Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04236; 9 Aug 90 2:41 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19678; 9 Aug 90 1:09 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17247; 9 Aug 90 0:03 CDT Date: Wed, 8 Aug 90 23:45:41 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #551 BCC: Message-ID: <9008082345.ab16617@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 8 Aug 90 23:45:28 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 551 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: IRIDIUM: Motorola's New Cellular Phone System [Chad Fogg] Re: Building a Small Telephone Switch [Ge Weijers] Re: House Approves Restrictions on Fax, Phone Junk Mail [Alec] Re: Phone/Fax Switches - Where to Get One? [Jesse W. Asher] Re: More ANI Fun! [Bill Berbenich] Re: Eight Digit Phone Numbers? [Mike Olson] Re: 1-555-1212 for Local Directory Assistance? [Bill Huttig] Re: More ANI Fun! [Tad Cook] Re: Touchtone Detection Question [Tad Cook] Re: TWX Area Codes (was: 510 Dialing Update) [A. Alan Toscano] Re: Censure Roseanne Barr by Fax [John Higdon] Re: A Couple Tech Questions About Cellular Phones [Cliff Yamamoto] Cellular Standards [Ed Greenberg] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 7 Aug 90 21:39:32 -0700 From: Chad Fogg Subject: Re: IRIDIUM: Motorola's New Cellular Phone System Organization: University of Washington, Seattle In article <10448@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >Voice: > The system is designed as an entirely digital communications >system with 8KHz bandwidth available for each voice channel. Vocoders Is this 8KHz sample rate or 8KHz frequency bandwidth? The former would imply a data rate equal to ISDN's B channel (8bits*8KHz= 64000 bits/sec). If I understand audio sampling correctly, the frequecy range is roughly equal to half the sample rate. >operating at 4.8 kilobits per second are employed in the user units to >recreate the audio signals and in the gateways to couple to the analog >PSTNs. >Data: > The system is designed to allow a user to substitute a data >link in lieu of a voice link which would operate at a rate of 2400 >baud. 2400 bps is kind of a dissapointment when the voice channel is operating at 64,000 bps. Chad cfogg@milton.u.washington.edu ------------------------------ From: Ge Weijers Subject: Re: Building a Small Telephone Switch Date: 8 Aug 90 11:43:30 GMT af@sei.ucl.ac.be (Alain FONTAINE (Postmaster - NAD)) writes: >PS: I have just discovered that there are also Spanish, Portuguese and >Greek editions. I suppose Danish will follow for full EC coverage. And in Dutch, of course (main office in the Netherlands). I believe there's also an Indian edition. And there's a German one. Ge' Weijers (subscriber for 16 years, but it's my last) Ge' Weijers Internet/UUCP: ge@cs.kun.nl Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, (uunet.uu.net!cs.kun.nl!ge) University of Nijmegen, Toernooiveld 1 tel. +3180612483 (UTC+1, 6525 ED Nijmegen, the Netherlands UTC+2 march/september ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Aug 90 00:25 EDT From: Alec Subject: Re: House Approves Restrictions on Fax, Phone Junk Mail In article <10307@accuvax.nwu.edu> telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: >bill... [which] would authorize the FCC to set up a national registry >of telephone subscribers who object to unsolicited sales messages... >Solicitations by charitable, political and religious organizations >would be exempt from the ban. Well that's really USELESS: the people who I especially *DON'T* want to hear from are charitable, political, and religious organizations. -*- Alec -*- PCHROMCZ@drunivac.bitnet PCHROMCZ@drunivac.drew.edu ...!rutgers!njin!drew!drunivac!PCHROMCZ ------------------------------ From: "Jesse W. Asher" Subject: Re: Phone/Fax Switches - where to get one? Date: 3 Aug 90 13:19:44 GMT Reply-To: Organization: Dynasys: Consulting for the Future. In article <10236@accuvax.nwu.edu>, JDurand@cup.portal.com wrote the following: >The other type of FAX switch answers the phone with a voice recording >and requests the caller enter the digit 3 (tone or PULSE) for voice >calls and to just hang on for a FAX. If no tone/pulse is heard within >the timeout, the switch defaults to the FAX. I NEVER had a missed >FAX, but people using my BBS had trouble sending the "3" when their >call rolled over to that line. Does anyone have any recommendations on some place to get this type of router? I too would like to get one - the pick and choose type - to route calls to my computer or to be answered by me. Know where I can get one of these? Thanx much. ------------------------------ From: Subject: Re: More ANI Fun! Date: 8 Aug 90 15:44:57 GMT Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu Organization: Home for Homeless Homing Pigeons In article <10562@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Cowan writes: >Well, I tried the 800-666-6258 ANI demonstration number in several >different ways. [first two ways deleted] >3) I then dialed 9-0 for the New York Telephone operator, who put the >call through. The report was 212-555-5555, so apparently the ANI was >defeated in that case. >4) I then dialed 9-0 again and asked for the AT&T operator, who told >me that she couldn't put through a call to a non-AT&T 800 number. (As >others have stated, the 800-666 prefix is owned by MCI.) Two noteworthy items from when I tried to call the number on Sunday, Aug. 5: 1) The local Southern Bell operator said she cannot (will not?) dial to 800 numbers. I assume they are just allowed to complete inter- LATA calls. The SoBell operator said that I should dial 10288+00 to get the AT&T operator to assist. 2) Same outcome here as John, AT&T operator tried the number and we got an intercept that said that "Your number cannot be completed as dialed." AT&T operator said that they are unable to complete calls to non-AT&T 800 providers. Seems that ANI-defeat schemes which involve going through either the BOC or AT&T operator won't work in this neck of the woods. Anyone got a POTS number for SoBell operator in Atlanta? Bill Berbenich Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu ------------------------------ From: Mike Olson Subject: Re: Eight Digit Phone Numbers? Date: Wed, 08 Aug 90 11:11:29 PDT In <10544@accuvax.nwu.edu>, nam2254@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Tom Ohmer) writes: > 1-800-CALL-FRED. <- Made up > In the above, is the `D' actually required to make the call, or is it > ignored? This reminds me of my favorite eight-digit telephone number. A car dealer that advertises on television here in the SF Bay Area advises you to waste no time in dialing 1-800-DEALS-NOW Of course, 1-800-DEALS-NO reaches him just fine. Mike Olson (mao@postgres.Berkeley.EDU) ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: Re: 1-555-1212 for Local Directory Assistance? Date: 8 Aug 90 18:30:54 GMT Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL Since most phone companies centralized DA you can call 411 for non-local DA and avoid the charge for 1-555-1212 (Mainly works for BOC's ), since 1-555-1212 call usually goes to the BOC for the A/C and they transfer you to other DA operator for non Bell areas. United Telephone has one DA for all of Florida (I think) so I when I was living in a United area I could call 411 and get DA for other area codes of United. ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: Re: More ANI Fun! Date: 8 Aug 90 19:20:38 GMT Organization: very little In article <10318@accuvax.nwu.edu>, foxtail!phillips@ucsd.edu (Peter Phillips) writes: > This is a demo number for some company selling > something ANI related. Anyway, here it is: 1-800-666-6258. > [Moderator's Note: I tried it from home, and sure enough, it read back > my number to me. Try your tie lines, special circuits, via 950, etc ... I tried it several times from the 206-881 exchange (GTE) in Redmond, WA and got absolutely nothing ... no ringback tone, no busy, no re-order, no nothing! 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 [Moderator's Note: Did you ask the operator to assist in dialing? PT] ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: Re: Touchtone Detection Question Date: 8 Aug 90 19:38:34 GMT Organization: very little In article <10356@accuvax.nwu.edu>, gmc@wisvr.att.com (Glenn M Cooley) writes: > Some/most systems I've come across which have you enter data through > TT are able to correctly decode my input, long pulses, short pulses, > quick pulses, Bell phones, non-Bell phones. Other systems, such as > various answering machines are very fickle. I have to master a > certain pressing technique and can only use certain phones (non-PBX > Bell phones are the best) and still need to use several tries. > Why/comments/etc? One of the problems with designing a good quality DTMF receiver is insuring talk-off (falsing) immunity. Talk-off is when the receiver falsely detects a digit due to non-DTMF audio ... such as when you are dialing the payphone in the bar next to the jukebox. If music is playing (or you are talking) and it produces a momentary condition where two frequencies exist within the bandpass for the tones, a tone receiver could detect the false digit. One way to make this less likely is the make the tone acceptance bandwidth for each tone tighter. Another way is to make the "twist" acceptance (the difference in level between the high and low tone) more restrictive. If you do this, you can have another problem ... some phones may not be able to signal your receiver. This makes DTMF receiver design tricky. If you are building an answering machine with a really cheap DTMF receiver (maybe just some filters to detect a couple of digits) one way to prevent false digit detection would be to lengthen the time required for detection. Good DTMF receivers detect tones down to 40 ms, with 40 ms interdigit time. If you lengthen this to 500 ms, you will "never" get falsing, as the chances of the two tones being present in speech or on the jukebox for a half second is remote. 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 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Aug 90 20:43 EST From: "A. Alan Toscano" <0003382352@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: TWX Area Codes (was: 510 Dialing Update) In TELECOM Digest V10 #548, in an annotation to an article by Woody about Area Code 510, our Moderator says: >The TWX areas are 410, 510, 710 and 910 for the USA; 610 for Canada and 810 >for Mexico ... Now I think Western Union has all directory for the >USA in 410-555-1212. I don't believe there is a TWX network (Telex II in Western Union parlance) in Mexico. US TWX Directory Assistance, from "four-row" machines, was 910-555-1212 until Western Union replaced it with a computer on 910-221-5151. The US TWX Area Codes (for "four-row" machines) were: 510 (entire US?), 710 (NE US only?), 810 (SE US only?), and 910 (Western US only?). As I recall, "three-row" machines used normal Area Codes such as 312 for Chicago. I think "three-row" machines reached Directory Assistance by dialing simply 555-1212, but my memory of Bell System TWX has become rather rusty. Wasn't an operator reached by dialing 954-1212? I've understood that Canadian TWX remains well integrated into the PSTN. The observations of our Canadian friend, Woody, about TWX warbles on 510-555-1212 might suggest that, for Canadian wire centers, separate routing tables will be needed for TWX class-of-service lines vs. voice lines with regard to calls to 510 numbers. I wonder: How this will be handled in the toll network? A. Alan Toscano Voice: 512 696 0307 MCI Mail: ATOSCANO P. O. Box 290008 Telex: 6975956AAT UW CIS: 73300,217 San Antonio, TX 78280-1408 0003382352@mcimail.com Prodigy: BHWR97A ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Censure Roseanne Barr by Fax Date: 8 Aug 90 15:38:21 PDT (Wed) From: John Higdon "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> writes: > Regrettably, the replies have instead been from people who > indicate by their very comment that they would NOT aid the spread of > debate. In doing so, these individuals indicate themselves to be > guilty of their own form of the same narrowmindedness they so loudly > protest in this forum, some of them daily. > To straighten out some of the trivialities that have now ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > been published and correct some of the outright errors: As one of those who did respond "off the air" and as one to whom you are undoubtedly referring, let me reiterate my position. The key word is "trivial". Who on earth really cares if Roseanne Barr exhibited bad taste at a Padres game? What difference does it make in any of our daily lives? Who of us will suffer or profit as a result? Such an incident can hardly be compared to the Craig Neidorf case, or the Chinese massacre, or even the arrest of musicians performing allegedly obscene material. If you're going to test the waters of Americans rising to anything, at least pick something substantial for a seed. Hopefully Americans aren't so stupid that they will, in mass numbers, clog communications networks over something as supremely silly as the Roseanne Barr non-event. If I'm missing the grand significance to mankind here, I invite your persuasions via e-mail. (Somehow, I put whether my cat pees in the flower bed a couple of notches above this "issue".) John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: However, John, 'trivial' is a relative term, and depends on who is using it. To *us*, Craig N's case was important; yet how much or little of it have you seen mentioned in the papers? Roseanne Barr is a household name to millions of people. Very few folks outside our circle have ever heard of Craig. PT] ------------------------------ From: Cliff Yamamoto Subject: Re: A Couple Tech Questions About Cellular Phones Date: 8 Aug 90 20:21:03 GMT Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA In article <10573@accuvax.nwu.edu> gnu@toad.com (John Gilmore) writes: >rpw3%rigden.wpd@sgi.com (Rob Warnock) wrote: >> I have no idea whether there is any magic a cellular CO can do to >> create an "infinity tap" without causing ringing. >The US cellular telephone standard defines a way to "ping" a cellular >phone without making it ring. I don't think the >standard specifies an audio path to the microphone/speaker during this >operation, but individual models might 'extend' the standard that way. As the originator of this thread, I guess the answer boils down to "it depends on the model". >[I used to have a copy of the cellular standard document, "EIA IS-3", >but it's been a few years since I dug it out. I got it for $32 plus >from Global Engineering Documents at +1 800 624 3974. It may have >been revised since then ('87); they will check if you ask them. I >recommend that anyone with a technical interest in cellular get it; >it's the real live protocol that runs over the radio.] My thanks to John for passing on this info. In my original posting, I also wondered if there were some sort of defacto standard (i.e. EIA, ANSI, IEEE). Many have mentioned the Motorola book from William C. Y. Lee, but not anything official. Anyway, I just called and ordered my copy from the above source. Doc # cost hndlng UPS CA tax total EIA/TIA-553 $52.75 + $5.00 + $5.00 + $3.93 = $66.68 Revised 9/89 Seems recent enough for me. BTW, Global Engineering Documents is located in Irvine, California so I'm sure anybody out east can call till 4 P.M. PST/PDT. Thanks to all who responded to my post. Regards, Cliff Yamamoto ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Aug 90 13:23 PDT From: Ed_Greenberg@fin.3mail.3com.com Subject: Cellular Standards Are available from Global Engineering Documents under the number ETA/TIA- 553 for $52.75 plus tax and shipping. Call 800-624-3974. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #551 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07701; 9 Aug 90 4:56 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24375; 9 Aug 90 3:12 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22362; 9 Aug 90 2:09 CDT Date: Thu, 9 Aug 90 1:07:50 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #552 BCC: Message-ID: <9008090107.ab19907@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 9 Aug 90 01:07:42 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 552 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson ICCC-90 [Piyush Kulshrestha] 999 Emergency Service in the UK [Nigel Whitfield] Reach Out America Bills (was RE: SW Bell) [Steve Kass] Mexican Telephone [Carl Moore] Texas N0X/N1X and Splitting [Carl Moore] YOU Put it in Writing! [John Higdon] Hotel Phone Charges [Larry Geary] C & W 800 Service vs. Sprint 800 Service [Steve Elias] Telebit Service [John Higdon] 666 and Ignorant People [Moderator Responds to Jerry Altzman] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Piyush Kulshrestha Subject: ICCC-90 Date: 8 Aug 90 21:42:33 GMT Reply-To: Piyush Kulshrestha Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University For inquiries about ICCC-90 Please contact iccc90@ncst.in directly. ICCC-90 Tenth International Conference on Computer Communication November 4-8, 1990, New Delhi, INDIA ICCC-90 is the tenth conference of the International Council for Computer Communication (ICCC). ICCC-90 will provide an important and prestigious forum for presentation, discussion and debate. Topics discussed will include all aspects of computer communica- tion, including technical, scientific, social, policy making, business and legal aspects. The Advisory Committee Clayton Andrews, USA Ashley Goldsworthy, USA Carl Hammer, USA Mohan Kaul, UK Yasuo Makino, Japan Michael R. Miller, UK R. Narasimhan, India E. A. Owolabi, France Dorothy Philips, Canada Pramode Verma, USA The Programme Committee M. N. Faruqui, India Anil Garg, India B. N. Jain, India Farouk Kamoun, Tunisia Peter Kirstein, UK Peter Kuehn, FRG S. L. Mehndiratta, India Louis Pouzin, France S. V. Raghavan, India S. Ramakrishnan, India S. Ramani, India (Chairman) S.I. Samoylenko, USSR K. R. Srivatsan, India Ronald Uhlig, USA T. Viswanathan, India S. G. Wagle, India Topics for approximately 90 papers to be presented include: * Communication aspects of: Distributed Operating Systems, Expert Systems, Office and Factory Information Systems, Robotics, Secu- rity and Privacy, Standards, Videotext, Work Stations * Electronic Funds Transfer, Human Factors, Legal Aspects, Regu- latory Issues * Data Communication in ISDN, Optical Data Transmission and Switching, Packet Radio, Protocol Specification and Verification, Protocol Conversion, Satellite Data Communication * Academic Networks, Corporate Networks, Local Area Networks, Networks Management and Operation, Packet Switching, Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) For further information, registration etc., please contact S. Ramani Chairman, Programme Committee, ICCC-90 National Centre for Software Technology Gulmohar Cross Road No. 9 Bombay 400 049, INDIA Phone: +91(22)6200590/6201606 Telex: +81(11)78260 NCST IN E_mail: iccc90@ncst.in OR iccc90@ncst.ernet.in ------------------------------ Reply-To: Nigel Whitfield Subject: 999 Emergency Service in the UK Date: 8 Aug 90 16:07:57 BST (Wed) From: Nigel Whitfield I thought I'd write a few words on this, since it relates in some ways to the discussions that have been going on about 911 service. I have only had occassion to dial 999 once in an emergency, though I have done so accidentally a couple of times. Each time, the phone is always answered promptly. When we really needed assistance, because there was a person trying to break into the house, the police arrived within a few minutes, having driven through the town the wrong way and straight across the front lawn to stop the man escaping. Other people I know who have used the service seem to find that it's generally very quick to respond, though there have been notable problems, such as the Hillborough incident. I think, though, that that was more a failing of the emergency services themselves than the 999 service. As far as I can tell from using the phone system, 999 is answered at the local telephone exchange, or in the city exchange for a rural area. It is not uncommon for a conversation with the operator to be interrupted with "Sorry - 999 call. Goodbye" A couple of asides come to mind here... 1) In a lot of towns, you can actually reach the emergency services by dialling 99. This is because the rural exchanges will dial 9 to access the town, a allowing 99 to trigger the service means that rural subscribers can also dial 99, without having to have an operator at the local exchange. It also means that problems are caused. The village where I was at school had three figure telephone numbers on an exchange called Long Sutton. (Though the call box was known as Long Sutton 250X). To dial home to my mother in Winchester, I had to dial to the nearest town (Basingstoke) and then on to Winchester. The code was 992. In their wisdom and desire to remove quaint telephone exchange names, BT decided to move all the phones in the village to Basingstoke numbers, prefixed with 862. (Why 862 when the old Basingstoke -> Long Sutton code was 81, is anybody's guess!) For a while there were actually Basingstoke and Long Sutton numbers in the same village, and of course dialling from the Basingstoke numbers you had to omit the initial 9. Needless to say, many people didn't, and there were an awful lot of calls to the 999 service. 2) I posted something in another group about the choice of 999 and it was suggested I post that here as well. There may well be other versions of this story, but it seems logical enough, and I think I saw it documented somewhere... It was decided to introduce a special number for emergencies after a fire (at a doctor's surgery, I believe). Obviously, such a number had to be capable of being dialled without money from a public phone. The service was first introduced in London, which used directorised strowger exchanges, and so a three figure code was necessary. At the time, it was possible to call the operator from a callbox by dialling 0, and a simple mechanical modification to the phones allowed the dialling of 9 without insertion of money as well, hence the number 999. Nigel Whitfield n.whitfield@ibmpcug.co.uk n.whitfield@cc.ic.ac.uk PLEASE NOTE MY PREFERRED MAIL ADDRESS IS n.whitfield@ibmpcug.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Aug 90 09:56 EDT From: Subject: Reach Out America Bills (was RE: SW Bell) In TELECOM Digest Volume 10, Issue 545, Blake Farenthold writes: > Why can't AT&T/SWBell bill tell me how much EACH Reach Out America costs > instead of giving me the FULL AT&T rate with asterisks, percent signs, and > octothorpes to indicate it is a ROA call. I wish they did a better job, too, but I think I know one reason why they don't provide _both_ the full rate and the rate you pay. Some calls cost more with Reach Out. Calls to places within 100 miles or so (but out of state) are often less expensive during evening hours than at night, since the 25% evening discount is better than the 11.5 cent/min. flat night rate. Call your friends in nearby locations before 10pm or else use 10333+. By the way, I recently heard of a plan being offered in SW Bell territory called "Selective Calling," or some such thing. It is like Reach Out for a single area code. Does anyone have details on availability and prices? Maybe my friends out west could be calling me more cheaply than I call them. Steve Kass, Math/Comp Sci Dept, Drew U, Madison NJ 07940, skass@drew.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Aug 90 18:47:10 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Mexican Telephone Several times recently, I have heard Mexican Telephone mentioned in over-the-counter trading in KYW news-radio's business summary. I don't know anything about such company. (KYW is at 1060 on the AM dial in Philadelphia, Pa.; on that station, you get business summary at 25 after and 55 after the hour.) [Moderator's Note: Do you mean 'Mexico Telephone Company'? PT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Aug 90 18:50:51 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Texas N0X/N1X and Splitting All of this has happened within Texas (from 1983 onward): 713/409 split occurring without N0X/N1X prefixes. 214 getting N0X/N1X prefixes (214/903 split coming up later). 512 soon to be getting N0X/N1X prefixes (new requirement of 1+512+7D for toll calls within it). 214 and 512 are apparently able to get N0X/N1X prefixes, but 713 was not? ------------------------------ Subject: YOU Put it in Writing! Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 7 Aug 90 20:50:11 PDT (Tue) From: John Higdon In June of 1988, I put a client on Sprint dedicated ProWATS. These lines double as intraLATA WATS, with Sprint billing for the interLATA and Pac*Bell billing for the near-in stuff. These lines are reliably selected by the PBX which has ARS. I left AT&T as the default on the local trunks, primarily for ease in routing "0+" calls over AT&T. Today, August of 1990, a salesperson from AT&T called the client. This is the first contact from anyone at that carrier since more than two years ago. My client turned the gentleman over to me. His message was that a "Reach Out America" plan on the local trunks had gone for some time without any use. Somehow he had learned that my client had "gone with Sprint" and he used the opportunity to tell me that Sprint had obviously been negligent for not cancelling the ROA plan. I asked him why that was Sprint's responsibility, indicating that it was more of an oversight on the part of myself, or, since I don't review those phone bills, my client. He said, "Your carrier should really sort of take care of you and point those things out." Then I dropped the bomb on him. "Actually, AT&T is our carrier as far as those lines are concerned. I never changed the default for those trunks. Using your logic, AT&T was negligent in not notifying the customer in over TWO YEARS on an apparently abandoned ROA plan." He quickly recovered, and offered me "a helluva deal". If we would "switch" to AT&T, he would pick up all the costs PLUS refund all of the unused ROA monthly charges going back two years. I told him to discontinue ROA starting herewith and then told him to consider taking better care of his customers in the future. Then I told him to put his offer in writing and send it to my attention. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Aug 90 10:58:52 EDT From: lmg@cbnewsh.att.com Subject: Hotel Phone Charges Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Like many of you I have had unfortunate experiences with phone calls from hotels and motels. Last week, however, I had a pleasant experience at a "Susse Chalet" motel in White River Junction, Vermont. Local phone calls were free. Long distance calls were claimed to be "reasonable". (I don't know the LD carrier, but I don't think it was AT&T.) A six minute call to central NJ placed after 5pm was $2.81, which I thought was OK. Reach Out America it isn't, but how does this charge compare with the best and the worst out there? Larry Geary: 74017.3065@compuserve.com lmg@mtqub.att.com ------------------------------ Subject: C & W 800 Service vs. Sprint 800 Service Date: Wed, 08 Aug 90 14:52:55 -0400 From: Steve Elias From: Steve Forrette > Cable & Wireless - 800/486-8686 > Signup fee: $0 Sprint: 800 877 4646 Signup fee: Was $0 for a while. I think you can talk them into waiving the 'official' signup fee if you try. Say some nasty stuff about ATT and maybe they'll give you a break! :) > Monthly fee: $10-15/month (accessible from the 48 contiguous states) Sprint monthly fee: $10 /month Sprint bills in six second increments. What about C&W? It's nice to be able to check voice mail from anywhere in the US for one cent! (Of course, it's more if there are messages for me.) > Programmable 800: $10/month extra This is a neat feature. Sprint doesn't have anything similar, as far as I know. > I had a problem the first time, and the first person who answered the > phone was able to tell me what POTS number my 800 was currently set > for, through a real-time lookup right from their desk. Impressive. > (A little different from Sprint, eh John?) It's not that impressive. The Sprint service reps can do the same thing, but I'm not sure how quick they are about changing the POTS number that the 800 number rings in to. I have call forwarding on my POTs number and use that to control where the 800 number rings. (I don't know if phones in Alaska and Hawaii can connect to my 800 #.) eli ------------------------------ Subject: Telebit Service Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 8 Aug 90 15:49:32 PDT (Wed) From: John Higdon Then, on the other hand, there is Telebit service. Within the last twenty-four hours, I have received e-mail and telephone calls from technical people at Telebit. Yes, you read that right -- they saw my postings in the Digest and CALLED ME! The long and the short of it is that I am being sent new firmware for my Trailblazer+ modems that will put extra tones on the line for the purpose of disabling the Sprint echo cancellers. No fuss, no muss, just a solution to a problem. What do you want to bet that when AT&T switches over to their CCITT-compliant equipment, they notify customers of possible difficulties instead just letting their customers run up big bucks in useless calls? In any event, I'll let you know how the fix works! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Aug 90 17:02:48 EDT From: "Jerry B. Altzman" Subject: 666 and Ignorant People >[Moderator's Note: 10666 went unassigned as a carrier access code for >quite a long time for the same superstitious reason: Whichever telco >used it would have rumors spread about them similar to the ones which >have plagued Proctor and Gamble for over a decade. PT] Could you enlighten one of the unenlightened what this means? Jerry B. Altzman jbaltz@columbia.edu jauus@CUVMB NEVIS::JBALTZ (HEPnet) +1 212 854 8058 [Moderator's Note: Certain people -- a hybrid type of Fundamentalist Christian actually -- of which there seem be to several million in the United States alone, have long believed that '666' was an evil number, based on their reading of selected scripture. These people get NASTY when they think they have found an agent of Satan somewhere, based on the use by that person of some number involving '666'. It could be part of a street address or telephone number. In the P&G case, for the past decade, P&G has received several hundred cards and letters DAILY from people who express concern that (in the words of the rumor) 'the chairman of P&G has a pact with the Devil, and shows his love for Satan by the arrangement of the stars and ram's head in the corporate logo of P&G'. Arranging the stars in the logo in a certain way, you see, forms the evil 666. P&G has squelched the rumor several times, only to have it start up again. They finally had to drop the corporate logo they used for a hundred years, it got so hard to deal with. Where telcos are concerned, subscribers whose phone numbers end in X666 have complained bitterly about receiving huge numbers of obscene and/or hate calls, accusing them of being Satan worshippers, etc. The people spreading the rumor are vicious. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #552 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05638; 10 Aug 90 3:10 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27689; 10 Aug 90 1:29 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23487; 10 Aug 90 0:24 CDT Date: Thu, 9 Aug 90 23:32:23 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #553 BCC: Message-ID: <9008092332.ab24704@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 9 Aug 90 23:32:13 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 553 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: AT&T 800 Directory [Lars Poulsen] Re: 800 ANI - Is the Whole Number Neccessary? [Benjamin Ellsworth] 1-800 Numbers From Europe [Ge Weijers] Re: 800 ANI - Is the Whole Number Neccessary? [Sergio Gelato] 800 Service May Not Be Best Deal [Paul Wilczynski] Re: A Couple Tech Questions About Cellular Phones [Dave Levenson] Re: Southwestern Bell Humor (My Phone Bill) [Bill Huttig] Re: Sprint Comes Through [Peter da Silva] Re: IRIDIUM: Motorola's New Cellular Phone System [Kolkka Markku Olavi] Isn't That a Hoot! [Steve Grandi] Re: Yellow Pages in Argentina [Carl Moore & Manuel J. Moguilevsky] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lars Poulsen Subject: Re: AT&T 800 Directory Organization: Rockwell CMC Date: Tue, 7 Aug 90 17:51:41 GMT In article <10507@accuvax.nwu.edu> CRW@icf.hrb.com (Craig R. Watkins) writes: >I seem to receive the {AT&T Toll-Free 800 Directory, Consumer Edition} >year after year for free for just returning a post-paid card that AT&T >sends to me. From what I can tell, AT&T really does SELL these >things, but mine comes with "A special gift for a special customer" >printed on the cover. No friends that I've asked receive them. >Anyone else get this book for free? Have any idea why they send it to >you? Just curious after all these years ... I get it for free, too, and always promptly throw it out. When they first sent me this piece of junk, I tried to look up 5 or 6 companies that I might want to call, and they weren't in there. This is NOT a complete directory of 800 numbers, nor even of ATT's 800 numbers. This is a directory of "selected, consumer-oriented ATT-based 800 numbers" that were willing to pay to get included. What a waste of trees. Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer CMC Rockwell lars@CMC.COM ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Aug 90 13:52:52 pdt From: Benjamin Ellsworth Subject: Re: 800 ANI - Is the Whole Number Neccessary? > [Moderator's Note: It is not an invasion of your privacy when you ask > me to pay for your telephone call and I ask for the number of the > telephone. By your thinking, the information provided to the person > paying the bill for a collect call would also be an 'invasion of > privacy' since that person gets your number. As long as I am paying, I > want the details of what I am paying for. ... PT] Hmmm... it seems to me that ANY time someone calls me that person is making use of a service that I pay for. I pay for the ability to receive calls at my home. If you call me, you are partially using my money. Why can't I get "the details of what I am paying for?" Trying to draw a distinction between facilities charges and connect- time charges seems spurious. It seems very clear to me that if CID is illegal in PA that calling number provision for collect calls, and 800 service providers should also be ruled illegal. I also think that we need to be careful in our use of the term "invasion of privacy." It appears to be valid to say that any time you willingly surrender information there has been no "invasion." Hence, one might conclude that our moderator's assertion is correct. However, by so doing we must agree that general CID also not an invasion of privacy -- if you choose to take advantage of the site facility that I pay for and maintain you must surrender your identity. "I want the details of what I am paying for." Would our Moderator or others agree? Benjamin Ellsworth ben@cv.hp.com All possibly relevant disclaimers apply. [Moderator's Note: Well, I have always felt if someone wanted to call me they had to surrender some of their privacy in the process. PT] ------------------------------ From: Ge Weijers Subject: 1-800 Numbers From Europe Date: 8 Aug 90 12:10:38 GMT A short question someone might be able to answer. I've found it impossible to phone a vendor in the U.S. through a 1-800 number. As no other number was published I've given up for now and have written a letter. Is there any way around this problem (I don't expect the number to be free, but it would be nice if they were accesible from abroad). Ge' Weijers Internet/UUCP: ge@cs.kun.nl Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, (uunet.uu.net!cs.kun.nl!ge) University of Nijmegen, Toernooiveld 1 tel. +3180612483 (UTC+1, 6525 ED Nijmegen, the Netherlands UTC+2 march/september [Moderator's Note: About all you can do at this point is call the appropriate Directory Assistance Bureau and get the 'regular' number, then place an toll call. Some companies will, under the circumstances reimburse you for that call if you make a purchase from them. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Aug 90 13:12 EST From: Sergio Gelato Subject: Re: 800 ANI - Is the Whole Number Neccessary? In article <10575@accuvax.nwu.edu>, Ken Greer writes: In article <10508@accuvax.nwu.edu> johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes: >>French phone bills leave out the last few digits of each number, >>explicitly for privacy purposes. I don't know if there's any way to >>get the omitted digits if you want them, or if they are even stored >>anywhere. >Privacy ?? I'm confused. You mean that in France I can >"non-invade" someone's privacy by calling him, but "invade" his >privacy by knowing his phone # (which I would know, since I had called >him) ? It isn't a matter of your knowing the phone number you called, but of too much data being stored on computer media about your life and activities. The law that prohibits the disclosure of the full numbers is the one known as "informatique et liberte"; it is intended mainly to prevent the kind of thing some people have complained about in this forum, that anyone who looks at your credit record will get a very good idea of your personal tastes and lifestyle. In the case of phone numbers, Mr. X probably wouldn't want anyone to tell his wife that all these calls to 4787-XXXX are not to his old aunt. His privacy should be respected, and the information not be disclosed to anyone. Hence, it should never appear in print anywhere (not even on a phone bill), and in fact should not even be stored on France Telecom's computers (in case one of their employees should try blackmail, for example; or in case someone breaks into those computers). >Seriously, how would anyone contest a wrongly charged call ? >Perhaps a better question would be: Are you even allowed to contest a >charge ? Contesting charges is probably more common in the USA than in France (disclaimer: I don't have any hard statistics -- this is just a guess). However, you should still be able to say "I never called anyone in exchange YYYY on that day", in the same way as you can tell a US telephone company "I never called (XXX)XXX-XXXX". Anyway, any form of detailed billing is an improvement on the previous state of affairs (when you only got a lump charge for the month's calls). And privacy is worth more than a few extra francs on a bill (at least to me). Sergio Gelato ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Aug 90 16:53 EST From: Paul Wilczynski <0002003441@mcimail.com> Subject: 800 Service May Not Be Best Deal Jerry Leichter (LEICHTER-JERRY@CS.YALE.EDU) writes ... >Another alternative I've considered is getting an 800 number and >having the site I talk to poll me. (They aren't able to pick up the >costs of a direct call.) The residential 800 services seem to be >pretty cheap, but I'm not sure if they will work in-state, and if so >how they would be billed. Anyone know? I don't know if the per-minute rates for residential 800 service are different from those for business 800 service, but my AT&T service costs $.25/minute for in-Massachusetts (less for other states). At that rate, it may not be your best deal. Paul Wilczynski ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: A Couple Tech Questions About Cellular Phones Date: 9 Aug 90 04:21:56 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <10573@accuvax.nwu.edu>, gnu@toad.com (John Gilmore) writes: > The US cellular telephone standard defines a way to "ping" a cellular > phone without making it ring. The ping is transmitted like an > With this feature, the movements or current whereabouts of your phone > can be tracked at will by the cellular company. Anytime the phone > If I ever get a cellular phone, this 'ping' will be one of the first > things I reprogram... If you re-program this feature, you will probably be unable to receive incoming calls when you're roaming. (You already can't, in many areas, but the feature is designed to allow it, and some day, it will probably allow fully-automated transparent nationwide roaming, if subscribers don't go and disable it!) 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: Bill Huttig Subject: Re: Southwestern Bell Humor (My Phone Bill) Date: 7 Aug 90 18:30:11 GMT Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL In article <10510@accuvax.nwu.edu> blake@pro-party.cts.com (Blake Farenthold) writes: ...stuff about Ringmaster deleted. I wonder how many Ringmaster numbers exist now? I think that the LEC's are pushing it as their cables are approaching full usage. otherwise they would be pushing a second line. (New NPA's will be come more frequent because of RingMaster type numbers..) >AT&T/SWBell bill tell me how much EACH Reach Out America costs instead >of giving me the FULL AT&T rate with asterisks, percent signs, and >octothorpes to indicate it is a ROA call. I think the LEC's should include two prices for each call the cost under the plan and the regular cost. Then they could say at the bottom that you saved $xx.xx this month. They could do this for each customer if they were on a plan or not. Bill [Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell (when billing for AT&T Reach Out) shows the regular cost of the call with the # symbol and the number of minutes. At the bottom of the bill, they tally the total minutes, charge the hourly rate for ROA and add the note "Total Was: xxxx" You Pay: zzzz". Obviously if there is more than about $7 difference, then you have paid the monthly Reach Out fee and started to save money. The catch is, here in the midwest, very few late night calls cost more than about 12 cents a minute anyway ... and some cost less! My use of ROA about breaks even. It becomes cost effective on calls from the east to west coast, or anywhere more than about 2000 miles away. I do not call the west coast all that often. PT] ------------------------------ From: peter da silva Subject: Re: Sprint Comes Through Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Date: Tue, 7 Aug 90 17:17:30 GMT UUNET 800 service is provided by SPRINT. UUNET uses Telebits. For quite a while UUNET was having problems with SPRINT's echo cancellation. These problems seem to have stopped. I don't know know if it was UUNET's or SPRINT's action that fixed it, but we made no change to *our* Telebit. I would suggest mail to postmaster@uunet.uu.net. Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` ------------------------------ From: Kolkka Markku Olavi Subject: Re: IRIDIUM: Motorola's New Cellular Phone System Reply-To: Kolkka Markku Olavi Organization: Finnish University and Research Network FUNET Date: Thu, 9 Aug 90 10:33:42 GMT In article <10597@accuvax.nwu.edu>, cfogg@milton.u.washington.edu (Chad Fogg) writes: |> > The system is designed as an entirely digital communications |> >system with 8KHz bandwidth available for each voice channel. Vocoders |> Is this 8KHz sample rate or 8KHz frequency bandwidth? It looks like it is 8kHz bandwith (>16kHz sampling), with quite a lot of data compression to reduce the data rate. |> >operating at 4.8 kilobits per second are employed in the user units to ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |> > The system is designed to allow a user to substitute a data |> >link in lieu of a voice link which would operate at a rate of 2400 |> >baud. |> 2400 bps is kind of a dissapointment when the voice channel is |> operating at 64,000 bps. But the document tells us the voice channel is 4800bps. Data transmission needs additional error correction and detection which reduces the speed. Does anybody know what kind of compression they plan to use to squash 8kHz bandwith sound through a 4800bps channel? Markku Kolkka mk59200@tut.fi ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Aug 90 07:12:22 MST From: Steve Grandi CCS Subject: Isn't That a Hoot! manuel%psi#telenet.astarg%ssl.span@noao.edu may be a hoot; but it can be a real pain in the rear for those of us in the line of fire! Here is how it goes ... We at NOAO-Tucson are on the Internet and SPAN (NASA's Space Physics and Analysis Network, a DECnet). We pass mail to SSL on SPAN (Space Sciences Lab at Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville Alabama). They pass it through commercial X.25 circuits to certain "astronomically interesting" locations around the world (including Argentina) through the DECnet PSI service. And vice-versa. We got into this game so we could communicate with the Cerro Tololo Interamerican Observatory in Chile (which is a part of NOAO); fortunately, NASA has now installed a real satellite link and CTIO is directly on the Internet. But we still pass traffic for some other sites. I don't think NASA knows that they are paying the X.25 charges for sending Telecom to Argentina. Steve Grandi, National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, Arizona USA Internet: grandi@noao.edu SPAN/HEPNET: NOAO::GRANDI (NOAO=5355) +1 602 325 9228 [Moderator's Note: Well, I won't tell them if you promise not to. Isn't it amazing how our little journal reaches into all corners of the world ... to close this issue, Carl Moore shares some recent correspondence with our new South American reader.... PT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Aug 90 18:24:43 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Yellow Pages in Argentina I have exchanged a few messages with Manuel. That one line message you put in earlier from him is explained further here; the NUA (exact meaning I am not sure of) is the number you published. I have not decided how this will be cleared up in telecom (I do have a list of numbers mailed to me by Manuel). I am making no comments about grammar, as Manuel's everyday language is probably not English. To: Manuel J. Moguilevsky Subject: Re: Yellow Pages in Argentina I tried 011-54-7222211103127 and it did not work. (011 is international access, and 54 is the Argentina country code, and I left off the 0 in front of the rest of the number shown here.) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 90 15:11:30 MST From: Manuel J. Moguilevsky I don't know the exact translation for NUA to English. I want to mean the access number through the networks, not a telephone number. [Moderator's Note: Then I guess 07222211103127 is the NUA? I tried to connect via my local Telenet node, but it would not take collect connections, so I tried no further. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #553 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05648; 10 Aug 90 3:11 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27689; 10 Aug 90 1:32 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab23487; 10 Aug 90 0:25 CDT Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 0:08:07 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #554 BCC: Message-ID: <9008100008.ab25899@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 10 Aug 90 00:07:52 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 554 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Northern Telecom Introduces Frame Relay Capabilities [Stephen Fleming] Privacy and Itemized Billing (was: Re: 800 ANI) [Kolkka Markku Olavi] Virtual Terminal Info Needed [Liane Tarouco] Home Intercom Custom Calling Service [Dan Birchall] Wanted: 1A2 Equipment [Ralph Sims] AT&T TDD Operator Non-Service [Ken Harrenstien] Maintenance Calls, Two-line Phones [Al Donaldson] Trouble Getting New Service - Results [Volkhart Baumgaertner] Re: Hotel Phone Charges [John Covert] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com!fleming@uunet.uu.net Subject: Northern Telecom Introduces Frame Relay Capabilities Date: Wed, 8 Aug 90 05:55:51 PDT X-Possible-Reply-Path: fleming@cup.portal.com NORTHERN TELECOM INTRODUCES FRAME RELAY CAPABILITIES FOR LOCAL EXCHANGE AND INTEREXCHANGE CARRIERS Nashville, Tenn., Aug. 7 -- Northern Telecom today announced DataSPAN, a new wideband data communications capability that allows local exchange and interexchange carriers a less expensive way to offer their customers a faster, more reliable alternative to private data lines. DataSPAN, which consists of both hardware and software, provides a frame relay interface to Northern Telecom's DMS-100 SuperNode and DMS-250 SuperNode digital switching systems. Frame relay is a new packet switching technology that enables high speed data networking over the public switched telephone network. DataSPAN's wideband connectivity through the public network is one step toward Northern Telecom's FiberWorld vision of the broadband public network of the future. "With DataSPAN, businesses can cost effectively tie together branch offices, regional offices and headquarters facilities under a common wideband service offering," said Gerry Butters, executive vice president, Marketing, Northern Telecom Inc. "The widespread deployment of DMS SuperNode switches in the local and long distance networks and the availability of frame relay capabilities will provide corporate data managers with a powerful nationwide networking option that facilitates the implementation of both metropolitan and wide area networks." DataSPAN allows data users to replace dedicated leased lines with a virtual private data network that is offered through their local or long distance telephone company. A virtual private data network provides bandwidth-on-demand, multiple data sessions on a single line, and simplified network management over the public switched network without requiring physical dedicated lines between sites. DataSPAN gives users the bandwidth they need -- when they need it -- through dynamically allocated bandwidth-on-demand up to 1.544 megabits per second (mbps). It also allows up to 1000 data sessions to be conducted at the same time across a twisted pair connection to Northern Telecom's SuperNode using a multiplexing capability that is integrated into the switch. Finally, DataSPAN simplifies network management and reduces operational costs because additional connections can be easily made to the existing network through simple software changes. DataSPAN is more reliable than leased lines because of the redundancy built into the public network. If a trunk is lost, the network will automatically reroute the DataSPAN traffic. Local and long distance carriers will carry their users' data traffic on trunks with up to 45 mbps capacity. This high bandwidth between central offices assures customers of high reliability and high performance for their data traffic. DataSPAN complements emerging broadband data services; its architecture allows for migration to broadband access rates of 45 mbps and above. Initial applications for DataSPAN will be in the growing market for connecting local area networks (LANs). DataSPAN allows the bridging of both similar and dissimilar LANs over a wide geographic area, providing networking, for example, for branches of banks, campuses of a university, and individual offices of a business franchise. DataSPAN is a direct result of the ongoing LAN-interconnection market trial between Northern Telecom, NYNEX and Digital Equipment Corporation, announced in the spring of 1989. DataSPAN supports Open Systems Interconnect (OSI) Routers, as well as such LAN topologies as Ethernet, Token Ring, and DECnet. DataSPAN also supports the Transmission Control Protocol/Internetwork Protocol (TCP/IP) and System Network Architecture/Synchronous Data Link Control (SNA/SDLC) data communication protocols. Northern Telecom's DataSPAN service is based on International Consultative Committee for Telephone and Telegraph (CCITT) I.122 recommendations on additional packet mode data services and American National Standards Institute (ANSI) T1S1 recommendations on frame relay transport. DataSPAN is supported on the DMS SuperNode Link Peripheral Processor (LPP), an integrated peripheral that can support a variety of services, including those provided through Common Channel Signaling 7 (CCS7). Interface cards and software are the only requirements to implement DataSPAN service. DataSPAN will be available for testing by carriers in the first quarter of 1991. | Stephen Fleming | Internet: fleming@cup.portal.com | | Director, Technology Mktg. | CI$: 76354,3176 AOL: SFleming | | Northern Telecom | BIX: srfleming X.500: ??? | ------------------------------ From: Kolkka Markku Olavi Subject: Privacy and Itemized Billing (was: Re: 800 ANI) Reply-To: Kolkka Markku Olavi Organization: Finnish University and Research Network FUNET Date: Wed, 8 Aug 90 11:20:59 GMT In article <10575@accuvax.nwu.edu>, kgreer@mcnc.org (Ken Greer) writes: |> Privacy ?? I'm confused. You mean that in France I can |> "non-invade" someone's privacy by calling him, but "invade" his |> privacy by knowing his phone # (which I would know, since I had called |> him) ? The basic idea is to protect _your_ privacy by not showing to someone else where you have called. If the nubers are shown on the bill, that means that they are stored somewhere, and someone can go through them to see if you have made any 'suspicious' calls. Don't you consider this an invasion of your privacy? |> Seriously, how would anyone contest a wrongly charged call ? The area code and time of call are sufficient for this purpose. Additionally a few digits of the number are shown to remind _you_ of the final destination of the call. Markku Kolkka mk59200@tut.fi ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Aug 90 10:54 C From: LIANE@sbu.ufrgs.anrs.br Subject: Virtual Terminal Info Needed Does any one know about a list discussing on virtual terminal, kinds os terminals etc, and about the status of virtual terminal standardization? Thanks in advance, Liane Tarouco Instituto de Informatica Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul Porto Alegre - Rs - Brazil ------------------------------ From: Dan.Birchall@samba.acs.unc.edu Subject: Home Intercom Custom Calling Service Date: Wed, 8 Aug 90 18:03:07 EDT Just saw on the news here (Philadelphia) where Bell of PA. is now going to offer a new custom calling service, Home Intercom... Service is aimed toward elderly, handicapped, and people with several phones on the same line. From a phone with the service, you can dial your own number, and other phones on the line will give a distinctive ring. Price is the usual two bucks and change per month. Hoping that NJ Bell will also implement such a thing, since we have two multi-phone lines here at home. ------------------------------ Subject: Wanted: 1A2 Equipment From: Ralph Sims Date: Wed, 08 Aug 90 06:56:42 PDT Organization: The 23:00 News We are looking for a free/used/cheap frame and punch-block assembly to hold 400D/G cards. This thing runs off a 79B5 power supply. We have an 8-card assembly now, and need to add some more lines. This setup is located ahead of our MERLIN II system. Is there some sort of expansion 'chassis' available? Getting one through AT&T/U.S. West would be too expensive (although perhaps necessary if we are going to expand our system). Also, is the current power supply going to be able to provide the juice for the expansion box, or will we need to get another one? Also needed: information on real-time SMDR for the Feature Module II configuration of the MERLIN II (unfortunately, the local AT&T folks haven't been able to come up with anything). Are we locked in to AT&T's equipment or is there some third-party stuff? Reply via e-mail and I'll summarize. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Aug 90 05:56:27 PDT From: Ken Harrenstien Subject: AT&T TDD Operator Non-Service Recently I had to make an international TDD call to England, and was having problems -- instead of a ring or busy signal, I was getting voice frequencies, which usually means an (unintelligible) recorded message. Okay, I thought, this is a job for the TDD operator number (800/855-1155). Well, I was calling about 12 midnight PDT and expected no trouble. Imagine my consternation when that number just rang... and rang... and rang. I tried again just to make sure I hadn't misdialed, and this time let it keep ringing. I can assure you it is exceedingly boring work to watch a flashing LED for 5 (yes five) minutes so as not to miss the fleeting moment when someone answers. When the operator finally announced her/him/itself, my first question was why it took so long to get a response. The answer was "Because of people like you asking questions like that". I didn't get the impression that this was supposed to be funny. It turns out that there is only ONE TDD operator on duty, at least at that time, to serve the entire United States. The operator did try to place my call, but only said that it "didn't go through". No information as to why -- whether it was busy, whether the trunks were full, whether the number was wrong, nothing. (Yes, I asked. I found out afterwards that the number had the wrong country code!) Before hanging up, I asked one more question: whether there was someone I could contact to talk about providing additional staffing. The curt answer was "No one". Is it just me, or would this kind of 24-hour "service" boil anyone else's blood? If so, who SHOULD be contacted? It's not as if we TDD users could vote with our feet and go elsewhere, you know. Thanks to anyone who can provide some leads... By unfortunate coincidence, the next day I received yet another AT&T "Reach Out" promotion. Since it comes with a business-reply-mail envelope, I took the liberty of correcting some untruths on the blurb and sending it back. Not satisfying enough, however. Ken ------------------------------ From: Al Donaldson Subject: Maintenance Calls, Two-line Phones Date: 8 Aug 90 17:45:04 GMT Organization: ESCOM Corp., Oakton, VA Last month I lost dial-tone on my personal phone (PacTel two-line), so I take it outside and plug it into the service jack and it still doesn't work, so I figure the line is bad and call C&P. Heaven knows I've had several problems over the last three months with the two business lines that come into my house, and all of them were due to C&P line problems instead of my equipment. The maintenance guy shows up, plugs his headset into the jack, finds dial tone, tells me that my phone is fried ("those two-line phones do that all the time..."), and charges me $46. So I call C&P today and ask them to reverse the charge because of past experience with my business lines (I know, it's kind of weak...) The lady checked with her supervisor, and after about five minutes and confirmation of my two business numbers she came back and told me that they were going to remove the charge. Lessons: #1--When your phone dies, take a DIFFERENT phone outside to check your service jack. #2--Be persistent. :-) Questions: #1--I've had two of these damn PacTel FE 5300 phones go bad, one was bad when I bought it and this one went bad after a year. Is it even worth trying to get this one repaired? #2--If so, does anyone have a phone number? #3--If not, should I avoid 2-line phones in general when I buy a replacement? Al ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Aug 90 13:20:19 EDT From: Volkhart Baumgaertner Subject: Trouble Getting New Service - Results In TELECOM DIGEST #492 I described the problems I had getting telephone service. I wrote: > I am just about to move, and my new roommate (who is also my >landlord) had another roommate some time ago who had a phone in his >own name and apparently still owes the phone company about 140 >Dollars. When I called Southern Bells customer service here in >Columbia (SC) to order my line, my order was taken, but I was told >that I could only get my installation if my roommate's former >roommate paid his debts. I was asked to post the results of my attempts to get service, and here is what has happened in the meantime: First, I tried to find my roommates ex-roommate, which turned out to be impossible (as i have learned, there is even a warrant out for him - for what I don't know - , so he disappeared). This did not make a difference to Southern Bell (I talked to an assistant manager of their SC state headquarters) who claim that anybody who lived in the place while the phone was there and had access to it is also responsible for the bills, whether the phone was in his name and he had signed for it or not (which was both not the case with my roommate), and accordingly they said they would not install a phone in ANY name at that address as long as the bill wasn't paid and my roommate were still living there. The PUC confirmed that this practice conforms to their regulations, and when I called a friend who is a lawyer he said that, legally, there really is no way to force them to install my phone line; one could only try to convince them. I finally had my supervisor at work call them (I have a summer job at the President's Office at the University of South Carolina, as network manager of their Novell net, and I am a graduate assistant during the semesters). He got them to install me a line without the ridiculously high deposit of $ 240.