls would keep on ringing until someone picked up or the call was abandoned. Here in Chicago, the police dispatchers work in clusters: After the third ring with no answer in a given cluster, the call is re-routed to another cluster nearby. After six rings in total, the call is re-routed to the supervisor's desk. But their staffing levels are based on known traffic patterns; it takes a major incident to cause an overflow like that. PT] ------------------------------ From: joe jesson Subject: Security Risks Using IBM's RSCS-to-RSCS? Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX Date: Sun, 22 Jul 90 15:50:27 GMT I am trying to ascertain the security risks of installing an RSCS-to-RSCS link from our large (very) SNA network to IBM's Information Network (IN) to be used for E-Mail (IBM's Expdedite Mail). The fear is not knowing how a hacker can bring down my network from IBM's network. Specifically, I remember the infamous "Christmas Card" sent to all users on IBM's network. What can be done through RSCS? My network has 30,000 PROFS users on VM. Any hackers or security buffs willing to tell? joe ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Jul 90 12:08 EST From: "John C. Fowler" <0003513813@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: AT&T Calling Card Discrimination When I call up one of my credit card customer service lines, they frequently require that I give them my mother's maiden name, or my ZIP code, or when was the last time I ate at a restaurant and charged it to that card, or something else designed to insure that it really is me calling them and not just somebody who found my card. How difficult would it be for AT&T to do something like this in red-lined areas? An AT&T Calling Card application is rather long and asks for all sorts of personal information, so they should have no problems asking something that only the true cardholder would know off-hand. Expense would prohibit implementation of this feature everywhere, but I think customers would prefer it to "Sorry, we won't put your call through" in areas known for high incidences of fraud. John C. Fower, 3513813@mcimail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Jul 90 13:26:53 EDT From: lmg@cbnewsh.att.com Subject: Re: Pseudo PBX For the Home? In article <9952@accuvax.nwu.edu> Martin Ewing writes: >In our new house we have expanded to quite a number of phone devices, >about six, using two lines. As you might expect, the ringing voltage >is down. At what load would one start to have problems? I checked the ringer equivalence numbers of the devices on one line, and I got: Modem 0.3B Answering Machine 0.4B 1 Line Telephone 0.7B (and 0.4A) 2 Line Telephone 1.0B The other line has: 2 Line Telephone 1.0B 1 Line Telephone 1.0A 1 Line Telephone 1.0B 1 Line Telephone unknown Answering Machine 0.4B I haven't noticed any problems, but I'm not sure what to look for. And what are the A's and B's all about? Larry Geary: 74017.3065@compuserve.com lmg@mtqub.att.com ------------------------------ From: Dan Flak Subject: Re: Cellular/Cordless Phones in Computer Room Date: 22 Jul 90 05:43:53 GMT Reply-To: flak@mcgp1.uucp Organization: McCaw Cellular Communications, Inc, Seattle, Wa In article <9939@accuvax.nwu.edu> PMW1@psuvm.psu.edu (Peter M. Weiss) writes: >Please relate your experiences in using either cellular or cordless >phones in a computer room, especially as it relates to any EMI that >affected the operation of a computing or electronic media device. We have a whole office full of people using portable (cellular) phones from any where in the building to "point blank" range. So far, no problems. We have PC's, Macs, Vaxen, 3B2's, 386's ... Dan Flak - McCaw Cellular Communications Inc., 201 Elliot Ave W., Suite 105, Seattle, Wa 98119, 206-286-4355, (usenet: thebes!mcgp1!flak) ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: Re: Touchtone History Date: 22 Jul 90 18:24:57 GMT Organization: very little In article <9706@accuvax.nwu.edu>, drivax!marking@uunet.uu.net (M.Marking) writes: > *Dual* Tone Multi Frequency.) The frequencies are: > > 1209 1336 1477 1653 Hz ^^^^WRONG! Actually, the fourth column tone is 1633 Hz. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #506 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00266; 24 Jul 90 3:00 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01878; 24 Jul 90 1:07 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27637; 24 Jul 90 0:03 CDT Date: Mon, 23 Jul 90 23:44:42 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #507 BCC: Message-ID: <9007232344.ab19955@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 23 Jul 90 23:44:30 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 507 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: A Couple Tech Questions About Cellular Phones [Dan Flak] Re: Telephone "Plant Management Systems" Query [Gord Deinstadt] Re: How Does a Telephone Receiver Work? [Todd Inch] Re: PollenTrak [Isaac Rabinovitch] Re: Reference Book Wanted on Telephones [Jane M. Fraser] Re: ANI Suggestions for Businesses [Stephen J. Friedl] Re: E911 -- All Operators Are Busy [John Higdon] Re: E911 -- All Operators Are Busy [Julian Macassey] Re: Cellular/Cordless Phones in Computer Room [Kauto Huopio] Re: Cellular/Cordless Phones in Computer Room [Peter da Silva] Re: Touchtone History [M. Marking] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dan Flak Subject: Re: A Couple Tech Questions About Cellular Phones Date: 22 Jul 90 06:05:37 GMT Reply-To: flak@mcgp1.uucp Organization: McCaw Cellular Communications, Inc, Seattle, Wa In article <9941@accuvax.nwu.edu> cyamamot%aludra.usc.edu@usc.edu (Cliff Yamamoto) writes: >Secondly, I haven't had any dropped calls yet, but can anyone explain >the heuristic used for the following: say you are leaving a cell and >the cell you are approaching is completely tied up. Will the cell you >are leaving boost your xmitter power and keep you on as long as >possible, or will it drop you? I would hope it would keep you going >on a marginal transmission until you can gracefully kill your call or >until the tied up cell becomes freed. Several things can happen when you are moving away from a cell site. When your signal drops below a certain threshold, it is detected by the switch servicing the cell to which you are speaking. The switch sends out a signal to the neighboring cells asking them to "take a look" at your signal. The one with the strongest signal wins, and the switch arranges a hand off between the old cell site, and the new one. Now, if the cell with the best read of your signal has all of its channels in use, the switch will tell it that it can't take the call because it's busy. (The mobile is a very dumb piece of equipment, but it has to know how to make a call. The cell is dumber still. All of its "thinking" is done at the switch). Some switches will have an alternate list and redirect you to another servicable cell, even though it doesn't have the best read of your signal. This may explain why you may get "scratchy" service in an area where you normally get good service. Your "normal" cell is busy, and you are handled by one further away. The last choice is to try to hang on to you as long as possible. The threshold levels are (should be) set in accordance with some common sense engineering. Cell sites on the fring areas of the coverage will probably have the threshold set way down so that the weakest signals are still attempted to be processed. Theory is that the cell probably isn't that busy and can afford to keep calls for a long time. The attempt is to get as much range as possible. On the other hand, the "DOWNTOWN" cell site (every system has a "DOWNTOWN" cell site :-) will probably have its threshold set so as to "force" handoffs as soon as possible. On busy cells, its a good idea to get rid of you as soon as somebody else can handle you. Pittsburgh is a unique example of this. As you leave town to the southwest, you enter a tunnel. You are most definately knocked off the "DOWNTOWN" cell site as cellular signals have problems penetrating rock. So, we've put a cell site in each of the tunnels. These sites only have a couple of channels each, and they are intended to handle the traffic in the tunnel only. The threshold on those puppies is set very high, so that you are constantly causing the switch to ask for a handoff, and such occurs as soon as you leave the tunnel. Dan Flak - McCaw Cellular Communications Inc., 201 Elliot Ave W., Suite 105, Seattle, Wa 98119, 206-286-4355, (usenet: thebes!mcgp1!flak) ------------------------------ From: Gord Deinstadt Subject: Re: Telephone "Plant Management Systems" Query Date: Sat, 21 Jul 1990 16:30:50 -0400 Organization: GeoVision Corp., Ottawa, Ontario velu@ra.src.umd.edu (Velu Sinha) writes: A friend is looking for references to (sw) systems which ... . maintain a database of existing phone lines, distribution points, types of cables, what sort of cables connect what points etc . let you view info on phones by clicking on geographic areas/ points, let you update data graphically and get related text data changed, and vice versa . maintain a database of rules telecom engineers use to plan phone networks. . help maintain records, help in preparing estimates for new cabling etc etc This would require significant underlying Geographical Info Systems and DBMS. This is a good summary description of a system put together by GeoVision for Southwestern Bell. I believe the system is now in routine use. I didn't work on the project, but if there is general interest I could probably find someone to post a technical description. (Original poster, please send me e-mail; my reply bounced.) Gord Deinstadt gdeinstadt@geovision.UUCP reachable via ...!uunet!geovision.UUCP ------------------------------ From: Todd Inch Subject: Re: How Does a Telephone Receiver Work? Organization: Global Tech International Inc. Date: Sun, 22 Jul 90 23:25:52 GMT In article <9849@accuvax.nwu.edu> dave%westmark@uunet.uu.net (Dave Levenson) writes: >Your telephone receiver may act in reverse, as a low-level microphone. In fact, you can build a "high-tech" tin-can quality phone by connecting two of these telephone handset "speakers" together with a pair of wires. No amp, no battery. They just provide enough of a miniscule signal to drive one other and will act as either a microphone or a speaker. Amazing. They're also great for crystal radios because they're so sensitive. Using the speaker as a microphone is quite common in inexpensive push-to-talk station intercoms such as the $15 two-wire type from Radio Shack. One end has the amp and battery, the other end is just a speaker (plus a push button which shorts a DC-blocking capacitor to signal the "base") and the push-to- talk button on the base unit essentially just swaps the two speakers. I've also seen PA systems on boats that use a horn-type speaker on the mast to talk to land or another ship which also allow eavesdropping, er, listening via the same horn speaker. Todd Inch, System Manager, Global Technology, Mukilteo WA (206) 742-9111 UUCP: {smart-host}!gtisqr!toddi ARPA: gtisqr!toddi@beaver.cs.washington.edu ------------------------------ From: Isaac Rabinovitch Subject: Re: PollenTrak Date: 22 Jul 90 23:08:19 GMT Organization: UESPA In <9891@accuvax.nwu.edu> cybrspc!roy@cs.umn.edu (Roy M. Silvernail) writes: >john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: >> An OTC pharmacutical company is sponsoring something called "Pollen >> Trak" (with the same announcer on the machine that did "Weather >> Trak"). You call the number and you get a pollen report for your >> area. Based on the ANI data obtained in real time you are given, >> supposedly, the correct report. It gives me a Sacramento area report; >> that's hardly useful since San Jose is somewhat outside Sacramento's >> geographic sphere of influence. >I just had to try it. The recorded voice asked me to punch in my area >code and phone number. (So much for ANI!) Then, it was kind enough to >give _me_ the Sacramento pollen report, too! This is interesting. My experience is slightly different. It may be that there are two Pollen Trak numbers, since the one I've seen on TV lately is not the one I use. Anyway, the first few times I called, I got the report for my area, without my having to enter anything. I also got a coupon offer (you leave voice mail with your name and address), which I ignored. Subsequent calls got the pollen report and a brief commercial, but not the coupon offer. This piqued my curiousity: could they possibly be keeping a database of phone numbers? So I tried calling from various pay phones. Usually a pay phone gets the Sacramento report (especially if it's long distance carrier isn't ATT), but not always. Sometimes (but no more often than on a private phone), I'm asked to enter my phone number. The coupon offer is repeated at what seem to be random intervals. I never get the Sacramento report from my home phone. And yes, I'm one of those wimps who stuck with ATT! ergo@netcom.uucp Isaac Rabinovitch atina!pyramid!apple!netcom!ergo Silicon Valley, CA uunet!mimsy!ames!claris!netcom!ergo ------------------------------ From: "Jane M. Fraser" Subject: Re: Reference Book Wanted on Telephones Date: 23 Jul 90 17:14:55 GMT Organization: Ohio State Univ CAST >>Understanding Telephone Electronics >>Developed and Published by Texas Instruments Learning Center >>J. L. Fike, et al 1983 >>Radio Shack catalog number 62-1388 I (rather, my TA) tried very hard to get our local Radio Shack to get copies of this book for a class I am teaching this summer. We made it very clear that ten people would buy copies. We gave up and made photocopies of the whole book, something I hate doing. Jane Fraser ------------------------------ From: "Stephen J. Friedl" Subject: Re: ANI Suggestions for Businesses Date: 22 Jul 90 20:07:53 GMT Organization: VSI*FAX Tech Center In article <9989@accuvax.nwu.edu>, lenny@icus.icus.com (Lenny Tropiano) writes: > In July 1990 issue of INBOUND/OUTBOUND magazine, devoted to ANI > ("Improving the way America does business"), there was a column called > "Yellow Pages ANI Directory". This was a special supplemental issue put together by Harry Newton and MCI Corp., the latter of whom is pushing their real-time ANI service. I happen to like Harry Newton a great deal, and the issue at hand was really excellent -- very enlightening -- but when one reads advertising concealed as editorial, one must be aware that one might not be getting The Whole Truth. Stephen J. Friedl, KA8CMY / Software Consultant / Tustin, CA / 3B2-kind-of-guy +1 714 544 6561 / friedl@mtndew.Tustin.CA.US / {uunet,attmail}!mtndew!friedl ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: E911 -- All Operators Are Busy Date: 23 Jul 90 01:03:21 PDT (Mon) From: John Higdon "John C. Fowler" <0003513813@mcimail.com> writes: > Surely not "Thank you for calling 911. All of our operators are > currently busy, but if you will hold, the next available operator will > assist you." In the first month of operation, the Santa Clara County E911 did just that. There was a MAJOR stink, particularly fanned by the media, and those in charge of the project were called on the carpet. The initially offered explanation? "Well, a lot of the time there isn't a lot of traffic and we can't just have people sitting around doing nothing most of the time." Needless to say, this didn't fly very well. Ultimately the solution was along the lines of that described by Patrick, with calls being routed to alternate positions. But one interesting problem of 911 surfaced at this time. Sometimes the system is overloaded by multiple calls reporting the same major event. Even though only one call would be sufficient to summon aid for the incident, the PSAP has no instantaneous way of knowing that a cluster of calls are not for separate incidents. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Julian Macassey Subject: Re: E911 -- All Operators Are Busy Date: 23 Jul 90 14:34:48 GMT Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood California U.S.A. In article <10007@accuvax.nwu.edu>, 0003513813@mcimail.com (John C. Fowler) writes: > The County of Los Alamos (population approximately 20,000) has E911, > one 911 operator, and five 911 lines available. My question is, what > do 911 services do if there are more calls than operators available? Here in Los Angeles they put you on hold. I know this because I once called in to report a hillside fire. They put me on hold while I watched the fire spread. But here in California they cut back on libraries and emergency services when short of cash so they can keep the Gay and Lesbian services running. This is how the "gummint" lets us know they are short of money and punishes voters for reducing gummint funds. Julian Macassey, n6are julian@bongo.info.com ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian N6ARE@K6IYK (Packet Radio) n6are.ampr.org [44.16.0.81] voice (213) 653-4495 [Nervous Moderator's Note: This thread is starting to make me fidget. How many special issues will be needed to handle responses? How about a blanket response from me: I am sure not everyone agrees with your assessment of which government-funded services are less important than others. Other readers will probably contact you *personally* (my emphasis!) to discuss this further. PT] ------------------------------ From: Kauto Huopio OH5LFM Subject: Re: Cellular/Cordless Phones in Computer Room Date: 23 Jul 90 21:19:11 GMT Organization: Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland In article <10011@accuvax.nwu.edu> flak@mcgp1.uucp (Dan Flak) writes: > >Please relate your experiences in using either cellular or cordless > >phones in a computer room, especially as it relates to any EMI that > >affected the operation of a computing or electronic media device. Well, I went to a local store once and made a "RF-Reset" to an Omron cash register :) by talking at a NMT cellular phone operating around 450 MHz, with about five watts out.. The cash register wrnt totally mad, printing random numbers, but it did NOT open the cash box. NMT 900 is _nice_ !! I can take a phone from Finland and go to Switzerland and the cellular works just fine. Kauto Huopio (huopio@kannel.lut.fi) *US Mail: Kauto Huopio, Punkkerikatu 1 A 10, SF-53850 Lappeenranta, Finland * *WARNING! We have holiday season here, so be patient with my answers.. * ------------------------------ From: peter da silva Subject: Re: Cellular/Cordless Phones in Computer Room Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Date: Mon, 23 Jul 90 16:59:01 GMT In article <9971@accuvax.nwu.edu> quack!mrapple@uop.uop.edu (Nick Sayer) writes: > Can't comment on cellular. I am a Ham, and the highest frequency I > deal with on a regular basis is 162.995 MHz. Everything from there > down gets trashed pretty good unless you use an outdoor antenna (which > is forbidden in my #&^@&#@^#*^*@!! condo complex) or cable (catv/cafm). Have you tried the old slinky-in-a-soup-can technique? When you want reception, "accidentally" knock the slinky off your windowsill so it hangs down over the edge. Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` ------------------------------ From: "M.Marking" Subject: Re: Touchtone History Date: 23 Jul 90 19:29:43 GMT Reply-To: drivax!marking@uunet.uu.net Organization: Digital Research (Japan) Inc. ssc!tad@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Tad Cook) writes: ) In article <9706@accuvax.nwu.edu>, drivax!marking@uunet.uu.net ) (M.Marking) writes: ) > *Dual* Tone Multi Frequency.) The frequencies are: ) > ) > 1209 1336 1477 1653 Hz ) ^^^^WRONG! ) Actually, the fourth column tone is 1633 Hz. You seem to be right. My reference was page 88 of "Telecommunications Switching" by J. Gordon Pearce, Plenum Press, 1981. It seems I reached for the wrong reference first. 1633 Hz is the choice of: den Heijer and Tolsma, Data Communications, Glentop, 1986 Martin, Introduction to Teleprocessing, Prentice-Hall, 1972 Signetics, TEA1046 data sheet, 1985 Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of the Standard. So 1633 Hz wins over 1653 Hz by 3 to 1. I offer my apologies. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #507 ******************************   ISSUES 508 AND 509 REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. ISSUE 508 FOLLOWS 509. Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01708; 24 Jul 90 4:27 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab21564; 24 Jul 90 2:15 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac01878; 24 Jul 90 1:07 CDT Date: Tue, 24 Jul 90 0:48:06 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #509 BCC: Message-ID: <9007240048.ab31960@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 24 Jul 90 00:47:35 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 509 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Bell Canada Ontario Toll Network 100% Digital [Henry Troup] What Rate Applies For Phone Used as an Intercom? [Phil Earnhardt] College Phracking [Tareq Hoque] BC Politician's Cellular Calls Taped; Big Mess Ensues [David Leibold] Strange Recordings [Doug Lee] Urban Folklore and Nicad Zapping [Jack Winslade] Questions of International ISDN Developing [Jundar Huang] User Document Needed [Ben Hawkins] Conference Bridge [Jayson Raymond] US Sprint's FON FRIEND -- Will You be Mine? [Steve Huff] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Henry Troup Subject: Bell Canada Ontario Toll Network 100% Digital Date: 23 Jul 90 15:01:22 GMT Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ltd. This is from Bell News, Bell Canada's Ontario Region newspaper for employees. An SP-1 (installed 1974) in Thunder Bay, Ontario was the last analog toll switch in Ontario. It was replaced by a DMS-200. In the last ten years, Ontario has gone from 57 analog toll switches to 22 digital. "The digital equipment has improved efficiency in Thunder Bay's Operator Services with the implementation of TOPS enhancements such as automatic calling card service and AOSS with voice response." "The actual cutover involved 89 offices from White River to the Manitoba border and noth to James Bay." (Thunder Bay is pretty far north and west in Ontario, and the population density is low. The 89 offices are likely local and adajacent toll offices, probably ranging down to 100 line rural service boxes of a variety of kinds, including DMS remotes with standalone capability.) This table appears: Ontario Toll Switches Machine Type Year-End Count 1980 1987 1988 1989 1990 SXS ITD 14 1 1 0 0 #5 XBAR 23 5 2 2 0 XBT 8 0 0 0 0 (Crossbar Tandem) 4A XBAR 3 2 2 0 0 SP-1 4W 8 5 4 2 0 DMS 100/200 0 6 5 4 1 DMS 200 1 10 14 16 21 Total 57 29 28 24 22 "Another modernization thrust is ... installation of DMS 100. Ontario will modernize about 400,000 lines using [digital] technology in 1990. This, combined with the Region's growth, will [add] 650,000 lines of digital ... this year resulting in a base of 3.2 million digital lines by [year-end].... 'We're aiming for 90 per cent digital by 1995' John [Wylie, senior operations manager, Network Planning] states. Part of the local modernization program involves putting LAMA (Local Automatic Message Accounting) into all DMS 100's. 'With LAMA we can introduce direct trunking from end offices to remote offices and capture billing data at the end office on the LAMA tape resulting in trunking economies and efficiencies couples with improved survivability,' John notes." Henry Troup BNR owns but does not share my opinions uunet!bnrgate!hwt%bwdlh490 HWT@BNR.CA 613-765-2337 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Jul 90 21:32:11 MDT From: Phil Earnhardt Subject: What Rate Applies For Phone Used as an Intercom? My folks have developed a rural area in central North Carolina of about a dozen 10-acre tracts. They put in a private road and have a power gate at its entrance. There's also a telephone. The phone will be programmed with 2-digit codes for each residence and the owners will be able to open the gate via the phone connection. The problem is that Southern Bell wants to charge business rates for the line. Southern Bell said that there are about five lines in the state that fall into this category and that they had decided that they qualify as business lines, even though they seem to fall through the cracks of the guidelines. I can see a reasonable case for calling this either a residence or a business line. Does anyone have any insights about this particular case? If not, what sort of procedure can my folks go through to appeal this decision? phil PS As an aside, it was very sad to see the electric and phone lines being buried separately. Is there a good reason why they couldn't use the same trenches? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Jul 90 16:13:01 edt From: Tareq Hoque Subject: College Phracking These college phracking stories remind me of my days at MIT and dealing with Dormline ( . . . collect and third party calls, not accepted). Since Dormline was 1940's era step-by-step, it didn't have any billing mechanism, thus it only accepted incoming calls, and you could only make internal, toll-free or collect calls. Anyhow, the only way to get full telephone service was to get Netel to install your own personal line. A common thing to do in the dormitories was to share local lines with several rooms, which required bridging lines and reconfiguring if anyone changed rooms). One day I lent my friend my Western Electric lineman's set to do some maintenance on the bridge. It turns out that someone in the dorm saw him playing in the phone box in the basement and called the Campus police. When the campus police arrived, they questioned him on what he was doing and seemed confident that he wasn't doing anything malicious. They let him proceed with modifications but they did take down his name for their notes. After my friend was done, he gave me the lineman's set back. However, later in the week I got a frantic phone call from this friend saying that the CP's have been calling him because they want him to turn in the line set to the CP headquarters, because he would be breaking the law if he didn't. Well I told my friend that it was not illegal to own or use this equipment for legitimate purposes, but he asked me to talk to the police. I asked the police why they thought I should give them my own personal property. They said it was against the law to own a lineman's set. I asked them to cite the law that prohibits possession of the equipment. They couldn't answer. Then they said they wanted it because I could do illegal activities with the set. I told them I could kill somebody with my kitchen knife, did they want that too? In the end I told them I was refusing to give my property to them. They said they would turn me in to the Dean of Student affairs if they didn't receive it in 24 hours. I never turned it in, and I never heard about the incident again. The good old days. tareq ------------------------------ From: woody Subject: BC Politician's Cellular Calls Taped; Big Mess Ensues Date: Sat, 21 Jul 90 23:19:01 EDT The _Toronto_Star_, 21st July 1990 had an article entitled "Phone puts B.C. whiz kid's career on hold". It was about the controversy surrounding former British Columbia Attorney-General Bud Smith, after some tapes of some of his cellular phone calls were released. Brian Graves, a freelance radio reported in Victoria, BC started to tape {_some of Smith's cellular calls, particularly those exposing a dubious liaison with TV reporter Margot Sinclair. Smith also let loose with some nasty rhetoric about his politician buddies (within the same party at that). These cellular recordings were referred to as the "Rocky and Bullwinkle Show" tapes, considering that "Rocky" was a nickname Smith used for TV reporter Sinclair. Needless to say, a whole mess of ethical and legal questions has come up, for both reporters and politicians. It should be noted that Canada does not have the same restrictions on actual reception of cellular telephone frequencies that exist with the ECPA in the US. Technically, it is legal in Canada to receive the cellular frequencies, but there is a "secrecy of communications" law which would prohibit divulging any information gained from receiving non-broadcast radio transmissions. ------------------------------ From: Doug Lee Subject: Strange Recordings Date: 22 Jul 90 18:28:24 GMT Reply-To: Doug Lee Organization: Athenanet, Inc., Springfield, IL All this talk of late intercepts fits well with what happened to me just last week: I have a good friend in Maine who I call periodically. Last week, however, her phone line was disconnected (for reasons having nothing to do with her). Rather than getting the standard "The number you have reached -- ... -- has been [temporarily] disconnected," I received the following message: "We're sorry, your call cannot be completed as dialed. You must now dial seven digits for a local call." To slightly modify a quote from a Douglas Adams book, "That's obviously a strange new use of the word _local_ with which I was not previously acquainted." Actually, I suspect the normal intercept, for whatever reason, missed its opportunity to enlighten me as to the line's supposed condition, allowing a Maine switch the honor. As long as I'm not charged for that (actually, those--I tried several times) "local" call, I guess I don't care who's responsibility it is to give me the bad news. Curious as always, Doug Lee (dgl292@athenanet.com or uunet!pallas!dgl292) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Jul 90 14:07:26 EDT From: Jack Winslade Subject: Urban Folklore and Nicad Zapping Reply-to: Jack.Winslade@p0.f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537 I can assure you first-hand that zapping nicad cells does not fall in the same category as the 'Mouse in the Soda Bottle' and the 'Kentucky Fried Rat'. Two people with whom I work (one a CBET, the other a PhD.) have made nicad zapping devices. I have used both. They work. I should qualify that by saying that in SOME cases, SOME shorted nicad cells can be brought back to life by the careful application of energy from a charged capacitor. Using this technique will not, however, restore old, dead, cold-in-the-morgue nicads back to their original virility. The technique seems to work best on relatively new nicads that seemingly will not take a charge. A good candidate would be a cell in a 'stack' that shows zero volts, while the others in the stack show normal or close to normal voltage. Here's the tricky part. By trial, error, and experience, you must gain a 'feel' for just how much energy it will take to burn out the short without significantly damaging the rest of the cell. The zapper will usually have a potentiometer to vary the charging voltage, and maybe a switch to select a couple of different values of capacitors. The idea is to let the shorted area dissipate almost all of the energy stored in the capacitor -- that being in the form of the heat that burns open the short. After the short is burned open, any additional energy will be dissipated as heat by the good portions of the cell itself. This can damage it. A couple of caveats. Zap one and only one cell at a time. NEVER zap across a battery ('stack') of more than one cell. If you do, most of the energy will be dissipated in the form of heat in the good cell(s), and it will have almost no effect on the bad one. If one zap burns the short out, do not repeat it '... to see if it gets even better'. Charge it and use it. If a zap does not burn out the short, raise the energy a bit and try again. Stop after the first zap that significantly raises the impedance of the cell. In some cases, zapped nicad cells will appear to have close to their rated capacity for close to their rated life. In other cases, they will be weaker and fail prematurely. I would not recommend this technique on cells used in critical applications, such as in defibrillators, but for use in cellular phones, I don't see any major problems. If it works, you've saved the cost of a new pack, if not, well at least you've tried. Good Day! JSW [1:285/666@fidonet] DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha (1:285/666) --- Through FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 Jack.Winslade@f2.n285.z1.fidonet.org ------------------------------ From: Jundar Huang Subject: Questions of International ISDN Developing Date: 21 Jul 90 01:29:49 GMT Organization: Citicorp/TTI, Santa Monica I am looking for some information regarding to ISDN development in different countries outside of United States, such as U.K, Germany, France, Japan, and etc. What is their current stage of ISDN and what kinds of services is provided today? Are international ISDN services also available in these countries? Who and how are the carriers providing the international ISDN services ? Can anyone give some hints about my questions or point me to where I can get these information ? ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jul 90 19:21:22 GMT From: hawkins@ucunix.san.uc.edu Subject: User Document Needed Organization: University of Cincinnati I am posting this for someone who does not have net access. I do not personally read this group, so please either call (513) 558-1888 collect, or respond to me via e-mail, at the address listed below. The University of Cincinnati's Telecommunications department needs documentation on a Mitel SX-5, showing programming and feature access codes. If you call collect, ask for Tom Ridgeway. Ben Hawkins University of Cincinnati hawkins@ucunix.san.uc.edu ben.hawkins@uc.edu hawkins@ucbeh.bitnet [Moderator's Note: Are you unable to get this documentation direct from Mitel? PT] ------------------------------ From: Jayson Raymond Subject: Conference Bridge Date: Mon, 23 Jul 90 14:56:13 PDT I am hoping to tap from the invaluable knowledge source of this list, and would appreciate any leads some one could provide me with. I am in need of a conference bridge or similar device for an information provider service that will allow me to do the following. Given about 32 simultaneous callers, I would like to dynamically select between who speaks to who, and allow multiple people to converse at the same time. Dynamically reconfigurable so that ideally it could be one big 32 caller conference or, while all callers are still online, be reconfigured for as many as 16 two party conversations, or any configuration inbetween. Ideally this would also be PC based, and hopefully easily interfaceable to call processing boards by Natural MicroSystems, Dialogic, or others. The ideal system would be as described above, but if I have to make compromises in the system design, I will. I currently am contemplating utilizing the Dialogic AMX81 to allow for only one on one conversations, if I can't find something better. The number of simultaneous callers is flexible, hopefully expandable from 4 to 32 or so. Thank you in advance for any info you may be able to provide. Jayson jraymond@bbn.com ------------------------------ From: huff@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu Subject: US Sprint's FON FRIEND -- Will You be Mine? Date: 23 Jul 90 20:41:36 CDT Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services Enclosed with my US Sprint bill today I recieved a FON-FRIEND application. It's designed for me to send it to one of my friends who doesn't have US Sprint. According to the literature: ... to help us introduce them [your friend(s)] to the many advantages of US Sprint long-distance service-- and to help you earn $15 of free calling-- simply complete your portion of this mailer and send it to your best FON-FRIEND. The FON-FRIEND receives thirty minutes free calling (which just about covers the l.d. carrier switchover costs. Does anybody want to be my friend? Steve Huff, MBA student, University of Kansas (currently interning at Hill's Pet Products, Topeka, KS) WorkNet: 913 231 5760 My electronic dicta may or may not represent views of either organization. Internet: HUFF@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu Bitnet: HUFF@Ukanvax.Bitnet Snail: P.O. Box 1225, Lawrence, KS 66044-8225 HomeNet: 913 749 4720 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #509 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02133; 24 Jul 90 4:58 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21564; 24 Jul 90 2:11 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab01878; 24 Jul 90 1:07 CDT Date: Tue, 24 Jul 90 0:12:34 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #508 BCC: Message-ID: <9007240012.ab23811@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 24 Jul 90 00:12:22 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 508 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Pseudo PBX For the Home? [Julian Macassey] Re: COCOTs, FCC, DPU, etc [Stan M. Krieger] Re: How Does Changing of Prefix by Telco Improve Service? [Lars Poulsen] Re: Caller ID Update [Benjamin Ellsworth] Re: AT&T Redlining [Robert Savery] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Julian Macassey Subject: Re: Pseudo PBX For the Home? Date: 23 Jul 90 14:50:09 GMT Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood California U.S.A. In article <10010@accuvax.nwu.edu>, lmg@cbnewsh.att.com writes: > In article <9952@accuvax.nwu.edu> Martin Ewing cs.yale.edu> writes: > >In our new house we have expanded to quite a number of phone devices, > >about six, using two lines. As you might expect, the ringing voltage > >is down. > At what load would one start to have problems? I checked the ringer > equivalence numbers of the devices on one line, and I got: It's dejavu time again here on TELECOM Digest. Those of you tired of this stuff can move on here. Those seeking insight to the mysteries of telephone ringers hang on. > Modem 0.3B > Answering Machine 0.4B > 1 Line Telephone 0.7B (and 0.4A) > 2 Line Telephone 1.0B So your total REN is 2.4 > The other line has: > 2 Line Telephone 1.0B > 1 Line Telephone 1.0A > 1 Line Telephone 1.0B > 1 Line Telephone unknown > Answering Machine 0.4B So your total REN is 3.4 > I haven't noticed any problems, but I'm not sure what to look for. > And what are the A's and B's all about? You shouldn't have noticed any problems. You are well within limits for RENs. The exception would be if you were using "Subscriber Carrier" which handles an REN of about 2. The A ringer is sensitive to an AC waveform of 20 or 30 Hz +or- 3Hz. A B ringer is sensitive to AC frequencies between 15.3 and 68 Hz. Below is part of an article I once wrote. It should explain a bit about ringers. The Ringer Simply speaking this is a device that alerts you to an incoming call. It may be a bell, light, or warbling tone. The telephone company sends a ringing signal which is an AC waveform. Although the common frequency used in the United States is 20 HZ, it can be any frequency between 15 and 68 Hz. Most of the world uses frequencies between 20 and 40 Hz. The voltage at the subscribers end depends upon loop length and number of ringers attached to the line; it could be between 40 and 150 Volts. Note that ringing voltage can be hazardous; when you're working on a phone line, be sure at least one telephone on the line is off the hook (in use); if any are not, take high voltage precautions. The telephone company may or may not remove the 48 VDC during ringing; as far as you're concerned, this is not important. Don't take chances. The ringing cadence - the timing of ringing to pause - varies from company to company. In the United States the cadence is normally two seconds of ringing to four seconds of pause. An unanswered phone in the United States will keep ringing until the caller hangs up. But in some countries, the ringing will "time out" if the call is not answered. The most common ringing device is the gong ringer, a solenoid coil with a clapper that strikes either a single or double bell. A gong ringer is the loudest signaling device that is solely phone-line powered. Modern telephones tend to use warbling ringers, which are usually ICs powered by the rectified ringing signal. The audio transducer is either a piezoceramic disk or a small loudspeaker via a transformer. Ringers are isolated from the DC of the phone line by a capacitor. Gong ringers in the United States use a 0.47 uF capacitor. Warbling ringers in the United States generally use a 1.0 uF capacitor. Telephone companies in other parts of the world use capacitors between 0.2 and 2.0 uF. The paper capacitors of the past have been replaced almost exclusively with capacitors made of Mylar film. Their voltage rating is always 250 Volts. The capacitor and ringer coil, or Zeners in a warbling ringer, constitute a resonant circuit. When your phone is hung up ("on hook") the ringer is across the line; if you have turned off the ringer you have merely silenced the transducer, not removed the circuit from the line. When the telephone company uses the ringer to test the line, it sends a low-voltage, low frequency signal down the line (usually 2 Volts at 10 Hz) to test for continuity. The company keeps records of the expected signals on your line. This is how it can tell you have added equipment to your line. If your telephone has had its ringer disconnected, the telephone company cannot detect its presence on the line. Because there is only a certain amount of current available to drive ringers, if you keep adding ringers to your phone line you will reach a point at which either all ringers will cease to ring, some will cease to ring, or some ringers will ring weakly. In the United States the phone company will guarantee to ring five normal ringers. A normal ringer is defined as a standard gong ringer as supplied in a phone company standard desk telephone. Value given to this ringer is Ringer Equivalence Number (REN) 1. If you look at the FCC registration label of your telephone, modem, or other device to be connected to the phone line, you'll see the REN number. It can be as high as 3.2, which means that device consumes the equivalent power of 3.2 standard ringers, or 0.0, which means it consumes no current when subjected to a ringing signal. If you have problems with ringing, total up your RENs; if the total is greater than 5, disconnect ringers until your REN is at 5 or below. Other countries have various ways of expressing REN, and some systems will handle no more than three of their standard ringers. But whatever the system, if you add extra equipment and the phones stop ringing, or the phone answering machine won't pick up calls, the solution is disconnect ringers until the problem is resolved. Warbling ringers tend to draw less current than gong ringers, so changing from gong ringers to warbling ringers may help you spread the sound better. Frequency response is the second criterion by which a ringer is described. In the United States most gong ringers are electromechanically resonant. They are usually resonant at 20 and 30 Hz (+&- 30 Hz). The FCC refers to this as A so a normal gong ringer is described as REN 1.0A. The other common frequency response is known as type B. Type B ringers will respond to signals between 15.3 and 68.0 Hz. Warbling ringers are all type B and some United States gong ringers are type B. Outside the United States, gong ringers appear to be non-frequency selective, or type B. Because a ringer is supposed to respond to AC waveforms, it will tend to respond to transients (such as switching transients) when the phone is hung up, or when the rotary dial is used on an extension phone. This is called "bell tap" in the United States; in other countries, it's often called "bell tinkle." While European and Asian phones tend to bell tap, or tinkle, United States ringers that bell tap are considered defective. The bell tap is designed out of gong ringers and fine tuned with bias springs. Warbling ringers for use in the United States are designed not to respond to short transients; this is usually accomplished by rectifying the AC and filtering it before it powers the IC, then not switching on the output stage unless the voltage lasts long enough to charge a second capacitor. Julian Macassey, n6are julian@bongo.info.com ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian N6ARE@K6IYK (Packet Radio) n6are.ampr.org [44.16.0.81] voice (213) 653-4495 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Jul 90 13:19:47 EDT From: S M Krieger Subject: Re: COCOTs, FCC, DPU, etc Organization: Summit NJ > > I wish to complain (loudly) about various local COCOTs practices of > > prohibiting access to long distance carriers via 10XXX or 950-10XX and > > of disabling the keypad after the call is completed. > Oh yes -- the FCC has decreed that COCOTs will allow access to all > long distance carriers doing business in the area. That really got the > COCOT owners worried. I believe the real penalty for non-compliance is > that the FCC will think bad thoughts about the guilty COCOT owner. Has > anyone ever--repeat EVER--found a COCOT that allows 10XXX access to > multiple carriers? I rest my case. When I was in Las Vegas last week, my observation was that at least 75% of the public telephones are COCOTs (CenTel is the local operating company). What made things really rough is that the COCOTs I did use looked like the Bell company phones. First of all, besides not supporting 10XXX, these phones do not support 1 (700) 555-2368 either, so users cannot determine the LD carrier without asking. Anyway, when I hit "0" and got the CenTel operator, she said she couldn't connect me to AT&T, and that I should use a CenTel public phone. When I then hit "00", I got a recording telling me how to place the call directly, but to hit a "3" if I need a live person. Anyway, an ITI operator answered, and I asked to be connected to AT&T; she did connect me. Now, I asked the second operator if he was AT&T, and when he said he was, I placed the call through him, asking for the calling card rate. So if I do find an AOS charge on my phone bill next month, I will merely report to NJ Bell about the fraudulent misrepresentation by the LD carrier, and that they should stop trying to collect the money from me for the AOS. Finally, from other sources, I believe the COCOT owner position on LD selection is that as long as they do connect you, they are in compliance with the FCC regulations. Giving customers a choice of LD carrier doesn't mean they have to support 10XXX. Also, what the COCOT owners want for having to support LD carrier selection is payment for the use of their phone, either in the coin slot or from the selected LD company. -- Stan Krieger Summit, NJ ...!att!attunix!smk ------------------------------ From: Lars Poulsen Subject: Re: How Does Changing of Prefix by Telco Improve Service? Organization: Rockwell CMC Date: Mon, 23 Jul 90 17:25:58 GMT In article <9993@accuvax.nwu.edu> todd@ivucsb.sba.ca.us (Todd Day) writes: > UCSB Telephone Prefix Changes to 893 I would hope that somebody from UCSB Telecom can give better information, but the following represents what I as a "neighbor" believe. >(1) Why did GTE feel it necessary to change UCSB at all when it > appears that there were many numbers left in the current prefix? > 9999 - 3800 = 6199 extensions left, right? Not necessarily, see below. >(2) What does changing prefixes buy GTE? As far as I know, UCSB > was the sole "owner" of the 961 prefix, although I had heard > rumours that Delco GM and Santa Barbara Research Center had > a couple of 961 phone lines that had something or other to > do with the university. I have always heard that the 805-961 prefix was shared between UCSB, SBRC, Delco and other companies with Centrex in the research park area. >(3) If there is some kind of new magic box that GTE is installing > to handle special needs of the univeristy, why couldn't they > keep the 961 prefix and swap the lines from the old box to > the new box on August 4? UCSB a couple of years ago replaced the Centrex service with a PBX. At the time they were allowed to keep the old number block. I suspect that the agreement at the time guaranteed the old numbers for a minimum period, which has now expired, and that GTE now wants to reclaim the old block either to expand other Centrexes in the area. >(4) If I call the university at 7:59am on August 4 using the 961 > prefix, what will happen to my call at 8:00am? If we had > caller ID out here, what would happen to an outgoing call? I don't know whether they will be moving the trunks to a different switch; if they do, the calls will drop (and there may actually be a few seconds when the lines are dead). If the cutover is all software, the calls will survive. I don't know if such cutovers are timed exactly enough that you'd be able to test it by placing such a call. (If the cutover actually happens 15 minutes later, your test would be invalid). Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer CMC Rockwell lars@CMC.COM ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Jul 90 17:35:33 pdt From: Benjamin Ellsworth Subject: Re: Caller ID Update Does anyone know, or will anyone speculate about the impact the recent state rulings regarding CID will have on 800 ANI? I mean if it's illegal for an individual to find out the caller's number, then it's illegal no matter how it is marketted. Right? Benjamin Ellsworth | ben@cv.hp.com | INTERNET All relevant disclaimers apply. [Moderator's Note: Except that you are entitled to the information if you are paying for the call, which is what 800 calls are about: the receiver automatically paying for the call, although there is a difference between real-time delivery of the information such as American Express receives versus billing information supplied up to a month later, such as I receive. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Jul 90 18:17:25 EDT From: Robert Savery Subject: Re: AT&T Redlining Reply-to: Robert.Savery@p5.f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org In a message of <16 Jul 90 14:05:00>, Gregg Siegfried writes: GS>It is my impression that the "redlining" of various high-fraud areas GS>by AT&T is more for their customers' protection than their own. The GS>concern is that there are many people hanging around these areas GS>trying to 'spot' credit card numbers as they're used to make calls. GS>Disallowing the use of credit cards in these areas has a twofold GS>effect ... First, since you cannot use your credit card, an insidious GS>individual cannot spot it as you make a call, and second, the thief GS>with a stolen credit card number cannot use it in that particular area GS>as a "long distance reseller" as is the practice. GS>As such, I believe a class-action suit would be overkill. You may GS>argue that it is your right to give your credit card number away to an GS>onlooker if you feel like it, and to a certain extent I agree. On the GS>other hand, since the telephone company usually ends up footing the GS>bill for fraud ("Hey! I didn't make these calls! Take them off my GS>bill."), you can hardly blame them for taking such minimal measures to GS>cover their backs. Protecting your card numbers has very little if anything to do with it. AT&T, as well as the other LD carriers got tired of getting stuck with the bill when charge calls were made from these areas. It was common practice to make collect calls and then later use the " I don't know anyone there!! " argument to get the bills taken off. I can't blame the LD carriers. They are stuck in a no win situation. They can allow the charge calls and loose millions in fraud or they can force everyone to use coins and end up getting nailed with bad pr and lawsuits. If I recall, a group of prisoners tried a lawsuit after the LD carrier serving their prison put them on coin only calls. After the LD company showed the judge their records of the millions of dollars lost in 1 year on the half dozen phones in the prison, he threw the case out. I'd chalk this one up as one of the downsides of life and make sure I've got enough change next time you need to use a locked out phone. Bob [1:285/666.5@fidonet] Trebor's Castle, Lavista (1:285/666.5) --- Through FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 Robert.Savery@f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #508 ******************************   ISSUES 508 AND 509 REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. 509 IS IN FRONT OF 508. Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24258; 25 Jul 90 4:09 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18738; 25 Jul 90 2:26 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab02167; 25 Jul 90 1:21 CDT Date: Wed, 25 Jul 90 1:02:33 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #510 BCC: Message-ID: <9007250102.ab02118@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 25 Jul 90 01:02:06 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 510 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson The Opening Days of Craig Neidorf's Trial [Computer Underground Digest] Precedents Could be Set in Neidorf's Trial [Jim Thomas] PT/Phrack Article Cited in Niedorf Trial [David Schanen & Glen Overby] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 24 Jul 90 02:20 CDT From: TK0JUT2%NIU.BITNET@uicvm.uic.edu Subject: The Opening Days of Craig Neidorf's Trial The first day: Jury selection. The trial of Craig Neidorf began in federal court in Chicago today, Judge Nicholas Bua presiding. The first day was devoted entirely to jury selection. The twelve jurors were selected by 4 p.m., and the altenrates by about 4:45. The judge indicated that the trial could take from seven to ten days. Craig's parents and grand parents attended and, not counting the prospective jurors, about a half dozen other non-participants. Only one mainstream media person was evident, a television reporter from Channel 7 in Chicago. Those present indicted that the jury represents a reasonable cross section of Chicago's population. In the second day of Craig Neidorf's trial in Chicago, both sides presented their opening arguments. The prosecution wheeled in two shopping carts containing documents, presumably to be used as evidence. Bill Cook, the prosecutor, down-played the technical aspects of the case and tried to frame it as a simple one of theft and receiving/transporting stolen property. Sheldon Zenner's opening statements were described as "absolutely brilliant," and challenged the definitions and interpretations of the prosecution. More detail will follow as the trial progresses. ------------------- [Moderator's Note: My thanks to the folks at Computer Underground Digest for sharing these reports, which will appear here on a frequent basis for the duration of the trial. A much more detailed report, including a look at the jurors who will decide the case is in the current issue of CUD. To receive CUD on a regular basis in your mailbox, write to the address shown above. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Jul 90 17:37 CDT From: jt Subject: Precedents Could Be Set in Neidorf Trial In TELECOM DIGEST V10, #505, Pat Townson writes: >You say it might well be 'a major turning point in the future of >electronic communications', but I don't think it will be quite that dramatic. Unlike simple "access" cases, Craig Neidorf's trial raises, for the first time to my knowledge in a federal court, the Constitutional protections accorded to electronic journals. Depending on how the issues are presented and on Judge Bua's rulings, the consequences could be minimal. On the other hand, they could be dramatic, and those who have read Judge Bua's memorandum order in denying Craig's motions to dismiss believe that the judge would like to establish some precedent on at least some of the issues. No single case in a federal district court is likely to be a "landmark" decision, but it can establish precedent for several years within the court's jurisdiction and also shape law in other federal and state jurisdictions. A decision that weakens the protections of electronic communication could encourage over-zealous prosecutors to continue their witch hunts by targeting such digests as TELECOM Digest. This Digest has been far more helpful in learning the techology of the telecom companies than any of the hacker journals. And, if memory serves, the Moderator quite explicitly advocated ripping off Lotus solely for the purpose of retaliating against Mitch Kapor's EFF participation, and not for the challenge of learning more about the software. How does this differ from the actions of those he criticizes? >The name 'Phrack' seems to be a combination of the two words 'phreak' >and 'hack', two words with a derogatory inference even to many of the >people who use them to describe themselves. It is almost as though it >was being stuck up under the government's nose with the attitude >'see if you can stop us'. The name "PHRACK" is, indeed, a combination of those two "nasty" words. But, the claim that these have a "derogatory inference" (perhaps Pat means "derogatory connotations," because words don't "infer") is ludicrous. The term combines two separate activities which, at the time of introduction, were hardly derogatory. PHRACK first appeared in November, 1985, when the founders were in their early-to-mid teens (I think the average age was about fifteen). It may be comforting to impute motives to those you dislike many years after the fact, but more often than not such imputation reflects more about our own motives than those of our adversary. >Another thing that annoys the government and the telcos is the constant >(and I think sick) swapping out of /f/ with /ph/ on words out of some >misplaced reverence to the telephone network. This is a whole topic in >itself: the swapping of /f/ and /ph/ to make some point to readers could be >discussed in detail. If one group, even if that group is law-enforcement, becomes annoyed at the language usage of another, so what? Should a culture be shaped in accordance with the preferences of some more powerful group lest we displease that group? Pat invokes a pathological imagery ("SICK?? -- c'mon!) to discredit a form of language use. Gordon Meyer and I have argued in a recent article (in Frank Schmalleger's volume on Computers in Criminal Justice) that there is a postmodernist component to the computer underground reflecting, among other things, a playful irony in word use. One needn't agree with us, but it's difficult to dispute that, like it or not, the CU is a separate culture with specific norms, language use, and other characteristics that set it apart from those who modem (yes, "modem" is a verb). One aspect of this culture is a tweak at common conventions of language. Technological changes impel social responses, and one response has been to move beyond "modernist" conventions that seem anachronistic as we move into the 21st century. We can send a copy of this paper to anybody who wants it (ask for "The Baudy World of the Byte Bandit: A Postmodernist Interpretation of the Computer Underground). Pat does us all a service by keeping this issue alive and by having the courage to voice opinions that others might share but are hesitant to do lest they be flamed. Despite his occasional comments that some of us find maddeningly off-the-wall, he is also to be commended for his unequivocal support of allowing "the other side" to air issues (specifically, his supportive interview of Len Rose and many of his other articles that have been invaluable in providing information not otherwise available). Sometimes I cannot but wonder if his comments aren't in fact intended to be ironic, a way of raising an issue knowing that others will respond with counter-arguments that further clarify the issue. He would have made a good co-editor of PHRACK (suppressed grin). Jim Thomas /TK0JUT1@NIU.bitnet [Moderator's Note: Mr. Thomas is one of the Moderators of the Computer Underground Digest, and our correspondent at the trial now going on. PT] ------------------------------ From: David Schanen Subject: PT/Phrack Article Cited in Niedorf Trial Date: 22 Jul 90 15:13:27 GMT Organization: Independent Study of Art, Music, Video, Computing Thought you might like to see it... Ps. Did we ever see the results of your hacker poll? -Dave [Moderator's Note: Yes, the hacker poll was published several weeks ago, both in its original version, and a couple weeks later in a different format. Maybe someone with a copy of that issue will mail it to you. In addition to Mr. Schanen, the article which follows was also forwarded to me by Glen Overby , and I thank him also for passing it along. The article was originally written about 1982-83, and was later posted to Portal by myself, and used here in TELECOM Digest in the summer of 1988. It was then picked up by Phrack sometime in the fall of 1988. Thus, the details are a little dated, and not entirely accurate at this time. The article is presented because people have expressed curiosity about it. I have no idea who 'Hatchet Molly' is. I guess the only legitimate names those folks used were of unsupecting folks like me. PT] ==Phrack Inc.== Volume Two, Issue 21, File 7 of 11 ()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()() () () () Non-Published Numbers () () ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ () () An Observation Of Illinois Bell () () () () by Patrick Townson () () of The Portal System (TM) () () () () Special Thanks to Hatchet Molly () () () ()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()() All examples in this message pertain to Illinois Bell Telephone Company, which covers the Chicago metropolitan area, and quite a bit of the rest of Illinois. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - There are three types of phone numbers which do not appear in the printed and publicly available directory; (1) Too new to list (2) Non-listed (3) Non-published The third category of numbers not in the phone book or available from the Directory Assistance Bureau are non-published numbers. Non-published numbers are NOT available at the directory Assistance level. Inquiries about same which are input into a DA (Directory Assistance) terminal simply come up with a message that "at the customer's request, the number is not listed in our records; the number is non-published." Well, who does keep non-pub records then? The Business Office has no handy way to retrieve them, since they depend on an actual phone number when they pull up a record to discuss an account. Once a service order is processed, the number and associated name are no longer available to the average worker in the central office. There was for several years a small group known as the "NonPub Number Bureau" which at the time was located in Hinsdale, Illinois. Needless to say, the phone number to the NonPub Number Bureau was itself non-published, and was only available to specified employees at Illinois Bell who were deemed to have a "need to know clearance." Now with all the records being highly computerized, the keepers of the Non-Pub phone numbers are themselves scattered around from one phone office to another. When there is some specific need for an employee at the phone company to acquire the non-published number of a subscriber, then certain security precautions kick into place. Only a tiny percentage of telephone company employees are deemed to have a "need to know clearance" in the first place; among these would be the GCO's (Group Chief Operators), certain management people in the central offices, certain people in the Treasury/Accounting office, and of course, security representatives both from Illinois Bell and the various long distance carriers, such as AT&T, US. Sprint, and MCI. Let us have a hypothetical example for our correspondent; Your mother has taken seriously ill, and is on her deathbed. Your brother is unable to reach you to notify you of this because you have a non-pub number. When his request for the number has been turned down by Directory Assistance, simply because they do not have it, he asks to speak with a supervisor, and he explains the problem. He provides his own name and telephone number, and the supervisor states he will be called back at a later time. The supervisor does not question if in fact an emergency exists, which is the only valid reason for breaking security. The supervisor may, if they are doing their job correctly, ask the inquirer point blank, "Are you stating there is an emergency situation?" Please bear in mind that the law in Illinois and in many other states says that if a person claims that an emergency exists in order to influence the use (or discontinuance of use) of the telephone when in fact there is no emergency is guilty of a misdemeanor crime. You say yes this is an emergency and I need to contact my brother/sister/etc right away. The supervisor will then talk to his/her supervisor, who is generally of the rank of Chief Operator for that particular facility. The Chief Operator will call the NonPub people, will identify herself, and *leave her own call back number*. The NonPub people will call back to verify the origin of the call, and only then will there be information given out regards your brother's telephone number. It helps if you know the *exact* way the name appears in the records, and the *exact* address; if there is more than one of that name with non-pub service, they may tell you they are unable to figure out who it is you want. The NonPub person will then call the subscriber with the non-published number and explain to them what has occurred, "So and so has contacted one of our operators and asked for assistance in reaching you. The party states that it is a family emergency which requires your immediate attention. Would it be alright if we give him/her your number, or would you prefer to call them back yourself?" Based on the answer given, the number is either relayed back to the Chief Operator, or a message is relayed back saying the non-pub customer has been notified. If the customer says it is okay to pass his number, then the Chief Operator will call you back, ask who YOU are, rather than saying WHO she wants, and satisfied with your identification will give you the number you are seeking or will advise you that your brother has been given the message by someone from our office, and has said he will contact you. Before the NonPub people will even talk to you, your 'call back number' has to be on their list of approved numbers for that purpose. A clerk in the Business office cannot imitate a Chief Operator for example, simply because NonPub would say that the number you are asking us to call back to is not on our list. "Tell your supervisor what it is you are seeking and have them call us..." Other emergency type requests for non-pub numbers would be a big fire at some business place in the middle of the night, and the owners of the company must be notified at their home; or a child is found wandering by the police and the child is too young to know his parent's (non-pub) number. They will also handle non-emergency requests, but only if they are of some importance and not frivolous in nature. You have just come to our city to visit and are seeking a long lost friend who has a non-pub number; you are compiling the invitations to your high school class fiftieth re-union and find a class member is non-pub. Within certain reasonable limits, they will pass along your request to the desired party and let them make the choice of whether to return the call or not. But always, you leave your phone number with them, and in due time someone will call you back to report what has been said or done. You would be surprised -- or maybe you wouldn't -- at the numerous scams and stories people tell the phone company to get the non-pub numbers of someone else. Fortunately, Bell takes a great deal of pride in their efforts to protect the privacy of their subscribers. -PT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #510 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24939; 25 Jul 90 5:08 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22644; 25 Jul 90 3:30 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab18738; 25 Jul 90 2:26 CDT Date: Wed, 25 Jul 90 1:32:11 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #511 BCC: Message-ID: <9007250132.ab09518@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 25 Jul 90 01:31:43 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 511 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson The Whole Story on America's Last Magneto Exchange [Donald Kimberlin] Re: Magneto Telephones [Neal Goldsmith] Multi-City Pagers [Cliff Stoll] AT&T "Call Me" Card [Steve Forrette] 415 0+ Dialing [Douglass Scott Reuben] Local/State Taxes [David Dodell] Noisy Environments and Sidetone [Steve Gaarder] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 23 Jul 90 22:38 EST From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: The Whole Story on America's Last Magneto Exchange Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL In earlier articles, we first had an inaccurate press report that America's last magneto "exchange" had been replaced in Shoup, Idaho. Knowledgable Digest readers corrected it to say it was but one line, and therefore not an exchange; that Bryant Pond, Maine had accurately been previously reported as the "last magneto exchange in America" several years ago. Now, it seems the trade journal {Communications Week} sent a reporter to get the whole story accurately. The following appeared on Page 1 of {Communications Week}, July 23, 1990: AN ERA ENDS Hand-Cranked Switch Retired By Dawn Bushaus Surrounded by mountains in the Salmon National Forest lies the tiny town of Shoup, Idaho. The people who live in and near this isolated hamlet on the River of No Return grew accustomed to losing their phone service when the wind kicked up or heavy rains fell. No longer. What is believed to be the last manually operated telephone switch in the country was replaced earlier this month with a new digital switch and buried cable, making reliable touch-tone service a reality,but at the same time relegating a part of the town's culture to the history books. "We're excited about the new switch. The old one doesn't serve us very well," said Peggy Pedrow, a town resident, "but we also hate to see it go." Pedrow and her husband Garry own the Shoup Store and Cafe, a combination general store, reataurant, post office and gas station. The Pedrows are the only people who actually reside in Shoup. But the old magneto telephone system -- operated manually during the past year by the owners of the Motel Deluxe in the town of Salmon about 50 miles from here -- served them and 15 other people living nearby. The new switch, actually located 30 miles away in North Fork, Idaho, serves more than 60 customers. Since the Shoup area is not served by commercial power, butis supplied with energy generated by the river and a wooden paddle wheel, the switch had to be located where commercial power was available. The new system consists of 52 miles of buried copper wire and a small digital switch manufactured by Redcom Laboratories Inc., Victor, NY. The switch is designed to serve small markets that are often in hard-to-reach places, said Lou Bender, director of new business development at Redcom. A distributed-processing architecture make the switch highly reliable and economical. Rural Telephone Company of Glenns Ferry,Idaho, which supplies phone service to remote locations, installed, owns and maintains the system. The switch can accommodate up to 200 subscribers without an upgrade, said David Carpenter, manager of Rural Telephone Company. The old magneto was an AC generator that created the electricity needed to ring the local's telephone bells. The system, which had a single 20-party telephone line, had to be cranked by hand. The line itself was strung across 40 miles on trees, fence posts and rocky cliffs. It was not uncommon for a heavy rain or rockslide to pull the line down, leaving area residents without phone service for up to three weeks at a time, Peggy Pedrow said. The system dated back to 1931, when it was installed by the National Forest Service. In 1952, the agency sold the antiquated line to local residents for one dollar. The residents maintained the line themselves over the years, but Century Telephone of Idaho provided the operator services. Then, last December, Century Telephone, a subsidiary of Monroe, LA - based Century Telephone Enterprises, closed its operator services center in Salmon, while still providing phone service there. "That left a technological gap between the magneto line and the rest of the world," said Ron Schleuter, division manager at Century Telephone of Idaho. "That switch had to be operated manually." Shoup locals were worried. It appeared they might actually be stranded without telephone service. Then Rural Telephone stepped in. Officials there suggested to the Idaho Public Utilities Commission that -- with a loan from the Rural Electrification Administration -- they could construct a new digital telephone system for area residents. Still, the residents of this area near the Continental Divide needed to find someone who would operate the manual switch 24 hours a day while the new system was being built. "The solution to that was a stroke of genius," Schleuter said. Century Telephone used its digital switch in nearby Salmon to trunk the magneto line to the Motel Deluxe. The motel owner, who lived there and was necessarily on round-the-clock duty, was able to remotely operate the switch, by setting up conference calls. Pat Fitzgerald, the motel's former owner, did the switching until she sold the property last month, when Steve Freestone and his wife, Donay, tookover the duty. "I know they'll be glad to have the new switch, especially for emergencies," Steve Freestone said. He said there was an unwritten agreement between him and the folks served by the old switch. "They didn't make calls after 10 PM or before 6 AM unless it was an emergency," he said. But now, Shoup residents won't have to worry about when they place a call or whether it will go through. Digital technology has arrived in a town that, for many years, was an anachronism. Still, it will likely be some time before they upgrade to ISDN. ------------------------- And so, as Paul Harvey puts it, "Now you know the REST of the story!" ------------------------------ From: Neal Goldsmith Subject: Re: Magneto Telephones Date: 23 Jul 90 22:15:50 GMT Reply-To: Neal Goldsmith Organization: Network Research Corp., Oxnard CA In article <9986@accuvax.nwu.edu> joe@icjapan.info.com (Joe Talbot) writes: >Ludlow - Baker numbers (out of service all the time, the whole town >dies for days at a time. The service comes from a van parked near town >with a dish on the roof and a fence around it. Odd.) If I remember correctly, this Van is/was used because all of the copper wire feeding the town was stolen on SEVERAL occasions, this took the town out for extended periods of time. They finally put in a Microwave arrangment to eliminate the wire all together. It seems that the remote locations of the poles made the wire easy to steal. Neal E. Goldsmith Network Research Corp Internet: neg@nrc.com 1620 Federal Ave #2 America Online: NEG1 Los Angeles, CA 90025 (213)479-6436 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Jul 90 19:01:40 EDT From: Cliff Stoll Subject: Re: Multi-city Beepers From article <9610@accuvax.nwu.edu>, by NJS@ibm.com (Nicholas J. Simicich): > My wife and I both travel a lot, but separately, and we frequently > need to get in contact with the person who is out of town. > I recall seeing advertisements for beepers which would work either > everywhere in the US, in most major cities in the US, everywhere in > the northeast corridor, and so forth. Ideal would be one that allowed > you to leave a numeric message, like a number to call back at. I know of two nation-wide paging systems: SKYPAGE and CUE paging. Similarities: Both let you receive numeric pages, up to 20 digits. Both have 800 number dial-ins to send pages. Both let you check for missed pages by calling an 800 number. Both interconnect metro centers via domestic satellite links. The pagers do not pick up signals straight from the satellite. Rather, these systems rebroadcast page signals over VHF or UHF transmitters in cities. The pagers won't work out in the countryside. Pages take about 30 seconds to 2 minutes to get through. Each system broadcasts its pages into all metro regions simultaneously (So you don't have to inform the system when you arrive in a new city) Differences: SKYPAGE paging relies on 900 MHz transmitters (I think these are a sub-band of the cellular service) SKYPAGE uses Motorola pagers which can beep or vibrate CUE paging uses FM broadcast subcarriers (88 to 108 MHz). CUE pagers use special pagers from Finland that only beep Although a good friend of mine works at CUE paging (and he's very proud of their system -- showed me how they interface into FM broadcasters), I carry a SKYPAGER, mostly because the local sales rep for Skypage didn't require a $100 deposit (CUE did). Local paging services (for Boston) typically costs $20/month. Nationwide paging services from either CUE or SKYPAGE costs around $45 plus 50 cents per page, or else $60 and unlimited pages per month. I've been entirely happy with this skypager. While on booktour, my publisher could reach me instantly and I wired it up to notify me when my computer had problems. In a year of using Skypager, the pager has missed only one page, and that happened while I was in a subway. Cliff Stoll cliff@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Jul 90 20:22 EST From: Steve Forrette Subject: AT&T "Call Me" Card When I got my AT&T "Call Me" card a few months ago, there was an insert enclosed. The first part reads: "Don't forget that the Card can only be used to call one number - yours. In order to guarantee this restricted calling feature of the AT&T Call Me Card, callers should make certain that they place their calls over the AT&T Long Distance Network. It is important for them to look for AT&T Long Distance Service identification and to listed for 'AT&T.' " Does this not imply that if the caller uses the Call Me card on another long distance carrier that accepts AT&T cards, that they may accept it for calls to anywhere? I went to a Pacific Bell payphone nearby whose long distance carrier was "ComSystems", some odd-ball name I'd never heard of. I called an out-of-state number that I knew was out of service and entered my Call Me number. Sure enough, it was accepted! I listened to about ten seconds of the out-of-service recording, then hung up. When I got my bill, I had a charge for a three minute call totalling around $4.50. :-( :-( I called the Pacific Bell business office, and explained the situation. They said "But sir, if it was out of service, why was the call 3 minutes long?" I told them that perhaps the carrier was lying. The rep said "well, okay, since it's only one call, and I know this is a 'problem' carrier, I'll take it off your bill." The moral of the story is - your resticted calling card, *isn't*! (Further details - I then tried a call with a random PIN, to test to see if they verified them at all, and that one didn't work. Then, I tried it with my unresticted PIN, to check for the situation where they may have thought "well, we just accepted a call with valid PIN xxxx, so PIN yyyy must be invalid", but that call worked, so apparently they do have access to the PIN database, whereever that may be. Either they do not get the information regarding whether a PIN is restricted, or they choose to ignore it!) ------------------------------ Date: 24-JUL-1990 02:14:42.54 From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" Subject: 415 0+ Dialing Hello Everyone! A while back the Digest covered 0+ dialing procedures in the 415 (San Francisco Bay) area, and, from what I recall, it was mentioned that all local calling in 415 is now in the format 0+415-xxx-xxxx, ie, there is no 0+xxx-xxxx dialing. I've been out here for five weeks now, and EVERY phone in 415 (and a good deal in 408) accept, and most REQUIRE 0-xxx-xxxx dialing when placing a calling card call within your own area code. I've tried it from Pac*Bell payphones and COCOTs, as well as from GTE in Novato (415) and Los Gatos (408). (BTW, I must apologize for some of my previous cracks about GTE ... I've been used to GTE in the LA area which is plain awful, whereas GTE in the Bay Area, at least in my limited experience, seems up to par with Pac*Bell in some areas, and exceeds Pac*Bell in the speed with which it processes 0+ calls from its payphones, at least in Novato.) Additionally, the "#" sign can be used as a terminator for 0+ calls that are ambiguous. IE, there is a 415-302 exchange, so if I dial 0-302-9999, the exchange doesn't know if I am dialing "415-302-9999" or "302-999-9xxx", and I just didn't fisnish dialing in the "xxx" part. So, if you want to dial 415-302-9999 from area code 415 as a calling card call, you can dial "0-302-9999 #", and the call will go through to Pac*Bell's calling card equipment much faster. Anyhow, I've overstayed my welcome at the computer center incurring large long distance charges from CA, so I best be going ... If anyone has any info to the contrary, let me know where these exchanges are so if I pass by I can give 'em a try. Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet P.S. I've been away for five weeks allready, so if anyone from the Digest sent me any mail, please be patient and I'll try to get back to you the next time I log in from here. (As if you're waiting on pins and needles to hear from me...! :-) ) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Jul 90 22:52:37 mst From: David Dodell Subject: Local/State Taxes Randyd@microsoft writes: >using the Universal Card. These results do not include tax. Even more >interesting: ATT charged only federal excise tax. Sprint charges state >and local sales tax in addition to the federal excise tax. Since in >this location the state and local sales tax is about 8.7%, ATT starts >off with an 8.7% advantage! Anyone have any idea why this is true, I would think that both would be subject to collecting the same taxes? 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 FAX: +1 (602) 451-1165 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Jul 90 12:20:46 EDT From: Steve Gaarder Subject: Noisy Enviroments and Sidetone >Related question: anybody know how to deal with phones in a noisy >environment like a machine room ..... >The problem is room noise picked up in >the mouthpiece and heard through my earpiece (is sidetone the right term >for that?)[yes] If I cup my hand over the mouthpiece, I can hear fine, but >that's a real drag. I think what I want is a push-to-talk handset, but >havn't been able to fine any. Any suggestions? What you really want is a "push-to-listen" phone. The button disables the mike. Many fancy phones have this, usually called a "mute" button. My ATT cordless has one, and it's even placed where I can push it using the hand holding the handset. It has come in real handy when trying to have a conversation with a screaming baby in my lap (talk about noisy environments..). A good old 500 set can be modified pretty easily - just install a normally open pushbutton so it shorts the mike, or a normally closed so that it opens one of the wires to the mike. I even have a couple of 500 handsets with built-in buttons that I think could be wired as mute buttons. If you want one, let me know - I'll swap it for a standard 500 handset. Steve Gaarder gaarder@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu ...!cornell!batcomputer!gaarder ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #511 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24994; 25 Jul 90 5:12 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab22644; 25 Jul 90 3:33 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac18738; 25 Jul 90 2:26 CDT Date: Wed, 25 Jul 90 2:11:20 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #512 BCC: Message-ID: <9007250211.ab03004@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 25 Jul 90 02:10:14 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 512 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cellular/Cordless Phones in Computer Room [John Slater] Re: Cellular/Cordless Phones in Computer Room [Alan Sanderson] Re: What Rate Applies For Phone Used as an Intercom? [Roy Smith] Re: What Rate Applies For Phone Used as an Intercom? [John R. Levine] Re: Pepsi-Cola Hits the Spot: Switchboard Shuts Down [Mark Harris] Re: College Phracking [Paul J. Zawada] Re: College Phracking [John Higdon] Re: Caller ID Update [Dave Levenson] Re: Strange Recordings [Steve Schwartz] Re: Customers Have Long Memories [Irving Wolfe] Re: E911 Service: Data From The Horse's Mouth [Tom Neff] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Slater Subject: Re: Cellular/Cordless Phones in Computer Room Date: 24 Jul 90 10:52:06 GMT Reply-To: John Slater In article <9971@accuvax.nwu.edu>, quack!mrapple@uop.uop.edu (Nick Sayer) writes: >I have a Sun 2/170 in my living room and a cordless phone. > ... it's nearly >impossible to talk on the cordless when its within about six feet of the >Sun. The 2/170 is *old*! Our latest desktop machines (SPARCstation 1+ for instance) leak very little RF. I think they're even shielded sufficiently for use in residential areas, but I'm not certain. If you upgrade to one of our modern machines you shouldn't have any problems. I forget exactly which FCC regulations we comply with - they're not really relevant in the UK. Contact your local Sun sales office for more details. John Slater Sun Microsytems UK, Gatwick Office ------------------------------ From: Alan_Sanderson Subject: Re: Cellular/Cordless Phones in Computer Room Date: 23 Jul 90 15:38:53 GMT Organization: HP Pacific Technology Park - Sunnyvale, Ca. In article <9939@accuvax.nwu.edu>, PMW1@psuvm.psu.edu (Peter M. Weiss) writes: > Please relate your experiences in using either cellular or cordless > phones in a computer room, especially as it relates to any EMI that > affected the operation of a computing or electronic media device. We have computer systems installed in telco central offices along with T1 carrier systems, D4 banks, DACS frames, and other network equipment. Some of our CEs are equipped with portable cellular phones. I have been called by the CEs from these locations, and transmission quality has been quite good. The computer equipment is FCC Class B certified for RFI emissions (computer room environment - not personal computer Class A). Alan Sanderson Hewlett-Packard AMSO alans@hpams0a.HP.COM US Snail: 1266 Kifer Rd. MS102F MaBell: 408-746-5714 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 FAX: 408-746-5571 Disclaimer: ------------------------------ From: roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: Re: What Rate Applies For Phone Used as an Intercom? Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City Date: Tue, 24 Jul 90 11:42:38 GMT netwise!pae@central.uucp (Phil Earnhardt) writes: > The phone will be programmed with 2-digit codes for each residence and the > owners will be able to open the gate via the phone connection [...] The > problem is that Southern Bell wants to charge business rates for the line. We have a similar situation in our coop (I don't know how popular coops are outside of the US; it is an apartment building, owned jointly by the residents of the building) with the phone for the superintendant's apartment. NYTel insists that we have two choices; either the phone can be listed in the super's name and get residential rates, or it can be listed as "Superintendant, 295 St. John's Place", in which case we will get charged business rates. The reason we want the latter is because we change supers about once a year. We don't plan it that way, but that's how it seems to work out :-(. If the phone is in the super's name, it's either ends up staying listed in the old name, or it's a hassle to get the listing changed to the new name. Besides, we would like people to be able to look up our super by the address of the bulding, not by the super's name, which they probably don't know. Is NYTel correct to try and charge us business rates? Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy [Moderator's Note: The reason you are being asked to pay business rates for the super's phone is because the conducting of business is the main reason the phone is installed there, as per your request for an entry which reflects your building's location and management. PT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: What Rate Applies For Phone Used as an Intercom? Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA Date: 24 Jul 90 16:27:48 EDT (Tue) From: "John R. Levine" In article <10042@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >..., it was very sad to see the electric and phone lines being buried >separately. Is there a good reason why they couldn't use the same trenches? I suppose it depends on how you feel about the possibility of 10KV shorting to your phone line. My sister-in-law recently arranged to have the power lines in front of her house buried (it really improves the view.) The power company did a great deal of design, followed by a great deal of excavation, to get the power lines nice and deep and out of the way. I expect the phone company will just use the usual little plow to run the wires down the middle or side of the road. The phone company doesn't have to be anywhere near as careful since the voltages are so much lower, and with the wires underground, the lightning problem is also greatly reduced. Regards, John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl ------------------------------ From: harrism@omhftre (Mark Harris) Subject: Re: Pepsi-Cola Hits The Spot: Switchboard Shuts Down Date: 21 Jul 90 16:55:46 GMT Organization: Omhftre BBS telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: > Everyone has to learn this lesson the hard way it seems: *No beverages > around telecom and computer equipment*. Ever. So, how many people out there in telecom land were sucking on a drink as they read Patrick's article? Guilty as charged, but then it's only a PC/XT. :-) Mark Harris UUCP: ...!uunet!mjbtn!raider!omhftre!harrism Domain: omhftre!harrism@raider.MFEE.TN.US ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Jul 90 09:05:17 -0500 From: Paul J Zawada Subject: Re: College Phracking hoque@huxley.bitstream.com (Tareq Hoque): > When the campus police arrived, they questioned him on what he was > doing and seemed confident that he wasn't doing anything malicious. > They let him proceed with modifications but they did take down his > name for their notes. After my friend was done, he gave me the > lineman's set back. However, later in the week I got a frantic phone > call from this friend saying that the CP's have been calling him > because they want him to turn in the line set to the CP headquarters, > because he would be breaking the law if he didn't. > Well I told my friend that it was not illegal to own or use this > equipment for legitimate purposes, but he asked me to talk to the > police. > I asked the police why they thought I should give them my own personal > property. Actually, both of my Western Electric butt sets say "BELL SYSTEM PROPERTY" "NOT FOR RESALE". I bought them at a hamfest. I realized that this "warning" as such didn't appear on phones 'till the early seventies or so, but wasn't this assumed before the labelling? I mean back then, the phone company provided the customer with the phone equipment, so they owned most of it, if not all of it. Right? Was it possible to buy regular Western Electric phones, let alone butt sets, before the divestiture? I don't recall ever being able to buy WE equipment from the Bell System. It was almost always leased. Correct me if I'm wrong. On the lines of doing your own rewiring ... I believe I heard somewhere that unauthorized entry into telephone comapany plant was a federal offense. This is probably mumbo-jumbo, so if anybody knows - what really are the laws governing access to telephone company plant? Paul J Zawada | zawada@ei.ecn.purdue.edu Titan P3 Workstation Support | ...!pur-ee!zawada Purdue University Engineering Computer Network ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: College Phracking Date: 24 Jul 90 10:39:19 PDT (Tue) From: John Higdon Tareq Hoque writes: > In the end I told them I was refusing to give my property to them. > They said they would turn me in to the Dean of Student affairs if they > didn't receive it in 24 hours. I never turned it in, and I never > heard about the incident again. Whatever anyone says, the MFJ had its benefits. This is one of them. I remember from the time I was a kid until about the time I founded my own telecommunications vending company, there was this air of panic everytime a telephone repair person showed up on the premisis. If there was trouble on the line a pit in the stomach would occur from thinking about all of the "cleaning up" that would have to be done with all the wiring. Disconnect the extra phones, get rid of the "construction projects", can the experiments. And never, never have any telco-type test equipment around -- even if you bought it legitimately. Now, of course, when a phone man comes out it is a totally different story. On several occasions I have provided my lineman's handset to the repairperson when s/he needed two. One of the things that has helped is the "network interface", a direct result of divestiture. I leave everything the way it is and with one simple motion, telco can isolate its line and find the fault. Oh, there's still a lot of the old attitude among the front line folks. In the not too distant past, I had tried to get the projected cutover date for a particular CO. Everyone I talked to through normal, front-line channels seemed to indicate that such information was proprietary. Then I did an end run via one of my friends. Not only did I get the info that I wanted, but he pointed out a Pac*Bell periodical that lists cutover dates six months in advance. Of course, Pac*Bell now sends announcements to customer's advising them of planned cutovers. They are detailed form letters stating the equipment to be removed, to be installed, and the generic release along with info as to what kind of changes might occur in the service. > The good old days. Back in the good old days, none of this information would have been considered to be any of the public's business. And why would it have been? The "telephone company" provided everything end-to-end and no one else need be concerned over what equipment is in the CO. 