- that they originally wanted, in fact without any deposit. However, they said that my roommate would have to make an arrangement with them within 30 days to pay the open bill, or it would be cut off again. So, after all, my roommate will actually have to pay his ex-roommate's bill (after already having given him his share !!), although he did not sign for the account. This may be legal - at least in South Carolina -, and I understand that Southern Bell want to be paid for the service they provided, but I still don't think this way of forcing another person than the account holder to pay for it is a fair business practice; in fact, where I come from (Germany) we call it blackmail. But I guess that's just the way it is over here. Volkhart Baumgaertner BITNET: T720019@univscvm INTERNET: T720019@univscvm.csd.scarolina.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Aug 90 05:29:37 PDT From: "John R. Covert 09-Aug-1990 0825" Subject: Re: Hotel Phone Charges >A six minute call to central NJ placed after 5pm was $2.81 Well, let's see. AT&T operator assisted is $1.75 + .1457/minute = $2.62 for calls in that mileage band, so it's not so bad if you don't have a calling card. At least not for six minutes. But if you had used a calling card the call would have cost $1.67. john ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #554 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06763; 10 Aug 90 4:03 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24335; 10 Aug 90 2:36 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac27689; 10 Aug 90 1:33 CDT Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 1:15:51 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #555 BCC: Message-ID: <9008100115.ab23161@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 10 Aug 90 01:15:34 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 555 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: 666 and Ignorant People [Chris Jones] Re: 666 and Ignorant People [Isaac Rabinovitch] Re: 666 and Ignorant People [Dave Levenson] Re: 666 and Ignorant People [Patrick L. Humphrey] Re: Roseanne Barr [Paul Wilczynski] Re: MCI, VISAPhone, and Call Canada/Europe/Pacific [Peter da Silva] Re: IRIDIUM: Motorola's New Cellular Phone System [Andrew Peed] Re: Motorola Wristwatch Pager [Arnold Robbins] Pennies to Heaven [Donald E. Kimberlin] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Jones Subject: Re: 666 and Ignorant People Date: 9 Aug 90 14:41:15 EDT Reply-To: Chris Jones Organization: Kendall Square Research Corp In article <10619@accuvax.nwu.edu>, jbaltz@cunixf (Jerry B. Altzman) writes: >[Moderator's Note: Certain people -- a hybrid type of Fundamentalist >Christian actually -- of which there seem be to several million in the >United States alone, have long believed that '666' was an evil number, >based on their reading of selected scripture. The reference is from Revelations 13:18: "Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six." Many numerologists have come up with inventive ways to prove that their particular bete noir has a name which adds up to 666. Chris Jones clj@ksr.com {world,uunet,harvard}!ksr!clj [Moderator's Note: They even picked on poor President Reagan, whose first, middle and last names all have six letters. PT] ------------------------------ From: Isaac Rabinovitch Subject: Re: 666 and Ignorant People Date: 9 Aug 90 19:20:14 GMT Reply-To: claris!netcom!ergo@ames.arc.nasa.gov Organization: UESPA > In the P&G case, for the >past decade, P&G has received several hundred cards and letters DAILY >from people who express concern that (in the words of the rumor) 'the >chairman of P&G has a pact with the Devil, and shows his love for >Satan by the arrangement of the stars and ram's head in the corporate >logo of P&G'. Arranging the stars in the logo in a certain way, you >see, forms the evil 666. P&G has squelched the rumor several times, >only to have it start up again. They finally had to drop the corporate >logo they used for a hundred years, it got so hard to deal with. One of these fundamentalists once posted his version of the rumor on our company bulletin board (the old-fashioned kind, not a BBS). This version had the P&G Chairman announcing his Satanic affiliation on one of those late-night talk shows! I seem to have missed that show. Anyone see it? A few years ago, P&G sued the editor of a trailer-park newsletter to get him to stop reprinting these stories. The guy wasn't even a fundamentalist -- he just thought the stories were funny. Some time back, an underground paper in Santa Cruz printed an article claiming that the badges worn by local cops were actually hex signs. I've often wondered if there wasn't something to this. I mean, where did the custom of police wearing badges begin, anyway? One possibility is that cops wore them to ward off the curses of perps, back when "Damn you to hell!" had a very literal meaning! >Where telcos are concerned, subscribers whose phone numbers end in >X666 have complained bitterly about receiving huge numbers of obscene >and/or hate calls, accusing them of being Satan worshippers, etc. >The people spreading the rumor are vicious. PT] Or perhaps dumb, like the folks who held Anita Bryant, then well known for her anti-gay cruasade, responsible for Hurricane Anita. Or the folks who miss an eclipse because of the weather and call the observatories to find out when it's been rescheduled. I'd think, though, that you'd get a lot more flack for having a 13 in your number! ergo@netcom.uucp Isaac Rabinovitch atina!pyramid!apple!netcom!ergo Silicon Valley, CA uunet!mimsy!ames!claris!netcom!ergo [Moderator's Note: About a month ago, P&G sued two more people: a man and his wife in Parsons, KS who were peddling the rumor. P&G has tracked down the story several times to people who happen to be Amway distributors ... however Amway corporate flatly denies telling their distributors to pass along such garbage, and in fact a couple years ago told their sales force specifically to NOT make such claims. Maybe its just the nature of people who would peddle Amway door-to-door. Part of the rumor says the Chairman of P&G appeared on the Phil Donahue show (that figures! .. in some versions it was O. Winfrey) and publicly professed his worship of Satan. No one ever actually saw the show, it was a friend of a relative's friend who saw it. PT] ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: 666 and Ignorant People Date: 10 Aug 90 02:46:31 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA Our Moderator writes: > Where telcos are concerned, subscribers whose phone numbers end in > X666 have complained bitterly about receiving huge numbers of obscene > and/or hate calls, accusing them of being Satan worshippers, etc. > The people spreading the rumor are vicious. PT] I met a man on the platform at a commuter rail station here in NJ last year. He began looking through the trash in a container near the canteen. He found an empty candy-bar box and asked me if I knew what the UPC bar-code symbol was for. Trying to be helpful, I told him that it identified the manufacturer and the product for the automated cash-registers with price-lookup features. He launched into a tirade against the manufacturer of the candy, the manufacturers of cash-registers, and _me_. He was convinced that there was a secret way of encoding 666 in binary, and that Satan was hiding among the bars in the UPC symbol. Then I told him that there are no 6's in binary; only 0 and 1. He told me that he knew better; that his brother knew about these things, and that there were _hexes_ in binary. I showed him the decimal interpretation of the bar-code, printed just below the symbol, as usual. As it happened, it contained no 6's. He calmed down, a bit. About then, the train arrived! The number on the side of the first car was 7666! He refused to board the train; deciding to wait for the next one (about 30 minutes, I think). I changed my mind about 800 service from MCI. Our best-selling software product is the MoneyRoom(tm). They were offering us the number 1-800-MONEYRM, but unfortunately, that's 800-666-3976, and you never know what sort of nut will run up our 800 bill over that prefix! 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 [Moderator's Note: But we know that money is the root of all evil, and that is why the telephone dial has MNO on the '6' key; so that if you try to spell out 'money' your real satanic motives will be obvious to everyone. :) I don't know about 800-666, but 312-666 has had its share of nuts. Checker Taxicab Radio Dispatching had the same telephone number for over sixty years: From MONroe 3700 to MO-6-3700 and for the last decade, they promoted it as 666-3700. In addition to a few thousand legitimate calls each day they always got a few dozen crackpots accusing them of being one of Satan's subsidiaries. A few years ago they gave it up and now use 312-TAXICAB. PT] ------------------------------ From: patrickh@rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) Subject: Re: 666 and Ignorant People Reply-To: patrickh@uncle-bens.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) Organization: Rice University, Houston, Texas Date: Thu, 9 Aug 90 08:07:35 GMT With the "666" discussion, I thought I'd throw this into the pot: in the 817 NPA, where did Bell put the 666 prefix? Waco -- home to Baylor University -- of course. Poetic justice, if you ask me... Patrick L. Humphrey (patrickh@rice.edu) Networking & Computing Systems Rice University, Houston, Texas [Moderator's Note: Listen, we went through this about a year ago here, and people found all these bizarre examples of 666, such as one state, where it was truly assigned to the Great Satan: the IRS! It was the federal government centrex in another place, etc. Here in Chicago, the '666 North Lake Shore Drive Building' changed its address to 668 with permission of the Postal Disservice due to some important and large commercial tenant moving in who had nightmares about what might happen to business when the customers found out. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Aug 90 04:15 EST From: Paul Wilczynski <0002003441@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Roseanne Barr Peter da Silva writes, asking for who to contact regarding support for Roseanne Barr ... >(I note that this article was posted by an MCI Mail employee... MCI is >likely to be one of the companies benefiting from this campaign, both >from MCI Mail FAX and MCI long distance service) Are you sure the poster was an MCI Mail employee on not an employee of MCI Telephone? I don't remember the MCI Mail. Turns out that MCI Mail wouldn't benefit because of a quirk in the MCI Mail Fax Dispatch service - you can't send faxes to 800 numbers. I doubt that MCIT would see a blip in their earnings as a result of faxes sent by MCIT indicating a lack of support for Barr. ------------------------------ From: peter da silva Subject: Re: MCI, VISAPhone, and Call Canada/Europe/Pacific Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Date: Wed, 8 Aug 90 21:41:04 GMT I apologise for confusing Donald E. Kimberlin with an MCI Mail employee. I do think that a "democratic" debate that involves one-way messages via an expensive piece of equipment (a FAX) fails a little in the "democracy" department. Since it's one-way, it fails in the "debate" department as well. As a Usenet user, I'm part of a far more democratic (much smaller capital investment required), far more widespread (what, a million users?), and for more responsive forum (two-way beats one-way any day) than any FAX poll. > 1.) Mr. da Silva asks: > >So who do you call to express support for Roseanne Barr? > Response: I don't know who takes telephone calls, but you are free to > fax Mr. McGrover your opinion, pro or con. Not without paying MCI for the privilege. I don't own a FAX... in fact I don't even like the *idea* of FAX. It's an expensive, inefficient, and clumsy *technological* solution to the *political* problems of electronic mail. > He thinks the majority is > con, but does accept opposing viewpoints ... even at his own expense. Your message gave no indication that Mr. McGrover was at all interested in anything but flames. > Are you that open-minded? Having had opposing viewpoints shoved down my throat by the media for the past umpteen days, if I was any more open minded I'd be mainlining Cloraseptic by now. > I want to make it crystal clear that MCI in no way has any > interest nor even the means to make a penny from what is being done. You know any other Email-FAX gateways I might use? They get enough of my money on letters to Australia. > And to those on this forum who HAVE responded and reacted in > the sense of opening electronic democracy... *Opening* electronic democracy? Maybe to the folks with expensive toys or the ability to mooch off the office FAX machine. 900-number polls seem more democratic to me. Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` ------------------------------ From: Andrew Peed Subject: Re: IRIDIUM: Motorola's New Cellular Phone System Date: 9 Aug 90 14:02:54 GMT Reply-To: motcid!peed@uunet.uu.net Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL cfogg@milton.u.washington.edu (Chad Fogg) writes: >In article <10448@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >>Voice: >> The system is designed as an entirely digital communications >>system with 8KHz bandwidth available for each voice channel. Vocoders >Is this 8KHz sample rate or 8KHz frequency bandwidth? The former >would imply a data rate equal to ISDN's B channel (8bits*8KHz= 64000 >bits/sec). If I understand audio sampling correctly, the frequecy >range is roughly equal to half the sample rate. I assume this is an 8KHz frequency bandwith. Unfortunately, I can't do more than assume; the one thing I forgot to do when I sent this press release to Patrick was include a disclaimer. I'm an employee of the Cellular Infrastructure Division of Motorola, but I understand that the Iridium project is being handled jointly by the Government Electronics Group and a new Satellite Communications business unit. Personally, I know just about as much about Iridium as you do, based on information in the press release. >>operating at 4.8 kilobits per second are employed in the user units to >>recreate the audio signals and in the gateways to couple to the analog >>PSTNs. >>Data: >> The system is designed to allow a user to substitute a data >>link in lieu of a voice link which would operate at a rate of 2400 >>baud. >2400 bps is kind of a dissapointment when the voice channel is >operating at 64,000 bps. Agreed. Although, I feel inclined to point out that this IS cellular; to my knowledge, cellular is being primarily used for voice, since cellular transmission quality is not usually (in my experience, anyway) clean enough for practical data transmission. Besides, the LAST thing we need is some goombah trying to fax a document to Glocka Morra with one hand while steering his car with the other, with a newspaper propped up on his steering wheel, coffee on the dashboard, and Walkman in his ears... Andrew B. Peed Motorola, Inc. ...!uunet!motcid!peed Cellular Infrastructure Division (708) 632-5271 1501 W.Shure Dr., Arlington Heights, IL, 60074 ------------------------------ Reply-To: arnold@audiofax.com From: Arnold Robbins Subject: Re: Motorola Wristwatch Pager Date: 9 Aug 90 17:12:34 GMT Organization: AudioFAX Inc., Atlanta In article <10353@accuvax.nwu.edu> telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: >It's hard to believe that after 40 or 50 years, Dick Tracy is still >ahead of the times with his Two-Way Wrist TV. >Now we can all be Dick Tracy! (Almost, anyway ... still no way to talk >back to it, or see pictures on it. That'll be next, I guess.) Not that the following has much to do with Telecom, but I seem to remember some years ago seeing a wrist-watch television by, I think, Seiko. It had an LCD screen on a wristband, and a separate small box for the actual TV tuner electronics. I think it had an earphone jack, too. It didn't seem all that practical, and had a hefty (~ $400) price tag, but it certainly was an existence proof for TV-on-the-wrist. Arnold Robbins AudioFAX, Inc. 2000 Powers Ferry Road, #220 / Marietta, GA. 30067 INTERNET: arnold@audiofax.com Phone: +1 404 933 7600 UUCP: emory!audfax!arnold Fax: +1 404 933 7606 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Aug 90 21:19 EST From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Pennies to Heaven Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL Here's news on the latest offering via 900 service, from the August 6, 1990 edition of : Just Dial 1-900-230-POPE "Delivering messages from the Pope may not have been the most obvious use for "900" services, that that is exactly what Global Telecom Ltd. is delivering over the Sprint Communications Co. network. Global Telecom, London, is using Sprint Gateways' Voice 900 Service Bureau to deliver messages from Pope Johm internationally. A call costs $2 for the first minute and 95 cents for each additional minute." Plus, I presume, Caesar's portion added to these prices, which of course Sprint will bill and deliver unto Caesar directly for you! [Moderator's Note: If he wanted to get 800 service, I guess MCI would be out of the question. After all, 800-666-POPE would be a dead giveaway! :) PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #555 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07658; 10 Aug 90 5:13 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01272; 10 Aug 90 3:41 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab24335; 10 Aug 90 2:36 CDT Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 1:55:56 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #556 BCC: Message-ID: <9008100155.ab27316@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 10 Aug 90 01:55:37 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 556 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Phone/FAX Switches - Where To Get One? [Jerry Durand] Re: Eight Digit Phone Numbers? [Jerry Durand] Re: Plagued by Wrong Number Calls [J. Deters] Re: Touchtone Detection Question [Jerry Durand] Payphones and Drug Dealers [Donald E. Kimberlin] Telephone Diverters [Mark Foster via David Leibold] West/East Germany Reunification [David Leibold] Telebit ROM Version [John Higdon] TELECOM Readership Report - Other Administrivia [TELECOM Modertator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: JDurand@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: Phone/FAX Switches - Where To Get One? Date: Thu, 9 Aug 90 10:27:58 PDT In article <10600@accuvax.nwu.edu>, dynasys!jessea@rutgers.edu (Jesse W. Asher) asks: >Does anyone have any recommendations on some place to get this type of >router? I too would like to get one - the pick and choose type - to >route calls to my computer or to be answered by me. Know where I can >get one of these? Thanx much. The one I used is made by: Rainier Technologies Corp. (sorry, I don't have a street) Redmond, WA 98052 Model TB-201, Voice/Data Switch I know of several of these in use and the only problem is if they are on a bad power line. The solution is to plug them in to the good EMI filter you have for your PBX. If you have any trouble finding the company, please EMAIL me. Jerry Durand, Durand Interstellar, Inc., jdurand@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ From: JDurand@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: Eight Digit Phone Numbers? Date: Thu, 9 Aug 90 10:54:42 PDT In <10544@accuvax.nwu.edu>, nam2254@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Tom Ohmer) writes: > 1-800-CALL-FRED. <- Made up > In the above, is the `D' actually required to make the call, or is it > ignored? Not only is it not needed, but if you are using a pushbutton phone (or my PBX) in the pulse-dial mode and you dial an extra digit, you will disconnect the call! (This does not apply to all central offices, only the newer ones.) Jerry Durand, Durand Interstellar, Inc., jdurand@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Aug 90 21:36:28 GMT From: "J. Deters" Subject: Re: Plagued by Wrong Number Calls Reply-To: "J. Deters" Organization: Terrapin Transit Authority For over a year now, I've been getting wrong numbers and messages left on my AUDIX from people wishing to purchase Minnesota Twins tickets. My number is (612) 375-3116, and theirs is (612) 375-1116. (Notice how I don't care if I tell you all what my number is?) They have some goofball advertising agency that keeps using my number instead of theirs. It's interesting to see a television commercial with your own number on the screen. I just asked a guy last week where he saw the number. He told me "on the billboard by the Metrodome." You'd think someone might evenutally notice this. I get all kinds of messages left on my box. Most are short pauses with hangups. Some are friendly, some are background conversations like " ... not sure if it's the right number. Check it again ". Some are downright abusive, complete with drunken voices swearing at *me* for not being the Twins. I called the number, and the Twins general offices trying to rectify the situation. They've been zero help. Since I'm rarely at my desk and all I have to do is skip by the messages on my machine, I'm not pursuing the matter any farther. Instead, I periodically change my AUDIX greeting to: "Hi. This is John Deters. At the tone, please leave two reasons why the Oakland A's are better than the Minnesota Twins." (The usual response? "Jose" "Canseco".) Fortunately for me, the Twins are terrible this year, so I am not receiving just a flood. Well, I still have some tickets left behind home plate... J. Deters INTERNET: jad@dayton.DHDSC.MN.ORG UUCP: ...!bungia!dayton!jad ------------------------------ From: JDurand@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: Touchtone Detection Question Date: Thu, 9 Aug 90 10:46:27 PDT In article <10356@accuvax.nwu.edu>, gmc@wisvr.att.com (Glenn M Cooley) writes: > Some/most systems I've come across which have you enter data through > TT are able to correctly decode my input, long pulses, short pulses, > quick pulses, Bell phones, non-Bell phones. Other systems, such as > various answering machines are very fickle. I have to master a > certain pressing technique and can only use certain phones (non-PBX > Bell phones are the best) and still need to use several tries. > Why/comments/etc? The two problems with detecting tones are that you are not allowed to detect a digit when none is present _AND_ you may not miss or mis-read a digit that is present no matter what the customer puts on the line (a lot of my voice-mail boards have been used in 976-xxxx applications with all sorts of music playing over voice!). This is NOT easy. The boards I am currently working on use a DSP (Digital Signal Processor [special fast computer]) to first equalize the line, apply auto gain control, and remove any correlation in the incoming audio to the outgoing program. After you do all this, then you use very good filters and a voting scheme between different methods of detecting the tone. This generally works fairly well. In low cost equipment (less than the cost of the DSP alone), a hardware chip that was designed for central office use is used. In a typical call into a central office, there is never any outgoing program, the only sounds on the line are static and the tones (your phone is supposed to turn off the mic when you press a button). If these chips hear anything other than the pure tone and dialtone, they assume you are talking and not pressing a button and disable detection. I hope this helps. Jerry Durand, Durand Interstellar, Inc., jdurand@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Aug 90 21:19 EST From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL Subject: Payphones and Drug Dealers For those who have contributed and been interested in the issues surrounding payphones and ghettodrug dealing, here's a recap just published in for August, 1990: "Payphones are Newest Battleground in Drug War" "Removing or altering pay telephones is becoming a weapon against drug dealers in California and elsewhere. "Dealers in many neighborhoods have turned the phones into on-street offices, taking orders around the clock. They prefer payphones to cellular or home phones because of the anonymity and difficulty in tracking calls. "The Los Angeles Times reports that fed-uip residents are pressuring telephone companies into doing something. "Residents' first choice is the have telephones removed, but telcos, hardly eager to lose revenue, resist removal. "They prefer to alter them so they will not take incoming calls, or to substitute rotary dials for touchtone. "In California, Pacific Bell blocked incoming calls to 1,000 payphones. It operates 120,000 of the total 200,000 in California. Ten percent of Seattle's payphones are limited to outgoing calls. Other cities are seeing similar efforts. "No one argues that targeting the payphones makes a difference in the total number of drug sales. But police say they can see a change in a neighborhood as soon as drug dealers lose their important tools. "In one area of Los Angeles, police say, drug sales plummeted 80% to 90% after a dozen payphones were removed. "In Washington, D.C., Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone removed 37 payphones in various neighborhoods, phones whose yearly revenue averaged well over $3,500 each. But the company lost no money by blocking incoming calls at 113 other phones. "Thomas Keane, president of the California Payphone Association, says there may be an answer in improved technology. "Payphones that can be programmed to track calls and give detailed records could aid police, says Keane. That would discourage dealers' heavyuse of the phones." -------------- So there you have one summary. Interesting to note that at some places, it seems residents have stated they wouldn't miss the payphone if it means getting rid of dealers, while we've so often assumed that lower-income areas needed the payphone for a lifeline. And, of course, establishing the "technology" to trap and trace calls from payphones is not a major project to realize, either. ------------------------------ From: woody Subject: Telephone Diverters Date: Tue, 7 Aug 90 23:44:13 EDT [The following was taken from IMEX's TELECOM echo area, which I started up for discussing Telephone/Telecommunications in the Toronto area - inquiries about IMEX or the TELECOM echo may be made to djcl@contact.uucp] From: Mark Foster Subj: Telephone diverters I recently purchased a ASAP TF 505 telephone diverter for under $200.00 this device allows for up t5 different devices to be hooked up to one incoming line. As an example you can hook up a FAX, Modem, answering machine, and two telephones to the diverter. When you call into the diverter it answers and gives the caller a false ringing, while its looks for a FAX CNG signal or a reverse modem detection (I have not tried these yet). If it detects these it then diverts the call to the modem or the fax. While it is giving the false ring, the caller (or computer) can enter up to a four digit access code and connect to one of two telephone output ports (the diverter actually regenerates a ring signal which will ring a standard 2500 tel set!!). Finally the fifth output port can have an answering machine which can give the caller instructions as to what is happening and how to enter access codes to get different connew3ctions to the five ports. In the final scenario the caller gets the beep from the t(answering machine and can leave a message. I have connected several phone to the ports and found the device to be quite acceptable. Note, if you pick up any device on any of the five ports, the rest of the ports are disabled. If anyone has one of these devices I would be interested in thier applications. Also I believe this device is available form Hello Direct under the trad name Autoswitcher. * Origin: The Super Continental (Opus 89:480/126) ------------------------------ From: woody Subject: West/East Germany Reunification Date: Tue, 7 Aug 90 23:48:46 EDT With the impending fusion of the two Germanys, it will be interesting to see how the telephone systems will work out. Would the single Germany be the only country with two country codes? Or are there plans in the works to run a single country code? If a single country code is used, it will be interesting to see how the city routing codes work out. For instance, there is a conflict in that Dresden (East Germany) has the routing +37 51, while Hannover (West) uses +49 511 (according to Toronto phone book info). The 51 and 511 city codes would conflict under a single country code. How does this get sorted out? Also, there's the matter of a single Berlin, now served by +37 2 and +49 30. Anyone have any info on the phone progress in West/East Germany? -- ------------------------------ Subject: Telebit ROM Version Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 9 Aug 90 22:46:44 PDT (Thu) From: John Higdon This Telebit Trailblazer+ ROM thing appears to be of interest to a lot of people. There has been a lot of mail from people who are curious concerning the version of firmware that will "fix" the Sprint problem. I have just installed the firmware in the Trailblazers that talk long distance. An "ATN?" reveals: Version BC5.10A Normally I leave the speakers off to keep from going cu-coo, but a test listen reveals a tone for a couple of seconds before the traditional "bleep-blop". When the modem calls out, it inserts a few extra tones during the handshake sequence. Normally, things are rockin' here twenty-four hours a day, but naturally tonight it is completely dead. The ten or so calls that have happened in the past hour seem to have had no difficulty. I have re-enabled Sprint and will see if all this improves that situation. So far, so good, but I would have preferred to have my normal traffic beat the hell out of the modems so that I could quickly see if I should hang on to the old EPROMs. I'll report any significant developments. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 00:03:22 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: TELECOM Readership Report - Other Administrivia I thought some of you would find the following information quite interesting. In recent months, comp.dcom.telecom moved up in the monthly ratings from 142nd place to 101st place (out of over 600 newsgroups listed). ---------------------------- +-- Estimated total number of people who read the group, worldwide. | +-- Actual number of readers in sampled population | | +-- Propagation: how many sites receive this group at all | | | +-- Recent traffic (messages per month) | | | | +-- Recent traffic (kilobytes per month) | | | | | +-- Crossposting percentage | | | | | | +-- Cost ratio: $US/month/reader | | | | | | | +-- Share: % of newsreaders | | | | | | | | who read this group. V V V V V V V V 101 32000 784 91% 766 1564.1 0% 0.07 3.3% comp.dcom.telecom ...... ...... 610 900 22 8% 5 4.7 0% 0.00 0.0% alt.fan.dice-man 611 770 19 16% 8 10.3 0% 0.00 0.0% rec.sport.snowboarding ----------------------------- Undoubtedly, this increase to 32,000 readers of each issue is due in large part to the quality of messages you all send me for publicaiton each day, and for that, I say thanks. Of course, the figures above are only for Usenet, and do not include the several hundred names on the mailing list; the several independent BBS' which post TELECOM Digest for their readers; the FIDO or Bitnet readers, or the subscribers via MCI Mail, ATT Mail, Net Exchange and Compuserve (where the Digest goes only to email boxes and not the general Compuserve community.) For next: IBM employees can now receive TELECOM Digest via an exploder address set up to receive/redistribute the Digest at ibm.com locations. For information, or to be added to the list, contact David Singer . (This is NOT the exploder address!) Another redistribution point has been started in Korea. For information on this contact Taeha Park Two special issues this weekend: Len Rose has kindly supplied us with a copy of his formal indictment. It is large, with many counts and allegations by the government, and will require an entire issue of the Digest. If Jim Thomas supplies any commentary (hint! hint!) it will be included. Don Kimberlin has sent a lengthy essay on ship-to-shore type radio services, and it will also require an entire issue. Both of these will be transmitted Saturday afternoon or evening. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #556 ******************************   Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19747; 11 Aug 90 3:26 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12844; 11 Aug 90 1:50 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08485; 11 Aug 90 0:46 CDT Date: Sat, 11 Aug 90 0:39:37 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #557 BCC: Message-ID: <9008110039.ab14692@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 11 Aug 90 00:39:21 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 557 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson A Thesis on Caller ID [Donald E. Kimberlin] Gosh, There's a Lot of Acronyms Here! [Josh Muskovitz] AT&T Reach Out America Plan [Wayne Scott] AT&T Reach Out America -- The Fine Print [Steve Friedl Mass. to MCI: Knock it Off [Adam M. Gaffin] Pinging Cellular Phones [John R. Covert] Fastest Pulse-Dialable Number? [David Leibold] Basic Questions [Dennis G. Rears] 200/201 Exchange in BC Area Code 604 [David Leibold] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 6 Aug 90 21:19 EST From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: A Thesis on Caller ID Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL Amidst all the over Caller ID, a voice that finally made the kind of sense I needed to hear occurred on a talk program here a few days ago. As soon as I heard it expressed that way, I had to tumble in favor of Caller ID. Now, several days later, it still makes the kind of sense that tells me some of you will appreciate it, too. I have lost the source, but it was a professor of Ethics and Logic from a Pennsylvania college who made it so clear. What he said was that the argument in favor of Caller ID is the long-established principle that a visitor to your home loses all HIS rights to privacy when he comes to your premises. That is to say, you sure have a beef if somebody walks in the door of your private quarters without first Knocking (or ringing your bell!). And you have every right to demand, "Who's there?" At that point, you still have every right to decide whether or not to let them into your private space. From this it follows that unidentified telephone callers should have no more right of free access to your private premises or to the private space between your ears than does the caller at your door. As certain elements of our society have grown increasingly abusive in failing to police themselves, our legislators have tried to offer legal surcease, but the real lack of positive identification of the abusers hinders any enforcement. Example: Florida law has for some time required telemarketers to identify themselves, their organization, and their purpose within 30 seconds of opening conversation with you, and then at that point ask you if you wish to proceed. Well, I can honestly say that only a minority of the telemarketing calls I get have any identity that would let me tell the Consumer Complaints Division who the heck it was, anyway. Obviously, the illegal ones are totally unidentifiable, and with today's low loss, noise free trunks, they could be calling from Timbuctou, for all I know. And, of course, the really abusive, harassing callers are always completely unidentified. So, taken on balance, I have to agree with the professor's logic and say I will agree to give up my anonymity to sales offices when I call, just so I might get a shot at the real abusers. What I might suffer in return from sales people is trivial in my estimation to what has gone beyond a joke in telephone barbarism here in Florida. ------------------------------ From: Josh Muskovitz Subject: Gosh, There's a Lot of Acronyms Here! Date: 9 Aug 90 21:02:52 GMT Organization: CDI Technologies Inc., Grand Rapids, MI I've only been following comp.dcom.telecom for a short while now, and I think I've done pretty well understanding at least some of what is being discussed, but all of these acronyms (POTS, CO, COCOT, etc.) confuse me. Is there a central glossary repository somewhere? Could someone send me something to help me understand more of this? [insert any other related questions here]? And, of course ... Thanks in advance. Josh Muskovitz Computer Design, Inc. josh@uunet!cditi Disclaimer: My employer doesn't even appro- >ack< [message terminated] [Moderator's Note: I would refer you to three files in the Telecom Archives which will assist you: glossary.acronyms, glossary.txt, and glossary.phrack.acronyms. You can get there using anonymous ftp commands: ftp lcs.mit.edu, then cd telecom-archives. PT] ------------------------------ From: Wayne Scott Subject: AT&T Reach Out America Plan Date: 10 Aug 90 05:35:04 GMT Organization: Bell Communications Research I've been subscribing to the AT&T ROA Plan for several months now and I'm not sure that I'm saving any money. I figure that if AT&T *REALLY* wants to provide good rates, they would just do it. Why should I have to subscribe to a special plan to save money? AT&T tries to sell the plan so hard that it MUST be benefiting them more than the consumer. What's the general opionion out there? Is it worth it or not? Thank you, Wayne Scott wws@bcr.cc.bellcore.com ------------------------------ From: Steve Friedl Subject: AT&T Reach Out America -- The Fine Print Date: 10 Aug 90 06:33:10 GMT Organization: VSI*FAX Tech Ctr, Tustin, CA I just got my AT&T Reach Out America "Subscriber Update", and it has the traditional hype trying to sell me what I am already getting. In the details of the plan, however, I noticed some interesting fine print: -------------------------------------------------------- The Basic Plan A full hour of weekend and night calls (all day Saturday, Sunday until 5PM, and Sunday through Friday from 10PM to 8AM) -- all for just $7.15 a month. Call all across America -- including Alaska, Hawaii***, Puerto Rico, even the U.S. Virgin Islands for the same low price. Additional hours cost just $6.60 each [+]. *** For Hawaii residents: Reach Out America Plan calls to Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands are available only to those subscribers who live in areas where the local telephone company has asked customers to select a long distance company. [+] Pending FCC approval -------------------------------------------------------- This looks to me like Hawaii residents only get the good deal on calls to P.R. if they use AT&T because they want to, not if they have to. What percentage of Hawaii has equal access? 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 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 13:14:49 -0400 From: Adam M Gaffin Subject: Mass. to MCI: Knock it off {Middlesex News}, Framingham, Mass., 8/10/90 By Adam Gaffin NEWS STAFF WRITER State officials want MCI Telecommunications Corp. to explain why a growing number of residents have apparently had their long-distance service switched to MCI without their permission. The state Department of Public Utilities now gets an average of one complaint a day, and most of them are about MCI, department Commissioner Bernice McIntyre said Thursday. She said some people were apparently signed up for MCI after ``confusing statements'' from MCI solicitors that made it sound as if they were answering a questionnaire, not ordering a new type of phone service. ``It's definitely an MCI-related problem,'' McIntyre said, adding complaints started in early 1989, when the company began an aggressive marketing effort. MCI officials could not be reached for comment yesterday, but said recently that if unauthorized switching is happening, it is by mistake and represents only isolated cases. Colleen Broderick, a manager at MCI corporate headquarters in Washington, D.C., said recently that the company would not want the ill will and bad publicity caused by deliberately switching people against their wishes. McIntyre and other state utilities regulators will meet with MCI officials on Tuesday to discuss unauthorized switching, known in the industry as ``slamming.'' McIntyre will also ask the company to continue its current practice of not charging residents for any long-distance calls they made while unknowingly tied to MCI. Kathie Kneff, chief of the Federal Communications Commission's informal-complaints division, said most of the unauthorized-switching complaints she has seen in recent months from across the country are about MCI. New England Telephone, which actually makes the change in a customer's long-distance service, requires companies to obtain written authorization, but never asks to see it unless a customer complains, spokeswoman Roberta Clement has said. Rod Oehley of Hopkinton said he was called by MCI saleswomen three times in June and that each time he told them he did not want to switch. When he got a letter from MCI a month later, he said, he assumed it was just another plea and threw it out. But he learned it was actually a bill when he got a demand notice a week after that threatening to have his bill turned over to a collection agency if he did not pay up for some long-distance calls. Oehley said he called MCI, where he got a supervisor who agreed to switch his service back to AT&T but still demanded his money - until he threatened to call the Attorney General's office. ``I haven't heard from them since,'' he said. ``If I get a bill I intend to do the same thing,'' Gene Buchman of Framingham said. Buchman said he was called by an MCI solicitor twice. ``I basically told them to get lost,'' he recalled. Then, he got a letter from New England Telephone telling him his switch from AT&T to MCI had been successfully completed. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 08:09:57 PDT From: "John R. Covert 10-Aug-1990 1055" Subject: Pinging Cellular Phones John Gilmore writes: > The US cellular telephone standard defines a way to "ping" a cellular > phone without making it ring. > If I ever get a cellular phone, this 'ping' will be one of the first > things I reprogram... No you won't. It's not a programmable feature on most phones. You see, the way incoming calls work is as follows: 1. All cell sites send "NPA NXX-XXXX, please report". This is what you called a 'ping'. 2. Your phone responds. It does not ring. 3. The cell site which hears your response sets up the call. If the call can't be set up (for any number of reasons, the most obvious being that the cell site which heard your response is out of channels), your phone never rings. Obviously, if "they" want to track your whereabouts, they just do step one, wait for your phone to respond, and do nothing else. You could only disable this feature by disabling all incoming calls. Dave Levenson writes: >If you re-program this feature, you will probably be unable to receive >incoming calls when you're roaming. Dave, you're talking about a different feature: autologin. This is the feature that causes your phone to identify itself when it travels into a new service area (new system ID). It, too, is done on request, but the request is constantly being sent along with the system id information, not as a specific request to a specific phone. If "they" are out to get you, "they" would certainly not rely on this feature to track you, since you only log in each time you cross a system ID boundary. "They" would arrange for your phone to receive incoming 'pings' but never go to the final step of starting ringing. If you don't want your location tracked, don't turn on your phone. john ------------------------------ From: woody Subject: Fastest Pulse-Dialable Number? Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 0:15:30 EDT Here's a challenge for the TELECOM Digest readers ... what is the fastest pulse-dialable number in working order? In North America, the first choice would be +1 212 211 1111 (there seems to be a 211 prefix in 212 according to one source). Failing that, 2. +1 213 211 1111 and 3. +1 312 211 1111 (but neither 213 nor 312 seem to have a 211 prefix) Then, there are: 212 311 1111, 212 221 1111, 212 212 1111 (there does seem to be a 212-212 nxx!), 212 211 2111, 212 211 1211, 212 211 1121, and 212 211 1112. If none of those work, then there are 81 possible more combinations after that... Don't cheat by suggesting 411!! :-) [Moderator's Note: The {Chicago Tribune} classified ad-takers receive calls on 312-222-2222, which is certainly not the 'fastest' but is very quick and easy to remember. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 14:20:54 EDT From: "Dennis G. Rears (FSAC)" Subject: Basic Questions About Telephones I just had a second line installed in my house. I had to do some of the wiring which is now finished. I do have some basic questions that came out of it though: It seems as if each telephone cable contains four wires (red, green, black, and yellow). For one line only the red and green wires are used. The black and yellow wires are only used for the second line. If only one line is installed in a jack why do the yellow and black wires have to be attached? I suspect it doesn't. The modular jack that goes into the phone has four wires in it. Why is that, if only the red and green are required for service? Just in case you have a two line phone? Why is the jack that goes from the telephone headset to the telephone a different size than the jack that goes from the phone to the wall jack? Is it to idiotproof the process? Also why four wires into the headset? Does the phone itself do anything to the signals before it sends it to the headset? If the proper size jack was put on the headset could you plug that into the wall jack and recieve calls? What do the two wires (red and green or yellow and black) carry? Is one postive and negative like electrical wires? In the case of my second line I bought a double wall phone outlet. I installed the first line (R&G) to the top outline and installed the second (B&Y) line to the bottom outlet. The first line worked the second did not. The second line was live as I have a jack wired right into at the NIU. I then disconnected the wires from the NIU for the first line and reconnected them to the NIU for the second. That got the second line working. That says to me that there must be something physically wrong with the Yellow or Black wires. That seems strange to me as all four wires are in the same cable and if there was a physical break in the cable it would affect all the wires, not just one or two. Any thoughts of this? Thanks for any help. Dennis P.S. Does anybody know the number for ringback for 609-871-XXXX? ------------------------------ From: woody Subject: 200/201 Exchange in BC Area Code 604 Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 0:11:56 EDT Looks like BC Tel has interchangeable prefixes, at least unofficially ... this was part of a message from Dan Fandrich recently... Date: Thu, 2 Aug 90 23:25:00 EDT To: woody Message-ID: <1552*shad04@ccu.umanitoba.ca> Subject: Re: Area Code 604 chart - please update archives version I was curious about your mention of the 200 and 201 exchanges, so I tried them out. Although my email address is in Manitoba, I live in B.C. (604-850 to be more precise, served by a GTD-5). Dialing 1-604-200/1-xxxx gives me a "Your call cannot be completed as dialed" message, which happens with every other number I try dialing with 1-604-nnx-xxxx. 1-200-0000 gives me "The number you have reached is not in service. This is a recording from the 2 2 exchange." 1-201-0000 gives me "The number you have reached is not in service. This is a recording from Mutual DS-4." However, 1-201-9999 rings and rings and rings with no intercept. Also, suffixing a # after these numbers only results in quicker ringing or intercept on the 201 numbers -- the 200 numbers are short to begin with. (end of message) ------------------ I also checked this out a bit (without actually connecting to anything other than the mentioned not-in-service recordings) and it seems that 604-200 is based in what has been referred to as the CAstle exchange (for "22"). That is the one that serves the University of British Columbia part of Vancouver. Meanwhile, 604-201 is in the big downtown exchange, the MUtual DS-4 where the 68x exchanges (among others) are found. Still, it is a bit uncertain as to what BC Tel might be up to with all this. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #557 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20811; 11 Aug 90 4:23 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19563; 11 Aug 90 2:55 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab12844; 11 Aug 90 1:51 CDT Date: Sat, 11 Aug 90 1:33:34 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #558 BCC: Message-ID: <9008110133.ab16754@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 11 Aug 90 01:32:48 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 558 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: AT&T 800 Directory [Craig R. Watkins] Re: AT&T 800 Directory [Will Martin] Re: 800 ANI - Is the Whole Number Neccessary? [Dave Levenson] Re: 1-800 Numbers From Europe [William Randolph Franklin] Dial 1-800 ... For Bellsouth `Secrets' [Computerworld via Colin Plumb] Air Force Phreak Pleads Guilty [Computerworld via Colin Plumb] Home Direct 800 Numbers From Canada [Marcel Mongeon] 800 Service Instate -- Good Deal or Not? [Steve Elias] Re: 800 ANI - Is the Whole Number Neccessary? [John Decatur] Re: More ANI Fun! (Not Fun From a/c 913) [Michael P. Deignan] Re: Sprint Billing Practice [Joel B. Levin] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 11:03 EDT From: "Craig R. Watkins" Subject: Re: AT&T 800 Directory In article <10637@accuvax.nwu.edu>, lars@spectrum.cmc.com (Lars Poulsen) writes: > This is NOT a > complete directory of 800 numbers, nor even of ATT's 800 numbers. This > is a directory of "selected, consumer-oriented ATT-based 800 numbers" > that were willing to pay to get included. What a waste of trees. In a "Dear Customer" letter on page (A), "Because some toll-free numbers are for non-public purposes, not every AT&T number could be listed in this edition. Only businesses authorizing publication of its AT&T number could be included in this national directory." I've actually used it on occasion, nonetheless. I live in a fairly small town and by using the "yellow pages" section I'm able to do some comparison shopping fairly easily. I've actually bought from it. I also use it for looking up "tourist bureaus." I've found some of them hard to find thru 555-1212 because I don't know exactly what to ask for; with the directory I can skim the listings. I've even used the white pages for looking up numbers of companies that you just know will be in there (based on Lars' above criteria). 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: Fri, 10 Aug 90 12:44:55 CDT From: Will Martin Subject: Re: AT&T 800 Directory From: Lars Poulsen >I get it [the AT&T 800 Directory] for free, too, and always promptly throw >it out. ... it is a directory of "selected, consumer-oriented ATT-based 800 >numbers" that were willing to pay to get included. What a waste of trees. In these days of all the brouhaha about recycling, I'm surprised you admit to throwing the directory away. After all, if it is a waste to you, it may be of worth to someone else. Drop it off at your local public library. If that is not feasible or too out-of-the-way, at least leave it at work, at a laundromat, or by a public phone somewhere so that somebody has a chance to find it and take it. It is doubly a "waste of trees" to get something you don't need and just pitch it instead of making some effort to pass it on to somewhere where it might be used. Will Martin ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: 800 ANI - Is the Whole Number Neccessary? Date: 10 Aug 90 17:40:54 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <10640@accuvax.nwu.edu>, SDRY@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Sergio Gelato) writes: > guess). However, you should still be able to say "I never called > anyone in exchange YYYY on that day", in the same way as you can tell > a US telephone company "I never called (XXX)XXX-XXXX". In the U.S. you can claim: "I never called anybody at (201) 234 5678. They can look up the records for calls originated by the subscriber whose number is (201) 234 5678 and see if they've ever called you. That's known as "checking returns" and is routinely done in an attempt to see if your claim is reasonable. If they called you, it's less likely that you never called them. I guess in France, they would have to check returns on several hundred numbers, depending upon how many of the digits are omitted from the billing "detail" records. 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: Wm Randolph Franklin Subject: Re: 1-800 Numbers From Europe Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY Date: 10 Aug 90 18:49:10 GMT In article <10639@accuvax.nwu.edu> ge@phoibos.cs.kun.nl (Ge Weijers) asks about calling an 800 number from Europe. >[Moderator's Note: About all you can do at this point is call the >appropriate Directory Assistance Bureau and get the 'regular' number, >then place an toll call. Not any more. AT&T's Dial Direct (or whatever) will call at least some 800 numbers from Europe. I think they charge the regular amount: $4 plus $1/minute, regardless of the time of day. I haven't tried MCI's Call America, which is about the same price; they might do 800 numbers also. Contrary to the ads not all the operators for this service speak fluent English, but they are understandable. These numbers are not listed in foreign phonebooks in any place I've looked, so be sure to take them with you, or failing that look in a copy of the IHT. Wm. Randolph Franklin Internet: wrf@ecse.rpi.edu (or @cs.rpi.edu) Bitnet: Wrfrankl@Rpitsmts Telephone: (518) 276-6077; Telex: 6716050 RPI TROU; Fax: (518) 276-6261 Paper: ECSE Dept., 6026 JEC, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst, Troy NY, 12180 ------------------------------ From: Colin Plumb Subject: Dial 1-800 ... For Bellsouth `Secrets' Date: Fri, 10 Aug 1990 21:41:07 -0400 Organization: Array Systems Computing, Inc., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA {Computerworld}, August 6, 1990, Vol. XXIV, No. 32, Page 8. Dial 1-800...for Bellsouth `Secrets' BY MICHAEL ALEXANDER CW STAFF CHICAGO --- The attorney for Craig Neidorf, a 20-year-old electronic newsletter editor, said last week that he plans to file a civil lawsuit against Bellsouth Corp. as a result of the firm's ``irresponsible'' handling of a case involving the theft of a computer text file from the firm. Federal prosecutors dismissed charges against Neidorf four days into the trial, after the prosecution witnesses conceded in cross-examination that much of the information in the text was widely available. Neidorf, the co-editor of ``Phrack,'' a newsletter for computer hackers, was accused by federal authorities of conspiring to steal and publish a text file that detailed the inner workings of Bellsouth's enhanced 911 emergency telephone system across none states in the southeast [CW, July 30]. ``What happened in this case is that the government accepted lock, stock, and barrel everything that Bellsouth told them without an independent assessment.'' said Sheldon Zenner, Neidorf's attorney. One witness, a Bellsouth service manager, acknowledged that detailed information about the inner workings of the 911 system could be purchased from Bellsouth for a nominal fee using a toll-free telephone number. A Bellcore security expert who was hired by Bellsouth to investigate intrusions into its computer systems testified that the theft of the file went unreported for nearly a year. Last week, a Bellsouth spokesman said the firm's security experts delayed reporting the theft because they were more intent on monitoring and preventing intrusions into the company's computer systems. ``There are only so much resources in the data security arena, and we felt that it was more urgent to investigate,'' he said. He also disputed assertions that the document was of little value. ``It is extremely proprietary and contained routing information on 911 calls through our none-state territory as well as entry points into the system,'' he said. A quick ending: The case unraveled after Robert Riggs, a prosecution witness who had already pleaded guilty for his role in the theft of the document, testified that he had acted alone and Neidorf had merely agreed to publish the text file in ``Phrack.'' Neidorf and his attorney agreed to a pretrial diversion, a program under which the government voluntarily dismisses the indictment but could reinstate it if Neidorf commits a similar crime withing a year. The case has stirred up national debate on the rights of computer users in the age of electronic information. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group set up by Mitch Kapor, founder of Lotus Development Corp., may participate in the filing of a lawsuit against Bellsouth, and Terry Gross, an attorney at the New York law firm of Rabinowitz Boudin Standard Krinsky & Lieberman. ``The Electronic Frontier Foundation is concerned by the irresponsibility of Bellsouth of claiming from the outset that this was confidential information when it should have known that it was not,'' Gross said. ------------------------------ From: Colin Plumb Subject: Air Force Phreak Pleads Guilty Date: Fri, 10 Aug 1990 21:41:07 -0400 Organization: Array Systems Computing, Inc., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA [Moderator's Note: Also passed along from a recent issue of {Computerworld} by Colin Plumb. PT] Too much access: PENSACOLA, Fla. --- A former U.S. Air Force airman, alleged to be a member of the Legion of Doom, pleaded guilty last week in U.S. District Court to posession of at least 15 access codes with intent to defraud. Peter J. Salzman, 19, an airman at Elgin Air Force Base, used an Apple Computer, Inc. IIE to enter telephone systems operated by Bellsouth Corp., Bell Atlantic Corp. and other carriers, said Stephen Preisser, assistant U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Florida. A device that logs outgoing calls indicated that Salzman bas ``burning the wires'' without paying for the telephone calls, Preisser said. The airman is alleged to be a member of the Legion of Doom, a group of hackers under investigation by federal and state authorities. Authorities searching Salzman's home uncovered correspondence that indicated Salzman was a mamber of the group, Preisser said. Salzman will be sentenced on Oct. 5 and could receive a maximum of 10 years imprisonment and a $250,000 fine. MICHAEL ALEXANDER ------------------------------ From: root@joymrmn.UUCP (Marcel D. Mongeon) Subject: Home Direct 800 Numbers From Canada Date: 10 Aug 90 16:26:10 GMT Organization: The Joymarmon Group Inc. Some time ago, I wrote that I was looking for a list of 800 numbers for the inward direct service for as many countries as possible. Believe it or not, I was actually able to get this information from Telecom Canada. I present the list below. You may note that there are presently no numbers for the United States. I would appreciate anyone in the States who can give me the direct numbers for the different carriers (ATT MCI etc.) to do so. Remember the number has to be the one for Canada. Austria 1-800-463-6352 Belgium 1-800-363-4032 Denmark 1-800-363-4045 Finland 1-800-363-4035 France 1-800-363-4033 Italy 1-800-363-4039 Netherlands 1-800-363-4031 Norway 1-800-363-4047 Sweden 1-800-463-8129 U.K. 1-800-363-4144 Brazil 1-800-463-6656 Chile 1-800-463-2492 Colombia 1-800-463-9587 Guatemala 1-800-463-3180 Bermuda 1-800-363-4099 Australia 1-800-663-0683 Hong Kong 1-800-663-0685 Japan 1-800-663-0681 S. Korea 1-800-663-0682 Macao 1-800-463-0809 New Zealand 1-800-663-0684 Philippines 1-800-665-6737 Singapore 1-800-665-6002 ||| Marcel D. Mongeon ||| e-mail: ... (uunet, maccs)!joymrmn!root or joymrmn!marcelm ------------------------------ Reply-To: eli@pws.bull.com Subject: 800 Service Instate -- Good Deal or Not? Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 09:38:56 -0400 From: Steve Elias From: Paul Wilczynski <0002003441@mcimail.com> >I don't know if the per-minute rates for residential 800 service are >different from those for business 800 service, but my AT&T service >costs $.25/minute for in-Massachusetts (less for other states). At >that rate, it may not be your best deal. Well, my Sprint account is "all business", even though the 800 number rings into a residence phone. All Sprint rates are the same for both residence and business service, although the volume discounts migh be a bit better for businesses. They charge me 11 cents to about 19 cents per minute, depending on the time of day, whether the call is from Massachusetts or California. With the six second incremental billing, many calls are one cent, and many more are four cents! That's surely a good deal -- the only problem is the $10 monthly fee. eli ------------------------------ From: John Decatur KA2QHD Subject: Re: 800 ANI - Is the Whole Number Neccessary? Date: 9 Aug 90 02:50:56 GMT Organization: KA2QHD - OCEAN NJ In article <10462@accuvax.nwu.edu>, mtv@milton.u.washington.edu (David Schanen) writes: > In article <10445@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon > writes: > >Ok, folks, time to set this straight. There is confusion here. 800 ANI > >sends the CALLING number NOT the billing number. ........ Ack. No it doesn't. Sorry John. The IXC receives only the billing number via carrier interconnection signaling. The IXC never receives the calling party number; therefore, it is only possible for the IXC to deliver to the called party the billing number. All the stories about the ANI identifier number being posted should confirm this -- all those weird numbers (the BBN number from 25 years ago, an undialable IBT number, switchboards, and various undialable numbers) are all billing numbers for various centrex groups, PBXes, etc. David G Lewis Teleport Communications -- New York +1.718.983.2079 Engineer -- New Technologies !att!tsdiag!ka2qhd!deej ------------------------------ From: "Michael P. Deignan" Subject: Re: More ANI Fun! (Not Fun From a/c 913) Date: 11 Aug 90 00:28:44 GMT Organization: Small Business Systems, Inc., Esmond, RI 02917 In article <10582@accuvax.nwu.edu> HUFF@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Steve Huff, U. of Kansas, Lawrence) writes: >Tonight I finally got a chance to play with the ANI number. And guess >what - it didn't work! I dialed 1 800 666 6258 several times, and >received the same response: no ring but a connection is made, sounds >far away (or could be MCI to next door - identical sound quality). >Did the number die? Or could it be that it doesn't like a/c 913? I've experienced something similar. My carrier is US Sprint. When I dial the number, I get some "clicks" (which I presume is my call being switched onto a LD Trunk of some sort...) and then ... nothing ... Dead air. I've even waited up to 60 seconds to see if it would take that long to finish the connection. Michael P. Deignan # mpd@anomaly.sbs.com # ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd Author, SCO Ported Software Compendium, and Maintainer of Online Archives Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 Login: xxcp Password: xenix (local rmail ok) Files: /usr/spool/uucppublic/SOFTLIST /usr/spool/uucppublic/ARCHELP ------------------------------ From: "Joel B. Levin" Subject: Re: Sprint Billing Practice Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 17:10:29 EDT From: John Higdon >Still not apples to apples. If you dial 10333+0+, you will have to >enter in or give the operator an AT&T card number -- your FO(O)N Card >won't work. Unless you dial 800 877-8000, Sprint won't accept its OWN >CARD NUMBER! At least AT&T accepts one number for alternative billing >no matter how you make your call. Not necessarily. I still don't understand what happened exactly, but: I was visiting my parents in Tucson and I called home. Forgetting that they default to Sprint, I placed the call using my AT&T Universal number. After entering it, a Sprint operator came on and requested the number. I gave it again and he told me it was a number private to AT&T and he couldn't use it. I tried my New England Telco number (which has worked at payphones with all three main carriers and a number of smaller ones), but the one that worked was my FON card number! If I had entered my NET number at the bong in the first place, all this might never have happened. JBL levin@bbn.com ...!bbn!levin (617) 873-3463 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #558 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21551; 11 Aug 90 5:22 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29990; 11 Aug 90 3:59 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab19563; 11 Aug 90 2:55 CDT Date: Sat, 11 Aug 90 2:27:01 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #559 BCC: Message-ID: <9008110227.ab10086@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 11 Aug 90 02:26:26 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 559 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: 1-555-1212 for Local Directory Assistance? [Joel B. Levin] Re: IRIDIUM: Motorola's New Cellular Phone System [John Limpert] Re: Telephone Diverters [Dave Levenson] Re: BC Politician's Cellular Calls Taped; Big Mess Ensues [Mary Corey] Re: Roseanne Barr [John R. Covert] Re: Maintainence Calls, Two-line Phones [Roy M. Silvernail] Re: West/East Germany Reunification [Carl Moore] Re: 666 and Ignorant People [Ian G. Batten] Re: 666 and Ignorant People [Carl Moore] Re: 666 and Ignorant People [Clayton Cramer] Re: A New Feature One Might Build Into a Phone [Jeffrey Jonas] Knowing You're a Call Waiting Beep [Bob Yasi] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Joel B. Levin" Subject: Re: 1-555-1212 for Local Directory Assistance? Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 17:20:57 EDT From: "David E. Bernholdt" >I was recently in Cincinatti, Ohio & needed a number from directory >assistance. I called the operator & discovered >that local directory assistance was 1-555-1212. I had never heard of >this before & wonder how common it is? . . . >[Moderator's Note: Here in Chicago, 555-anything gets Directory >Assistance, however you do need all seven digits before it will begin >to process the call. Neither this or 555-1212 is advertised for >Chicago area information calls, with 411 the preferred way of dialing >the call. PT] As has been pointed out, this works in a lot of places. Around here, at least in southern New Hampshire, it's mandatory. Directory assistance for anywhere in the state is 1-555-1212. And the -1212 is mandatory, too. Repair service for NET lines is listed as 1-555-1611 for residence and coin phones, 1-555-1515 for business phones (separate numbers are given for the towns with independent telcos, of course). Incidentally, three normal looking 1+ numbers are given for reaching the business office, with the notation that there is no charge for the call. This must be done with special software to remove charges to those particular numbers, since there is nothing special about them (e.g. 1-622-6233). In fact, when I call from work I call collect; if the line is answered by machine it begins with an instruction to long distance operators that all collect calls are accepted. JBL levin@bbn.com ...!bbn!levin (617) 873-3463 ------------------------------ From: John Limpert Subject: Re: IRIDIUM: Motorola's New Cellular Phone System Date: 10 Aug 90 19:45:47 GMT Organization: BFEC/GSFC Greenbelt, Maryland mk59200@metso.tut.fi (Kolkka Markku Olavi) writes: >Does anybody know what kind of compression they plan to use to squash >8kHz bandwith sound through a 4800bps channel? The original article said that the system used vocoders, not telco style A/D converters. A vocoder (voice encoder/decoder) can operate at very low data rates. The Texas Instruments Speak and Spell toy used vocoder technology (linear predictive coding) to fit digitized voice into the toy's ROM chip. A vocoder uses a model of the human vocal tract to transmit speech. It continually adjusts the model to approximate the speech input and periodically transmits the parameters to the decoder on the other end. The receiving vocoder uses the parameters to synthesize speech. Vocoders do not transmit a waveform, they transmit a description of their vocal input. This can include energy in various frequency bands, whether the speech is voiced (ah sound) or unvoiced (sh sound), dominant pitch etc. Although vocoders can be efficient, they are not without problems. At low data rates the output can sound like Donald Duck and you can confuse the vocoder by talking too fast. You may not be able to verify the identity of the caller by the sound of their voice. John Limpert johnl@gronk.UUCP uunet!n3dmc!gronk!johnl ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Telephone Diverters Date: 10 Aug 90 23:23:05 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <10671@accuvax.nwu.edu>, contact!djcl@uunet.uu.net (woody) writes: > I recently purchased a ASAP TF 505 telephone diverter for under > $200.00 this device allows for up t5 different devices to be hooked up > to one incoming line. As an example you can hook up a FAX, Modem, > answering machine, and two telephones to the diverter. When you call > into the diverter it answers and gives the caller a false ringing, > while its looks for a FAX CNG signal or a reverse modem detection (I > have not tried these yet). If it detects these it then diverts the > call to the modem or the fax. What in the world is "reverse modem detection"? The originating modem remains silent, expecting answer-tone from the answering modem? Does this box route silent callers to its modem port? Or does it only work with some non-standard modems that make noise while awaiting answer? As far as I know, some fax machines, in some originating modes, generate the CNG tone when they're awaiting answer. I know of no non-fax modems that would work with the device described above. Could somebody enlighten me? 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: Ms Mary Corey Subject: Re: BC Politician's Cellular Calls Taped; Big Mess Ensues Date: 10 Aug 90 22:45:46 GMT Reply-To: mc@sickkids.toronto.edu.UUCP (Ms Mary Corey) Organization: Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto In article <10044@accuvax.nwu.edu> contact!djcl@uunet.uu.net (woody) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 509, Message 4 of 10 >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. I've read several articles about this case, but none of them have stated information about the quality and duration of these recordings. However they do say that a scanner was used. My impression is that it is not possible or very difficult to identify and deliberately record a particular cellular subscribers phone conversations, nor is it easy/possible to follow that conversation from cell to cell. Can this be explained, is it legal, or is the cellular stuff just a smokescreen to hide an (illegal) wiretap? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 11:36:14 PDT From: "John R. Covert 10-Aug-1990 1435" Subject: Re: Roseanne Barr Have you ever thought that this guy taking FAX messages on his 800 number might be compiling a list of FAX machines he could sell to telemarketers? As to Roseanne Barr's performance -- gripe at the promoter of the event; not at Roseanne. If you hire a comedienne of the grotesque to sing the National Anthem, you get what you paid for. john ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Maintainence Calls, Two-line Phones From: "Roy M. Silvernail" Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 03:44:35 CDT Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN vrdxhq!escom.com!al@uunet.uu.net (Al Donaldson) writes: [Re: his PacTel 2-line phone has died] > Questions: > > #3--If not, should I avoid 2-line phones in general when I buy > a replacement? I wouldn't think so. Just get a more reliable two-line phone. My Panasonic KX-T3145 has been giving me very good service for the last year. The only problem I've had was dead batteries, but that was really my fault. I packed the phone, with batteries still installed, and shipped it across the country. Even so, the dialer didn't lose memory, although speakerphone operation became somewhat erratic. The 3145 has more dialer memory than I have been able to fill, speakerphone, hold and conferencing. The audio quality is very good. (Much better, in fact, than my previous Uniden one-line feature phone) OB Disclaimer: I am only a satisfied customer... no connection to Panasonic. (but I'd buy another of their phones without compunction) Roy M. Silvernail now available at: cybrspc!roy@cs.umn.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 17:15:48 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: West/East Germany Reunification (In this message, country code is understood to be 49, for West Germany.) Woody wrote of city code 511 for Hannover, but note that three other city codes of form N11 were changed to two-digit codes: 311, now 30, for (W.) Berlin 611, now 69, for Frankfurt 811, now 89, for Munich ------------------------------ From: Ian G Batten Subject: Re: 666 and Ignorant People Organization: BT Fulcrum, Birmingham Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 14:16:11 GMT On several PABXen I've used in the UK, ``999'' --- the normal emergency number --- is replaced with ``666''. The claim is that otherwise ``999'' would be ``9999'' (9 for an outside line) so (1) you'd have to compete with the rest for a line when it's busy and (2) call-barring gets confused. But I know better :-) ian ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 10:24:54 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: 666 and Ignorant People I also recall 666 being discussed a while back in Telecom, and I have a printout (not right in front of me) which has lists of some prefixes 666. I have no plans to bother you or the Digest with that stuff again. I do know of 666 in Cockeysville, Maryland (near Baltimore; area 301) and 215-666 in Valley Forge, PA (near Phila.) and I do not know of "devil" etc. stuff going on with either of those. ------------------------------ From: Clayton Cramer Subject: Re: 666 and Ignorant People Date: 10 Aug 90 17:08:18 GMT Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA In article <10619@accuvax.nwu.edu>, jbaltz@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Jerry B. Altzman) writes: > [Moderator's Note: Certain people -- a hybrid type of Fundamentalist > Christian actually -- of which there seem be to several million in the > United States alone, have long believed that '666' was an evil number, > based on their reading of selected scripture. These people get NASTY > when they think they have found an agent of Satan somewhere, based on > the use by that person of some number involving '666'. It could be > part of a street address or telephone number. A little more detail on this, so that you'll have a better understanding and can point out the ignorance that these sorts are operating under, the next time your 666 phone number attracts unwanted attention. Revelation 13:18, in describing the Antichrist (in terms that sound much like a modern totalitarian state) says: Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beat, for the number is that ofa man; and his number is six hundred and sixty-six. In the first century A.D., there was a type of numerology called *geametria* (a corruption of the Greek word for geometry), in which the letters of the alphabet were assigned different numeric values, and the name of a person was calculated to a particular number. (You may recognize a similar superstitious practice alive today). Depending on the value of the different letters, there are a number of names that comfortably totaled "666", including the Emperor Nero's full name. (Nero was the inventor of urban renewal, though his techniques for clearing cities have been improved upon since then). (There is considerable debate among Christian theologians today whether Revelation was intended to refer to Nero's persecution of Christianity, or had a longer term significance -- certainly, putting Nero's name in the text would have caused even more difficulties for the early church than they already had). But note that the number itself wouldn't be blatant! The person who sees "666" as evidence of the Antichrist doesn't even under- stand what Rev. 13:18 refers to! Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 04:53:01 -0400 From: synsys!jeffj@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: A New Feature One Might Build Into a Phone In Volume 10, Issue 547, Message 9 of 15, Message-ID: <10550@accuvax. nwu.edu>, John Nagle posted: > Now here's a thought. We all know the announcments which begin >with a special three-tone sequence followed by "The number you have >reached...". How about a voice recognition unit to recognize the new >number and update your autodialer? The spoken digits are well >separated, the background noise is low, and the digits are clearly >enunciated, so a relatively simple system should suffice. This would >be a neat addition to one of those "turn your computer into an >answering machine" programs. > It would be really easy if the spoken digits were standardized >nationally, but they are not. Even the rate varies with location. I'll go you one better: right after the tritone (that's called a SIT, right?), transmit the data DIGITALLY with a modem, the same FSK as used in Caller-ID. This is kind to machines: The tritone is the header followed immediately by the data. This is kind to humans: The tritone is loud and annoying already so a little more screaming won't hurt. FAX/modem/autodialer manufacturers should love this: If the machine recognizes the tritone and can act accordingly, you'll prevent repeated failed calls. You could automatically update the phone list when a new number is given. The retry mechanism could adapt if the line is temporarily out of service or give up if it's permanently out of service. I'd expect a CCITT definition of the command to be something like a 16 bit command followed by a variable length field. The commands would be specified like: command: 0000h Number out of service following data: none command: 0001h all lines temporarily busy following data: none command: 0010h number changed following data: phone number (in the same format as ANI) [I'm not sure what will be sent for an unlisted number] Jeffrey Jonas jeffj@synsys.uucp ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 23:36:53 UCT From: Bob Yasi Subject: Knowing You're a Call Waiting Beep My home phone in San Diego, 619/581-xxxx, is on a Northern Telecom DMS II switch; I'm unsure of the software revision. Until just about a week ago, a caller could tell whether he was causing a call waiting beep or not by the sound of the ring. (BTW, please feel free to correct my terminology.) A normal "ring cycle" begins with two seconds of ring tone followed by three seconds of silence (and repeats). If you are the cause of a call waiting beep you came in half way thru the ring so the first ring you hear seems to cut off early. I have two lines in my home and tested this extensively and have just noticed that this behavior has stopped -- now there is no difference. I've noticed the same thing at my sister's house in Mass., 617/289-xxxx, (which I suspect is a DMS II prefix also since a call waiting beep doesn't "ker-chunk" at you like ESS does) but I didn't test it enough to be confident of the behavior. Does anyone have any more information about the disappearance of this undocumented feature? (One humorously paranoid friend ventured that it meant my phone is being tapped but that seems pretty silly to me.) Surely there will be some opinions about this feature too; I like it and miss it myself. Since I'm new to the net, I wonder if the archives have any discussions of DMS II CO equipment versus ESS and other stuff. [Moderator's Note: I do not think there are any specific items in the Telecom Archives on this specific topic. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #559 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03040; 11 Aug 90 18:34 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22715; 11 Aug 90 17:06 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04964; 11 Aug 90 16:01 CDT Date: Sat, 11 Aug 90 15:40:37 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #560 BCC: Message-ID: <9008111540.ab13972@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 11 Aug 90 15:40:36 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 560 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Breakup of UK Duopoly [Christopher J.Gosnell] Re: Basic Questions About Telephones [John Higdon] Re: Basic Questions About Telephones [Dave Levenson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher.J.Gosnell@stl.stc.co.uk Subject: Breakup of UK Duopoly Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 17:42:13 BST Telecom news from Britain centers on the impending break-up of the cosy telecommunications duopoly that stifles our country and the possible introduction of local loop competition via the cable companies. (Copied from the {Independent} 7 August 1990) Telecom and Mercury to lose duopoly. - by Colin Brown Senior ministers are planning to inject more competition into the provision of telephone services in Britain by breaking the duopoly over the systems being operated bewteen British Telecom and Mercury. Cable television companies could be allowed to compete with Telecom and Mercury to provide local telephone services, but some of Margaret Thatcher's strongest supporters in the Government want to go further by opening the market to widen the national telephone network. The ministers believe the battle over the network - to be fired by an autumn government consultation paper - should be only the first step in a campaign for greater competition in public utilities, where privatisation has failed to deliver improvements. [stuff deleted about privatisation and competition] This has reinforced the view of some ministers that the telephone services should be deregulated too, allowing a free-market approach to the provision of national networks for business and domestic users. "There are a range of options for breaking the telephone duopoly, but sticking to the status quo is not an option", a government spokesman said. A ministerial battle is likely to take place over the extent to which the Telecom and Mercury duopoly is ended. Allowing cable TV companies to compete for local business would be seen as a minimal step, leading to more radical competition for national networks. BR [British Rail] and the electricity supply industries could be among those interested in competing to provide national networks of lines for the highly profitable commercial sector. The Government had hoped that breaking Telecom's monopoly would be sufficient. However, Mercury has been criticised for its slow progress and Oftel, the telephone consumer watchdog, is believed to be sympathetic to improving local services for domestic users. Ministers are reluctant to destroy the competitor they have helped to create with Mercury. No decisions have been reached, and giving more freedom to cable companies is seen as the most likely compromise. American telephone companies have invested in British cable TV companies in anticipation of being allowed to compete for local business. The demand for greater competition will be taken up next month with the publication of proposals for inclusion in the Conservative general election manifesto by the right wing No Turning Back group of Tory MPs, who include influential ministers. ---------------------- And on the inside pages: Companies lobby to cash in on telephone services boom - by Mary Fagan The prospect of the duopoly review has sparked a fierce round of lobbying on the part of the many players who want to cash in on the telecommunications boom. Representations are already being made to both the Department of Trade and Industry and the regulator, Oftel. Among the loudest voices are the cable television industry, the operators of current and future mobile telephone services, and British Rail, which for its own purposes already owns and operates one of the biggest telephone networks in the country. It is widely expected that the review will be most radical where local telephone services are concerned, as this is the sector where BT's rival, Mercury Communications, has made little impact. According to the Cable Television Association, almost all its members are interested in offering local telephone services, but they need radical changes in the regulatory system to do so. Cable television companies can offer telephone services within their franchise areas, but only as an agent of BT or Mercury. Less than half a dozen do so - all through Mercury - mainly because the revenue-sharing deals imposed by Mercury mean that it is not worth their while. The cable television companies want to become fully fledged local Public Telecommunications Operators, free to act in their own right and also with the right to link their networks to the longer distance and international networks of BT or Mercury and mobile telephone companies, or the likes of Britsh Rail. In addition, the want the right to link their adjacent local networks to form regional and even national groupings. According to Richard Woollam, the director of the Cable Television Association, the cable companies could be generating almost half of their revenues from telephone services by their tenth year in operation. Mercury has already acknowledged that margins for the cable television companies need to be better. It is believed to be allowing its cable partners to keep up to 30 per cent of revenues generated from the calls, instead of only 10 of 15 per cent in the past. British Telecom is deeply concerned that much of the renewed investment in the UK cable television industry comes from the American regional telephone companies. It is believed they are keen to cash in on the liberalised UK market, while US regulation prevents BT from taking up reciprocal opportunities on the other side of the Atlantic. Another BT concern is that it cannot provide telephone [I assume this is a misprint for television] and entertainment over its main network while the cable television industry can offer telephone services, albeit as agents. BT says that to finance the fibre-optic cabling of every home and business - which would cost up to #20 billion - it needs the revenue from television and other services such as home banking and shopping. The cable television industry argues that allowing BT such freedom could kill its fledgling industry before it gets off the ground. In any case, Mr. Woollam says BT can offer television in areas where it has a cable TV franchise, yet is selling many of its cable television investments. While most people expected the mobile cellular radio companies, such as Cellnet and Vodafone, to want a greater role and more freedom after the duopoly review, many are more surprised at the interest shown by British Rail. Last month BR launched a wholly-owned subsidiary with the right to exploit BR's nation-wide private network, which runs into every city and town in the country. The BR network is independent of BT and Mercury, whereas many private networks rely on lines leased from these two PTOs. It includes 17,000km of cable and 1,000km of microwave links, but reselling any capacity on these lines is prohibited. Peter Borer, managing director of British Rail Telecommunications, wants to expand the network, financing it through links with private sector partners. Operating at an arm's length from BR, he wants to be allowed to offer private telephone and computer networks for large companies, and to resell capacity to third parties which could also offer private networks. BR's network could also be used as a backbone to link local mobile telephone and cable television networks. Whatever the outcome, British Telecom will argue that future competitors must share its obligation to provide universal service, however remote or unprofitable the customer might be. ------------------- And now, some questions. - what is the status of local loop competition in the US ie. can a residential customer ever choose his local telco? (without moving house :-) If not, is this prohibited by law or just by Baby Bell muscle? Is ANYONE allowed to provide voice and TV services on the same line? - is there local loop competition anywhere in the world at present (assuming land-lines for the moment) - in the event of local loop competition, what should be done about universal service? Is this still a real issue in developed countries (where most everywhere is wired up already) or just a telco bellyache? Should this be a problem of private companies or should the Government be paying up for this "social service" All opinions my own, of course. Regards, Chris Gosnell ( cjg@stl.stc.co.uk) ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Basic Questions About Telephones Date: 11 Aug 90 02:11:42 PDT (Sat) From: John Higdon "Dennis G. Rears (FSAC)" writes: > If only one line is installed in a jack why do the yellow and > black wires have to be attached? I suspect it doesn't. Generally that's true. In the olden days, the black/yellow sometimes served as the means to power the lamp in an old princess or trimline phone. In the REAL olden days, there was no black wire and the yellow wire was the ground, useful for party line service. > The modular jack that goes into the phone has four wires in it. Why > is that, if only the red and green are required for service? Just in > case you have a two line phone? This is one reason. Another would be for the A/A1 control for a key telephone system. If one adds a single line phone to a standard 1A2 key system, it must have a separate off-hook indication. > Why is the jack that goes from the telephone headset to the > telephone a different size than the jack that goes from the phone to > the wall jack? Is it to idiotproof the process? Also why four wires > into the headset? Does the phone itself do anything to the signals > before it sends it to the headset? If the proper size jack was put on > the headset could you plug that into the wall jack and recieve calls? Absolutely not. Believe it or not, all that stuff in the phone base actually serves a purpose. Besides the obvious, such as ringing and dialing, the base contains a "hybrid" circuit which takes the two wire phone line and converts it to a "four wire" circuit for the earpiece and for the tranmitter (microphone). It also provides a small DC polarizing voltage for the transmitter that is derived from the power in the phone line itself. Oh, and yes, the jacks are a different size for the purpose of idiotproofing. > What do the two wires (red and green or yellow and black) carry? Is > one postive and negative like electrical wires? Not LIKE electrical wires, they ARE electrical wires. Remember, electricity, not sound, travels through wires. Your voice is transformed into an electrical representation which is actually carried through the wires. > That says to me that there must be something physically > wrong with the Yellow or Black wires. That seems strange to me as all > four wires are in the same cable and if there was a physical break in the > cable it would affect all the wires, not just one or two. Any thoughts > of this? Long distance speculation of your problem would be difficult, but even if you get the line to work, you might want to replace the wiring with "twisted pair". The wire you describe, commonly called "D station wire" does not have the working pairs twisted. This almost invariably creates crosstalk between lines. Time and time again, there are people in this forum complaining about their modem line being heard in their voice line, etc., etc. The cause is usually traced to the fact that they are running two phone lines through D cable. What you want is "E wire", where the pairs are individually twisted. This often comes in three-pair and can be spotted by the colors: white/blue; white/orange; and white/green. I have E wire running all over the house, with modems, voice telephones, stations, and trunks all intermixed therein. There is no crosstalk whatsoever -- not a trace. Consider yourself lucky that there is something wrong with the D wire. Take the opportunity to pull it out and replace it with the right stuff: E wire. BTW, E wire comes "jacketed" and "unjacketed". Mine is all jacketed, but you can save a little money with unjacketed if it will run in a concealed place such as through the wall, in an attic, or under the house. 