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 Update Date: 24 Jul 90 11:37:07 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA Our moderator, in reply to another posting, writes: ...regarding caller-id delivery, non-real-time... > difference between real-time delivery of the information such as > American Express receives versus billing information supplied up to a > month later, such as I receive. PT] In an earlier posting, Patrick tells us his 800 service is provided by Telecom USA. We recently signed up for their low-usage 800 service, and we were told that detail billing giving the calling number is not offered. They'll tell us the originating city only. Is this a recent change in their policy? (just curious) Dave Levenson Voice: 201 647 0900 Fax: 201 647 6857 Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave [The Man in the Mooney] [Moderator's Note: I've had the service over a year, however ANI in any form only came with the billing starting two months ago. Someone else write to say they were advised by Telecom*USA that the service was no longer available, and gradfathered to existing customers. It includes full ten-digit numbers about 75-80% of the time. PT ------------------------------ From: schwartz@aiag.enet.dec.com Subject: Re: Strange Recordings Date: 24 Jul 90 13:49:38 GMT Reply-To: Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - a party line, in which a special code is used to call other phones on the same line; - some one-exchange municipalities, in which the exchange can be omitted, and only four digits need be dialed. Obviously, coming from the outside, you should not hear such a recording. On the other hand, if the second situation above was the case, and the local network was recently "upgraded" to require seven-digit dialing, there might be bugs, one of which was waiting there for you. Steve Disclaimer: I don't believe Digital -has- any opinions about the phone company. ------------------------------ From: Irving Wolfe Subject: Re: Customers Have Long Memories Date: 24 Jul 90 18:52:12 GMT Organization: Happy Man Corp., Seattle In <10003@accuvax.nwu.edu> telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: >Are customers today still that loyal? Something tells me most of them >are, if you put out a real effort to show you care about quality >telecom service, and are responsive to their needs. Of course they are. That's why AT&T still has the lion's share of the nation's long distance business. We all remember being treated with courtesy and respect -- like human beings rather than "consumers" -- and we all remember phone that you could throw hard against the floor with no ill effect. We also remember phone service that stayed up when the power was down, quick and easy connections, etc., etc. Irving Wolfe Happy Man Corp. irv@happym.wa.com 206/463-9399 ext.101 SOLID VALUE, the investment letter for Benj. Graham's intelligent investors Information (not sample) free: email patty@happym.wa.com with US mail addr. ------------------------------ From: Tom Neff Subject: Re: E911 Service: Data From The Horse's Mouth Date: 24 Jul 90 07:34:06 GMT Reply-To: Tom Neff In article <9963@accuvax.nwu.edu> optilink!cramer@uunet.uu.net (Clayton Cramer) writes: >1. The information comes out of the phone company data base, and may >not be 100% accurate. >2. You may be calling from a different phone number than your own. >(Example: you return home to find evidence of a burglary, and go to >the neighbor's house to request police assistance). >3. You may have moved, and it takes a few days for the information to >make it into the 911 data base. Nevertheless, it's dehumanizing and a waste of time making the distraught caller recite everything from scratch when there's already information up on the screen. If the above three possibilities are a worry, why can't the operator simply say, "OK, I see you calling from 1471 Elmhurst Drive on the 2nd floor. Is that correct?" "Yes" "Is that where the (accident etc) is?" "No it's on the fourth floor, I just ran downstairs to the neighbor's" "OK we have a unit on the way, stay near the phone" ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #512 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16013; 26 Jul 90 0:27 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11958; 25 Jul 90 22:44 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00398; 25 Jul 90 21:40 CDT Date: Wed, 25 Jul 90 21:30:45 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #513 BCC: Message-ID: <9007252130.ab10064@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 25 Jul 90 21:30:27 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 513 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Summary: Briton Needs Phone Help in U.S. [Nigel Roberts] Need Info on Motorola Portable Cellular [Rich Sims] System 75 Abbreviated Dialling [Scott D. Green] Pac*Bell Billing Complaint [Douglas Scott Reuben] Dialing With Multiple Extensions Off-Hook [Ron Newman] PC Voicemail Sources [Larry Rachman] Village Voice Article, July 24th Issue [Bob Izenberg] 400-H Adaptors, the Final Chapter [Roy Smith] Using a US Modem in the UK [Toby Loftus] ROLM Data Network Auto-answer Problem [Philip Harriman] John Galt, MCI and Wrong Numbers [Tom Perrine] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 24 Jul 90 03:59:09 PDT From: Nigel Roberts 0860 578600 Subject: Summary: Briton Needs Phone Help in U.S. A few weeks ago I asked the readers of the Digest to send me their suggestions as to how a European visitor can survive in the very different world of U.S. telecommunications in such a way that he or she can avoid rip-offs and maybe even get a few good deals. Thanks to those people who did reply to me - although I didn't quite get as much response as I'd hoped, your suggestions were very welcome. (Any further suggestions are still welcome, of course). Most of the suggestions I received were also sent direct to the Digest, so I won't repeat them. One thing that does seem much more difficult than I'd expected is obtaining a U.S calling card (e.g. AT&T, Sprint, MCI). I had thought that it would be easy to get such a card which was billed via MasterCard, VISA or American Express. Not true. You can't even get an American Express 'Amex Expressphone' card billed to your Amex account if you live outside the U.S.A. (Shame on American Express). You CAN get an AT&T calling card if you live in Germany (billed via Diners or VISA), or if you are an American citizen living anywhere abroad (billed via a major credit card), but neither applies to me at the moment. With one thing and another, our trip has been postponed, so I have more time to do some research on the original subject. And as a number of people in Europe I have spoken to have expressed an interest, it seems likely that I will be putting my findings together in a small "self-help" booklet later in the year. Contributions are welcome, by MAIL or FAX (+44 206 393148). I'll also be looking for one or two reviewers, to catch any obvious telecom howlers. Thanks again for your help. Nigel Roberts; P. O. Box 49; MANNINGTREE; Essex; CO11 2SZ; United Kingdom Tel: +44 206 39 6610 and +44 860 57 8600 Fax: +44 206 39 3148 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Jul 90 00:29:27 EDT From: Rich Sims Subject: Need Info on Motorola Portable Cellular My wife just purchased a Motorola cellular phone (transportable) and I'd like to know if anyone has any info on it that might be of interest to me. (She makes phone calls, I play with things!) It's a model 8000L, and the literature that comes with it is amazingly sparse in terms of any "real" information. Since this is my (our) first foray into the field of cellular communications, I'm woefully uninformed on the subject. Any information that anyone would care to share with me would be gratefully accepted. I'd also like to know if anyone has anything to say about this particular model (good, or bad), and I'd like some answers to questions on one specific area, in particular. What are the issues, both legal and technical, in operating two cellular phones on the same account number? How are these widgets "identified" when a call is originated or received? Is it "field changeable"?? If this is possible at all, can it be done with two different models of phone? Rich Sims UUCP: crash!pro-exchange!rich ARPA: crash!pro-exchange!rich@nosc.mil INET: rich@pro-exchange.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Jul 90 11:02 EDT From: "Scott D. Green" Subject: System 75 Abbreviated Dialling Does anyone out there in PBX-land know how to program a # or * into a S75 Abbreviated Dial (1-button speeddial) string? In a normal dial pattern, it expects a feature access code (call park, call pickup, etc) following those character. What I'm trying to do is call a voicemail system which requires a # before you may enter your own mailbox number. (save your "security violation!" warnings - users would still manually enter their passwords). Anyway, I spoke with my AT&T systems "consultant" and got the usual answer: "Gee, I dunno. That's a new one on me." There must be a way, mustn't there? It's certainly ok to manually enter the octothorpe following either a manual dial or speed dial to the system. I've tried the various switches including Pause (to wait for the system to answer) and Mark which treats "all digits following the Mark as end-to-end signalling digits to be outpulsed over an outgoing trunk in touch-tone signal form." It doesn't. Any ideas? Software is R1V3. scott ------------------------------ Date: 24-JUL-1990 23:39:00.47 From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" Subject: Pac*Bell Billing Complaint I noticed on my Pac*Bell bill a few days ago that Calling Card calls made within Pac*Bell's service area do not show a "FROM" number. IE, the bill looks like this: 1. Fri, Jul 13, 1990 5:00PM Oakland, CA 710-9999 from: Menlo Park Thus, I called to (415) 710 - 9999, but what number in Menlo Park did I call from? It sipmly doesn't show this on the bill... Every other Bell Co. that I've dealt with shows the FROM number, so I called 811 (Pac*Bell's toll-free in-house network), and the account representative told me: "Oh, we don't show the 'from' number, but I can tell you where it came from if you want me to look it up...". Since there was only 1 call I didn't want to bother her, but in the future, I think I'll make multiple calls and have them print out and mail me the list, free of charge, of course. Hopefully, after a few months of doing this, they will get tired of my calls and either include the info on the bill (which would be difficult to do just for me) or just automatically send me the list, in addition to my usual bill, without my having to request it from them each month. Also, I think I got something in the bill about the expansion of local calling to more distant areas. I didn't pay much attention to it, since I have a "Bonus" package (sort of like "Circle Calling" in New England and some other Bell Co's), but from what I recal, local calling was to be expanded from the seven or eight miles which Pac*Bell says it is presently to twelve to twenty miles, depending on the community/exchanges you reside in. I'm not sure if this has to do with expanded Zone 1 calling, but it seems like some progress at least. Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ From: Ron Newman Subject: Dialing With Multiple Extensions Off-Hook Reply-To: Ron Newman Organization: Lotus Development Corp. Date: Tue, 24 Jul 90 20:13:29 GMT If I try to pulse-dial a telephone while another extension is off the hook, it doesn't work. The pulses don't even break the dial tone. But if I tone-dial the same phone while another extension is off-hook, it works just fine. Can someone explain why? Ron Newman [Moderator's Note: Tone dialing and pulse dialing are completely different techniques. In tone dialing, the central office receives instructions through audible sounds: the tones of various frequency. In pulse dialing, the central office receives instructions from a rapidly changing series of off-on-off again electric pulses. This rapid off/on switching of the electrical current cannot occur if another phone is off-hook, completing the loop. PT] ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jul 90 08:22:05 EDT From: Larry Rachman <74066.2004@compuserve.com> Subject: PC Voicemail Sources I'm looking for a specific piece of telecom hardware, and I suspect that someone out there may have the answer readily available so I decided to post, rather than wading through reams of catalog and magazine back issues. What I'm trying to find is an IBM/clone-compatible PC card that can will perform the basic voice mail primative functions, such as record, playback, dial, off/on-hook control, etc. _under control of a user program_. There seem to be any number of boards out there that will transform a PC into an answering machine, but invariably, they must be run with the dedicated appication software they're shipped with. I'm currently sitting on a perfectly good WATSON board that comes with what must be the most bizzare developer's interface I've ever seen, involving a virtual deck of cards that one can 'jump' between or `search' for. What I'm after is a board that comes with a library of assembly or high-level language routines that perform the functions described above. Natural Microsystems will gladly sell me their 'value-added reseller's developer's kit for the WATSON for *BIG* bucks, but I've declined their offer since this is a strictly avocational project. Does anyone know of a reasonably priced card ($150-$250, or so) that includes rudimentary development software. Are there any third parties out there that provide it for the WATSON? Larry Rachman,WA2BUX - 74066,2004@compuserve.com, or 516-427-8705 via fax ------------------------------ From: Bob Izenberg Subject: Village Voice Article, July 24th Issue Date: 25 Jul 90 12:20:32 GMT Reply-To: Bob Izenberg Organization: Tandem Computers, Austin, TX The front page story is "Rebel Hackers: the computer kids who phreak out the feds." I wondered when the Voice would pick up the story... Bob Izenberg [ ] Tandem Computers, Inc. cs.utexas.edu!halley!bei [ ] 512 244 8837 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Jul 90 11:48:27 EDT From: Roy Smith Subject: 400-H Adaptors, the Final Chapter A couple of months ago, I really lambasted AT&T for the grief they were giving me trying to order some 400-H adaptors. The story does have a happy ending, and I don't think it would be fair to not relate that part as well. To make a long story short, I eventually got a letter from a Vice President at AT&T apologizing for the trouble I was having, but basically saying I still couldn't have the adaptors I wanted, even though they did exist. I let the letter sit for a while, and then picked up the trail again, calling back the Vice President. His assistant put me on to somebody else, (RoseMary DeRosa, BCS/MMS Product Planner, whatever that is). Over the course of a few weeks, RoseMary and I spoke a few times about the problem, and this morning, a box arrived with a letter of apology from RoseMary, and 10 complementary 400-H adaptors. So, while on the one hand, I think AT&T still has to get their act together on a lot of stuff, it is clear that at least some people there do care about their customers, and are willing to fight internal red tape to make us happy. RoseMary seems to be one of those people. I just wish there were more of them. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Jul 90 12:47:13 EDT From: Toby Loftus Subject: Using a US Modem in the UK I'm a recent subscriber to the list, and I would like to find out what I need to do to use a US modem in London. I believe the modem supports CCIT coding, and think I can get the proper power supply. I'm just wondering how to connect the modem into the UK phone plugs. Is there some hardware I can buy to simply connect the modem? -Toby Loftus P.S. I want to use Compuserve in London. Anyone know the phone number? TOBY@BROWNVM TOBY@brownvm.brown.edu ------------------------------ From: Philip Harriman Subject: ROLM Data Network Auto-answer Problem Date: 25 Jul 90 19:29:17 GMT Reply-To: Philip Harriman Organization: University of Rochester Executive summary: I am looking for help with auto-answer programs (such as Procomm Plus's host mode, Carbon Copy, etc.) working with a ROLM data network. I have learned of a disk from ROLM, Model #43096A, which contains a patch to fix the problems I am experiencing, and I am trying to get this disk from ROLM. While I wait (rather impatiently), I'd like to hear from others who might have experienced this problem, any solutions they have found, and a copy of the patch. Background: Here at the University of Rochester we have a ROLM digital voice and data telephone system. While the switch-over from our old analog telephone system to the ROLM switch was being planned, we were all told that our analog modems would no longer work, but that the ROLM switch would be better, including outbound and inbound modem service. ROLM was installed, but things are not all great. We have experienced problems with auto-answer telecommunications packages, like Procomm Plus's host mode and Carbon Copy, which have the ability to answer an incoming call. These packages expect to find a Hayes-compatible modem sitting at their COM port, not a ROLM switch. When I put Procomm Plus into host mode, it sets DTR high. This has the effect of getting the attention of the ROLM switch, which responds with its prompt, "CALL, DISPLAY, OR MODIFY ?" This is interpreted by Procomm as someone trying to log in, and mass confusion results. Request: We would really like to be able to dial into our PCs, either from other offices on campus or from off-campus using the in-bound modem pool. As mentioned above, I am waiting for a patch disk from ROLM which claims to fix this problem. I was wondering if anyone out there has experienced similar problems, has found a solution, and could possibly send me the patch (I have low hopes of getting it through other channels). Please send email direct to me; I will summarize to the net. Thanks! Phil Harriman Coordinator of IBM PC Consulting University of Rochester paha@db1.cc.rochester.edu (Internet) PAHA@UORDBV (BITNET) ------------------------------ From: Tom Perrine Subject: John Galt, MCI and Wrong Numbers Date: 25 Jul 90 17:49:38 GMT Reply-To: Tom Perrine Organization: Logicon, Inc., San Diego, California Yesterday, one of the people here was cleaning an old office and came across a PC 5.25" diskette with a business card attached: John Galt + Computer Corporation xxxxxx San Francisco CA XXX-XXX-XXX CA ONLY 1-800-445-3313 1-800-JGC-COMP (Note: the + is actually a little dollar sign in a circle! ) Being the curious sort (and wanting to know what might be on the disk, WITHOUT TRYING IT OUR PCs), I decided to find out "who is John Galt" :-) When I called the CA 800 number, I got a golf course in Evans GA !!, which doesn't even have 800 service! I tried this twice, to make sure I wasn't mis-dialing. The other 800 number rang (over 20 rings), and the non-800 number is disconnected. Our PBX uses MCI as the default carrier, so I called the MCI operator and explained the problem. She insisted that this was not possible, so I asked to speak to a supervisor. He agreed to take the charges off and report the problem. When I asked for the trouble ticket number, he got *very* upset that I should even ask for such a thing, and proceeded to lecture me about what was and wasn't my business. That was yesterday. Today, I used 800-555-1212 to find "John Galt", which got me the number of John Galt Construction in Owensborough KY, which got a rash (over 200) of calls (in a one month period) for the John Galt Computer Company about nine months ago. It looks like the John Galt Computer Company went under and their old CA-only 800 service was "lost" in the shuffle. Is this mis-route just an MCI problem? Why didn't I get a disconnected message on the generic 800 number? Why was the MCI supervisor so upset when I asked for a trouble ticket number? Why is the sky blue? Who *is* John Galt? And what is on the diskette :-) ? Tom Perrine (tep) |Internet: tep@tots.Logicon.COM Logicon |UUCP: nosc!hamachi!tots!tep Tactical and Training Systems Division |-or- sun!suntan!tots!tep San Diego CA |GENIE: T.PERRINE |+1 619 455 1330 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #513 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16979; 26 Jul 90 1:29 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab13440; 25 Jul 90 23:48 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac11958; 25 Jul 90 22:44 CDT Date: Wed, 25 Jul 90 21:57:05 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #514 BCC: Message-ID: <9007252157.ab07004@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 25 Jul 90 21:56:38 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 514 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: A Couple Tech Questions About Cellular Phones [David Lesher] Re: A Couple Tech Questions About Cellular Phones [Rob Warnock] Re: COCOTs, FCC, DPU, etc [John Higdon] Re: Pentagon Moved to Area Code 703 [Greg Monti via John R. Covert] Re: Call Me Card / Comm Systems [Douglas Scott Reuben] Re: 415 0+ Dialing [John Higdon] Re: What Rate Applies For Phone Used as an Intercom? [David Lesher] Re: 144 Access Barred on Mercury Phones [John Slater] Re: Nicad "Memory" [Tad Cook] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lesher Subject: Re: A Couple Tech Questions About Cellular Phones Reply-To: David Lesher Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers Date: Tue, 24 Jul 90 22:14:16 GMT In <10025@accuvax.nwu.edu> flak@mcgp1.uucp (Dan Flak) writes: >Several things can happen when you are moving away from a cell >site. >Now, if the cell with the best read of your signal has all of its >channels in use, the switch will tell it that it can't take the call >because it's busy. Is the switch smart enough to look at OTHER users of the busy cell, and try to move one of them to yet another cell? After all, those other users may be at the other side of the cell, and/or headed another direction. wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (305) 255-RTFM pob 570-335 33257-0335 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Jul 90 11:35:00 GMT From: Rob Warnock Subject: Re: A Couple Tech Questions About Cellular Phones Reply-To: Rob Warnock Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA In article <9972@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: | Cliff Yamamoto writes: | > This may be a rumor, but I've heard that *all* cellular phones have | > the capability to have their microphones/xmitters activated by the | > switching office? | Not true. When your unit is address by the system, a two way audio | path is indeed enabled, but your transmitter is not turned on until | you answer the call. Uh, I think you have it backwards, John. Your transmitter turns on to answer the broadcast poll on the setup channel [sent to *all* cells, in order to find your phone], and you're switched to what will be the talk channel, *before* the local ringer on the addressed phone starts tweeting. It's the talk path (mic, earphone amplifier) that doesn't open 'til you hit SND. The "dead time" before the first ring you sometimes get when calling a cellular number is the broadcast poll while the system's trying to locate the mobile phone. (I have seen this time be as long as fifteen seconds.) When you [the caller] finally hear the ringing tone, the mobile has already got its transmitter on, tuned to the assigned talk channel, and is also ringing. I actually proved this to myself one day by setting my handheld near a field-strength meter (el cheapo Radio Shack FSM, with a ~1/4-wave piece of wire hanging out the top), and calling the handheld from a landline. The FSM went offscale *before* either the mobile phone started ringing or I heard ringing tone the calling phone. I have no idea whether there is any magic a cellular CO can do to create an "infinity tap" without causing ringing. I would doubt it, but, hey, bugs and Trojan horses *have* been known to exist in software, no? And cellular phones *are* controlled by the software in the phone's local microprocessor. 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 ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: COCOTs, FCC, DPU, etc Date: 24 Jul 90 13:05:08 PDT (Tue) From: John Higdon S M Krieger writes: > When I was in Las Vegas last week, my observation was that at least > 75% of the public telephones are COCOTs Ain't it the truth. And when looking for a utility phone, you have to reverse your COCOT detection methods: look for the stupidest COCOT-looking phone and you probably have found a genuine Centel phone. > Anyway, an ITI operator answered, and I asked to be connected to AT&T; > she did connect me. ITI is right up there as the worst slimebucket AOS on the planet. I cannot believe that you were actually connected to AT&T by someone from that den of thieves. > Finally, from other sources, I believe the COCOT owner position on LD > selection is that as long as they do connect you, they are in > compliance with the FCC regulations. Giving customers a choice of LD > carrier doesn't mean they have to support 10XXX. But what good is carrier selection if there is no standardized way of doing it? I have been able to coerce COCOTs into giving me the AT&T operator using a multitude of methods, but I would hardly consider them to be in compliance with FCC regulations. The average user shouldn't have to "trick" a phone into giving him the carrier of his choice. Asking an AOS operator for another carrier doesn't cut it. And what if you were a user of some other carrier? How would you place the call through Sprint? MCI? Telesphere? What if 950 wasn't allowed (or available)? Unless the slimebuckets can come up with a better standardized way of selecting a carrier, then I think 10XXX is the way. That is the way that the utility phones handle it. > Also, what the COCOT > owners want for having to support LD carrier selection is payment for > the use of their phone, either in the coin slot or from the selected > LD company. No tears shed here. In any business there are certain "pro bono" items that come along. In the COCOT business, one of them is free handling of 911 calls. If the slimebuckets want people to use THEIR carrier, how about making it competitive, posting a rate comparison, and using the generally accepted methods of free market competition rather than technically preventing people from shopping elsewhere. No one is holding a gun to a COCOT owner/creep's head forcing him to stay in that business, ripping off the public. Six years ago, the business didn't even exist, so there are hardly any family traditions in danger of upset. If the scum can't make it with local calls and COMPETITIVE long distance, then replace his garbage with a utility phone which will serve the public better anyway. This area of COCOTs is possibly the MFJ's worst legacy. It takes a 100 year tradition of customers dealing directly with a company and artificially inserts a middleman (the COCOT owner) who SUBTRACTS value from the service who then expects to be paid handsomely for his existence. I know of no other industry that has "value-subtracted" resellers who want such a major piece of the action. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Jul 90 10:50:49 PDT From: "John R. Covert 25-Jul-1990 1347" Subject: Re: Pentagon Moved to Area Code 703 From: Greg Monti: 23-JUL-1990 18:31:00.66 Subj: Re: Pentagon Moved to Area Code 703 Carl Moore recently asked, regarding this thread, whether the Pentagon's local calling area, especially to the north into Maryland, would change at all as a result of the area code change. Test calls were made to 703 Pentagon prefixes (with the 703 appended, but not a "1") from the Gaithersburg, Ashton and Laurel rate areas, without depositing money, from true C&P of Maryland pay phones. Unlike COCOTs, C&P pay phones allow one to verify, without depositing money, whether a call is local by dialing it as if it were local and listening for the intercept message. If you get the "call cannot be completed as dialed" or the "you must first dial a 1" intercepts, the call is toll from that pay phone. If you get the "a 25 cent deposit is required before dialing this call" message, it's local. From all three rate areas I got the 25-cent message, indicating that Pentagon is local from Gaithersburg, Ashton and Laurel. This appears to represent an improved local calling area from the Pentagon, not a shrinking of it. If the Northern Virginia white pages local calling area tables can be believed, Laurel used to be toll from Pentagon and it's local now. Greg Monti, Arlington, Virginia; work +1 202 822 2633 ------------------------------ Date: 25-JUL-1990 14:17:12.59 From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" Subject: Re: Call Me Card / Comm Systems I think Comm Systems is some slimey AOS that does a lot of business in the Bay Area and Northern CA in general. I have even seen them in Reno, but they are much less prevalent there. If anyone has any dire interest to try them out and can't find a Safeway COCOT (most of which use Comm Systems), the Equal Access code is, neatly enough, 10266. (10-C-O-M). I figured this out by experimenting for a while, but I could have just as easily got it from the Nevada Bell phone book, which lists all the 10xxx carriers in the Nevada Bell area, their 800 numbers, their 10xxx codes, etc. They also say that 10xxx access codes are available for the asking, free, from Nevada Bell Directory Assistance. Why can't other Bell Co's be so open with the information? It doesn't favor any Long Distance carrier over the other, and I doubt THAT many people would call DA just to get access codes, so why doesn't Pac*Bell do this? (I called Pac*Bell to try this, and said, "But Nevada Bell always gives me instant access numbers for alternate carriers ...", and the Pac*Bell operator said, "Sir, you are not dealing with Nevada Bell!" Sort of sounds a bit familiar, huh? I think the people at Pac*Bell are watching too much TV! :-) [Well, OK, she didn't say that EXACTLY, but sort of...] ) Anyhow, from my unfortunate experience with Comm Systems, they don't seem to check the PIN all the time from payphones and COCOTs that have them as their primary 0+ carrier. Hence, if you go to a COCOT or Pac*Bell phone that says "Comm Systems is the 0+ carrier for calls outside the area", and make up a PIN or an entire calling card number, they don't always check, and probably just pass the bill along to the appropriate local Bell and make the Bell figure it out. (Why they should be allowed to do this, costing some Bell and eventually their customers more money I'll never know...). If you dial from a non-Comm Systems payphone, they almost universally check. I tried making up a PIN for my NY number from a Comm Systems phone about 4 months ago, and I was billed for the call (some outrageous amount). I called NY Tel, which has a *special office* just to handle AOS problems (I wonder how much THAT costs us ratepayers!), and the rep. instantly took it off and said, quite frankly, "Please!!! Sir, if you can, just use AT&T!". When I told her that the PIN wasn't even valid, she said "Oh, sure ... sounds like them ... you could probably dial in 411 and they'd let that go through ... I've done 35 or so complaints about them today already!". So much for divestiture...(but let's not start on THAT again...) Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet (hopefully getting a CA account soon...) ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: 415 0+ Dialing Date: 25 Jul 90 13:53:47 PDT (Wed) From: John Higdon "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" writes: > (BTW, I must apologize for some of my previous cracks about GTE Never apologize about GTE put downs. They always deserve it. > ... I've been used to GTE in the LA area > which is plain awful, whereas GTE in the Bay Area, at least in my > limited experience, seems up to par with Pac*Bell in some areas, and > exceeds Pac*Bell in the speed with which it processes 0+ calls from > its payphones, at least in Novato.) You're lucky to find a phone in Los Gatos that works at all. You mean to say that it's WORSE in LA? How can that be? And in LA you have the advantage of being somewhere in the same region as their centralized everything. Also, I'm sure they have heard of equalized lines, data circuits, OPXs, and tie lines in the southland. There is so litte demand for that in the sleepy town of Los Gatos that installers take on their jobs with blank stares. Live a local call away from Los Gatos and say that again. I dare you. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Re: What Rate Applies For Phone Used as an Intercom? Reply-To: David Lesher Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers Date: Wed, 25 Jul 90 21:35:42 GMT List the phone in the name of Lester P. Zygote or such. That won't solve the problem of listing the building, but it will solve the problem of listing the super's name every year. If the super wants her/his name in the book, buy a second listing. Oh, and get a deposit to cover his calls to Timbucktoo. wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (305) 255-RTFM pob 570-335 33257-0335 ------------------------------ From: John Slater Subject: Re: 144 Access Barred on Mercury Phones Date: 24 Jul 90 10:27:20 GMT Reply-To: John Slater In article <9936@accuvax.nwu.edu>, robertsn@iosg.enet.dec.com (Nigel Roberts 0860 578600) writes: >Credit card calls cost a minimum of 50p. One gotcha is that the >follow-on call button has no effect save that of eliminating the need >to swipe the card again -- you will still be charged a (second) 50p >minimum fee. Is this not the case with BT credit-card payphones? I was under the inpression that they had a similar 50p minimum charge per call. If they let you make multiple calls for a single 50p minimum charge, then I'm pleasantly surprised with BT. Anyone know what the story is on this? I don't see one of these beasties very often, so I can't try it out. >But if you dial 144 (the access code for non-operator calls using >Chargecard) you get "BARRED CALL" on the phone's display. >Equal access? Forget it. Hmmm ... (1) 131 is barred on BT payphones, so there's equal inter-company inflexibility (2) 131 is also barred from Mercury payphones (so you can't use your own account on them) - at least they're being consistent! Not so much Equal Access as Equal Refusal :-( John Slater Sun Microsystems UK, Gatwick Office ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: Re: Nicad "Memory" Date: 24 Jul 90 18:29:20 GMT Organization: very little In article <9807@accuvax.nwu.edu>, forrette@sim.berkeley.edu (Steve Forrette) writes: > Can someone recap the discussion of "memory" in nicad batteries? I'm > I had it unplugged for about two months, and like a dummy didn't > disconnect the battery in the handset. > This is bad news, right? It's been charging for over two days, and > reads only 2.65 volts. The battery is rated at 3.6V, 720mAh. When I > take the handset off the base, the LO BATTERY light comes on, and none > of the keys do anything. Any thoughts? This is not a case of nicad memory, but reversed polarity. The batteries have disharged so far that they have probably reversed, and may be non-recoverable. Its time for new batteries. Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #514 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18067; 26 Jul 90 2:36 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17634; 26 Jul 90 0:52 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13440; 25 Jul 90 23:45 CDT Date: Wed, 25 Jul 90 22:43:08 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #515 BCC: Message-ID: <9007252243.ab30930@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 25 Jul 90 22:42:57 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 515 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cellular/Cordless Phones in Computer Room [Darrel J. Van Buer] Re: Cellular/Cordless Phones in Computer Room [Rob Warnock] Re: Cellular Intercept Quiz [Joel B. Levin] Re: Radio Shack CT-102 [Scott R. Myers] Inexpensive Cellular Phone [Roger Clark Swann] Re: COCOTs and 10xxx Access [Douglas Scott Reuben] Re: AT&T Calling Card Discrimination [Monty Solomon] Re: AT&T Calling Card Discrimination [Nigel Allen] Re: Reference Book Wanted on Telephones [Chip Rosenthal] Re: Reference Book Wanted on Telephones [Howard Siegel] Re: 415/408 0+ Dialing [Douglas Scott Reuben] AT&T Universal Calling Card Number [Andy Malis] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Darrel J. Van Buer" Subject: Re: Cellular/Cordless Phones in Computer Room Date: 24 Jul 90 21:08:05 GMT Organization: Unisys Corporation, Paoli Research Center; Paoli, PA Computers and radios have an uneasy coexistence. I have had problems of mutual interference at home between a PC and my ham radio gear. Most of the time, problems are minor (slight interference with radio reception mostly), but on some bands my shortwave transmitter causes the PC to act like someone is leaning on the keyboard. They do share a power circuit and cables from both share a rats nets of wires behind my desk. Problems will vary with distance, orientation, power levels and operating frequency (since some poorly shielded wire in the computer could resonate and absorb a lot of energy). Some hams have had problems with transmitters confusing the new computerized cars. I would certainly avoid trying novel combinations of gear during important computer activities. Since power falls off rapidly with distance, you can also move away before transmitting to reduce risks. Darrel J. Van Buer, PhD; c/o Unisys; 5731 Slauson Ave, Culver City, CA 90230 (213)338-3760 KI6VY darrelj@CULV.UNISYS.COM ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Jul 90 11:08:33 GMT From: Rob Warnock Subject: Re: Cellular/Cordless Phones in Computer Room Reply-To: Rob Warnock Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA In article <10066@accuvax.nwu.edu> alans@hp-ptp.hp.com (Alan Sanderson) writes: | FCC Class B certified for RFI emissions (computer room environment - | not personal computer Class A). Sorry, you got it backwards (typo, no doubt): FCC Part 15 Sub-Part J Class B Computing Devices is stuff used in residential environments (PC's, answering machines, smart phones, Teddy Bears that record/echo you, etc.); Class A is office/industrial. A "Computing Device" as defined and covered by Part 15/J is *anything* which contains a device for generating frequencies in excess of 10 KHz, except things covered in other FCC Parts (radios, microwave ovens, etc.), and wrist watches (which are specifically exempted in 15/J, although I would assume they have the potential to emit harmonics of 32,768 Hz, the most commonly used crystal). 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: Joel B Levin Subject: Re: Cellular Intercept Quiz Date: 25 Jul 90 13:39:31 GMT Reply-To: Joel B Levin Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Incorporated In article <9946@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 500, Message 10 of 12 |Also, all this talk about frequencies, etc., is so unnecessary. If you |want to generate SIT, just record some off the phone. The frequencies |aren't critical and it doesn't even matter if there is a little flutter |thrown in for good measure. Enjoy! In fact, this will make it sound more like the real thing than freshly generated pure tones. Better yet: turn the gain up high enough to induce distortion as well. /JBL Nets: levin@bbn.com or {...}!bbn!levin pots: (617)873-3463 ------------------------------ From: "Scott R. Myers" Subject: Re: Radio Shack CT-102 Date: 25 Jul 90 18:33:58 GMT Organization: Rutgers University Typically when Radio Shack puts an item on sale a few times during a short time period or once for quite a long time it either means the will be selling it at that regular price or the are discontinuing it for a newer model which probably will still be around the same sale price. That's been my experience with them so that information is more than likely true. Scott R. Myers Snail: 1418 Kerbaugh St Phone: (215)225-1622(HOME) Philadelphia, PA 19140 Arpa: srm@topaz.rutgers.edu Uucp: ..!topaz!srm ------------------------------ From: Roger Clark Swann Subject: An Inexpensive Cellular Phone Date: 25 Jul 90 04:40:13 GMT Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics, Seattle WA There have been several articles here recently talking about cellular phones; what's the lowest price, etc. Here is the cheapest one that I have seen to date: *FAMOUS MAKER* transportable cellular telephone $99.99 3 watts 9 number memory automatic call retry Battery pack and charger: $39.99 sold by DAMARK International, Inc. 7101 Winnetka Ave. N., Minneapolis, MN 55428-1619 1-800-729-9000 1-612-531-0082 ** Special price requires one year new activation and minimum service conmmitment through International Ventures, Inc. Phone not available in CA, N. Carolina, & Hawaii. This offer void where activation requirement is prohibited by law. ^^^^ This might answer the recent question about getting a $299 Tandy special without the service commitment... Anyone know if these units are any good? Who is International Ventures? Roger Swann | uucp: uw-beaver!ssc-vax!clark @ | The Boeing Company | [Moderator's Note: Some of those cheapie phones come with deals attached that are *so* sleazy. Fretters is good like that: They were selling a cell phone for $79.00 (yes, *seventy-nine* dollars) which was -- according to the advertisement -- 'ready to use'. Except, you had to buy a battery ($69); a battery charger ($119); pay an obligatory 'installation fee' ($100); and the real gem: sign up with Ameritech for $1000 in service, payable up front. They told you about the first three conditions in small print near the bottom of the ad, but they waited until you were in the store and ready to sign up before they dropped the '$1000 in advance to Ameritech' on you. It stunk, and people were turning around and walking out of the store as fast as they had walked in. I left, went to Radio Shack and got a CT-301 for $499 instead, with a short term commitment to Ameritech and no minimum use. PT] ------------------------------ Date: 24-JUL-1990 23:27:33.36 From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" Subject: Re: COCOTs and 10xxx Access Although I totally agree with John Higdon's post about COCOTs and the CPUC which appeared in the Digest a few days ago, I must differ on one point: I have actually found a COCOT that allows 10xxx access! And it is NOT one of those "converted" Pac*Bell payphones which Pac*Bell decided to abandon and hand over to some slimey COCOT/AOS outfit... If anyone is driving south from Sacramento on I-80, to the right, about seven miles before the Vacaville (err ... the "Nut Tree") exit, there is a Chevron and Unocal-76 gas station. (I think those were the two...) There are always lots of trucks there. There are actually TWO real-life COCOTs on the Chevron property that allowed 10xxx access every time I tried. (Of course, less than two feet away on the Unocal lot there were those ex-Pac*Bell COCOTs which blocked all 10xxx calls...). So there do exist at least *two* COCOTs in the USA that allow 10xxx access. I can just see the people at FCC Informal Complaints in DC using that as an example, saying "See, we got a few working ... don't rush us!" Yeah ... right... Actually, for those not familiar with COCOTs in California, all COCOTs (at least the ones I've used) use Pac*Bell for their local calling card and operator services, and you only get into the problem of blocking when you want to make a long distance call. Of course, many of them still disable the Touch Tone pad after you enter your card number, so you can't make sequence calls or tone in digits to voicemail or an answering machine. It also seems that all Safeway stores in the Bay Area now use private payphones, as I couldn't find any Safeway with a real Pac*Bell phone on their property. (However, the one off of I-80 in Truckee has a couple of Pac*Bells.) Accordingly, I just shop at Lucky's! Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Jul 90 23:37:26 EDT From: Monty Solomon - Temp Consultant Subject: Re: AT&T Calling Card Discrimination In article <10009@accuvax.nwu.edu> 0003513813@mcimail.com (John C. Fowler) writes: >When I call up one of my credit card customer service lines, they >frequently require that I give them my mother's maiden name, or my ZIP >code, or when was the last time I ate at a restaurant and charged it >to that card, or something else designed to insure that it really is >me calling them and not just somebody who found my card. Most of the time, the credit card companies just ask for name, address and zip code. This is an annoying farce. Almost anyone can obtain this information about you, especially any mail order firm where you have placed an order. Citibank has an automated attendant which asks for your credit card number and zip code. After keying in that information using a tone phone, you can find out your available balance and date and amount of last payment. There are no privacy protections here. I'm sure that lots of customers find this to be convenient though. I would like them to require a PIN or some other code instead of the zip code for identification/verification purposes. # Monty Solomon / ------------------------------ From: Nigel Allen Subject: Re: AT&T Calling Card Discrimination Reply-To: ndallen@contact.uucp (Nigel Allen) Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada. Date: Wed, 25 Jul 90 02:45:24 GMT 0003513813@mcimail.com (John C. Fowler) writes: >An AT&T Calling Card application is rather long and > asks for all sorts of personal information, so they should have no > problems asking something that only the true cardholder > would know off-hand. If you want an AT&T calling card and do not already have an account with AT&T, you have to fill out an application form, which asks many of the questions a Visa or MasterCard application would. (There is a separate application form for university students, by the way.) The information collected on the form would allow AT&T to ask verification questions, as John C. Fowler suggested. However, I think that most AT&T calling cards are issued to people or companies who have selected AT&T as their primary carrier, or at least who can be billed on an existing LEC telephone account. AT&T might have extensive information about someone's calling patterns at its fingertips, but it would not know personal information about the cardholder, such as his or her mother's maiden name. ------------------------------ From: Chip Rosenthal Subject: Re: Reference Book Wanted on Telephones Date: 25 Jul 90 04:58:39 GMT Organization: Unicom Systems Development, Austin, TX In article <10029@accuvax.nwu.edu> jane@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state. edu (Jane M. Fraser) writes: >>>Understanding Telephone Electronics [...] J. L. Fike, et al 1983 >I (rather, my TA) tried very hard to get our local Radio Shack to get >copies of this book for a class I am teaching this summer. There is a newer edition available. Sams publishes it; I believe Rat Shak just puts their name on it. Sams can be contacted at 800-257-5755. However, for any telecom books, the Telecom Library is always a good bet. They are at 800-LIBRARY (or 212-691-8215). Chip Rosenthal chip@chinacat.Unicom.COM Unicom Systems Development, 512-482-8260 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Jul 90 21:25:51 EST From: siegel@stsci.edu Subject: Re: Reference Book Wanted on Telephones Reply-To: siegel@stsci.edu (Howard Siegel) Organization: TRW, c/o Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore Md. In <9970@accuvax.nwu.edu> "Henry E. Schaffer" writes: > However, there are some references which give quite a lot of info >and which are a good place to start. One book which I have given to >many people as a way to get started is: >Understanding Telephone Electronics >Developed and Published by Texas Instruments Learning Center >J. L. Fike, et al 1983 >Radio Shack catalog number 62-1388 > I haven't checked lately to see if there is a new edition or even if >it is still available. This is a self-teaching type of text with >quizzes and answers for each chapter. I have looked for this book since it was mentioned here a few weeks back. I have not been able to find it. It is not listed in any current Radio Shack catalogs nor do they have it on the shelves. They some other books that have the same kind of information but I don't know how good these others are. Since I didn't know the catalog number that was used I didn't actually ask any of the salesfolk if it was available. Now that I have the catalog number I'll have to go back and ask. Does anyone have another source for this book should Radio Shack turn into a non-source? ==-->> Standard disclaimers applied. Your mileage will vary! <<--== Howard Siegel (301) 338-4418 TRW c/o Space Telescope Science Institute Baltimore, MD 21218 Internet: siegel@stsci.edu SPAN: STOSC::SIEGEL uucp: {arizona,decvax,hao}!noao!stsci!siegel ------------------------------ From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" Subject: Re: 415/408 0+ Dialing Date: Wed, 25 Jul 90 10:52:29 EDT (Reply is to note by DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN written to Carl Moore ) You are saying some phones in 408 require you to use 0+NPA+7D if the call is wihin 408 area? And some phones in 408 will not accept this particular usage of 0+NPA+7D? 408 area does not have N0X/N1X prefixes that I know of, and I am not aware of its calling instructions being changed to match those of 415 for "area-wide uniformity". (This could also be a VERY early accounting for the coming of NXX area codes.) All the areas which I know have N0X/1X prefixes have, with the past(?) exception of 213 in Los Angeles, required 0+NPA+7D for 0+ calls within one's own area. (213's instructions were to use 0+7D within that area.) 213 was the first area to get N0X/N1X prefixes, in July 1973; the 2nd such area, 212 in New York City in late 1980, had its 0+ instructions changed at that time to 0+212+7D for calls within NYC (this was before 212/718 split). It was written in this digest that some NYC equipment could not handle 0+7D with timeout. When 201 area in northern NJ got N0X/N1X prefixes, both 201 and 609 areas (for statewide uniformity, I am told), changed their calling instructions; 0+7D within own area became 0+NPA+7D. ------------------------------ Subject: AT&T Universal Card Calling Card Number Date: Wed, 25 Jul 90 14:58:01 -0400 From: Andy Malis I just received my AT&T Universal Card, and its calling card number has no relationship to my home phone number, as might be expected. This probably means that I now have a COCOT-proof AT&T calling card number; only AT&T should accept it. However, I haven't actually tried it from a COCOT, and I was curious if anyone out on the net had. I also like the fact that the PIN is not printed on the card, and can be changed. Andy Malis UUCP: {harvard,rutgers,uunet}!bbn!malis ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #515 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19229; 26 Jul 90 3:34 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12200; 26 Jul 90 1:56 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab17634; 26 Jul 90 0:52 CDT Date: Thu, 26 Jul 90 0:19:06 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #516 BCC: Message-ID: <9007260019.ab23258@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 26 Jul 90 00:18:53 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 516 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Calendar of Events [TELECOM Moderator] Information Wanted on Digipac X.25 Gateway [Scott Ferguson] Re: What Rate Applies For Phone Used as an Intercom? [Dale Neiburg] Re: Telecom Peeves [Bob Hale] Re: E911 Service: Data From The Horse's Mouth [Roy Smith] Re: E911 Service [Mike Koziol] 911 Overflow [Steve Forrette] Re: The Roar of the Crowd: Rebuttals to EFF Commentary [Chip Rosenthal] A Public "Thank You" [Roy Smith] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 25 Jul 90 23:40:28 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Telecom Calendar of Events Here are some events planned for the summer and fall. Contact each organization for more details, or to register. Conference: Long Distance Call Aggregation/Rebilling This is the well known program led by Dr. Robert Self, one of the best known long distance experts in the United States. This two day conference will cover all aspects of long distance service, including third party marketing and other resale programs. August 6-7, 1990 in Chicago, at the Marriott O'Hare. Registration fee is $575 per person, and $495 each additional person on the same registration/from the same organization. For more information, phone 1-800-678-0398, and have your credit card number handy if you wish to register at the same time. Inquire by FAX: 1-313-994-8644. This program is sponsored by Lexicom, 2263 West Liberty Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48103-4405. For other business phone 1-313-994-8600. Seminar: Understanding Data Communications and Computer Networks. The instructors are James Peck (formerly Bell Labs, AT&T, and McGraw-Hill) and Mayer Rubin, who has developed networks for the Associated Press, British Petroleum and others. Boston, MA -- September 24-25, 1990 Detroit, MI -- September 26-27, 1990 Houston, TX -- October 25-26, 1990 Chicago, IL -- October 29-30, 1990 This seminar is sponsored by Quest, 124 Madie Avenue, Spotswood, NJ 08884. Registration fee is $690, which includes all class materials, and refreshments both days. Additional registrants from the same organization get a $100 discount. (Fee is $590). Classes are 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM both days. For information and registration, 1-201-251-3217. Conference and Exposition: NATA Unicom '90 The North American Telecommunications Association sponsors this annual event, which this year is entitled, "Networking Communications Technology". Over 100 exhibitors and a presentation by Harry Newton make this a very worthwhile event. Anything and everything concerned with telecom comes up at these programs every year. October 31 through November 2, 1990 - Sheraton Hotel, Washington, DC. Rates: Full package, includes admission to exhibit halls, all conferences, hospitality suites, awards banquet: $250 early registration before October 12, 1990 $350 registration on-site at the exposition. Daily package allows choice of attendance on one of the three days plus exhibit hall admission *on all three days*, and one hospitality session: Wednesday: $145 early registration before October 12, 1990 $180 registration on-site at the exposition. Thursday: $105 early registration before October 12, 1990 $140 registration on-site at the exposition. Friday: $60 early registration before October 12, 1990 $75 registration on-site at the exposition. If you are interested just in the exposition and the exhibit halls, admission you may purchase a ticket for unlimited admission on all three days. *No admission to any conference will be permitted*. $30 early registration before October 12, 1990 $35 registration on-site at the exposition. For more information about NATA Unicom '90, or to register and pay with your credit card, phone 1-800-328-6898. In Illinois or from outside the United States, phone 1-312-236-6476. For more information about the North American Telecommunications Association, write them at: North American Telecommunications Association 2000 'M' Street NW Suite 550 Washington, DC 20036 Of these three events, my recommendation would be if you can only go to one, go to the NATA conference and exposition, above. And if the cost is a consideration, then simply visit the exhibit halls ... a lot of fun and a very educational way to spend a couple days. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: Scott Ferguson Date: Tue, 24 Jul 90 20:13:14 CDT Subject: Information Wanted on Digipac X.25 Gateway Organization: PINK (612) 690-3066 I'm interested in hearing from anyone who has firsthand experience using US West's Digipac X.25 gateway. I'm thinking of putting up my BBS on Digipac using a dedicated connection and their public dial access ports. Seems like a lot cheaper deal than getting Telenet or BT Tymenet or AT&T Accunet to wire up a drop. Cheers! S c o t t F e r g u s o n cybrspc!pink!system@cs.umn.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Jul 90 10:47:00 PDT From: "John R. Covert 25-Jul-1990 1345" Subject: Re: What Rate Applies For Phone Used as an Intercom? From: Dale Neiburg Organization: National Public Radio In TELECOM Digest, vol 10, issue 509, Phil Earnhardt asks: > As an aside, it was very sad to see the electric and phone lines > being buried separately. Is there a good reason why they couldn't > use the same trenches? One reason is a problem that at this very moment has my wife turning gray before her time. She's a civil engineer, employed by the water authority in a Virginia jurisdiction suburban to Washington, D.C. Their main pumping station has just added three new pumps (don't know the horsepower, but each is driven by an electric motor about four stories tall). Everything is just fine till one or more of the pumps are run at variable speed. When that happens, high order harmonics (we're talking 30th-40th harmonics) are generated back onto the VEPCO power line and crosstalk into C&P telephone cables buried in the same trench, with such levels as to overpower phone signals (I assume non-multiplexed analog, since we're still talking audio-frequency harmonics). Incidentally, the power service to the pump station has harmonic filters on it. Maybe. All the consultant has been able to tell her about what's inside the cabinet is that it's "either transformers or capacitors", which in turn tells you something about consultants. All parties insist that their parts of the system are in spec--it's just that now and then phone service gets screwed up for about 1/4 of the county. This probably wouldn't be a problem for a residential installation, unless you have one helluva home workshop -- but is one good reason to keep power and telco separated as far as possible. Opinions expressed are my own. Dale Neiburg (202)-822-2402 (Voice only) ------------------------------ From: Bob Hale Subject: Re: Telecom Peeves Reply-To: hale@btree.UCSD.EDU (Bob Hale) Organization: Brooktree Corporation, San Diego Date: Wed, 25 Jul 90 18:24:11 GMT In article <9788@accuvax.nwu.edu> gs26@prism.gatech.edu (Glenn R. Stone) writes: >I've never heard one in action, so I don't know how well it worked, >but it seems to have got us thru the war, so there must be something >there. The fidelity of a throat microphone is *awful*, to the point where it impairs intelligibility. I'm speaking of the war surplus ones that I used to be able to buy in the surplus stores in Southern California in the late 50's. Maybe the technology has improved but I'd have to hear it to believe it. Bob Hale ...!ucsd!btree!hale 619-535-3234 ...!btree!hale@ucsd.edu ------------------------------ From: roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: Re: E911 Service: Data From The Horse's Mouth Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City Date: Wed, 25 Jul 90 16:09:13 GMT In <10075@accuvax.nwu.edu> Tom Neff writes: > Nevertheless, it's dehumanizing and a waste of time making the > distraught caller recite everything from scratch when there's already > information up on the screen. I don't think worrying about dehumanizing somebody enters into the equation when a house is on fire or somebody is being held up at gunpoint. Besides, it's a lot easier to just say "Yes" to every question than to actually supply information yourself. I suspect that a frantic caller would just keep saying "Yes", regardless of whether the information the E911 operator was trying to confirm was indeed correct or not. We have a sizeable number of people around here who don't speak English very well, or at all. They tend to just say "Yes" to whatever you ask them. Ever see the movie Rain Man? There is a bit near the end where Dustin Hoffman (playing an autistic adult) is being interviewed to see whether he wants to stay "on the outside" with his brother or go back to the institution. He appears moderately lucid and rational, yet it turns out that all he's doing is just saying "Yes" to every question put to him. Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Jul 90 16:10:51 EST From: Mike Koziol Subject: Re: E911 Service A small city (Olean - pop 19,000) in Western New York state is going to start up their E911 system soon. Currently, idle, on-duty fire fighters are calling each phone in the city to verify the address information that the phone company has provided them. They started doing this without any advance notice to the public and the local police received many calls about suspicious phone calls. On another note I attended a presentation at an APCO (Association of Public Safety Communications Officers) national conference two years ago that dealt with 911 horror stories. In one case a store owner called 911 to report that a customer had just been shot in the head 3 times. The telecommunicator would not send an ambulance until she spoke with the victim! The victim was able to babble a few incoherent sounds over the phone and help was dispatched. One of the presenters was a retired Chicago police officer that had headed their 911 center. For the life of me I can't recall his name but he did bring along some video tape of his appearance on the Donahue Show. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Jul 90 04:15 EST From: Steve Forrette Subject: 911 Overflow A couple of years ago I had the occasion to call the Oakland, CA police to report a auto-bicycle accident. I got a recording "Hello, you have reached the 911 answering point. All operators are busy. PLEASE stay on the line. Hanging up will only further delay your call." A couple of notes: I had called the 7-digit emergency number - not 911. Also, there were no injuries, just a argument/fight. It looked like the driver was about to have is *ss kicked - that's why I called the police instead of the fire department. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: The Roar of the Crowd: Rebuttals to EFF Commentary Organization: Unicom Systems Development, Austin, TX Date: 24 Jul 90 23:49:13 CDT (Tue) From: Chip Rosenthal In article <9933@accuvax.nwu.edu> TELECOM Moderator writes: >To have each issue delivered to your email box, write the >moderators: TK0JUT2.NIU.BITNET. USENET readers can currently receive it as alt.society.cu-digest. Chip Rosenthal chip@chinacat.Unicom.COM Unicom Systems Development, 512-482-8260 [Moderator's Note: Yes, this is another way of recieving it. And the preferred policy is that when one can receive the same thing via news instead of a mailing list, one should use that option. It does save valuable network resources. Not every site receives the alt groups, of course, so the mailing list also remains available. Like TELECOM Digest and comp.dcom.telecom, it is your choice as reader. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Jul 90 14:06:39 EDT From: Roy Smith Subject: A Public "Thank You" A week or so ago, I asked for help getting the ringer on a 500 set to work right again. I knew I would get the help I needed on this list, but didn't expect I would actually get an annotated schematic diagram sent to me in the paper mail! That is exactly what I got in this morning's mail from Robert Sklar (ihlp1!sklar). I was going to send him a thank you by private email, but figured he deserved a more public accolade. Thanks, Robert! [Moderator's Note: Mr. Sklar does receive our thanks for coming forth with an answer to the question, but he is not unique on this net: Time and again, a question is asked, and many answers received. It is what I call the 'Spirit of Usenet' in action: a User-Network of people helping people. And as the feds and the newspapers are starting to find out, it is indeed a powerful communications tool. I'm glad to be part of it, aren't you? PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #516 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08622; 26 Jul 90 22:30 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20414; 26 Jul 90 21:05 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09030; 26 Jul 90 20:00 CDT Date: Thu, 26 Jul 90 19:48:14 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #517 BCC: Message-ID: <9007261948.ab07137@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 26 Jul 90 19:47:18 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 517 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Day Three of Craig Neidorf's Trial [Jim Thomas, CUD Moderator] Outside US AT&T Cards [Joseph C. Pistritto] High Voltage (was: Pseudo PBX For the Home?) [Michael L. Starr] Answer Call Service [Greg Monti via John R. Covert] NEC "NEAX 2400" Phone System [Will Martin] Motorola Micro-Tac Programming [Jerry Durand] Book Review: Long Distance Services: A Buyer's Guide [Nigel Allen] Looking For Entry "Intercom" Phone [Rich Zellich] Re: What Rate Applies for Phone Used as an Intercom? [Rich Zellich] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 26 Jul 90 01:46 CDT From: jt Subject: Day Three of Craig Neidorf's Trial Weds, July 25: The prosecution continued presenting its witnesses. The most damaging to the prosecution (from a spectator's perspective) was the testimony of a Ms. Williams from BellSouth whose primary testimony was that the E911 documents in question were a) proprietary and b) not public information. Following a lunch break, defense attorney Sheldon Zenner methodically, but politely and gently, attacked both claims. The "properietary" stamp was placed on *all* documents at the source without any special determination of contents and there is nothing necessarily special about any document with such a statement attached. It was established that it was a bureaucratic means of faciliting processing of documents. The proprietary claims were further damaged when it was demonstrated that not only was the content of E911 files available in other public documents, but that the public can call an 800 number and obtain the same information in a variety of documents, incuding information dramatically more detailed than any found in PHRACK. Also in the afternoon session, Secret Service Special Agent Timothy Foley, in charge of the search of Craig Neidorff and others, related a detailed account of the search and what he found. A number of files from PHRACK and several additional e-mail documents were introduced as government exhibits. The testimony of Agent Foley continues on Thursday. The attornies are a contrast of styles. Bill Cook appears slow, meticulously detailed, and methodical. He seems a master at eliciting images and descriptions of events. Sheldon Zenner, by contrast, has a subtle razor-sharp style that, while precise and methodical, is deceptively gentle and reassuring. From their performance on Wednesday both seem to be expert courtroom players, and each, in their own way, is fun to watch. The jury seemed alert, never inattentive, and no "MEGO" (my eyes glaze over) effect was apparent. If the issues were not important and the future of a young man at stake, one could take more pleasure in enjoying the drama as intellectual combat. The prosecution is expected to continue at least through Friday and probably into next week, followed by the defense, so it is likely the trial will last at least until next Friday (Aug 3). ------------------------------ Subject: Outside US AT&T Cards Date: Thu, 26 Jul 90 8:54:00 MESZ From: Joseph C Pistritto A couple of years ago I got an AT&T Calling Card for using USA Direct from Switzerland (the rates are about half the PTT's here). Anyway, its one of the ones billed to my VISA card, and the number on the card bears no relation to a US phone number, (I don't have one...). When I got it, the operator I spoke with said that it was a 'restricted' calling card, and that I could not use it IN the US, just on USA Direct. Well, always being one to test these things, I had the chance to use it while in the Bay Area a couple weeks ago. In an AT&T 'CardCaller' phone no less. I used it sucessfully to make an international call, as well as several long distance calls in the US, obviously using AT&T as my carrier. So what gives? Has this restriction been phased out, or was it just a load of crap from the beginnning? An annoying thing is that those 'card caller' phones (you know, the ones with the fancy green CRTs in them), don't seem to allow international calls without operator assistance. I tried from several in the SFO Airport with no success. On the other hand, the operator (always AT&T) completes these calls without asking any questions charging normal card call rates. Is this international restriction true from all payphones in the US? Joseph C. Pistritto (bpistr@ciba-geigy.ch, jcp@brl.mil) Ciba Geigy AG, R1241.1.01, Postfach CH4002, Basel, Switzerland Tel: +41 61 697 6155 (work) +41 61 692 1728 (home) GMT+2hrs! ------------------------------ From: "Michael L. Starr" Subject: High Voltage (was: Pseudo PBX For the Home?) Reply-To: "Michael L. Starr" Organization: AT&T HRISO, Morristown, NJ Date: Wed, 25 Jul 90 16:38:37 GMT In article <10036@accuvax.nwu.edu> julian@bongo.uucp (Julian Macassey) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 508, Message 1 of 5 >The Ringer >The voltage at the subscribers end depends upon >loop length and number of ringers attached to the line; it could be >between 40 and 150 Volts. Note that ringing voltage can be hazardous; >when you're working on a phone line, be sure at least one telephone on >the line is off the hook (in use); if any are not, take high voltage >precautions. The telephone company may or may not remove the 48 VDC >during ringing; as far as you're concerned, this is not important. >Don't take chances. This reminds me of an incident many years ago that happened to me. I was setting up equipment in a hotel conference room for a demo when I hit on the problem of connecting the modems to the phone line. The hotel phone was hardwired, and of course we needed a modular connection. The simple solution seemed to be to tap a modular junction box into the hardwired junction box. Although I had experienced the thrill of being shocked by military field phone magnetos, it never occurred to me to take the receiver off the hook (after all, I was only dealing with 48 VDC). As you might have guessed, a call came in during my wiring, and gave me quite a jolt! It only takes one time to learn your lesson. __/\__ ******************** __/\__ | starr@hriso.ATT.COM \ / * Michael L. Starr * \ / | att!hriso!starr |/\| ******************** |/\| | attmail!starr ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Jul 90 06:01:52 PDT From: "John R. Covert 26-Jul-1990 0901" Subject: Answer Call Service From: Greg Monti Date: 25 July 1990 Subject: Answer Call Service The brochure arrived in this month's bill from C&P Telephone of Virginia. This is not intended to be an advertisement; I thought Telecomers would be interested. "Announcing Answer Call from C&P Telephone. Thanks to the Bell Atlantic Intelligent NetworQ(sm), you no longer need to buy an answering machine to enjoy all the advantages of automatic telephone messaging. In fact, you don't need *any* new equipment whatsoever - just the touch-tone equipped phone you have right now! "Call in to retrieve messages quickly and easily ... at home or away from home. Save the $10.80 connection charge if you order by July 28th!" The list of features (edited for space): "- Special dial tone alerts you...if you have messages. "- Call in to retrieve messages...give your password and your messages will be played back for you. "- Callers hear your personal greeting. "- Retrieve your messages from anywhere. You don't need a pocket beeper. You can operate Answer Call from any touch-tone equipped phone... "- Protects your confidentiality at all times. No one - not even at the phone company - can retrieve your messages unless you request it. "- 30-minute message capacity. When your mailbox is "full," you clear it by erasing messages you've heard. "- Skip, replay, fast forward, erase or save. ...You can even hear the date and time of each call. "- Takes messages even when you're on the phone. ...Plus, if you have Call Waiting, use Tone Block when you're on the phone and Answer Call will take the second call. (With Call Waiting, Answer Call will not pick up the second incoming call unless you use Tone Block to temporarily deactivate Call Waiting.) A third caller will either hear a busy signal or will be forwarded to Answer Call. "- Option of multiple "mailboxes." For a small additional charge, each member of your household (up to 8) can have his or her own personal mailbox and password - all on one line! "...for as little as $5 a month - total. (Each time a call is forwarded to your Answer Call access number, or you call to retrieve messages, a message unit may be charged if you have measured service.) "Call now toll-free 1 800 321-7176, Operator 4501." I think not. Greg Monti, Arlington, Virginia; work +1 202 822-2633 [Moderator's Note: Perhaps, Mr. Monti, you will write again and explain your objections to voicemail over traditional answering machines. Is it just a matter of personal taste, or do you have serious objections to the service? I've had voicemail from Centel here in Chicago for quite awhile, and like it a lot. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Jul 90 12:52:13 CDT From: Will Martin Subject: NEC "NEAX 2400" Phone System Does anyone else out there have a NEC "NEAX 2400" phone system with "6-button Dterm Series II" telephone instruments? We recently moved to a new office with such a phone system, and unfortunately have received little information on it. For some unknown reason, the powers-that-be decided not to even distribute the manuals that were supposed to come with the phones. I managed to scrape one up, but it still isn't very helpful; what I think I need is info that is in a "service"-level manual, or one for the system administrator. For example, these phones have a row of ten programmable buttons on them. We know how to set them up as "speed call" buttons; that's fairly straightforward. But the phones came with cardboard inserts and peel-off sticky labels that show those buttons labelled as "OFF", "C", "CE", the division sign, "X", "-", "+", ".", and "=". So obviously there is *some* way to set these phones up so that they can be used as calculators -- they have an LCD display that shows the number you dial, the number calling you if a local extension, etc. plus another line showing date and time, so there is a display that would be suitable for a calculator. But how does one "turn on" this calculator mode?!? It isn't mentioned in the manual at all! If anyone can tell me the secrets to comprehending this system, I would be grateful. Regards, Will Martin wmartin@st-louis-emh2.army.mil OR wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil ------------------------------ From: JDurand@cup.portal.com Subject: Motorola Micro-Tac Programming Date: Thu, 26 Jul 90 11:10:35 PDT I recently purchased a Motorola Micro-Tac phone and by mistake picked up a copy of the NAM programming guide as I left the store. If anyone needs a copy of this information, please contact me directly. Jerry Durand Durand Interstellar, Inc. jdurand@cup.portal.com MCI: DISTAR ------------------------------ From: Nigel Allen Subject: Book Review: Long Distance Services: A Buyer's Guide Reply-To: ndallen@contact.uucp (Nigel Allen) Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada. Date: Thu, 26 Jul 90 07:50:22 GMT Long Distance Services: A Buyer's Guide - By Daniel D. Briere -------------------------------------------------------------- I just received a flyer for a book that may be helpful for some TELECOM Digest readers. (Other readers could probably have written the book themselves.) I haven't seen the book itself, but I'll quote from the flyer. By the way, the book is published by Artech House (685 Canton Street, Norwoo, MA 02062 U.S.A.), which also publishes other fairly technical telecommunications and microwave books. You may want to request the company's catalog, and a flyer that describes Long Distance Services: A Buyer's Guide in greater detail. The phone number is 800-225-9977, ext. 4002 within the U.S., or 617-769-9750, ext. 4002. The fax number is 617-769-6334. Hardcover, 300 pages, $66 (but pre-publication price is $56 until September 28, 1990). The author is president of TeleChoice, a telecommunications consulting firm in Manchester, Conn. Refer to book #439439 when you order. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Jul 90 13:35:04 CDT From: Rich Zellich Subject: Looking For Entry "Intercom" Phone Speaking of phones used as an intercom ... does anyone have any recommendations (or pointers of *any* kind) for these things? My condominium building has a Trigon phone in the courtyard; this phone allows a two-digit code to pulse-dial residents' regular seven-digit numbers through a dedicated residential line to the CO (we had to get the line connected from one of the residences to get a residential rate). It also looks for a "5" DTMF tone and, on seeing one, sends an electrical signal to two solenoid-operated locks in upper-level entry doors. The Trigon has died - two batteries hard-soldered to a circuit board are now trash, and the service company says they have to send the board back to the manufacturer to replace the batteries, expected to take three weeks or so and cost at least $300! They will also sell us a replacement - "better", what- ever that means - system for about $1000. I have talked to one local business phone supplier so far, and he has spent almost two weeks researching possible replacements, with no luck as far as I can tell (no call-back, anyway, after one followup to make sure he hadn't forgotten about me). Considering I can buy a whole Panasonic PBX cheaper than the $1000 they want for what amounts to one memory-phone with one added feature (looking for a tone, and activating an electrical signal for 10 seconds), both the $300 repair and $1000 replacement costs seem just a tad steep. One catch is that the phone is out in the weather, on our mailbox wall under an overhanging entry deck, so it has to be waterproof and also able to take extremes of heat and cold (the Trigon doesn't like anything below about twenty degrees F, and is apparently only moderately moisture proof). At this point, we're considering just buying a memory phone, if we can find a weatherproof one, and ignoring the requirement to remotely open solenoid-operated locks (that circuit has been mostly out of order for over 18 months, anyway). We *must* have at least an 18-number capacity, and 36 is desirable (the downstairs units have open access to their doors, so don't really need the phone access). Any help would be much appreciated. Rich ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Jul 90 14:54:36 CDT From: Rich Zellich Subject: Re: What Rate Applies for Phone Used as an Intercom? In the case of our condominium, since we are registered with the state as a corporation (of some special sort devised for such owner-associations), SW Bell insisted on the business rate. So, instead, we had a second residential line run from one of the units with a cooperative owner and now have it billed as a residential line. We also did two other things: (1) We had outgoing long-distance disallowed, just as a safety (since the phone only accepts two-digit codes and dials corresponding local seven-digit numbers, there's not much chance for toll fraud, but somebody could always foul up programing the seven-digit numbers ... or tap into the line, I suppose, since it's more exposed than the other lines in the building); (2) Selected measured service instead of flat rate (in Missouri, we have the luxury of flat rate still being the norm, and measured service only an experiment - the PUC is on *our* side in this state!) - this was done based on the idea that "security" let-me-in calls would be relatively low in number, and normally of only a few seconds, rather than minutes, duration. So far this has worked well, and we get monthly bills of around $2.50 for this line. Cheers, Rich ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #517 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09993; 26 Jul 90 23:42 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14914; 26 Jul 90 22:10 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab20414; 26 Jul 90 21:05 CDT Date: Thu, 26 Jul 90 20:26:26 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #518 BCC: Message-ID: <9007262026.ab15762@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 26 Jul 90 20:25:55 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 518 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: E911 -- All Operators Are Busy [Tim Pozar] Re: E911 Experience [Robert E. Zabloudil] Re: E911 Service: Data From The Horse's Mouth [Marty Brenneis] Re: Cell Phones, Voice Channel, Etc. [Douglas Scott Reuben] Re: A Couple Tech Questions About Cellular Phones [John Higdon] Re: An Inexpensive Cellular Phone [Peter M. Weiss] Re: Cellular/Cordless Phones in Computer Room [Julian Macassey] Re: 415/408 0+ Dialing [John Higdon] Re: 415 0+ Dialing [Isaac Rabinovitch] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tim Pozar Subject: Re: E911 -- All Operators Are Busy Date: 25 Jul 90 17:55:00 GMT Reply-To: Tim Pozar Organization: Late Night Software (San Francisco) In article <10031@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: >But one interesting problem of 911 surfaced at this time. Sometimes >the system is overloaded by multiple calls reporting the same major >event. Even though only one call would be sufficient to summon aid >for the incident, the PSAP has no instantaneous way of knowing that a >cluster of calls are not for separate incidents. Yet, we have seen discussion here that sometimes one call does not summon help. It is only after a number of calls to 911 that any action happens. Tim Pozar Try also... uunet!hoptoad!kumr!pozar Fido: 1:125/555 PaBell: (415) 788-3904 USNail: KKSF-FM / 77 Maiden Lane / San Francisco CA 94108 ------------------------------ From: "Robert E. Zabloudil" Subject: Re: E911 Experience Date: 26 Jul 90 12:26:27 GMT Organization: Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, Columbus One day my children were involved in a typical sibling-type quarrel over something or another; I think it was my son who "jokingly" picked up the phone, announced he was calling the police, dialed 911, and set the phone back down as soon as he heard the ringing. Needless to say, the connection took; although it was satisfying that the Authorities called back to find out why the connection was dropped, I was not amused, as you can imagine. We immediately had a family talk about *exactly* what 911 is for, what it does, etc. That stunt has not been repeated at our house! Nice to know, though, that 911 'works' in Franklin Co OH. P.S. I suppose my phone number etc. is now in the authority's database? Should I be paranoid? Bob Zabloudil Opinions my own, etc. [Moderator's Note: Your number was in the data base from the time 911 was first implemented in your community. And no, there is no reason for paranoia, unless you are the type of person who is ordinarily paranoid about the police. PT] ------------------------------ From: Marty Brenneis Subject: Re: E911 Service: Data From The Horse's Mouth Date: 26 Jul 90 11:46:04 GMT tneff@bfmny0.bfm.com (Tom Neff) writes: >Nevertheless, it's dehumanizing and a waste of time making the >distraught caller recite everything from scratch when there's already >information up on the screen. >If the above three possibilities are a worry, why can't the operator >simply say, > "OK, I see you calling from 1471 Elmhurst Drive on the 2nd floor. > Is that correct?" > "Yes" > "Is that where the (accident etc) is?" > "No it's on the fourth floor, I just ran downstairs to the neighbor's" This is a common problem that I've had experience with. I work in a hospital as an aide, part of my job is to move patients from place to place. i.e. ER to Xray. I've seen people say, "Are you Mr. Jones?" to a patient wh looks up and says, "Yes." They then wheel him off to Surgery and find that they have Mr. Thompson who can't hear very well. In all forms of contact most prople in our business will ask you for your name, or other information and not prompt you with any other information. You may be someone who says "Yes" to anything to speed it up. droid ------------------------------ Date: 26-JUL-1990 01:01:23.68 From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" Subject: Re: Cell Phones, Voice Channel, Etc. In regard to the recent discussion about creating an "infinity transmitter" for cell phones: I have an Audivox CMT-450, and when I want to make it transportable, I have to place it in an awkward carrying case, with lots of cable, and then add an antenna lead that bleeds the RF of the cell phone so badly that even when the handset is removed from the main unit (and hence the speakerphone in the cradle is "off"), you can hear the conversation just as clearly, and even more loudly, through the speakerphone. You can also hear the call through any nearby FM radio, or I've noticed that it slightly alters a TV signal as well. Note, this only occurs in the portable unit, not while it is installed properly in the car. (I don't have Audiovox's designated unit [which costs more then the phone], but some cheap, generic one that is really a piece of plastic, a rechargable battery, a few wires, and a cloth carrying case.) Anyhow, when a call comes in, I can hear the phone click and send signals (high pitched tones, it seems) back and forth, and if there is any static I can hear that too. So, I can generally tell if someone is calling WAY before that phone starts ringing. What's more interesting, when I switch from one service area to another (like along I-80 between San Francisco and Sac), you can hear the phone drop the old system, and "communicate" with the new system that it is in the new system's area. (Or at least it makes some clicks and you can hear some signals when the ROAM light goes on or off.) (Every time it establishes itself in a new system it also sets my radar detector off, which a real pain on roads that straddle two service areas, and thus tend to go back and forth between systems!) What this all has to do with listening in before someone presses the "SEND" button is that I gave the phone to my brother to use while driving around in San Francisco. I called him at about 5:30PM, and he was in a bad area and/or all the "good"/clear channels were being used in his site, so there was a really bad connection. The weird thing was that I HEARD the static BEFORE the call even started ringing, and during the ringing the static went in and out, as if the ringing were being sent from the cell phone, over the air, to the cell tower. From what I understand, it is the MTSO or some central device which creates the ring signal, so why did I hear static mixed along with the signal? It seems as if some channel were being opened to the cell phone (hence the static which I heard from the land line phone I was calling from), while at the same time ringing was being generated from the central switch and was being intermixed with the "signal" from the cell phone my brother had in his car. Again, I'm not sure, but it SOUNDS to me like I was getting some sort of signal from my phone, (and not just progress signals generated at the switch), which leads me to think that although maybe I can't hear the actual sounds in the car becuase the handset/speakerphone isn't activated, I am getting a real signal from the phone itself. Note that in most other instances when I called the car in good-reception areas, I heard nothing until the call was actually answered. This happened on both GTE Mobilnet and Cell One (I ROAM with Cell One and have HOME service with GTE ... long story) so I doubt it's specific to just one company or the specific location my brother was in. Oh, and I also managed to get my hands on the complete set of parameters for programming an Audioxov CMT-400 series phone. (I think 500's as well ... or is it 5000?) Basically, its a list that tells you what each of the registers are used for and how to program your phone. If anyone is interested, I'll type it up and send it along for posting on the Digest. P.S. to John Higdon: YES, GTE in LA *IS* worse ... Lesse: I've lost maybe $10 worth of coins in their payphones in LA and Palm Springs and then the phone went dead. I've gotten the INWARD Operator by making calling card calls to New York City, I've killed the phone (made the line go dead) by making local calling card calls, I've gotten call-waits while I'm on a 0+ call and couldn't drop the party that call-waited me without hanging up the whole call, and, GTE LA *JUST* got call-waiting in most of their exchanges in 1985, or so they announced in a full-page ad I clipped from the {LA Times} ... wow! What progress!. In comparison, GTE in the Bay Area seems like a real company compared to what I had to put up with in LA a few years ago ... (But since you deal with them a lot more often than I probably do, I'll take your word as to how bad they are.) Oh, and there are LOTS of GTE payphones along CA-17 near Los Gatos, all which never stole my money and connected my calling card calls correctly (as to the bill, well, we'll know in a month! :-) ) Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet [Moderator's Note: Yes, please send along the CMT-400 information. PT] ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: A Couple Tech Questions About Cellular Phones Date: 25 Jul 90 23:51:24 PDT (Wed) From: John Higdon Rob Warnock writes: > | Not true. When your unit is address by the system, a two way audio > | path is indeed enabled, but your transmitter is not turned on until > | you answer the call. > Uh, I think you have it backwards, John. Your transmitter turns on to Sorry, it was the telephony in me that caused an ambiguity. What I meant by "transmitter" was the mouthpiece in the phone. I am aware that the RF transmitter comes on immediately when the mobile is paged, and that is what I meant by "a two way audio path is indeed enabled". John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Thursday, 26 Jul 1990 09:27:34 EDT From: "Peter M. Weiss" Subject: Re: An Inexpensive Cellular Phone In article <10106@accuvax.nwu.edu>, ssc-vax!clark@beaver.cs. washington.edu (Roger Clark Swann) says: >There have been several articles here recently talking about cellular >phones; what's the lowest price, etc. >Here is the cheapest one that I have seen to date: >sold by DAMARK International, Inc. 7101 Winnetka Ave. N., Many of the items in the DAMARK catalog indicatate _factory new/ factory perfect_. In my reading of a (not _the_) recend catalog I didn't see this inscription. One might be led to believe that this is reconditioned. Pete (pmw1@psuvm.bitnet | @vm.psu.edu) ------------------------------ From: Julian Macassey Subject: Re: Cellular/Cordless Phones in Computer Room Date: 26 Jul 90 14:47:05 GMT Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood California U.S.A. In article <10066@accuvax.nwu.edu>, alans@hp-ptp.hp.com (Alan_Sanderson) writes: > The computer equipment is > FCC Class B certified for RFI emissions (computer room environment - > not personal computer Class A). The above statement is logical but not right. Equipment meeting Class A requirements are Industrial/commercial. Class B covers domestic. The requirements for class B are far more stringent. The FCC recommends that all equipment should strive for Class B compliance. The requirements of Part 15 Subpart J have recently been revised. In reality you may find Class A equipment that causes less interference than Class B equipment. You may also find equipment that is supposed to be Class B that causes so much interference as to be unusable. I usually get flamed mercilessly for saying this sort of thing. Alas, no one ever wants to pay to challenge me at a test site. The reason for the above anomaly is that the model that passes the FCC class B test is often not the model that goes into production. All the capacitors, lumps of ferrite, bits of finger-stock etc that were used to reduce emissions and meet compliance, often fail to enter the production bill of material. Only a cynic would say this was callous cost cutting. The other thing is that peripherals are usually tested in an old IBM PC, well shielded and running with a nice slow clock. That peripheral then is sold to put in high speed poorly shielded clones. Just as a matter of interest, I have an apartment loaded with a PBX, several CPUs, and sundry radios (both receivers and transmitters). My main source of interference is a light dimmer in the apartment building next door. When are the FCC going to do something about light dimmers? Julian Macassey, n6are julian@bongo.info.com ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian N6ARE@K6IYK (Packet Radio) n6are.ampr.org [44.16.0.81] voice (213) 653-4495 ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: 415/408 0+ Dialing Date: 26 Jul 90 01:35:00 PDT (Thu) From: John Higdon "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" writes: > You are saying some phones in 408 require you to use 0+NPA+7D if the > call is wihin 408 area? And some phones in 408 will not accept this > particular usage of 0+NPA+7D? 408 area does not have N0X/N1X prefixes > that I know of, and I am not aware of its calling instructions being > changed to match those of 415 for "area-wide uniformity". (This could > also be a VERY early accounting for the coming of NXX area codes.) Ok, here's the real poop. First, for those not familiar with the area, 408 is really two planets: northern and southern. The northern part, which includes San Jose and the Silicon Valley is considered part of the Greater Bay Area and is part of the San Francisco LATA which includes all of 415 and all of 707. The southern part (to the south of the Santa Cruz mountains) is mostly in the Monterey LATA (except Santa Cruz and Watsonville) and is a completely different animal. There are no N0X/N1X prefixes anywhere within 408. In the north (SF LATA) 408 telephones do not dial "1" for long distance. The CO switches determine 7/10 digits from the number being dialed. There is also no delay time out. If the number begins with an NPA the exchange expects 10d. Otherwise the call is handled accordingly. My particular CO will absorb a "1", but it is not required. It will not accept a "1" for a call within 408. As of this evening, my CO will accept either 0+7D or 0+NPA+7D for calls within 408. This applies to calls in either SF or Monterey LATA. Calls that terminate in the Monterey LATA get the KaBong followed by "AT&T". For what it's worth, my CO switch is an ANCIENT 1ESS (probably the skankiest switch in San Jose other than the grossbar.) South of the Santa Cruz mountains, a "1" IS required for long distance. I don't know how 0+ calls are handled. Someone from UC Santa Cruz could maybe fill us in? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Isaac Rabinovitch Subject: Re: 415 0+ Dialing Date: 26 Jul 90 19:31:16 GMT Organization: UESPA In <10062@accuvax.nwu.edu> DREUBEN@eagle.wesleyan.edu) (DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN) writes: > (BTW, I must apologize for some of my >previous cracks about GTE ... I've been used to GTE in the LA area >which is plain awful, whereas GTE in the Bay Area, at least in my >limited experience, seems up to par with Pac*Bell in some areas, and >exceeds Pac*Bell in the speed with which it processes 0+ calls from >its payphones, at least in Novato.) I dunno. A few years ago, some GTE employees crashed the newly-installed digital switch (I'm sure that's not the right telecom jargon, but you know what I mean) in Los Gatos. I believe there was *no* phone service in the entire town for over a day! Lucky there wer no fires or anything! ergo@netcom.uucp Isaac Rabinovitch atina!pyramid!apple!netcom!ergo Silicon Valley, CA uunet!mimsy!ames!claris!netcom!ergo ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #518 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11318; 27 Jul 90 1:06 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13635; 26 Jul 90 23:14 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab14914; 26 Jul 90 22:10 CDT Date: Thu, 26 Jul 90 21:13:40 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #519 BCC: Message-ID: <9007262113.ab04959@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 26 Jul 90 21:13:34 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 519 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: PT's Moment of Fame [Jon Baker] Re: Precedents Could Be Set in Neidorf Trial [Peter da Silva] Re: ANI Suggestions for Businesses [Marcel D. Mongeon] Re: System 75 Abbreviated Dialing [Lawrence Roney] Re: Terradine FORTEL System [Lawrence Roney] Re: COCOTs and 10xxx Access [John Higdon] Re: Customers Have Long Memories [Jon Baker] Re: Telephone "Plant Management Systems" Query [Alan Sanderson] Re: Questions About Local Service and Long Distance Rates [Jon Baker] Re: AT&T Universal Card Calling Card Number [Jim Olsen] Re: John Galt, MCI, and Wrong Numbers [Jerry Durand] Business Rates [Isaac Rabinovitch] Close-Talking Mikes (was Telecom Peeves) [Donald E. Kimberlin] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jon Baker Subject: Re: PT's Moment of Fame Date: 26 Jul 90 16:26:30 GMT Organization: gte In article <9995@accuvax.nwu.edu>, john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > bla bla bla > Now, for the moment, forget about the chilling effect on all of us > die-hard telecom nerds. Consider instead the question: "Why is > electronic communications treated in such an unwarranted manner by the > government and law enforcement?" > If photography turned me on, much of my conscious life would be spent > around cameras and photographic equipment, as well as any nudge, nudge, *wink* *wink* > But those interested in > computers and telephony are looked upon as sinister beings. Any > digging for information is viewed as preparatory to an attack on the > system. And heaven forbid that a telecompunerd would actually use the > technology related to his interests to learn more more about it. > For some reason, information on a computer disk is more sensitive, > valuable, dangerous, and proprietary than the exact same information > in a dusty book on a library shelf. Why is that? And now for a really > scary question: What makes the information in Phrack more "criminal" > than the information in the Digest? Wait until the Keystone Kops > discovers THIS international ring of telephone hackers. Where are they > going to store all the computers they seize that have Digest messages > on them? Don't be paranoid! This is new ground for the SS (Secret Service, that is), and at this time they don't where the legal boundaries are. They don't know what they can and can't do. In the LOD case, they have deliberately over-stepped the bounds of legally acceptable behavior. The courts will review the case, and the actions of the SS, and decide what is and isn't legal for both the accused and accuser. In so doing, they will have established legal precedent governing the rights of the accused, in the context of electronic media, to guide the SS in all future investigations. Thus, if the legal boundaries are reasonably drawn, we should never again see this sort of abuse, in this context. I consider this to be the best course of action for the SS. It is best to draw the legal boundaries up front, rather than dance around the line for the next 50 years, never sure of where it is. Do you expect them to behave 'approriately' from the very beginning? What is 'appropriate'? Everyone has their own opinion. But, only one opinion counts : the courts'. In our judicial system, the SS can not just ask any ol' judge what they're allowed to do. They have to force a case to the courts, in order to force a decision. This may be the same reason for the 'LOD Defense Fund' - I doubt their motives are altruistic. Rather, it is in their best interest, as well, to know the legal bounds that govern or affect their industry. They want to see equal force applied in both directions on the case, in the hope of having the legal lines drawn fairly and equitably. However, my sympathies to all those caught up in the LOD affair. They didn't volunteer to be the litmus test, but had it thrust upon them. > IMHO, the Neidorf case could very well be a major turning point in the > future of the freedom of electronic communications. We should all be > watching this one very closely. IMHO? Since when are your opinions humble? Anyway, I'm sure it will be a major precedent-setter. JB ------------------------------ From: peter da silva From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Precedents Could Be Set in Neidorf Trial Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Date: Thu, 26 Jul 90 19:39:37 GMT In article <10056@accuvax.nwu.edu> TK0JUT1%NIU.BITNET@uicvm.uic.edu (jt) writes: > The term combines two separate activities > which, at the time of introduction, were hardly derogatory. PHRACK > first appeared in November, 1985, when the founders were in their > early-to-mid teens (I think the average age was about fifteen). I don't know about you, but I don't think of 1985 as being so long ago. And my opinion of phreakers and that particular type of hackers hasn't changed any in those five years. If you have that sort of spare time, how about creating some new code instead of figuring out ways to grab old stuff? > >Another thing that annoys the government and the telcos is the constant > >(and I think sick) swapping out of /f/ with /ph/ on words out of some > >misplaced reverence to the telephone network. On the other hand, I think our esteemed Moderator is way out in left field on this one. Personally, I'm sure that Neidorf must have done something worth prosecuting him for ... but if they can't find it out or prove it they should certainly not be hitting him with this bogus 911 file business. And the freedom of speech issues bring to mind the hypocritical ravings of our own {Houston Chronical}. They believe in freedom of speech ... so long as it's not in a competing medium. Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` ------------------------------ From: root@joymrmn.UUCP (Marcel D. Mongeon) Subject: Re: ANI Suggestions for Businesses Date: 26 Jul 90 01:05:43 GMT Reply-To: root@joymrmn.UUCP (Marcel D. Mongeon) Organization: The Joymarmon Group Inc. In the Bell Canada tariff which has Caller ID (actually they call it Call Management Services - CMS) the tariff indicates that the service is *NOT* available on "Trunk" lines although it is available on individual business service. Given that CLID or ANI has more uses for business than otherwise, is anyone aware of the reason for this restriction? Marcel D. Mongeon e-mail: ... (uunet, maccs)!joymrmn!root or joymrmn!marcelm ------------------------------ From: Lawrence Roney Subject: Re: System 75 Abbreviated Dialing Organization: Santa Monica College, CA 90405 Date: Thu, 26 Jul 90 05:42:03 GMT Your system administrator should be able to pull up form: abbreviated personal xxxx <--- your extension here On the console they should be able to enter # and * symbols in the provided field. E-Mail me for further info as to save net bandwidth. Lawrence Roney - Santa Monica College Telecommunications Department N6YFN 1900 Pico Blvd., Santa Monica, CA 90405-1628 Mail UUCP: uunet!ucla-cs!smcnet!lawrence Internet: lawrence@smc.edu ------------------------------ From: Lawrence Roney Subject: Re: Terradine FORTEL System Organization: Santa Monica College, CA 90405 Date: Thu, 26 Jul 90 05:37:04 GMT GTE in our area now has the voice response FORTEL system. It is a rather neat piece of equipment that seems to do much of the work that the testboard operators of the past used to do. When installers or repair people come out, they often use the system. I have seen it do the following: -- Tell distance in 1/10th of a mile to our demarcation point. -- Check for ringers on the line and read back the number found. -- Produce a tracer tone on the line. -- Ring the line. One installer told me that they were supposed to login to FORTEL and test any new lines. A report was generated at the CO that confirmed that they did the job correctly. Lawrence Roney - Santa Monica College Telecommunications Department N6YFN 1900 Pico Blvd., Santa Monica, CA 90405-1628 Mail UUCP: uunet!ucla-cs!smcnet!lawrence Internet: lawrence@smc.edu ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: COCOTs and 10xxx Access Date: 26 Jul 90 01:10:21 PDT (Thu) From: John Higdon "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" writes: > It also seems that all Safeway stores in the Bay Area now use private > payphones, as I couldn't find any Safeway with a real Pac*Bell phone > on their property. (However, the one off of I-80 in Truckee has a > couple of Pac*Bells.) > Accordingly, I just shop at Lucky's! And just where will you shop when YOUR local Lucky's installs COCOTs by U.S. Commercial Telephone#Corp. (sic)? These are most vile. Pad dies after call completion. No way to get AT&T operator. No way to reach repair/refund except 8 to 5 weekdays. Wants $1.05 for 811-XXXX (free call). No 950. I have written a strongly worded letter to Lucky headquarters. The COCOT at my Safeway, on the other hand, is somewhat easier to live with. Pad stays active. Phone is easily tricked into giving the AT&T operator. Allows 811-XXXX. Repair/refund available on weekends. 950 allowed. If it comes down to the battle of COCOTs, Safeway wins! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Jon Baker Subject: Re: Customers Have Long Memories Date: 26 Jul 90 16:41:01 GMT Organization: gte In article <10003@accuvax.nwu.edu>, telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: > Are customers today still that loyal? Something tells me most of them > are, if you put out a real effort to show you care about quality > telecom service, and are responsive to their needs. I think so. Suffice to say I'm not enamored with boxes with little pictures of bells on them, and Mr. Higdon shuns boxes with blue ovals. It all depends on the customer's personal prior experiences. ------------------------------ From: Alan_Sanderson Subject: Re: Telephone "Plant Management Systems" Query Date: 25 Jul 90 23:53:46 GMT Organization: HP Pacific Technology Park - Sunnyvale, Ca. My E-mail reply seems not to have made it through the mailer. Two possible sources of cable management systems are: ISICAD Ltd. Attn: Gerry Mcdonald Mulberry Business Park Fishponds Road Wokingham Berkshire RG11 2QY PH +44 0734 781 500 Fax +44 0734 772 149 ExperTelligence 5638 Hollister Ave., Suite 302 Goleta, CA 93117 PH 805 967 1797 Fax 805 964 8448 Alan Sanderson Hewlett-Packard AMSO alans@hpams0a.HP.COM US Snail: 1266 Kifer Rd. MS102F MaBell: 408-746-5714 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 FAX: 408-746-5571 Disclaimer: ------------------------------ From: Jon Baker Subject: Re: Questions About Local Service and Long Distance Rates Date: 26 Jul 90 16:32:10 GMT Organization: gte In article <9999@accuvax.nwu.edu>, david@cs.uow.edu.au (David E A Wilson) writes: > By 1985 it had risen to $190/$30 and $110/$30 and in 1989 it > was $225/$45. (No figure for moving.) > Even though I had to pay the $225 I still think this reflection of the > costs seems fairer. I don't see how it's fairer. It would preclude many people from having telephones. Is a telephone just a toy for the rich? It may not be a 'right', per se, but nobody should be excluded from having a phone due to exhorbitant hook-up fees. And, if the government offers subsidies to lower-income households to hook up a phone, in the end I'm paying for it anyway. I'd much rather the money not make the trip through Washington ... it seems some of it always disappears on the way :-). JB ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Jul 90 13:44:51 EDT From: Jim Olsen Subject: Re: AT&T Universal Card Calling Card Number Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Lexington, MA >I just received my AT&T Universal Card ... This probably means that I >now have a COCOT-proof AT&T calling card number ... However, I >haven't actually tried it from a COCOT, and I was curious if anyone >out on the net had. I tried it, unknowingly, two days ago. I used a COT which proudly proclaimed that credit-card calls from it were handled by AT&T. After I entered my Universal Card number, a recorded voice told me that US Sprint couldn't handle my call with this card number. Fortunately, this was a Genuine New England Telephone COT, so 10288 worked with no problem. ------------------------------ From: JDurand@cup.portal.com Subject: John Galt, MCI, and Wrong Numbers Date: Thu, 26 Jul 90 11:05:07 PDT Tom Perrine , Message-ID: <10092@accuvax.nwu. edu> states: >Yesterday, one of the people here was cleaning an old office and came >across a PC 5.25" diskette with a business card attached: [...] > And what is on the diskette :-) ? You can check any disk for virus infections by running a program such as SCAN _BEFORE_ executing any programs on the disk. A virus can not infect your computer if you do no execute an infected program. You should keep the latest copy of SCAN around and check your system from time to time. SCAN is available from many locations. If you wish, you may download the latest version (currently V64) from my BBS or I can send you a UUENCODED copy. It's a shareware program. Jerry Durand Durand Interstellar, Inc. jdurand@cup.portal.com BBS: 408 356-3886 (6pm to 8am PACIFIC time _ONLY_) ------------------------------ From: Isaac Rabinovitch Subject: Business Rates Date: 26 Jul 90 19:25:49 GMT Organization: UESPA The discussion of business rates reminds me of a story I heard some time back. Supposedly a Stanford dormie thought it would be cute to have the following annoucement on his answering machine: "You've reached Smith House, an experiment in modern living!" Pac Bell told him he'd have to change it or pay a business rate! ergo@netcom.uucp Isaac Rabinovitch atina!pyramid!apple!netcom!ergo Silicon Valley, CA uunet!mimsy!ames!claris!netcom!ergo ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Jul 90 13:49 EST From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Close-Talking Mikes (was Telecom Peeves) Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL Responding to: Bob Hale ..Hale responded to a Digest article <9788@accuvax.nwu.edu> by gs26@prism.gatech.edu (Glenn R.Stone) about close-talking microphones with reference to WWII "throat mikes". Stone had said: >I've never heard one in action, so I don't know how well it worked, >but it seems to have got us thru the war, so there must be something >there. ..Hale's response ended with: >Maybe the technology has improved but I'd have to hear it to believe >it. Well, perhaps you haven't listened to the helicopter traffic reports on radio or TV of recent times. There's been a LOT of improvement. Among several sources I found, the products of a firm called Global-Wolfsburg seem to be most highly thought of. Their products are used not only by broadcasting people, but many law enforcement agencies at all levels of government. For anyone with a serious interest, you can get good advice from Jack Hammill at Florida Avionics, (813) 530-0300. I reckon Jack probably knows. We do have more than a few pilots chasing drug dealers around Florida, you know! Not much time for asking, "What did you say?" on their radio nets. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #519 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14796; 27 Jul 90 4:51 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14802; 27 Jul 90 3:20 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08593; 27 Jul 90 2:15 CDT Date: Fri, 27 Jul 90 1:25:23 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #520 BCC: Message-ID: <9007270125.ab30304@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 27 Jul 90 01:25:02 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 520 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Looking For Entry "Intercom" Phone] [TELECOM Moderator] Re: A Couple Tech Questions About Cellular Phones [Dave Levenson] Re: Need Info on Motorola Portable Cellular [Dave Levenson] Re: Call Me Card / Comm Systems [Robert J. Woodhead] Re: What Rate Applies for Phone Used as an Intercom? [John Higdon] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 26 Jul 90 22:26:33 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Re: Looking For Entry "Intercom" Phone I've seen some units which are nothing more than autodialers programmed to ring the seven-digit number of the tenant desired, who in turn must press a button to unlatch the lock on the front door. There are various problems with this arrangement. 1) The tenant must have phone service, else no front door intercom. 2) Not only must the tenant have phone service, the line has to be equipped with call-waiting. Otherwise, a guest at the front door gets a busy signal and may have to wait several minutes to be admitted to the building ... not a nice thing on a cold or rainy day. 3) If the tenant changes phone numbers and forgets to notify the management of the building, front door calls will go to an intercept, or to perhaps the new owner of the number. 4) The tenant must *not* have call-forwarding, otherwise in his absence, his front door calls will be forwarded also, causing confusion for the person at the front door and perhaps the recipient of the call. Generally, an autodialer arrangement at the front door is not a very good setup ... particularly in a large, multi-unit apartment complex. A far better alternative is to use a type of hybrid centrex offered by some telcos, or premises equipment available from many telecom vendors specially designed for the purpose of front door intercom service. The best service of its kind is, thanks to the MF Judgment, no longer available except to grandfathered customers of Illinois Bell. Called "Enterphone Front Door Service", it was contained entirely in the central office. The next best system I've seen comes from GTE/Canada, and is called "Interphone Service". Please note the only difference in the name is the /I/ and the /E/ of the first word. The big difference is that the GTE/Canada version is Customer Premises Equipment which functions precisely like the central office version banned by the judge. In both versions, here is how it works: A weather-proof, very sturdy phone is mounted at the front door or gate of the apartment complex. Two pairs serve it; one for the phone and the other to operate the latch on the door. The phone itself is a speakerphone, with nothing for the public to touch or get their hands on except the touchtone buttons. No switchhook, no exposed wires. A metal grill over the speaker. "Dial Code Numbers" are two, three or four digits, depending on the size of the apartment complex. Dialing zero defaults to the management office or caretaker. Pressing the first button of the code number activates the phone, and opens the line to receive the remaining one, two or three digits, which are the actual code numbers. Typically, the first digit pressed is '1' or '0'. Pressing '0' both opens the phone line and dials zero. Calls are timed out after 45 seconds or one minute, at the option of the owner of the system. The rationale is that the phone is intended only for identifying and authorizing a visitor, or to conduct a limited amount of business on the way in or out of the property. The central office version requires dedicated pairs to the apartment complex. A tenant may change phone numbers, but the pair serving the apartment must never be changed. In the central office, jumpers from the Enterphone equipment to the pairs serving the tenant need to be correctly attached. If an installer working on the street or at the tenant's apartment building has some reason to swap out pairs, then a corresponding change has to be made in the CO. The CPE (Customer Premises Equipment) version merely requires that *house pairs* never be swapped out without reprogramming the unit. The GTE/Canada device (the CPE version) merely calls for all incoming CO pairs to the apartment building to go in one side of the unit, and all the house pairs to come out the other side. In both versions, a call is handled like this: The front door phone cannot be called. It will only handle *outgoing* calls, of a minute's or less duration. Visitor looks up the name of the person they are visiting, and dials the associated code number. No where in the entrance directory is reference made to apartment number or actual phone number. The unit receives this information, and translates it into a *wire pair* associated with the apartment (or, as the case may be, with the management office, the janitor's quarters, etc). It tests the line for busy. If the line is not busy, it breaks the connection to the CO, seizes the pair, and sends ringing voltage to the telephone in the apartment. The ringing cadence (usually, two short, clipped rings, a pause, and two more short rings) identifies the source of the call to the resident. The resident answers the phone in the usual way, and is connected to the front door speaker phone. The door can be opened by dialing '4', or admission can be denied by simply hanging up. Either dialing '4' breaks the phone connection (while holding the electric latch open a pre-detirmined number of seconds -- usually five or six seconds), or simply hanging up breaks the connection without unlatching the door. In any event, the connection will be broken after 45 seconds or one minute. If an outside call should arrive on the line while the pair is hooked to the door circuit, then the unit detects this. The caller continues to hear ringing, and the tenant gets a 'call-waiting' signal. The tenant can open the door by dialing '4', at which point the connection will immediatly break and the central office call will be put through immediatly, or the tenant can dial '8' to deny admission at the door, disconnect and pull the central office call. If the tenant simply hangs up the phone, the door is disconnected, admission denied, and the central office call commences ringing on the tenant's phone. If the unit receives a front door call and in picking the associated house pair find it to test busy, then the same thing more or less happens in reverse: the tenant receives a 'unique-sounding' call-waiting tone (different than telco's call-waiting tone), and can either ignore it or flash to answer it. By flashing, the tenant cause the door system to split the connection; put the central office on hold and bring in the front door call. The tenant then does the same as stated above, by dialing '4' to open the door and return to the central office call in progress; dialing '8' to deny the door and return to the central office call in progress, or replace the receiver to deny admission and disconnect both parties. (In some exchanges, merely hanging up causes the central office to send a ring back, as a reminder that you 'left someone on hold'). Both versions, CO or CPE, allow the use of rotary or touchtone phones by the tenant. Neither version is influenced by call-forwarding, since they seize the actual pair to the apartment without going through the central office switch. Both versions supply sufficient ringing voltage to trigger an answering machine; thus your answering machine could answer the front door for you and request that the visitor leave a message. Neither version relies on the tenant having actual phone service. If the tenant's phone service is disconnected, or not yet turned on, then the phone instrument will be dead except for those times when there is a front door call. Unfortunatly, both versions cause an adverse reaction to modems on the line, just like 'regular' call-waiting will do, and there is no way to suspend front door calls, as can be done using *70 on central office calls. The CO version runs a pair from the central office to a relay at the customer's premises which in turn triggers the door latch. The CPE version has the circuitry built into it, and a pair runs from the unit direct to the front door latch to open it on command. The length of time the door stays unlocked is adjustable; typically five seconds is adequate, but ten seconds may be preferred. Although the dial code number is usually assigned permanently to the wire pair serving the apartment, the code can be changed in the event of abusive behavior by someone at the door. Sometimes tenants will request that their dial code *not* be listed in the lobby directory, preferring only to give it to persons of their choice. The building manager can recieve calls on his regular phone in the same way with the appropriate dial code; in addition, dialing zero from the front door phone defaults to the manager's wire pair. In addition, the manager may choose to have an 'extension' of the actual front door phone in the office: this permits a limited amount of inter-building calls to tenants from the office, etc. With a special relay attached, it also permits audible supervision of visitors entering the building to see tenants. The manager can have a secret four digit code which functions like a loop-around, which when dialed simply 'rings back' and unlatches the door. This allows the manager, other employees, or trusted tenants to enter without a key if necessary. Another four digit code functions as a fire department bypass, unlatching the door and holding it unlatched until the system is reset. Still another four digit code functions as an emergency all-call, ringing all phones on the system at the same time to permit the manager to make an emergency announcement to tenants in the event of a fire, power outage, etc. The Interphone system from GTE/Canada can serve from as few as two to as many as 200 apartments. You purchase cards for the unit, with each card capable of handling a certain number of lines. The number of cards you must purchase to equip each apartment detirmines the overall cost of the unit. When Illinois Bell had their system on the market (prior to divestiture) they charged as follows: $5.50 per month for the lobby speakerphone and pair to the CO. $5.50 per month for the pair back to open the door. $50.00 per month for the common equipment in the CO. $1.10 per month for each apartment on the system. Useage was unlimited. Calls were not counted. Illinois Bell's contract gave a four hour turnaround on repair service at any time, where the common equipment or the door opening circuit and lobby phone were concerned. For the phones in the apartment, Bell's regular repair policies and charges applied. They usually gave four or five spare phones -- rotary dial, black, POTS instruments -- to the building manager as spares for placement in vacant apartments or in cases where a tenant did not otherwise have phone service for whatever reason. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: A Couple Tech Questions About Cellular Phones Date: 27 Jul 90 02:19:45 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <10094@accuvax.nwu.edu>, rpw3%rigden.wpd@sgi.com (Rob Warnock) writes: > I have no idea whether there is any magic a cellular CO can do to > create an "infinity tap" without causing ringing. I would doubt it, > but, hey, bugs and Trojan horses *have* been known to exist in > software, no? And cellular phones *are* controlled by the software in > the phone's local microprocessor. There appear to be tens or hundreds of companies manufacturing cellular telephones. A trojan horse of the type described could, conceivably, be in one or two of them, but probably not in *all* since they don't all contain the same code. Dave Levenson Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Need Info on Motorola Portable Cellular Date: 27 Jul 90 02:02:36 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <10083@accuvax.nwu.edu>, rich@pro-exchange.cts.com (Rich Sims) writes: > What are the issues, both legal and technical, in operating two > cellular phones on the same account number? How are these widgets > "identified" when a call is originated or received? Is it "field > changeable"?? If this is possible at all, can it be done with two > different models of phone? Your cellular service provider may offer to include two telephone numbers on the same bill, if that's what you meant by 'account number' but for technical reasons, two units can't have the same telephone number. These 'widgets' are identified by an electronic serial number (ESN), a home system identifier, and a mobile telephone number. All but the ESN are field changeable -- on some models it requires burning a PROM, others allow keyboard-entry administration of the same data. Dave Levenson Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave ------------------------------ From: Robert J Woodhead Subject: Re: Call Me Card / Comm Systems Date: 26 Jul 90 14:16:03 GMT Organization: Biar Games, Inc. DREUBEN@eagle.wesleyan.edu) (DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN) writes: >I think Comm Systems is some slimey AOS that does a lot of business in >the Bay Area and Northern CA in general. I have even seen them in >Reno, but they are much less prevalent there. You think that's bad? At one phone where Com Systems was the AOS, when I dialed 10ATT, I was asked to deposit 60 cents! At another phone (a Safeway) 10ATT worked. Robert J Woodhead, Biar Games, Inc. !uunet!biar!trebor trebor@biar.UUCP ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: What Rate Applies for Phone Used as an Intercom? Date: 26 Jul 90 21:22:07 PDT (Thu) From: John Higdon Rich Zellich writes: > (2) Selected measured service instead of flat rate... > So far this has worked well, and we > get monthly bills of around $2.50 for this line. How on earth do you pull that off? Here in Sunny California, the "FCC-Mandated 'Long Distance' access charge" is $3.50 alone. Then there is the four-something a month basic charge plus taxes. A friend who has some measured residence lines billed separately -- no feature (except TT) and no outgoing calls. The monthly bill comes to exactly $10.00. Looks like in Missouri you could get four lines for that! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #520 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04832; 28 Jul 90 5:34 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27049; 28 Jul 90 1:34 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29897; 28 Jul 90 0:29 CDT Date: Fri, 27 Jul 90 23:38:26 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #521 BCC: Message-ID: <9007272338.ab22570@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 27 Jul 90 23:38:02 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 521 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson NEIDORF TRIAL OVER! GOVERNMENT DROPS ALL CHARGES! [CUD, via Jim Thomas] Days Three and Four of Craig's Trial [CUD, via Jim Thomas] White House Phones, TT, Autovon and FTS [David Lesher] Alternate Access to LD Carrier [Thomas D. Davis] Panasonic KX-T3900 Revisited [Ken Jongsma] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 27 Jul 90 16:55 CDT From: TK0JUT2%NIU.BITNET@uicvm.uic.edu Subject: NEIDORF TRIAL OVER! GOVERNMENT DROPS ALL CHARGES! Less than halfway through the trial, and before it had presented its remaining witnesses, but government dropped all charges against Craig Neidorf. Defense Attorney Sheldon Zenner said that Prosecutor Bill Cook's decision was "in line with the highest standards of good government and ethical conduct." Zenner said that the government could have continued to the last and let the jury decide, but did the honorable thing. One reason for the surprise decision, according to one inside source, was that, as the testimony and cross-examination proceeded, the government realized that BellSouth had not been forthcoming about the extent of availability of the document and its worth. The prosecution apparently relied on the good faith of BellSouth because of the previously good working relationship it had with it and other telecom companies. Craig Neidorf was ecstatic about the decision, and feels vindicated. He can now resume his studies, complete his degree, and seriously consider law school. He *WILL NOT* resume publication of PHRACK! Zenner praised Bill Cook's decision to drop all charges, and added he is not angry, but appreciative. Zenner also felt that the the efforts of EFF, CuD, and the many individuals who supported Craig were instrumental in creating credibility and visibility for the case, generating ideas and information for the defense, and facilitating enlisting some of the prospective defense witnesses to participate. There are those who have taken the Ed Meese line and assumed that Craig must have done *something* or the government wouldn't be prosecuting him. Others have not been as strident, but have put their faith in "The System," assuming that the process works, and as long as Craig's procedural rights were protected, we should "wait and see." Others on the extreme end have said that those of us who supported Craig would change our minds once all the evidence has come out, and we were criticized for raising issues unfairly when the government, so it was claimed, couldn't respond because it had to protect Craig's privacy and was required to sit in silence. One prosecutor even said that when all the evidence comes out, Craig's supporters would slink back under their rocks. There is little cause for Craig's supporters to gloat, because the emotional and financial toll on Craig and his family were substantial. Dropping the charges hardly means that the system works, because if it worked, there would have been no charges to begin with. From the beginning, Craig expressed his willingness to cooperate, but the government made this impossible with its persecution. Craig's supporters, from the beginning, have published the evidence, explained the issues, and we can still see no reason for his indictment. The evidence presented by the government in some cases could have been presented as well by the defense to show that *no* criminal acts occurred. When witnesses must be coached into how to present negative evidence, and when little, if any, can be adequately constructed, one would think that somebody in the prosecutor's office might realize there simply isn't a case there. The government had no case in the beginning, they could not construct one, and they had nothing at the end. So, dropping the charges does not indicate that the system works, but rather that sometimes a just outcome may result despite unjust actions of over-zealous agents. The prosecution not only lost the case, but reduced its credibility in all areas of computer enforcement. The claim that a recent TELECOM Digest contributor made that the SS and others may intentionally overstep bounds to establish more clearly the lines of law may be true, but what about the costs to innocent victims of such Machiavellian tactics? Do we really live in such a cynical society that we find it acceptable to place lives, careers, and reputations at great risk? Now, however, it is time to move on and address the lessons learned from the experience. Some of the issues include how computerists can be protected from overzealousness, how law enforcement agents can perform their legitimate tasks of gathering evidence without violation rights, and how legislation can be written to reflect technological changes that protect us from predators while not subverting our rights with loose, broad, or inaccurate language. This has been the goal of Mitch and the EFF, and it is one on which we should *all* unite and focus our energy. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jul 90 03:23 CDT From: TK0JUT2%NIU.BITNET@uicvm.uic.edu Subject: Days Three and Four of Craig's Trial Some final comments on Day Three of Craig Neidorf's trial: It was curious that, in introducing the PHRACK/INC Hacking Directory, a list of over 1,300 addresses and handles, the prosecution seemed it important that LoD participants were on it, and made no mention of academics, security and law enforcement agents, and others. In some ways, it seemed that Bill Cook's strategy was to put HACKING (or his own rather limited definition of it) on trial, and then attempt to link Craig to hackers and establish guilt by association. It was also strange that, after several months of supposed familiarization with the case, that neither Bill Cook nor Agent Foley would pronounce his name correctly. Neiforf rhymes with eye-dorf. Foley pronounced it KNEEdorf and Cook insisted on NEDD-orf. Further, his name was spelled incorrectly on at least three charts introduced as evidence, but as Sheldon Zenner indicated, "we all make mistakes." Yeh, even Bill Cook. One can't but think that such an oversight is intentional, because a prosecutor as aware of detail as Bill Cook surely by now can be expected to know who he is prosecuting, even when corrected. Perhaps this is just part of a crude, arrogant style designed to intimidate, perhaps it is ignorance, or perhaps it is a simple mistake. But, we judge it an offense both to Craig and especially his family to sit in the courtroom and listen to the man prosecuting their son to continually and so obviously mispronounce their name. DAY FOUR OF THE TRIAL (THURSDAY, JULY 26): Special Agent Foley continued his testimony, continuing to describe the step by step procedure of the search, his conversation with Craig, what he found, and the value of the E911 files. On cross-examination, Agent Foley was asked how he obtained the original value of the files. The value is crucial, because of the claim that they are worth more than $5,000. Agent Foley indicated that he obtained the figure from BellSouth and didn't bother to verify it. Then, he was asked how he obtained the revised value of $23,000. Again, Agent Foley indicated that he didn't verify the worth. Because of the importance of the value in establishing applicability of Title 18, this seems a crucial, perhaps fatal, oversight. Next came the testimony of Robert Riggs (The Prophet), testifying presumably under immunity and, according to a report in the last issue of CuD, under the potential threat of a higher sentence if he did not cooperate. The diminutive Riggs said nothing that seemed harmful to Craig, and Zenner's skill elicited information that, to an observer, seemed quite beneficial. For example, Riggs indicated that he had no knowledge that Craig hacked, had no knowledge that Craig ever traded in or used passwords for accessing computers, and that Craig never asked him to steal anything for him. Riggs also indicated that he had been coached by the prosecution. The coaching even included having a member of the prosecution team play the role of Zenner to prepare him for cross-examination. It was also revealed that the prosecution asked Riggs to go over all the back issues of PHRACK to identify any articles that may have been helpful in his hacking career. Although it may damage the egos of some PHRACK writers, Riggs identified only one article from PHRACK 7 that MIGHT POSSIBLY be helpful. What are we to make of all this? So far, it seems that the bulk of the evidence against Craig is weak, exaggerated, and at times seems almost fabricated (such as the value of the E911 file and Craig's "evil" attempt to organize a league of "criminals." We have been told repeatedly be some law enforcement officials and others that we should wait, because evidence will come out that could not be discussed in public, and that this evidence would silence critics. Some have even said that those who have criticized law enforcement would "slink back under their rocks" when the evidence was presented. Perhaps. But, so far at least, there has been no smoking gun, no evidence that hasn't been discussed previously, and no indication of any heinous conspiracy to bring America to its knees by trashing the E911 system, robbing banks, or destroying the technological fabric of society. Perhaps a bombshell will be introduced before the prosecution winds up in a few days. But, even if Craig is ultimately found guilty on any of the counts, there is certainly nothing presented thus far that appears to justify the severity of the charges or the waste of state resources. To paraphrase that anonymous writer in the last issue of CuD, I can't help but wonder why we're all here! ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: White House Phones, TT, Autovon and FTS Date: Thu, 26 Jul 90 22:14:57 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers There are several reasons why the Oval Office has retained a Call Director for many years. Both that set and the Secy of Defense's terminate many ring down lines. They also provide AutoVON service. Now many folks have mentioned that AutoVON was an early user of Touch Tone, with all 16 tone pairs used. The four precedences those provide serve to knock lesser calls off {FAST!} so as to free the limited trunkage for more important calls, such as checking on General Bullmoose's pizza order :-} What others seem to have ignored is the more important difference between AutoVON and POTS or FTS: AutoVON is end to end four wire. In other words, separate {pairs/circuits} carry the audio from X-->Y and from Y-->X. Now, in general, most calls of any distance end up getting converted from two wire (your local loop) to four wire either in the first CO or in the toll switch. That's because {most} amplifiers work in only one direction {at a time}. There are loop gain extenders of various types (somewhere I have one Lorain Products made) around that try to switch directions and keep up with a conversation, but in general they don't work very well. The problem with hybrids (that convert two to four wire and verse vica) is that they are not perfect. If they were, all the energy would go where it should. But since the hybrid reflects a little of the incoming (4w) signal back out the outgoing, instead of sending it all down the 2w side, problems ensue. One of these is "talk echo" where you hear yourself, fractions of a second later, as the far-end hybrid echos. Another is "singing" or feedback, where the whole system oscillates. You can minimise these by keeping the gain low, among other things. But an important function of AutoVON is the conference call. The Secy Def or the CIC {or both} may, in a crisis, want to have five to ten bigwigs all on at one, some of whom are in DC, others in Texas, plus the guy in Seoul and the other one at Frankfurt. So you need that gain we just turned down last paragraph. At least when AutoVON was designed, the only way to do this was to use true, end to end four wire. But that's not very hard to do, at least in the set. You see, you and I are four wire. We speak and listen by different ports. But the network in your set turns it into two wire so as to keep the local loop cost low. Thus all you need to do is {basically} NOT USE A NETWORK. Just connect the handset transmitter to your talk pair, and your receiver to the listen side. It's really not quite that simple, but you get the idea. But wait, that's the AutoVON line. What about all the REST of the lines on the Call Director? They're normal two-wire, right? Yep, gold star Jamie, they are. I have seen schematics for, and photographs of, the wiring in the closet by the Secy Defense's desk. {I am VERY glad that I am not the one who has to maintain it. I think it has about the same number of jumpers as a small town CDO :-]} Somewhere in there is one of those little cute gray can WECO relays labeled "four wire". It in turn is controlled by the A-control circuits from the set. If The_Man punches up a four wire line, it disables the network. If not then it is used normally. So at least one reason that those phones have been there so long is that they provide switchable two/four wire service. Another is that they offer lots of customabilty, mainly cuz there's room in the closet for more relays. It may be crude, but it IS time-proven. Plus, do YOU want to be the guy who replaces it with a Whiz-Bang-Boof X-3060, that works FINE everywhere else in the world? Not me, Mr. Murphy, not me.... Unexplained is why, after all this trouble, is AutoVON's service so awful, that even on normal, two port domestic calls, you can't hear a thing? Danged if I know...... Mention of the photo of JFK's desk brings a piece of trivia to mind. FTS, the Federal Telephone System, the large disjoint system that {in theory!} provides intra-government telecommunications, came about because at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis, he could not, at a critical juncture, get a dial tone! I seem to recall that FTS started out with four underutilized CO's serving as tandems. DC's is in the middle of Maryland somewhere. wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (305) 255-RTFM pob 570-335 33257-0335 ------------------------------ From: "Thomas D. Davis" Subject: Alternate Access to LD Carrier Organization: Michigan State University, East Lansing Date: Fri, 27 Jul 90 14:29:39 GMT We've been approached by a well-known LD carrier as a possible candidate for alternate access to their services. Their big selling point is, of course, eliminating the access fees imposed by the local CO. I'm sure other universities have similar arrangements. Would anyone care to share their experiences and/or advice with us before we dive into this head-first? Tom Davis | The above statement shall be construed, Network Software Services | interpreted, and governed by me alone. Michigan State University | EMail: tdd@convex.cl.msu.edu ------------------------------ Subject: Panasonic KX-T3900 Revisited Date: Fri, 27 Jul 90 11:58:04 EDT From: Ken Jongsma Some of you may recall my problems with a Panasonic cordless phone. I really liked the features and range of the unit, but it had two problems: 1) Certain digits would not break dialtone (in tone mode), when dialed from the remote unit. 2) The base would revert to tone mode by itself, even though it was programmed to operate in pulse mode, after a few days. Seeing that I was going to be on vacation for a few weeks, I decided to send the unit in to Panasonic for repairs along with a detailed letter explaining what was wrong. I returned home today to find the unit waiting for me. I did not have high expectations after I read the techs' service report. He "cleaned contacts" and "replaced battery". I assume there is a non user serviceable battery in the base. In any case, the phone works fine now. Ken Jongsma ken@wybbs.mi.org Smiths Industries ken%wybbs@sharkey.umich.edu Grand Rapids, Michigan ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #521 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04986; 28 Jul 90 5:45 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27049; 28 Jul 90 1:37 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab29897; 28 Jul 90 0:30 CDT Date: Sat, 28 Jul 90 0:08:16 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #522 BCC: Message-ID: <9007280008.ab19171@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 28 Jul 90 00:07:54 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 522 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Asking For the Right Thing (was: What Rate Applies?) [Rob Warnock] In Defense of 911 Service [Rich Sims] Security Risks Using IBM's RSCS-to-RSCS? [Craig R. Watkins] Telecom MAGIC '90 (Disney) Cancelled [Craig R. Watkins] Caller*ID Tech Question [Douglas Scott Reuben] A Couple Questions About Cellular Phones [Jerry Durand] Re: Answer Call Service [George A. Theall] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 27 Jul 90 13:28:13 GMT From: Rob Warnock Subject: Asking For the Right Thing (was: What Rate Applies?) Reply-To: Rob Warnock Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA For some reason, the articles about rates for "phone as intercom" reminds me of a situation some 26 years ago... I was a freshman at Emory University in Atlanta, and a guy named Jeff Miller had interested a bunch of us in starting a campus radio station. It was to be an unlicensed carrier-current station; that is, the modulated R.F. would be fed into the 60 Hz A.C. power mains wires at a fairly low level, and only receivers in the same building (near the wires) could pick up the signal. [This is quite legal if you obey certain restrictions in "Part 15" of the FCC Rules and Regulations.] I was to be the "chief engineer" of the station. Because the step-down power transformers in each building have massive amounts of iron in them, they tend to do a pretty good job of blocking R.F., so we needed a way to get the signal into each building we wanted to serve (dorms, mostly). Some campus carrier-current stations generate R.F. in a central location, and then distribute it via coax cables to each building, where it's fed into the power lines behind the step-down transformers. We chose not to do that because of the very high cost of the coax and the installation of same. [We were on a *tiny* budget -- we built *everything*, including the transmitters, sound-proofed studios, studio consoles, fast-attack limiters, the works. What we didn't build we begged from area radio stations. "Give us your old, your tired, your junk!"] Also, we knew (from investigation) that the campus had been wired with plenty of pairs by Southern Bell, who had a "frame room" (in an area they rented from the University, behind the cafeteria) where all the wires went. The "frame room" was also where the PBX for the campus was located -- a kind of hybrid: about a dozen manual-operator plug-board stations for incoming calls [the operators were University employees], and some step-by-step gear for internal and outgoing calls. [They later went Centrex, long after I'd graduated.] So we figured we'd rent pairs from Southern Bell, and use them to distribute audio from the studio out to twelve small transmitters, one in each dorm. We thought we knew all the technical details: A.F. signals no more than +8 dBm (0 dBm preferred), D.C. less than 100 v. (48v. preferred), etc. So all we had to do was order them. Riiight... As it turned out, our first mistake was mentioning the word "radio" anywhere within a mile of a Southern Bell sales representative. "A radio station? Oh, you'll want AAA Grade or AA Grade lines, depending on whether you want us to equalize to 20 kHz or not. FM stations usually go with the AAA. Let's see, that's $6.00 per 1/4-mile (airline miles) per month for the AAA, and $5.00 for the AA. It's about 6 miles from your studio to the central office, and about the same back, so that'll be about 12 x 12 x 4 x 6 = $3456 per month for the AAA, or $2880 per month for the AA. We can get a more exact price for you after the installer works up the numbers. Which would you like?" After we came recovered from the first heart attacks of our young lives (almost ended them right there!), we thanked her very kindly [it usually was a "her", in those days], and said we'd call back, and started looking for some *HEELLLLP*! Another classmate, Bob Brown, then demonstrated to me to a skill which has served me in good stead ever since: How to "walk an organization" on the telephone. [Never mind that it was Southern Bell we were "walking", it still worked.] Others have mentioned it in Telecom: Each time you talk to anyone, very politely but firmly find out their name, their position, and their supervisor's name & posiition, and if possible do this *before* you give them too much detail about what you're asking for. Then don't hesitate to ask to speak to as soon as you experience any significant balking/waffling/evasion. Using this time-honored technique, we slowly walked up the organization of Southern Bell, getting the same story at each level ($thousands/month), but determined that there just *had* to be some way to rent a few of those idle pairs direct from the studio to the frame room to the dorms (none of this dead-heading out to the CO), and affordably, too. Finally we got an appointment to see a "Vice-President" [I forget of what] in person. And finally we struck paydirt (or at least a sympathetic ear). After listening to our whole long story [about as long as this message ;-} ], he gave us the following instructions: "Go back home and call up the New Service number, just as if you'd never done any of this before. Tell them you want to rent some 'E Grade or Message Grade pairs, for an intercom.' Give them the building and room numbers, and whatever you do, *don't* mention the word 'radio'. Those E Grade pairs will be routed directly through your frame room, without going off campus. The price will be $0.75 per 1/4-*wire*-mile, not airline mile, which will be a little longer, but at least you won't be paying deadhead to the CO. We don't guarantee any frequency response for E Grade, but with lines that short, it should be fine for carrier-current A.M., which isn't going to be super-high fidelity anyway. So go try it just the way I said, and it should work." So we did, and it did. Among the twleve pairs we totalled just under seven "wire-miles", and our bill was somewhere around $20 a month. So I learned several important things in college, even if there was never a class on them: (1) How to "walk an organization" on the phone, (2) To be careful what you ask for, you might get it, and (3) If it looks "reasonable", you probably have to ask for something "unreasonable" to get what you want. Next week's lessons: "17 Ways a Telephone Installer Can Miss the Special-Service Tags on Your Lines and Give the Pairs Away to Somebody's Telephone." "A Toolbelt, a Plaid Wool Shirt, and Blue Jeans: Your Badge to the Frame Room." And a bonus special, "How to Place a Service Call Against Telco Internal Cross-Connects Without Making Anyone Suspicious About How You Knew the Trouble Just So Happened to be Right *There*." 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 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jul 90 04:28:46 EDT From: Rich Sims Subject: In Defense of 911 Service While this is *not* intended to excuse incompetence or just plain stupidity, the 911 service is not as bad as some of the recent comments would indicate. Consider ... people tend to remember and relate the things that go wrong, not the ones that go right ... which the vast majority of 911 calls appear to do! The system isn't perfect, but then, it was designed by, and is implemented by, less than perfect creatures ... human beings. It is not now, and never will be a 100% infallible system. There will always be the possibility of getting an operator who is new to the job, poorly or incompletely trained, moderately incompetent, overworked, or any of a multitude of other problems. Even if everything works out perfectly on the call, the response may be less than what was desired or necessary, again for one (or several) of a large number of reasons. Unfortunately, the result of any of this is frequently tragic. The system isn't perfect, but it does work, most of the time. As with any other system involving the interaction of several people in a high-stress situation, there are going to be some screw-ups. The best we can hope for is that the respective participants in such screw-ups learn from the problems, and take the necessary steps to improve the response the next time around. Of course, one of those "necessary steps" is to make the facts known, so others can also learn from such cases. However, I suspect that not many of the people actually involved in handling 911 calls are reading this group! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jul 90 15:38 EDT From: "Craig R. Watkins" Subject: Security Risks Using IBM's RSCS-to-RSCS? In article <10008@accuvax.nwu.edu>, jej@chinet.chi.il.us (joe jesson) writes: > The fear is not knowing how a hacker can bring down my network from > IBM's network. Specifically, I remember the infamous "Christmas Card" > sent to all users on IBM's network. The "Christmas Card" was basically a program (an "EXEC" or a "command procedure") that was sent to a few random users. These users, without knowing what it did executed it. The beginning of the file said "LET THIS EXEC RUN AND ENJOY YOURSELF." When it was run, it printed out a character-based X-mas tree and and a nice holiday wish. The program then looked up the network addresses of the user's "friends" in their address book (NAMES file in VM terms) and looked up addresses in the user's network file log file (NETLOG). It then sent a copy of itself to all of these people. The neat (?) thing about this is that while you may be the mildly suspicious type, you may run a program without checking it if it came from your boss/wife/system manager/secretary/butler. The program did no other "damage"; it didn't delete files or change data, etc. It just replicated itself. It was reported, however, that this was enough to clog up some decent size networks. > What can be done through RSCS? My network has 30,000 PROFS users on > VM. RSCS is fairly straightforward since you can only SEND things. You can send files. You can send messages. You can send commands. That doesn't leave much to protect against. One thing to note when you configure your RSCS is to be careful when you allow remote users access to RSCS configuration commands and especially CP commands thru the AUTH statement. Be aware that given full access to a remote system and possibly the code of the networking software, it would be possible to "spoof" your network identity. Either don't allow such remote operators (as I believe they are called) or guard their identities are you would as password. > Any hackers or security buffs willing to tell? Nope. Just someone who's written some RSCS emulation code. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jul 90 16:40 EDT From: "Craig R. Watkins" Subject: Telecom MAGIC '90 (Disney) Cancelled Telecom MAGIC '90 was a conference to be held at Disney in Florida Sept 4-7 as mentioned previously in this forum. Upon contacting the information number (+1 407 363 6620) I was told it was cancelled because the Vista-United Telecom people would be too busy with European work to adequately prepare. On further prodding, I found out that they did indeed plan to present it at some time in the future (exact date unknown). They are taking names for a mailing list. Craig R. Watkins Internet: CRW@ICF.HRB.COM HRB Systems, Inc. Bitnet: CRW%HRB@PSUECL.Bitnet +1 814 238-4311 UUCP: ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!crw ------------------------------ Date: 27-JUL-1990 06:32:53.06 From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" Subject: Caller*ID Tech Question Yet another question: An associate of mine (and a good friend too!) is trying to experiment with Caller*ID and using Caller*ID in a variety of devices. (PCs, pagers, etc.) He asked me about getting technical info on how the info is sent, so I thought someone here may know. Basically, all he needs to do is build a device that gets the number and can send it along digitally to whatever circuit he wishes to connect to the Caller*ID device. (Sort of like a regular Caller*ID device but without the screen...). So what he/I need to know is what "signal" to look for between the 1st and 2nd rings (which, I think, is when the number is sent), and how it is to be decoded, if at all. I realize that some info to this effect has been posted here before, so if anyone can direct me to it, I'd be most appreciative. (If anyone else is curious, I'll summarize any/all replies that I get.) Thanks in advance! Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ From: JDurand@cup.portal.com Subject: A Couple Questions About Cellular Phones Date: Fri, 27 Jul 90 09:54:46 PDT Is it possible for your cellular phone to be paged without ringing it? This would be very useful in tracking someone without them knowing it. I know that drug dealers use directional antennas to appear in a different cell when they are using the phones, but they might not think about it at other times. Jerry Durand jdurand@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jul 90 09:23:25 EDT From: "George A. Theall" Subject: Re: Answer Call Service Organization: University of Pennsylvania In article <10138@accuvax.nwu.edu> Greg Monti writes: >"Announcing Answer Call from C&P Telephone. Thanks to the Bell >Atlantic Intelligent NetworQ(sm), you no longer need to buy an >answering machine to enjoy all the advantages of automatic telephone >messaging. Bell Atlantic is offering Answer Call now with what look to be the same features as the service from C&P Telephone. Since I frequently tie up my phone while dialing into the campus computing system I have been considering this service. Here are a few of my concerns: - When the service is initiated you must specify how many rings occur before the call is passed to Answer Call. Bell Atlantic will change this setting in the future, albeit for for a $16 fee. What's involved in this change that would justify such a fee? Are there similarly high (IMHO) charges for, say, altering the mailbox password? - Each mailbox will store up to 30 minutes of messages, as Greg noted. Apart from this, though, there is no limit on the size of any single message. Once the mailbox is full, subsequent callers get a recording saying there is no space for their message. Does this means callers at least would hear a message saying "I'm unable to come to the phone right now..."? How likely is it that an abusive or talkative caller would monopolize the mailbox? - Those with measured phone service are charged for not only their own calls to check the mailbox but also calls forwarded there. I'm curious as to the reason(s) for these charges. Is Answer Call targeted primarily at users with unmeasured service? From perusing the articles in this newsgroup I gather Answer Call works by intercepting calls to a number; hence the charge. Isn't this the same way, though, that the phone company handles calls to numbers that have been changed? - Would it be better (in terms of cost and convenience) to simply install another phone line with basic service and hook an answering machine up to that line? How long does the average answering machine last? I'd appreciate your comments on Answer Call, especially if you've ever used it. If there's sufficient interest, I'll summarize my findings for the group. George A. Theall, Dept of Economics, Univ. of Pennsylvania theall@rm105serve.sas.upenn.edu (yes, I know our mailer's broke and the "From:" line is wrong) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #522 ******************************   ISSUE 523 DELAYED IN MAILING. IT IS POSTED HERE AFTER ISSUE 524. Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16781; 28 Jul 90 17:49 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05501; 28 Jul 90 16:29 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04558; 28 Jul 90 15:21 CDT Date: Sat, 28 Jul 90 14:41:31 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #524 BCC: Message-ID: <9007281441.ab02994@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 28 Jul 90 14:40:11 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 524 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Expensive Telephone Plant??? [Donald E. Kimberlin] Bell Canada Tele News [David Leibold] Redialing, Paul McCartney and AT&T [Jim Riddle] Home-grown Anti-Caller-ID Scheme [Subodh Bapat] Programming NEC P9100 Handheld [Craig R. Watkins] Re: Asking for the Right Thing [Craig R. Watkins] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 28 Jul 90 10:42 EST From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Expensive Telephone Plant??? Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL It seems many readers continue to support the archaic notion that the costs of capital investment drive the telephone business ... a principle that was established in 1913. It's a principle that still prevails for utility companies that have had little real technology change. It takes heavy pipe and large tanks to deliver water or gas; it takes heavy copper wire and massive generators (even with nuclear power) to deliver increasing amounts of electricity. But, the semiconductor revolution coupled with the age of computers has so changed the nature of "the phone business" that capital needs are now trivial compared to even a decade ago. The "phone industry's" nature has changed, but it continues to parade behind the mask of its 1913 face, aided and abetted by state regulators and a public that simultaneously is enjoying its romance with the phone