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: Basic Questions About Telephones Date: 11 Aug 90 12:50:15 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <10692@accuvax.nwu.edu>, drears@pica.army.mil (Dennis G. Rears (FSAC)) writes: > It seems as if each telephone cable contains four wires (red, > green, black, and yellow). For one line only the red and green wires > are used. The black and yellow wires are only used for the second > line. If only one line is installed in a jack why do the yellow and > black wires have to be attached? I suspect it doesn't. The extra wires are installed for ancillary services. This may include a second line, a lighted dial, a ground lead (used for selective ringing and party identification on multi-party lines). On new service, these days, they install four-pair (eight wire) cable -- it's cheaper to put in extra wires at the time of the initial installation than to put them in later, when the customer needs them. > The modular jack that goes into the phone has four wires in it. Why > is that, if only the red and green are required for service? Just in > case you have a two line phone? See above. > Why is the jack that goes from the telephone headset to the > telephone a different size than the jack that goes from the phone to > the wall jack? Is it to idiotproof the process? Also why four wires > into the headset? Does the phone itself do anything to the signals > before it sends it to the headset? If the proper size jack was put on > the headset could you plug that into the wall jack and recieve calls? The handset has four wires -- a two-wire circuit for the microphone, and another two-wire circuit for the receiver. Your line from the central office, as you have already noticed, has two wires. The bidirectional audio signals on these two wires are separated by a circuit called a hybrid, located in the telephone instrument. It separates the transmit and receive audio information and provides the derived four-wire path to the handset. > What do the two wires (red and green or yellow and black) carry? Is > one postive and negative like electrical wires? The two wires deliver DC power to operate your telephone set. They also carry AC voice signals. The red wire should be at ground potential, and the green wire should be at -48 volts. > In the case of my second line I bought a double wall phone outlet. I > installed the first line (R&G) to the top outline and installed the > second (B&Y) line to the bottom outlet. The first line worked the > second did not. > wrong with the Yellow or Black wires. That seems strange to me as all > four wires are in the same cable and if there was a physical break in the > cable it would affect all the wires, not just one or two. Any thoughts > of this? If you wired the B-Y pair to the red and green terminals on the second jack, then you probably have an open black or yellow wire in your cable. If the B-Y pair is connected to the black and yellow terminals on the second jack, connect it to the the red and green terminals on the second jack, and it will work better. It's not unusual for one wire to become defective in a multi-wire cable; that's another reason why they install extra conductors. > P.S. Does anybody know the number for ringback for 609-871-XXXX? I suggest that you try 550-XXXX, 551-XXXX, 552-XXXX etc. XXXX would be the last four digits of your telephone number. If you get a busy signal, try the next one in the sequence. If you get a dialtone after dialing, flash your switchhook. If you then get a high tone, hang up and your phone should start to ring. To stop the ringback, just answer and then hang up for at least ten seconds. 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 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #560 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04080; 11 Aug 90 19:41 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15213; 11 Aug 90 18:10 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab22715; 11 Aug 90 17:06 CDT Date: Sat, 11 Aug 90 16:45:31 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #561 BCC: Message-ID: <9008111645.ab07437@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 11 Aug 90 16:45:18 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 561 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Yellow Pages in Argentina [Manuel J. Moguilevsky via Carl Moore] Re: Yellow Pages in Argentina [Joel B. Levin] Re: Yellow Pages in Argentina [Robert Ullmann] Re: 800 ANI - Is the Whole Number Neccessary? [John Higdon] Re: 800 ANI - Is the Whole Number Neccessary? [Marc T. Kaufman] Re: 666 and Ignorant People [Mark E. Anderson] Re: Fastest Pulse-Dialable Number? [Bill Huttig] Being Called From Inside or Outside Centrex [Carl Moore] Reverse Modem Detection [Roy M. Silvernail] Special Issues This Weekend [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 10:07:27 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Yellow Pages in Argentina Here is the entire message, phone numbers and all, from Manuel. Yes, you have mention of NUA further down (if you have an editor which you can use to search for "NUA" string). Date: Thu, 9 Aug 90 12:48:05 MST From: Manuel J. Moguilevsky Subject: Re: Yellow Pages in Argentina To: cmoore@BRL.MIL >Did you send your note to telecom? I don't see it in the headers. I only sent one line telling about it, probably it is of interest of somebody. >>If you want, I can send you the telephone numbers access for Arpac. >OK, although I don't think I'll be doing anything on that computer. >On the number I tried, I apparently was indeed supposed to delete >that leading zero; however, I did not know to insert the 1 (city >code for Buenos Aires). These are the telephone Arpac numbers in Buenos Aires: (you have to dial from USA as: 011-54-1-xxx-xxxx **** SISTEMA DE INFORMACION ARPAC **** ACCESOS TELEFONICOS DIRECTOS LOCALIDAD NUMEROS VELOCIDAD (BPS) ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ BUENOS AIRES -CENTRAL CUYO (953) 953-7533 300/300 1200/1200 953-7603 300/300 1200/1200 953-3390 300/300 1200/1200 953-3490 300/300 1200/1200 953-3705 300/300 1200/1200 953-3805 300/300 1200/1200 953-3905 300/300 1200/1200 953-7313 75/1200 953-7793 75/1200 --CENTRAL REPUBLICA 394-5349 300/300 (394)/(325) 325-6817 300/300 325-6818 300/300 325-6820 300/300 325-6821 300/300 325-6822 300/300 325-6824 300/300 394-5052 300/300 1200/1200 394-5258 300/300 1200/1200 394-5384 300/300 1200/1200 394-5430 300/300 1200/1200 394-5548 300/300 1200/1200 394-5647 300/300 1200/1200 394-5725 300/300 1200/1200 394-5765 300/300 1200/1200 394-5834 300/300 1200/1200 --CENTRAL PIEDRAS (362) 362-4609 300/300 362-4796 300/300 362-4043 300/300 1200/1200 362-4103 300/300 1200/1200 362-4723 300/300 1200/1200 The NUA of the yellow pages: 0 7222 211103127 The zero in the front of the number is optional (I don't know if you have to use it from USA). 7222 means Argentina. ENTEL means Empresa Nacional de Telecomunicaciones. This is a log of this service: * ENTEL - SISTEMA DE CONSULTA * CUALQUIER SUGERENCIA EFECTUARLA AL NRO. TX 29000 USTED POSEE UN MONITOR DE : OCHENTA COLUMNAS (8) CUARENTA COLUMNAS (4) FINALIZAR (F) AYUDA (?) INGRESE UNA OPCION : 8 DESEA : CONSULTAR GUIA TELEX (G) GUIA TELEFONICA 110 (T) INFORMACION SOBRE RED ARPAC (A) FINALIZAR (F) AYUDA (?) INGRESE UNA OPCION : ? TIPEANDO : G : INGRESARA AL MENU INICIAL DE CONSULTA DE GUIA TELEX A : INGRESARA AL MENU INICIAL DE INFORMACION DE ARPAC F : FINALIZA LA CONSULTA ? : ESTA PANTALLA INGRESE UNA OPCION : f GRACIAS POR USAR NUESTROS SERVICIOS NAT9995 - NATURAL SESSION TERMINATED -------------------------------------------- Manuel J. Moguilevsky Buenos Aires - ARGENTINA MANUEL%PSI#ASTARG%SSL.SPAN@NOAO.EDU SSL$SPAN::PSI%TELENET.ASTARG::MANUEL PSI MAIL address: 07222211100717 072222111030218 MCI: 4204071 WUI UW FAX: (541)786-0344 ------------------------------ From: "Joel B. Levin" Subject: Re: Yellow Pages in Argentina Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 17:04:40 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) >I tried 011-54-7222211103127 and it did not work. . . . >[Moderator's Note: Then I guess 07222211103127 is the NUA? . . . ] I don't know "NUA" either, but a quick check of CCITT Recommendation X.121 shows that the country code assigned to Argentina is 722, so the "7222" part is the DNIC (Data Network Identification Code) of an X.25 network in Argentina, and the "211103127" part is the address of a host on that network. Or this could apply to some communications network who has adopted the X.121 addressing conventions (much as Telenet adopted the telco numbering plan for its internal addressing). /JBL levin@bbn.com ...!bbn!levin (617)873-3463 ------------------------------ From: Robert Ullmann Date: 10 Aug 90 18:26:13 EDT Subject: Re: Yellow Pages in Argentina About that number in Argentina: The leading "0" is some net's idea of an access code, like the "1" for long distance in the U.S. So the DNIC is 7222, number 211103127. I tried it, not collect (nc). Connected okay, but a bit slowly. It _disabled_ pad break-out! I had to eventually wait for a timeout. I didn't find anything it understood, except that when I guessed from the error message syntax that it was an IBM, and typed LOGOFF, it stopped answering, except for repeating the prompt over and over. Robert Ullmann Prime Computer, Inc. ---------- session script: ---------- ok, netlink [NETLINK Rev. 22.1.0 Copyright (c) 1989, Prime Computer, Inc.] @ nc :7222211103127 7222211103127 Connected PAAMNZAD"UN"9:: N NA00NVADMMANDPGAMDSNSNBAY. N NA00NVADMMANDPGAMDSNSNBAY. N NA00NVADMMANDPGAMDSNSNBAY. N N NA000GAMMANDMMANDSMUSSAHAHAA. N N NA00NVADMMANDPGAMDSNSNBAY. N NA00NVADMMANDPGAMDSNSNBAY. N NA00NVADMMANDPGAMDSNSNBAY. N N N @ N N S.USUAAAPANSNUNA NAVANNN5MNUS 7222211103127 Disconnected @ q ok, como -e [Moderator's Note: If you call via your local Telenet node as I did, then the leading zero is required to indicate 'international call', and collect charges are not accepted. PAT] ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: 800 ANI - Is the Whole Number Neccessary? Date: 11 Aug 90 02:38:10 PDT (Sat) From: John Higdon John Decatur KA2QHD writes: > Ack. No it doesn't. Sorry John. The IXC receives only the billing > number via carrier interconnection signaling. The IXC never receives > the calling party number; therefore, it is only possible for the IXC > to deliver to the called party the billing number. Oops! My original statement was based on observation of Pac*Bell, and as usual the practices are out of step with the real world. In the lion's share of cases, Pac*Bell makes the billing number the same as the directory number, even in cases where there are actually alternate billing arrangements. In the case of my accounts (and all those of my clients), our "Fun with ANI" number returns the directory number of the calling line even though that number is billed to a completely different (or even ficticious) number. > All the stories about the ANI identifier number being posted should > confirm this -- all those weird numbers (the BBN number from 25 years > ago, an undialable IBT number, switchboards, and various undialable > numbers) are all billing numbers for various centrex groups, PBXes, > etc. Now here's a question: what does the number readback return? Before you answer -- a short story. I happened to be going through some RJ21X positions in a client's phone room and found some lines that read back a number that was not known. I went through all of the customer's records and couldn't find the number anywhere. Four of the trunks read back this strange number and all of them were working and connected to the switch. It turns out that these lines were part of the main local group. The readback was just WRONG. Calls made on them were properly billed, and they responded properly to incoming calls. Pac*Bell corrected the readback. So what is the readback linked to? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: "Marc T. Kaufman" Subject: Re: 800 ANI - Is the Whole Number Neccessary? Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University Date: Sat, 11 Aug 90 18:26:17 GMT In article <10702@accuvax.nwu.edu> johnd@ocpt.ccur.com (John Decatur KA2QHD) writes: -> In article <10445@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon -> writes: -> >Ok, folks, time to set this straight. There is confusion here. 800 ANI -> >sends the CALLING number NOT the billing number. ........ >Ack. No it doesn't. Sorry John. The IXC receives only the billing >number via carrier interconnection signaling. The IXC never receives >the calling party number; therefore, it is only possible for the IXC >to deliver to the called party the billing number. I expect the truth lies somewhere between these two. On my residential two-line hunt group each line is identified by its CALLING number when I called the ANI test. Both lines are billed to the same number. Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Neon.stanford.edu) [Moderator's Note: My two lines are both BILLED on the first line. I get one bill each month, with long distance charges from the second line appended on a separate page. When I tried the ANI number just now from the second line, it read me the second, or calling number. Maybe 'billing number' is a local matter, depending on how your local telco chooses to handle it. Maybe in my case I have two 'billing numbers' with both bills shown on one monthly statement. I think there are some semantics used here to define 'billing' and 'calling' numbers. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Aug 90 15:57:10 EDT From: Mark E Anderson Subject: Re: 666 and Ignorant People Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories >[Moderator's Note: ... Here in Chicago, >the '666 North Lake Shore Drive Building' changed its address to 668 >with permission of the Postal Disservice due to some important and >large commercial tenant moving in who had nightmares about what might >happen to business when the customers found out. PT] Nancy Reagan made the same change before they moved into their Malibu home. That has to be expected from her though. I don't consider myself ignorant but I would never accept a number with a 666 exchange or any 3 sixes in a row. If I were to get one, I'd simply ask for another number. I didn't even like it when my current number had 2 6s in a row. I don't consider myself that superstitious but a phone number is sort of like a personal identification of existence. It doesn't hurt to play it safe just in case. Mark mea@ihlpl.att.com ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: Re: Fastest Pulse-Dialable Number? Date: 11 Aug 90 17:37:08 GMT Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL In article <10691@accuvax.nwu.edu> contact!djcl@uunet.uu.net (woody) writes: >Here's a challenge for the TELECOM Digest readers ... what is the >fastest pulse-dialable number in working order? (stuff about fast dialable numbers deleted) ... And what is the slowest pulse-dialable number? It is a real number; the Covenant House Nine Line: (1-800-999-9999) for runaways. [Moderator's Note: I think, but am not willing to dial and find out, that a 'slower' number would be 900-999-9999. I believe the 900-999 exchange is used by some telcos, including IBT, to house some really raunchy information providers; i.e. *very* kinky phone sex, etc. Some charge a couple dollars per minute with a *twenty minute minimum*, while others have no minimum, but charge four or five dollars per minute. 900-999-7000 is being advertised heavily here right now; a party line operated by Chaos Communications. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 11:57:59 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Being Called From Inside or Outside Centrex If you are on a "Centrex" type phone setup (i.e., dial less than seven digits for calls within it, and 9 at the start of a call to outside), you might have a different ringing pattern for calls from within as opposed to calls from outside. In my office, it's like this: calls from within -- regular ringing pattern calls; from outside -- two quick rings, silence (pattern keeps repeating). [Moderator's Note: We also have this same thing on Starline, a/k/a Intellidial Service. The ringing cadence identifies the source of the call. Front door intercom service uses this as well. PT] ------------------------------ Subject: Reverse Modem Detection From: "Roy M. Silvernail" Date: Sat, 11 Aug 90 13:54:07 CDT Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN dave%westmark@uunet.uu.net (Dave Levenson) writes: > What in the world is "reverse modem detection"? The originating modem > remains silent, expecting answer-tone from the answering modem? Does > this box route silent callers to its modem port? Or does it only work > with some non-standard modems that make noise while awaiting answer? A standard modem remains silent and waits for the answering modem to send a carrier. However, most Hayes-compatible modems can be handed a command such as 'ATDT5551234R', and they will dial, then go into answer mode and _send_ a carrier. The box to which you refer apparantly routes incoming carrier tone to the modem. This would work fine for private use, but wouldn't be satisfactory for a BBS. (Too hard to get users to use non-standard techniques.) Roy M. Silvernail now available at: cybrspc!roy@cs.umn.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Aug 90 15:51:05 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Special Issues This Weekend Following this issue of the Digest, two special issues will be sent, along with a third special mailing piece. Don K's article on Ship-to-Shore radio will be sent, and a copy of Len Rose's federal indictment, supplied by Mr. Rose. PT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #561 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05908; 11 Aug 90 21:42 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18557; 11 Aug 90 20:14 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20568; 11 Aug 90 19:10 CDT Date: Sat, 11 Aug 90 19:05:47 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest Special: Len Rose Indictment BCC: Message-ID: <9008111905.ab23694@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 11 Aug 90 19:05:00 CDT Special: Len Rose Indictment Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Len Rose Indictment [Len Rose] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Len Rose Subject: Federal Indictment Date: 10 Aug 90 00:00:42 GMT Organization: Netsys Inc., Philadelphia INDICTMENT COUNT ONE The Grand Jury for the District of Maryland charges: FACTUAL BACKGROUND 1. At all times relevant to this Indictment,American Telephone & Telegraph Company ("AT&T"), through it's subsidiary, Bell Laboratories ("Bell Labs"), manufactured and sold UNIX (a trademark of AT&T Bell Laboratories) computer systems to customers throughout the United States of America. 2. At all times relevant to this Indictment, AT&T sold computer programs ("software") designed to run on the UNIX system to those customers. This software is designed and manufactured by AT&T; some software was available to the public for purchase, other software was internal AT&T software (such as accounting and password control programs) designed to operate with the AT&T UNIX system. 3. At all times relevant to this indictment,computer hackers were individuals involved with gaining unauthorized access to computer systems by various means. These means included password scanning (use of a program that employed a large dictionary of words, which the program used in an attempt to decode the passwords of authorized computer system users), masquerading as authorized users, and use of trojan horse programs. 4. At all times relevant to this Indictment, the Legion of Doom ("LOD") was a loosely-associated group of computer hackers. Among other activities, LOD members were involved in: a. Gaining unauthorized access to computer systems for purposes of stealing computer software programs from the companies that owned the programs; b. Gaining unauthorized access to computer systems for purpose of using computer time at no charge to themselves, thereby fraudu- lently obtaining money and property from the companies that owned the computer systems; c. Gaining unauthorized access to computer systems for the purpose of stealing proprietary source code and information from the companies that owned the source code and information; d. Disseminating information about their methods of gaining unauthor- ized access to computer systems to other hackers; e. Gaining unauthorized access to computer systems for the purpose of making telephone calls at no charge to themselves,obtaining and using credit history and data for individuals other than themselves, and the like. 5. At all times relevant to this Indictment, LEONARD ROSE JR. a/k/a "Terminus", was associated with the LOD and operated his own computer system, identified as Netsys. His electronic mailing address was netsys!len COMPUTER TERMINOLOGY 6. For the purpose of this Indictment, an "assembler" is a computer program that translates computer program instructions written in assembly language (source code) into machine language executable by a computer. 7. For the purpose of this Indictment, a "compiler" is a computer program used to translate as computer program expressed in a problem oriented language (source code) into machine language executable by a computer. 8. For the purpose of this Indictment, a "computer" is an internally programmed, automatic device that performs data processing. 9. For the purpose of this Indictment, a "computer network" is a set of related,remotely connected terminals and communications facilities, including more than one computer system, with the capability of transmitting data among them through communicatiions facilities, such as telephones. 10. For the purposes of this Indictment, a "computer program" is a set of data representing coded instructions that, when executed by a computer causes the computer to process data. 11. For the purposes of this Indictment, a "computer system" is a set of related, connected, or unconnected computer equipment, devices, or software. 12. For the purposes of this Indictment,electronic mail ("e-mail") is a computerized method for sending communications and files between computers on computer networks. Persons who send and recieve e-mail are identified by a unique "mailing" address, similar to a postal address. 13. For the purposes of this Indictment a "file" is a collection of related data records treated as a unit by a computer. 14. For the purposes of thie Indictment, "hardware" is the computer and all related or attached machinery, including terminals, keyboard, disk drives, tape drives, cartridges, and other mechanical, magnetic, electrical, and electronic devices used in data processing. 15. For the purposes of this Indictment,a "modem" is a device that modulates and demodulates signals transmitted over data telecommuni- cations facilities. 16. For the purposes of this Indictment, "software" is a set of computer programs, procedures, and associated documentation. 17. For the purposes of this Indictment,"source code" is instructions written by a computer programmer in a computer language that are used as input for a compiler, interpreter, or assembler. Access to source code permits a computer user to change the way in which a given computer system executes a program, without the knowledge of the computer system administrator. 18. For the purposes of this Indictment, "superuser privileges" (sometimes referred to as "root") are privileges on a computer system that grant the "superuser" unlimited access to the system, including the ability to change the system's programs, insert new programs, and the like. 19. For the purposes of this Indictment, a "trojan horse" is a set of computer instructions secretly inserted into a computer program so that when the program is executed, acts occur that were not intended to be performed by the program before modification. 20. For the purposes of this Indictment,"UNIX" (a trademark of AT&T Bell Laboratories) is a computer operating system designed by AT&T Bell Laboratories for use with minicomputers and small business computers, which has been widely adopted by businesses and government agencies throughout the United States. COMPUTER OPERATIONS 21. For the purposes of this Indictment, typical computer operations are as described in the following paragraphs. A computer user initiates communications with a computer system through his terminal and modem. The modem dials the access number for the computer system the user wishes to access and, after the user is connected to the system, the modem transmits and receives data to and from the computer. 22. Once the connection is established, the computer requests the user's login identification and password. If the user fails to provide valid login and password information, he cannot access the computer. 23. Once the user has gained access to the computer, he is capable of instructing the computer to execute existing programs. These programs are composed of a collection of computer files stored in the computer's memory. The commands that make up each file and, in turn, each program, are source code. Users who have source code are able to see all of the commands that make up a particular program. They can change these commands, causing the computer to perform tasks that the author of the program did not intend. 24. The user may also copy certain files or programs from the computer he has accessed; if the user is unauthorized, this procedure allows the user to obtain information that is not otherwise available to him. 25. In addition, once a user has accessed a computer, he may use it's network connections to gain access to other computers. Gaining access from one computer to another permits a user to conceal his location because login information on the second computer will reflect only that the first computer accessed the second computer. 26. If a user has superuser privileges, he may add, replace, or modify existing programs in the computer system. The user performs these tasks by "going root"; that is, by entering a superuser password and instructing the computer to make systemic changes. 27. On or about January 13, 1989, in the State and District of Maryland, and elsewhere, LEONARD ROSE JR. a/k/a Terminus did knowingly, willfully, intentionally, and with intent to defraud, traffic in (that is, transfer, and otherwise dispose of to another, and obtain control of with intent to transfer and dispose of) information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization, to wit: a trojan horse program designed to collect superuser passwords, and by such conduct affected interstate commerce. COUNT TWO And the Grand Jury for the District of Maryland further charges: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 26 of Count One are incorporated by reference, as if fully set forth. 2. On or about January 9,1990, in the State and District of Maryland, and elsewhere, LEONARD ROSE JR. a/k/a/ Terminus did knowingly, willfully, intentionally, and with intent to defraud, traffic in (that is, transfer, and otherwise dispose of to another, and obtain control of with intent to transfer and dispose of) information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization, to wit: a trojan horse login program, and by such conduct affected interstate commerce. COUNT THREE And the Grand Jury for the District of Maryland further charges: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 26 of Count One are incorporated by reference, as if fully set forth. 2. That on or about May 13, 1988 in the State and District of Maryland, and elsewhere, LEONARD ROSE JR. a/k/a/ Terminus did cause to be transported, transmitted, and transformed in interstate commerce goods, wares, and merchandise of the value of $5000 or more, to wit: computer source code that was confidential, proprietary information of AT&T, knowing the same to have been stolen, converted, and taken by fraud. COUNT FOUR And the Grand Jury for the District of Maryland further charges: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 26 of Count One are incorporated by reference, as if fully set forth. 2. That on or about January 15, 1989 in the State and District of Maryland, and elsewhere, LEONARD ROSE JR. a/k/a/ Terminus did cause to be transported, transmitted, and transformed in interstate commerce goods, wares,and merchandise of the value of $5000 or more, to wit: computer source code that was confidential, proprietary information of AT&T, knowing the same to have been stolen, converted, and taken by fraud. COUNT FIVE And the Grand Jury for the District of Maryland further charges: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 26 of Count One are incorporated by reference, as if fully set forth. 2. That on or about January 8, 1990 in the State and District of Maryland, and elsewhere, LEONARD ROSE JR. a/k/a/ Terminus did cause to be transported, transmitted, and transformed in interstate commerce goods, wares, and merchandise of the value of $5000 or more, to wit: computer source code that was confidential, proprietary information of AT&T, knowing the same to have been stolen, converted, and taken by fraud. ____________________ Breckinridge L. Wilcox [Moderator's Note: Mr. Wilcox is probably the foreperson of the Grand Jury. The five counts above, according to Mr. Rose, represent the various occassions on which he is alleged to have transferred a 'password-trapping' program to other individuals, including Craig Neidorf. If my understanding of the allegations is correct, modifications to the source code causing passwords entered by users using the 'su' command to be retained in a separate file for review by unauthorized persons was transmitted. I believe Mr. Neidorf then printed this information in his publication {Phrack}. It is not known to what extent this modification was installed or implemented. Mr. Rose said to me he does not know of anyone 'who actually used or installed' this modification. He said he wrote it legitimatly for testing and diagnostic purposes for his own use at his site and for legitimate clients. He said he can't help it if it fell into the hands of persons who would abuse or misuse his work. Mr. Rose said to me he is destitute at this time due to the financial burden of obtaining legal counsel and being without the tools (his computing machinery and related stuff) he needs to be employed. His trial has been adjourned until sometime early in 1991 at the court's motion, and this additional delay will cause him more financial hardship. He believes this delay was given by the court in retaliation for motions entered by his attorney asking the judge to recuse himself. He said he had been offered 'deals' by the government, including pleading guilty to one count, receiving as punishment several months in the custody of the Attorney General, followed by perhaps a year of federal probation. His equipment would be returned as part of the deal. If this were his choice -- that the matter be adjudicated in conference between the government, his attorney and the court -- resolution could come in a short time. If he prefers, the matter can go to trial, and he can take his chances on complete acquittal, or being found guilty on one or more of the charges against him, followed by imposition of punishment as detirmined by the court at that time. Mr. Rose has received advice from several quarters on this important issue, both for and against cutting deals. He said 'people at the Electronic Frontier Foundation refuse to return his phone calls', but that others, including a prominent person at the Free Software Foundation have encouraged him to hold out for trial and acquittal. In either scenario, Mr. Rose's prior state conviction several months ago involving computer equipment stolen from the warehouse found in his possession does not enhance his ability to cut deals to his liking. It should be remembered that under the Constitution of the United States, Len Rose must be considered innocent of the latest charges against him until his guilt is proven in court, or based on his plea of guilty the court finds him guilty. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest Special: Len Rose Indictment ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06833; 11 Aug 90 22:42 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab18947; 11 Aug 90 21:23 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac18557; 11 Aug 90 20:14 CDT Date: Sat, 11 Aug 90 20:07:16 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs Subject: Pledge For Science in Argentina BCC: Message-ID: <9008112007.ab14041@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> Attached is an item I received a few days ago with a request that I distribute it in comp.dcom.telecom and the Digest. It is not really telecom related, so I am sending it as a special mailing to the list at this time. If you wish to respond, do so to the address in the message. It does seem worthy of our attention. Patrick Townson TELECOM Digest Moderator ------------------------ From: SCHREIBR@venus.ycc.yale.edu Subject: PLEDGE FOR SCIENCE IN ARGENTINA Date: 7 Aug 90 15:07:50 EST Organization: Yale Computer Center (YCC) TO ALL SCIENTISTS CONCERNED WITH SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY IN ARGENTINA Buenos Aires, June 4, 1990 Dear Colleague: I would like to draw your attention to the plight of science in Argentina and to ask for your urgent cooperation to save it from destruction. As you may know Argentina is in the midst of a profound economic crisis. As a consequence of this there has been a severe reduction in the governmental budget. Unless special attention is paid to science we believe that meager salaries combined with lack of funding will lead to the shut down of our laboratories before there is any improvement in the economic situation. The following example provides a glimpse of our economic situation: a scientist holding the highest available position receives a monthly salary of US$ 300 (United States dollars three hundred). On the other end of the scale a junior scientist starting his/her career is paid a salary of about US$ 100. These sums are far lower than those required for subsistence-level feeding and education for an average family. If you are willing to help us, please write a letter in your own words or use the attached letter as a model and send it via air mail to: Sr. Presidente de la Republica Argentina Dr. Carlos Saul Menem Casa de Gobierno, Balcarce 50, 1064 Buenos Aires, ARGENTINA To expand the chain please send ten copies of this letter to your friends. MODEL LETTER Sr. Presidente de la Republica Argentina Dr. Carlos Saul Menem Casa de Gobierno, Balcarce 50 1064 Buenos Aires, ARGENTINA Dear Mr. President, I am writing you to call your attention to the present situation of scientific and technological research in Argentina. Argentine scientists will not be able to endure for a long time the present situation in which the lack of funds to support research is combined with the incredibly low salaries paid to them. Such situation will soon lead to a sharp increase in the exodus, which has already started, of qualified people and hence to the irreversible damage to your national scientific and technological research system whose quality is recognized and respected by the international scientific community. This would be a tragedy for Argentina's cultural and technological development which would require years to repair. With all due respect, Mr. President, I urge you to take actions to reverse this sad situation. This may help to change the negative image that the international community has about this aspect of your administration. Sincerely yours (Signature, name and academic position) Other addresses to which correspondence may be forwarded: Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas (CONICET) Avenida Rivadavia 1917, 1033 Buenos Aires, ARGENTINA Secretaria de Ciencia y Tecnica (SECyT) Avenida Cordoba 831, 1054 Buenos Aires, ARGENTINA New Haven, 6 de Agosto de 1990 Estimados todos: Esta es la primera vez que me dirijo a todos ustedes por medio de la red. Creo que la situacion descripta mas arriba, conocida por todos nosotros, lo justifica. Hoy por la tarde recibi copia de estos textos del laboratorio en Argentina del cual provengo y hacia el cual aun planeo regresar, este es el Instituto de Quimica y Fisicoquimica Biologicas (IQUIFIB), Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquimica, Universidad de Buenos Aires, cuyo director es el Dr. Alejandro C. Paladini. Tengo entendido que los esfuerzos tendientes a revertir este estado de cosas, en el medio local, son frustrantemente inoperantes. De este modo, se trata de que la presion externa pueda ser mas efectiva. Les agradezco a todos desde ya toda la difusion que pudieran darle a esta iniciativa. Jose Maria Delfino Dr.Jose Maria Delfino Department of Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry (210 KBT), Yale University, 260 Whitney Avenue, New Haven, CT 06511, USA. Tel. # (203) 432-5622/5623 Fax # (203) 432-3282 Electronic Mail: Bitnet: "DELFINO%HHVMS8@YALEVMS"   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06851; 11 Aug 90 22:43 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18947; 11 Aug 90 21:19 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab18557; 11 Aug 90 20:14 CDT Date: Sat, 11 Aug 90 19:53:14 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest Special: Coastal Telegraph Stations BCC: Message-ID: <9008111953.ab17157@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 11 Aug 90 19:51:00 CDT Special: Coastal Telegraph Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Coastal Telegraph Stations [Donald E. Kimberlin] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 9 Aug 90 09:16 EST From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Coastal Telegraph Stations Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL In article , Nigel Allen writes: >Before INMARSAT began to provide satellite radio service to ships at >sea, the only way to send a message to a ship was through a coastal >radio station, either by voice or by telegraph. (I think that teletype >service was available through Rogaland Radio in Norway, but not in >North America.) INMARSAT is quite expensive ($12 per minute from >Canada), but even so coastal radio stations are closing down in the >U.S. He further says: >... Western Union has filed with the FCC to shut down its coastal telegraph station KFS ... and that ... WPA, WOE, WMH, WSL and KOK >have already been closed down. No doubt some traffic that formerly >moved through these stations now uses cellular phones. And he asks: >Does anyone know whether there were competitive coastal telegraph >stations in a given market, or whether such stations had a local >monopoly? Well, I have to say "thank you" to Nigel for raising a question near and dear to my heart that caused an excursion back to a comfortable past career. I was prompted to answer the question in part from my personal library and experience, but also to get on the phone to have a very pleasant chat with my old Almer Mater of international shortwave radio, WOM at Ft. Lauderdale, FL. Here's an attempt at summarizing a lot of detail: While yes, it is true that shore telegraph stations are retiring from the airwaves, and significant shifts are occurring. Maritime Mobile Radio using Medium Frequency and High Frequency radio is, believe it or not, still growing, and MARISAT/INMARSAT are far from supplanting it. And this in spite of some incursions by cellular radio as well. First, we must make it clear. Until or unless there comes to pass a global form of radiotelephony like Motorola's IRIDIUM proposal, there are vast stretches of ocean reached only by HF radio or INMARSAT. My phone inquiry to WOM found them very aware of these developments, revealing they found that while some ships, mostly supertankers, bought into INMARSAT, the $10 (U.S.) per minute rate compares poorly with the $4.90 per minute of HF radiotelephone, especially because INMARSAT bills from the moment of connection while High Seas (HF) radio makes all calls person-to-person and bills only when the conversation starts. Apparently shipping companies come to this conclusion when they get their bills, and find that a call to the ship's steward for a one-minute talk results in a $100 charge while they wait on hold for him to be paged to the satellite phone! What the WOM folk knew was that satellite-equipped ships use INMARSAT for hard-copy communications, running not only Telex but even PC's at 64 kilobits off the ship. That's what's killing the shore telegraph stations. They're not all dead however, just shrinking back to meet reduced demand. For that structural background Nigel asked about, shore radiotelegraph stations in the U.S. grew before there could be any structure to their sub-industry, mostly as "company" stations. For example, the origin of TRT Telecommunications, today in Washington, DC, was as a 1912 ship and shore radiotelegraph operation of the United Fruit Company in Boston, using 1912's "highest tech" to direct shiploads of bananas to the best markets while enroute. That expanded to using radiotelegraph to the plantations in Central America, and that expanded to TRT becoming the international telegraph (and sometimes international telephone) company of much of Central America; the entity on the other end of AT&T's point-to-point HF radiotelephone from the U.S. RCA, of course, made shipboard radios for many American-flag ships (remember that David Sarnoff, builder of the RCA empire, was first a Marconi Corp. ship's radio telegrapher.); the result was RCA building a string of shore telegraph stations for its customers. And, the RCA shore stations operated radioteletype as a service to promote sales of shipboard RTTY gear. ITT got into the act by owning Mackay Marine, which competed with RCA for maritime radio equipment and services, and so had a string of stations, too. There was no territorial or service monopoly. In fact, just the opposite seems to have happened, and caused some significant words in the (U.S.) Communications Act of 1934, to the effect that (sic) radio stations for public correspondence must accept communications and traffic from any mobile station, because the "company" stations had, in fact, refused to answer calls from (even distressed) ships of other companies. What developed from that point was an interesting form of competition of many years' duration. The shore stations did compete with attempts at camraderie and service in ways only telegraphers could understand. Imagine if you can, an unseen, unheard person on shore exuding warmth and personality via a telegraph key ... and they did. Despite the shrinkage of the number of radiotelegraph shore stations, the remaining ones seem to be enjoying growth by picking up the slack. For example, WPD at Tampa, FL seems to still be going strong, independently owned as it has always been, handing its traffic off as domestic telegram and Telex messages (that have now largely become E-Mail with PCs). One of the other "company stations" that never operated maritime traffic, the Trans-Liberia Radiotelegraph Company (built by Firestone solely to communicate with its plantations in Liberia) seems also to still be in business from Akron, Ohio ... but has been off HF radio for many years, and is now largely a message center with a couple of PCs ... but you could, if you wanted to, send a telegram to Liberia via Trans-Liberia! As to the telephone business, INMARSAT, as noted, may have made some market, but it seems to be rather insignificant to WOM and it companions. Their market still grows. AT&T has operations at WOO near New York, WOM near Miami and KMI near San Francisco. The single most significant part of the traffic is cruise ships, that enjoy handsome profit margins on phone calls to shore for passengers. It's known that one cruise line tells passengers they are on satellite, and charges $30 per minute, while putting the calls on HF radio (yes, HF can sound mighty good, running SSB radio with Lincompex) where the shore station charges $4.90 less a $1 "commission" to the ship! The surge of technology has helped, with $800 SSB transceivers, so that small ships and private yachts get on HF radiotelephone, too ... not wanting to pay the price of a satellite shipboard station and then the per-minute rates. They have fueled the surge in minutes, along with ... of all things ... aircraft! The WOM folks handle a fair amount of calls for private aircraft, notably some Venezuelan oil company planes that travel from South America across the Atlantic and Africa to Saudi Arabia. Some few "hep" international airline captains have even found their HF transceiver can get them a phone call to home while crossing the Pacific at 35,000 feet! The result is that WOM alone of the three AT&T stations is handling about 700 revenue-producing calls a day. And, the traffic of the one privately-owned U.S. station for international telephone traffic, WLO at Mobile, Alabama seems to also be healthy. The standards bodies seem to sense this growth, for in 1991, the channel assignments for HF maritime radiotelephone use will be restructured again, with narrower channel widths (2.8 kHz) to create more channels. As mentioned earlier, the sub-industry is restructuring, in some cases with technology old-timers could never comprehend. A major change has been and continues toward automating and reducing overheads by consolidation. As I write this, work is underway to consolidate the control point for NY's WOO in the WOM control room at Fort Lauderdale. Similarly, the local telcos who always ran the medium-frequency (2 mHz) Coastal Harbor operations abandoned them with demonopolization, and WOM took over Miami, Jacksonville and Charleston, SC, running the whole works with the WOM callsign and 10KW transmitters, while the receivers along the shoreline are wired to Fort Lauderdale. The communications technology behind it is in some ways awesome, in others what we should simply expect. The WOM location in Ft. Lauderdale is 50 miles from its transmitters in Pennsuco, west of Miami, while the actual landline telephone operators all the ships speak to are in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania! Not such a feat when you find out that the building is also AT&T's fiber POP for Ft. Lauderdale and WOM enjoys its own whole fiber route direct to Pittsburgh! Meantime, control of the transmitters is by PC messages shot around AT&T's packet data net to turn a transmitter on or off or change its antenna ... no clunky old "control circuits" at all; instead messages from a 3B1 UNIX machine (yes, they are planning to get 3B2s) that go on a packet network to be read by similar machines with control interfaces at Pennsuco (and soon, Manahawkin, NJ for WOO ... with KMI's Dixon, CA transmitters a likely addition someday). And, HF radiotelephone even has its disaster function. During Hurricane Hugo's trip through the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico last year, the first restoration of telephone connections to the U.S. was from ship radiotelephones there to WOM for several days. Of course, the world gets little news from the networks about such undergirdings of telecommunications. If people had wanted, they could have as well made phone calls into the U.S. telephone network (and thus the world) via WOM in the Mexico City earthquakes. FCC rules do permit doing ANYTHING with a radio transmitter if it is for the safety of life and property ... but that doesn't mean calling to see if Uncle Fred's attic window got broken, it means serious PUBLIC safety. Oh, the cellular incursion. Yes, it's there, but again not that significant to a growing market. First, cellular of course, reaches only incidentally a few miles offshore. There are automated VHF marine-band dialable shore stations that do reach seaward, but perhaps only 50 miles offshore. Run by a private company in Hollywood, FL, these similarly are remote controlled from that city, even though they range along the whole coast. And, in the Bahamas Islands group there are reported to be two cellular companies among the islands, Cruise-Phone and Boat-Phone. They serve an obvious purpose for boaters sailing among the thousands of Bahamas Islands, but only there. Growth seems apparent in other areas, too. St.Thomas in the Virgin Islands has HF voice station WAH that is growing, as do several of the other nations' Caribbean islands ... French, Dutch, English and so on. And, of course, around the world, there are the established stations of many nations. The "territorial monopoly" is rather interesting when the Laws of Physics interfere. It's very difficult for nations to legislate what shore station a vessel calls ... even though some do force it economically, witness the Cuban shore stations with their own and Russian ships, plying the same waters, but never getting on the channels of the American stations, even though they easily can. So, I hope this is the kind of response Nigel wanted. It's a peek into another galaxy of telecomm that most people don't even know exists or thinks is dead is the kind of response you wanted. From the figures I got today, it's another telecom business that grosses at least $15 million a year, and perhaps several times that. And, since this peek got so long, here's a vignette learned yesterday from the WOM Technical Operator I chatted with. We were comparing stories about handling REAL emergency traffic, as anyone who has done that job has done, as he gave me a real side-splitter. Seems he worked the third shift for a couple of years, and in the darkest hours of night, traffic tends to be nearly zero. However, one night at 3 AM, he heard a whispering voice on the speaker of his calling receiver saying, "Hello? Is anybody on here?" He lit up a transmitter and answered, whereupon the caller identifed himself as a ship and said, "We are under attack by the Indians!" What? A ship at sea under Indian attack? What it turned out to be was s small freighter that had run aground on remote shoreline of Nicaragua, and the natives were boarding the ship and stealing everything in sight! Not daunted by this at all, the WOM T.O. called the U.S. Coast Guard District Office to find out what support was available, and within a short time the Nicaraguan National Guard was dispatched to quell the Indian uprising. If you think, "Having that job must be a ball," you're absolutely right. Many is the time I've thought I should have stayed there. Pity it's only one that employs a handful of people. Oh, it's not a "secret" place although not in tour books. Located at the corner of State Road 7 and Sunrise Boulevard in Fort Lauderdale, just look up AT&T Company and give 'em a ring if you want to visit! [Moderator's Note: *Thank you* for a very interesting and informative article. I'm sure you are correct that this is a form of telecommunications very few people know anything about. I hope your article has educated a few of our readers today. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest Special: Coastal Telegraph Stations ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10690; 12 Aug 90 1:56 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31142; 12 Aug 90 0:27 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16687; 11 Aug 90 23:23 CDT Date: Sat, 11 Aug 90 22:40:36 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #562 BCC: Message-ID: <9008112240.ab27400@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 11 Aug 90 22:40:23 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 562 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Federal Indictment of Len Rose [Mike Godwin] Re: A Thesis on Caller ID [Jerry Leichter] Re: BC Politician's Cellular Calls Taped; Big Mess Ensues [Jonathan Story] Re: Pinging Cellular Phones [John Nagle] Re: Censure Roseanne Barr by Fax [James Deibele] Re: 666 and Ignorant People [Macy Hallock, Jr.] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Godwin Subject: Re: Federal Indictment of Len Rose Date: 12 Aug 90 01:21:26 GMT Reply-To: Mike Godwin Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas One of the things that troubles me about the Len Rose indictment is that it appears to have been edited. Normally, a federal indictment will state under each or charge the specific statute under which the particular offense has been committed. Lest someone read into this an accusation that Len Rose edited his indictment for some particular purpose, let me add that it is often easy to overlook the statutory references, which typically appear at the bottom of each page, and which often look like pro-forma additions. But without the statutory references, it is unclear which statutes Rose is alleged to have violated. It seems certain that 18 USC 1343 (wire fraud) and 18 USC 2314 (interstate transportation of stolen property) are two of the statutes; it is unclear, however, whether the government is also prosecuting Rose under 18 USC 1030 (use of computers to defraud) or 18 USC 371 (conspiracy). The particular statutes under which Rose is being prosecuted will dictate many of the issues that will be litigated if he goes to trial. My personal favorite of the counts is Count Two: >And the Grand Jury for the District of Maryland further charges: >1. Paragraphs 1 through 26 of Count One are incorporated by reference, >as if fully set forth. >2. On or about January 9,1990, in the State and District of Maryland, >and elsewhere, > LEONARD ROSE JR. a/k/a/ Terminus >did knowingly, willfully, intentionally, and with intent to defraud, >traffic in (that is, transfer, and otherwise dispose of to another, >and obtain control of with intent to transfer and dispose of) >information through which a computer may be accessed without >authorization, to wit: a trojan horse login program, and by such >conduct affected interstate commerce. I know of no federal statute that outlaws "trafficking in" information "through which a computer may be accessed without authorization," absent some allegation that the information was proprietary and stolen. One wonders whether this count is meant to refer to Rose's authoring a password-recording modification to AT&T system software. Our Moderator offers what seems to me to be a correct interpretation of at least one of the counts: >If my understanding of the allegations is correct, >modifications to the source code causing passwords entered by users >using the 'su' command to be retained in a separate file for review by >unauthorized persons was transmitted. I believe Mr. Neidorf then >printed this information in his publication {Phrack}. Assuming this interpretation is correct, it is unclear whether Rose broke the law in this action, unless the federal government has proof that Rose's actions were part of a conspiracy to defraud AT&T or one of the Bells. (That's why it's important to determine whether a conspiracy is being charged here.) In conspiracy prosecutions, an otherwise-legal act may make a defendant liable under the conspiracy statute if that legal act was in furtherance of the conspiracy. Mike Godwin, UT Law School mnemonic@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (512) 346-4190 [Moderator's Note: Well, you got it the way *I* got it, save tightening up the lines a little, correcting a couple of typos. Was it specifically edited by someone? Well, in the part at the top, the reference was to the 'United States of Amerika' ... I swapped out the /k/ for a /c/ ... it looks like someone was tampering with it. Also, according to Len Rose (on the phone with me), he 'gave it to someone to be typed' for the net. I don't know if *he* personally sent it here; after all his complaints about having no equipment at his disposal, how could he? Someone may have sent it, and used his name. There were no statuatory references in the copy I received. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Aug 90 09:51:09 EDT From: Jerry Leichter Subject: Re: A Thesis on Caller ID Your ethicist is demonstrating how easy it is to get the answer you want if you just can choose the question. His argument falls apart on close exami- nation. a) He pulls at the emotional heartstrings of "privacy in your own home" to try to argue for Caller-ID. However, virtually all the complaints about invasions of privacy have had to do with potential abuses by BUSINESSES. Clear black-and-white dicotomies - public vs. private places - are nice for arguments, but have little to do with reality. When I go into a store, I give up very few of my privacy rights. A store is not someone's home: It's a place of business, and falls somewhere between public and private. For example, you can if you wish choose to refuse to allow black people into your home. You cannot choose to bar them from your store. By offering services to the public, you have given up certain privacy rights. Conversely, I as a member of the public retain many more of my privacy rights in your store than I do in your home. In particular, you can certainly demand to know who I am before allowing me into your home. You cannot demand identification as a pre-condition for allowing me into your store. All you can get from this argument is that NON-BUSINESS lines have a right to receive Caller-ID. For all their talk about protecting people's privacy, the telco's REALLY want to sell Caller-ID to, you got it, businesses. That's where the money is. b) Even if we restrict ourselves to private homes and non-business lines, his argument is weak. I have the right to knock on your front door. You don't have to let me in unless I identify myself, but you can't stop me from knock- ing. I don't believe a "no solicitors" sign has any legal weight. (A "no trespassing" sign MIGHT - although I can't enforce it selectively, letting some people in without invitation and choosing to go after others.) I'll argue that the knock on the door and the ring of the telephone are equal invasions of privacy. In each case, you have the right to ask for identifica- tion. In each case, I can refuse to provide it - in which case you can close the door or hang up the phone. That's as far as your rights go if I refuse to identify myself. In telephony terms, this means that I should have the right to send my ID or not; and you have the right to receive it, and refuse to answer if I didn't send it. (A better analogy - and a better Caller-ID system, though perhaps technically impractical - would be a button or setting on your phone that explicity asked for Caller-ID. I would receive a notification of the request and could choose to allow my identification to be sent, or not. This would be the electronic analogue of your asking for my name - except that I would be unable to lie about it.) BTW, the analogy of the "no solicitors" sign is your ability to say that you don't want any telemarketing calls. In the past, you've had no way to enforce this. The bill just passed by Congress, requiring that telemarketers respect a list of "no calls" numbers, provides exactly this ability. Jerry ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Aug 90 16:20:27 PDT From: Jonathan Story Subject: Re: BC Politician's Cellular Calls Taped; Big Mess Ensues Concerning the affairs of former British Columbia Attorney General Bud Smith and the recordings of his phone calls: In article <10708@accuvax.nwu.edu> mc@sickkids.toronto.edu (Ms Mary Corey) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 559, Message 4 of 12 >I've read several articles about this case, but none of them have >stated information about the quality and duration of these recordings. The excerpts that went out over radio and TV were of poor quality, and other parts were apparently indecipherable. >However they do say that a scanner was used. My impression is that it >is not possible or very difficult to identify and deliberately record >a particular cellular subscribers phone conversations, nor is it >easy/possible to follow that conversation from cell to cell. Can this >be explained, is it legal, or is the cellular stuff just a smokescreen >to hide an (illegal) wiretap? This information might be wrong, but I seem to recall reading that the tapes were not recorded from cellular calls but rather conversations that the minister made through a mobile telephone that works something like marine radio ("AutoTel", I think). There are a small number of channels (six?) that are accessible throughout the province and I suppose Smith wanted to be able to stay in touch even when he was visiting some backwater whistlestop. As far as I know, the individual who admitted to making the tapes was nothing more than a news-gathering type creature who had a grudge, a scanner, and a recorder. The sins, if any, that the A-G committed are, in my opinion, exaggerated (although government drones have yet to speak.) To me, his most criminal act as a politician was using what amounted to a CB radio and thinking no one else would listen in. Incidentally, as part of the fallout, last I heard is that Smith is being sued by some lawyer who was maligned in a taped "private" conversation between the A-G and his deputy. My guess is that the suit will get laughed out of court; or have defamation cases been won elsewhere under such odd circumstances? jonathan@jspc.wimsey.bc.ca ------------------------------ From: John Nagle Subject: Re: Pinging Cellular Phones Date: 11 Aug 90 19:37:47 GMT >followed by call setups, you could determine if any user location >activity is taking place. It's not clear if you're entitled to monitor the cellular control cqhannel under the ECPA. Monitoring the voice channels is prohibited, but the control channel may be OK. An opinion here would be useful. Actually, it would be useful if someone monitored the control channel in major cities and produced independent statistics on usage. This would help in valuing cellular telephone properties and in evaluating the validity of cellular operators requests for more bandwidth. John Nagle ------------------------------ From: James Deibele Subject: Re: Censure Roseanne Barr by Fax Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 00:39:50 GMT In article <10481@accuvax.nwu.edu> 0004133373@mcimail.com (Donald E. Kimberlin) writes: >Mc Grover has offered free use of his fax machine at (800) >468-0344 (overseas callers can dial +1 813 733 0344) to receive and >collect fax messages that he will forward to the sponsors of Barr's TV >program to show how much public indignation Barr has caused. And next month, when his phone bill arrives, Mc Grover will turn around and sell all those phone numbers to someone compiling a directory of fax numbers. Or he'll publish it himself. He'll have your fax number, your name, and probably other information too (the handiest pieces of paper probably being company stationery). jamesd@techbook.COM ...!{tektronix!nosun,uunet}!techbook!jamesd Public Access UNIX at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400) Voice: +1 503 646-8257 Technical books mailing list --- mail "techbook!tbj-request" [Moderator's Note: You are being cynical. He would not have to wait until next month 'when the phone bill comes'. Most incoming fax messages contain (a) a cover sheet saying who is writing, with their voice and/or fax numbers, and (b) the name and fax number of the sender printed on the top or bottom line of each page of paper, sent automatically by the sending machine. And if a fax directory which gives all the above information can be purchased for $19.95 from one of several directory publishers, why should he tie up his fax machine and waste all his paper to get the same information? Try not to have ugly thoughts about motives every time someone starts a grass roots campaign of some sort, regardless of how ill-advised you may consider the movement. The same motives you attribute to McGrover could be applied to (for example) any organized effort to send telegrams, mailgrams or fax messages to members of Congress, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Macy M. Hallock, Jr. Subject: Re: 666 and Ignorant People Organization: F M Systems, Inc. Medina, Ohio USA +1 216 723-3000 Date: Sat, 11 Aug 90 00:00:00 GMT OK since we are on the 666 subject again, here's a bit of info and a comment I never got around to last time: 216-666 is the Montrose, Ohio exchange. There are several reasons to believe there may be some hellish connotation here: - It is a GTE Ohio exchange (That ought to prove it as far as John Higdon is concerned) - It is a GTE Automatic Electric No. 2 EAX office. (OK, maybe its just telepone purgatory, then) - Montrose is a suburb of Akron, Ohio (almost hell to New York types) - My in-laws live in this exchange (and have for 30 years....I will risk no other personal comment) Another item: - The Montrose CO was knocked out of service for half a day by a direct lightning strike on the power pole beside the building. The generator in the CO could not help because the breakers for the battery chargers were all tripped. When the CO batteries discharged, things just ground to a halt. The CO was unmanned for the weekend, and GTE did not dispatch because the alarms showed a power failure with the generator running OK. Help was send only when the office went "no tone"...with three different municipalities police dispatch centers in it. Repair was slowed by the need to replace the damamged breakers, and no supply houses were open on Sunday. Needless to say, GTE was called on the carpet for this one... (The PUCO never was told the whole story, BTW) A few other comments: Montrose 1000 cycle test tone is 216-666-1212 ... and many people often dial it by mistake for 216-555-1212 ... I remember some AT&T toll reports we got when I worked for GTE back in '70 that noted this..and suggested GTE change the number (which they would never do). My in-laws number is one digit different from the 1000 cycle number, and they have gotten a few odd phone calls due to this. My father in law is a retired police chief, and when I worked for GTE he was active. I traced a few of these bad calls for him and traced some to an Ohio Bell test desk in Akron Blackstone exchange. An automatic trunk routiner had been programmed with the 666-1212 number, but a bad thumbwheel had caused one digit to work erratically ... thus causing the problem. My father-in-law suggested he could personally impound the test board supervisor's car if the problem was not promptly repaired ... an interesting solution to telephone equipment repair delays, IMHO. It never came to that. Ohio Bell repaired their unit promptly once the problem was explained to them (and they decided they could believe a lowly GTE person ... I had to tell them I was ex-Bell to get them to listen). Anyhow, we have our share of fundmentalist churches and preachers here, perhaps they should all move to the 216-666 exchange to try and help solve these problems ... The PUCO can't make GTE work right, maybe divine intervention would help ;-) Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy F M Systems, Inc. {uunet|backbone|usenet.ins.cwru.edu}ncoast!fmsystm!macy 150 Highland Drive Voice: +1 216 723-3000 Ext 251 Fax: +1 216 723-3223 Medina, Ohio 44256 USA Cleveland:273-3000 Akron:239-4994 (Dial 251 @ tone) [Moderator's Note: Based on all the complaints we get here about GTE, I'm beginning to think divine intervention is the only thing which might help improve their service. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #562 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27067; 12 Aug 90 18:11 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19476; 12 Aug 90 16:34 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27875; 12 Aug 90 15:30 CDT Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 15:03:27 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #563 BCC: Message-ID: <9008121503.ab11438@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 12 Aug 90 15:03:00 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 563 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Knowing You're a Call Waiting Beep [John Debert] Re: Knowing You're a Call Waiting Beep [Randal Schwartz] Re: Basic Questions About Telephones [Roy Smith] Re: Basic Questions About Telephones [John Higdon] Re: Plagued by Wrong Number Calls [Kenneth R. Crudup] Re: Coastal Telegraph Stations [Roy Smith] Re: Telephone Diverters [Gary Segal] Re: Unlisted Numbers and E911 [John Debert] 1-555-1212 for DA in Cincinnati; 411 for Toronto [David Leibold] Re: "Sprint Unusable for Data?" Yes!!! Bunk!! [John Debert] Sprint Problem Fixed [John Higdon] Re: Len Rose Indictment [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Debert Subject: Re: Knowing You're a Call Waiting Beep Date: 11 Aug 90 20:37:31 GMT Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 241-9760} I would like to see the telco's start using the same kind of "ringback" that is used in ESS-type PBX's (i.e. 5ESS) which put a short beep right on the end of the "ringback". This tells the caller that the line is in use and suggests that he might want to try again later. It's better than listening to it ring without being answered and not knowing if someone is at the other end or not. jd onymouse@netcom.UUCP ------------------------------ From: Randal Schwartz Subject: Re: Knowing You're a Call Waiting Beep Reply-To: Randal Schwartz Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 05:17:25 GMT In article <10716@accuvax.nwu.edu>, yazz@devnet (Bob Yasi) writes: [about the difference in ring to the calling party if calling party is call-waiting a conversation in progress] I notice that calls to local GTE and US West (Bell-like) numbers in this area will ring a "long" ring for the first ring if I'm interrupting someone else's call in progress. It spooks them when I ask "who were you talking to?" after they pick me up (either by putting the other call on hold or losing them). I thought that was pretty much inherent in the "standard" call-waiting package, but maybe that's a localism? Other datapoints? Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095 on contract to Intel's iWarp project, Beaverton, Oregon, USA, Sol III merlyn@iwarp.intel.com ...!any-MX-mailer-like-uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn [Moderator's Note: Although the very experienced ear can tell the difference when calling someone here (slight differences in the clicks, etc), IBT says they don't intend to change the rings or otherwise make an obvious response to the caller about the status of the other person's phone. Why? They say it is none of your business if the person you are calling is already on the phone. Obviously, a busy signal tells you, but that's a completely different matter. If someone has call-waiting, it is up to them to let you know if they are on another call. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 10:31:31 EDT From: Roy Smith Subject: Re: Basic Questions About Telephones Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City John Higdon writes (Vol 10, Issue 560, Message 2 of 3) > The wire you describe, commonly called "D station wire" does not have the > working pairs twisted [...] What you want is "E wire", where the pairs > are individually twisted. The untwisted wire described is what I have always called "quad station wire", I have no idea what the real name is, but I don't think "D station wire" is right. My AT&T catalog lists what they call DIW, "D Inside Wire" which is indeed twisted pairs. You can get it in various pair counts from as few as 2 or 3 up to, I think, about 6 or 8. The most common variety I've seen is 4 pair. Unlike common 25 pair cables, the pairs are packed loosly in the PVC sheath, making it very flexible. It sounds exactly like what John is describing as "E wire". I am willing to defer to hard evidence to the contrary, but I have trouble believing you could get any appreciable amount of crosstalk between two properly balanced circuits (even if not using twisted pairs) over the, say, 100 feet of wire you might find in a common residential installation. My trailblazer coexists just fine with my voice line over plain old quad wire, running what I would guess is about 60 feet in the same quad. In theory, I would agree, you want to run twisted pairs if you have the choice, but if quad is already in, I wouldn't bother replacing it for plain voice or voice-grade modems. 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 ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Basic Questions About Telephones Date: 12 Aug 90 11:41:32 PDT (Sun) From: John Higdon On Aug 12 at 10:31, Roy Smith writes: > I am willing to defer to hard evidence to the contrary, but I have > trouble believing you could get any appreciable amount of crosstalk between > two properly balanced circuits (even if not using twisted pairs) over the, > say, 100 feet of wire you might find in a common residential installation. I have seen it happen over lengths of as little as 25 feet. Remember that crosstalk rejection between circuits depends on the electrostatic and electromagnetic cancellation caused by the two conductors of the circuit. If you have conductors randomly interspersed within a cable and if an individual leg of one circuit travel for some appreciable distance with the leg of another, then your "properly balanced circuits" might just as well be unbalanced. > My trailblazer coexists just fine with my voice line over plain old quad > wire, running what I would guess is about 60 feet in the same quad. In > theory, I would agree, you want to run twisted pairs if you have the > choice, but if quad is already in, I wouldn't bother replacing it for plain > voice or voice-grade modems. That's very nice. Random chance works in mysterious ways. The original poster indicated that there was some hard problem with his quad. Rather than nurse it back to health or replace it with more quad, my suggestion was to replace it with the "right stuff". I have a number of "cheap and dirty" tricks that I use and get away with, but don't don't usually advocate them in a public forum. The "I know it's wrong in theory, but it works fine for me" principle can cause people grief. Once again, I don't recommend using quad (or any non-twisted pair) cable for multiple lines. I have seen the results and they are bad. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Kenneth R Crudup Subject: Re: Plagued by Wrong Number Calls Organization: Software Tool&Die, (Boston), MA Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 10:06:21 GMT When Lotus Development Corp. in Cambridge, MA took over the 617-693- exchange that used to be Martha's Vineyard before MV was part of the move to area code 508, it turned out that my (old) office number (now 617-693-4111) used to be the information number for Martha's Vineyard, so all these people from out of state with outdated directories were now starting to get my desk. I told something like 50 people in 3 weeks that the number had changed to a/c 508 (and the rate decreased some after the voicemail reflected the fact that they were calling a software company.) The funny part was that after my contract expired, I changed the OGM on the voicemail saying that I was no longer with Lotus and left my home telephone number on it, presumably for agencies and emergencies, hoping that most people would realize by then that this wasn't MV info, and noone was going to give out their home number if it was anyway. Ha. So far I've had four calls. This morning (Sat.) I got awakened at eightsomething AM from some woman who was sure that the sleepy, incoherent voice on the other end of the phone actually gave a damn and was going to take her reseveration. I had never heard of Martha's Vineyard before I moved to New England. Must be a hell of a place. I guess I'll have to check it out someday. Kenny Crudup, Unix Systems Consultant nubian!kenny@ima.ima.isc.com 14 John Eliot Sq. #2B, Roxbury, MA 02119-1569 (617) 442 6585 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 11:24:40 EDT From: Roy Smith Subject: Re: Coastal Telegraph Stations Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City > St.Thomas in the Virgin Islands has HF voice station WAH that is > growing, as do several of the other nations' Caribbean islands If you've ever cruised the Virgin Islands, you know that WAH (more popularly known as VI Radio) is more than just a way to phone home. The nearest National Weather Service transmitter is on Puerto Rico, and doesn't quite reach St. Thomas, let alone the other islands. So, on a regular schedule, VI Radio (who, with the tallest mast on St Thomas, apparantly can hear NWS Puerto Rico) rebroadcasts the NWS weather reports. They can be heard all over the USVI and the BVI on VHF 16, and even further on HF. Everybody tunes in at 1000 to hear the list of waiting traffic and get the weather. They also don't seem to mind being the universal ping object, answering requests for radio checks from anybody within range. There seem to be more VHF radios in the Virgins than telephones. Every business that has anything to do with boats (i.e. most of them) stand by on 16 (or some other channel which they advertise next to their phone number) waiting to take dinner reservations, schedule diving trips, or anything you might normally pick up a phone to do. We once had to call our charter company to arrange for some spare parts. We couldn't get them on VHF (probably their little antenna was below our horizon) so we called VI Radio and had them place a phone call. When they still didn't answer, we kept VI Radio on the line for what seemed like for ever, trying different numbers (in conditions under which we could barely hear each other) until they finally got through to somebody. Never once did they suggest that the amount of their time we were taking up (for a non-emergency), compared to what they must have been able to charge for the phone call, certainly worked out to a substantial loss for them. 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 ------------------------------ From: Gary Segal Subject: Re: Telephone Diverters Date: 12 Aug 90 18:37:03 GMT Organization: Motorola INC., Cellular Infrastructure Division dave%westmark@uunet.uu.net (Dave Levenson) writes: >What in the world is "reverse modem detection"? The originating modem >remains silent, expecting answer-tone from the answering modem? Here is a guess ... The device is looking for V.25 calling tone. V.25 is the CCITT's version of a modem command set (like the "AT" set we all know and love), but it also includes a provision for calling tone similar to what Fax machines use. It is supposed to be used on all automaticly dialed calls by modems (i.e. whenever the equivalent of "ATD..." is sent). For those who want more details, V.25 describes the tone as a "1300 Hz or any tone corresponding to binary 1 of the DCE in use." It is on for 0.5 to 0.7 seconds, and then off for 1.5 to 2 seconds. Fax calling tone, on the other hand, is an 1100 Hz tone, on for 0.5 seconds and off for 3 seconds. >As far as I know, some fax machines, in some originating modes, >generate the CNG tone when they're awaiting answer. I know of no >non-fax modems that would work with the device described above. All fax machines are supposed to generate calling tone when the machine dials. If an autodialing fax machine doesn't generate calling tone (CNG), it is in violation of the T.30 recommendation for fax machines. Since there are some data modems that are V.25bis or V.25 compliant, there is a small chance that the "telephone diverter" in question is designed to use both Fax CNG and modem CNG as a means to route calls. However, the device in question would probably not work to well if it is looking for modem calling tone, as very few modems in the U.S. have the ability to generate it. Gary Segal ...!uunet!motcid!segal +1-708-632-2354 Motorola INC., 1501 W. Shure Drive, Arlington Heights IL, 60004 The opinions expressed above are those of the author, and do not consititue the opinions of Motorola INC. ------------------------------ From: John Debert Subject: Re: Unlisted Numbers and E911 Date: 11 Aug 90 19:51:51 GMT Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 241-9760} From article <10517@accuvax.nwu.edu>, by samho@larry.cs.washington. edu (Sam Ho): > The matter ended when GTE announced on August 1 that the previous > state of affairs would be restored: 911 operators would once again get > the names of all callers, even one with unlisted numbers. How could they possibly know the name of the person calling without asking? Billing name does not necessarily equal the name of the caller. So, why waste space displaying the name? GTE would have done better leaving names off the display. Could be misleading and result in errors on the part of E.R. personnel. jd onymouse@netcom.UUCP ------------------------------ From: woody Subject: 1-555-1212 for DA in Cincinnati; 411 for Toronto Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 23:45:23 EDT I believe it was David Bernholdt who mentioned that 1-555.1212 was needed for all Directory Assistance in the Cincinnati area, even local. In Toronto, 411 is used for all DA in 416 NPA, even if the place is long distance within 416. No 1 555.1212 is available (or nowadays 1 416 555.1212) ------------------------------ From: John Debert Subject: Re: "Sprint Unusable for Data?" Yes!!! Bunk!! Date: 11 Aug 90 19:19:35 GMT Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 241-9760} > I've used modems on > Sprint from the Bay area and have friends who do so. I've also dialed ^^^^^^^^ Excuse me? Silicon Valley != "Bay area" - either Bay area. jd onymouse@netcom.UUCP ------------------------------ Subject: Sprint Problem Fixed Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 11 Aug 90 17:25:33 PDT (Sat) From: John Higdon With two nights and a day of traffic on Sprint with the new Telebit firmware, it can now be said that the problem has been solved. No fifteen minute struggles to transmit 2k of data, no constant retrains, in fact no problems. For the difference it makes, this is certainly one of the better kept secrets! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 14:44:49 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Re: Len Rose Indictment Another copy of the Len Rose indictment has been forwarded to us, and this copy includes the legal references missing from the first version. Mr. Rose said the person employed to transcribe the first version for us was unaware that all the legal notations were important. Rather than enter the whole thing again here, I have forwarded the more detailed version direct to the Telecom Archives, to the section entitled 'telecom.security.issues', where it is filed with other related cases and commentaries. For your reference, here are the specific cites: The five counts are almost identical in wording, and each refers to: 18 USC S 1030 (a) (6) - Computer Fraud. 18 USC S 2314 - Transportation of Stolen Property 18 USC S 2 - Aiding and Abetting. In this latest version, the name 'America' was correctly spelled, without the /k/ replacing the /c/ as in the original version. Please append this note to the special issue of the Digest you have already received. By the way, I've seen an advance copy of the next issue of Computer Underground Digest, and it contains a lengthy interview with Len Rose. You will want to read it. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #563 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03715; 12 Aug 90 21:16 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08967; 12 Aug 90 19:39 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07411; 12 Aug 90 18:35 CDT Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 17:50:34 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #564 BCC: Message-ID: <9008121750.ab17462@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 12 Aug 90 17:50:14 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 564 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Len Roses's 1989 Legal Problem is Irrelevant [Jim Thomas] Re: Knowing You're a Call Waiting Beep [David Lesher] Re: Len Rose Indictment [David Schanen] USA Direct Foreign Numbers [Jiro Nakamura] North American and World Areacode/Place Matcher [Daniel Jacobson] Caller-ID Again [S. Keith Graham] 555's 666's [David Tamkin] 666 And All That [Steve Hamley] Re: 666 and Ignorant People [Kenneth R. Crudup] Re: 666 and Ignorant People [Jonathan Story] Re: 666 and Ignorant People [Roy Smith] 666 and People Who Prefer to be Ignorant [John Debert] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 16:02 CDT From: jt Subject: Len Roses's 1989 Legal Problem is Irrelevant The issue of Len Rose's 1989 brush with the law continues to be mentioned in various notes in a way that seems to divert attention away from his current problem. In 1989, Len was indicted for stealing computer equipment under circumstances that, while in no way acceptable, where not simply rip-off. Len has not yet been convicted for that offense. He has been offered a plea arrangement which he plans to accept later this month. In my (and others') communications with him, he has never denied that act, he has never condoned it, he has never in anyway tried to justify it. His attitude has been one of accepting responsibility for it and facing the consequences. He has repeatedly expressed shame and remorse for it, but recognizes that it has been done. He cannot undo his action, he can only live with it. The 1989 incident is totally unrelated to the current one in which he is charged with computer fraud and transportation of stolen "property." Continually alluding to the past incident diverts attention from two issues raised in the current case. First, as a "Len Rose" issue, the charges seem to exceed what he is alleged to have done. Information beginning to seep in from related details in the Neidorf trial, from documents known to be evidence in Len's case, and from individuals involved in the case, produces a gnawing feeling of deja vous all over again. Those who read the recent version of the indictment in TELECOM Digest noticed that the violated statutes were omitted. A source who possessed the original copy read the statues in a telephone conversation: Counts 1 and 2: Title 18 Sect. 1030(a)(6) and 18 Sect. 2. Counts 3, 4, and 5: Title 18 Sect. 2314 and Title 18 Sect 2. We will confirm this when we obtain a copy of the original later in the week. The second issue is *NOT* a Len Rose issue and could affect many of us who use a modem. Len is not being charged with theft, but with fraud (for writing a trojan horse program -- he is accused only of writing it, not of using it illegally), for writing a program to capture passwords, and for sending these to another state. Modifications in the trojan horse program are alleged to be on proprietary source code, which was one fraction of a larger program. It should be remembered that in the Neidorf trial, the concept of "proprietary information" was grossly abused by BellSouth. Whether that is the case here remains to be seen, but the apparent similarities between the two cases should cause concern to all of us. Anybody who hangs out on Bulletin Boards or who is familiar with archives on other nets is aware that there are may similar programs in the public domain. If Len is found guilty, what is the status of anybody who possesses or sends a program that crypts/encrypts passwords, or who writes such programs in, for example, California, as a consequence of some legitimate need, then sends them to Michigan? This second issue brings us back to the issue of law-enforcement creativity in distorting law for questionable prosecution. We have seen in the Neidorf case that prosecutors, despite overwhelming evidence, can pursue prosecutions that do not belong in the courts. Subsequent evidence could prove us wrong, but to date, we have neither seen nor heard even the suggestion of any evidence that indicates that U.S. v. Leonard Rose is any different than U.S. v. Craig Neidorf. To raise the issue of the 1989 offense distorts these issues. The outcome of the current case should be on the current issues. If Len is being unjustly prosecuted, it is wrong to raise his 1989 behavior as a way of mitigating this injustice. Let's focus on the current issues avoid red herrings. [Moderator's Note: You got the same copy of the indictment I received. And your note to me indicated you also had to edit the word 'Amerika'. The legal cites were included in a Digest Sunday afternoon. On the subject of Red Herrings, you seem to know quite a bit about how they work. While his previous difficulty will not be considered as evidence in the current matter, it will be considered in any pre-sentence social investigation the court relies upon when imposing punishment. It is not totally irrelevant to the present case. PAT] ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Re: Knowing You're a Call Waiting Beep Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 17:59:29 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers [about the difference in ring to the calling party if calling party is call-waiting a conversation in progress] >[Moderator's Note: {edited}IBT says they don't intend to change the >rings or otherwise make an obvious response to the caller about the >status of the other person's phone. Why? They say it is none of your >business if the person you are calling is already on the phone.] You seem to be missing the crucial point. IBT or Pac*Bell wants the Call Interruptus to be used every time to avoid setting up non-revenue calls. They want you to stay on the line, at least until the supervision latches, and the billing counter goes 'DING'. If you knew you were interupting someone - you might feel guilty, hang up and call again later. wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (305) 255-RTFM pob 570-335 33257-0335 [Moderator's Note: That may be what they want, but a by-product is the privacy retained by the person being called. PAT] ------------------------------ From: David Schanen Subject: Re: Len Rose Indictment Date: 12 Aug 90 22:18:48 GMT Organization: Independent Study of Art, Music, Video, Computing I noticed that the indictment of Len Rose includes mention of a Trojan that collects root passwords. It seems to me that you have to have root to install such a trojan. Am I missing something here? Dave Internet: mtv@milton.u.washington.edu * UUNET: ...uunet!uw-beaver!u!mtv [Moderator's Note: You do have to be root, but some sysadmins would probably install the mods inadvertently, and there are some other folks with the root password who would install the code secretly merely to gather additional passwords for use as needed. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 06:51:52 EDT From: Jiro Nakamura NeXT Developer Subject: USA Direct Foreign Numbers Organization: Cornell Information Technologies, WR, Ithaca, NY I use USA Direct all the time to phone up companies in the U.S. collect. I've still to use it on my Card. :-) The operators speak excellent English, I always assumed that they were in the States. Here are access numbers from my USA direct card (11/89), as reproduced from AT&T literature. Copyright AT&T. To get more info, dial 1 800 874 4000 ext 359: Australia 0014-881-011 Guatemala (t) 190 Austria (t) 022-903-011 Hong Kong (t) 008-1111 Bahamas (2) 1-800 872-2881 Hungary (t) 00*36-0111 Bahrain 800-001 Italy (t) 172-1011 Belgium (t) 11-0010 Jamaica (2) 0 800 872 2881 Brazil 000-8010 Japan(t2) 0039-111 Br. Virgin Is. 1-800 872 2881 Korea 009-11 Cayman Is. 1872 Liberia 797-797 Chile 00*-0312 Netherlands (t) 06*-022-9111 Colombia (2) 980-11-0010 New Zealand 000-911 Costa rica (t) 114 Norway(t) 050-12-011 Denmark (t) 0430-0010 Philippines (t2) 105-11 Dominica 1 800 872 2881 Singapore (t) 800-0011 Dom. Rep. 1 800 872-2881 St. Kitts 1 800 872-2881 Finland (t) 9800-100-10 St. Maarten (2) 800-10011 France (t) 19*-0011 Sweden (t) 020-795-611 Gambia (t) 001-199-220-0010 Switzerland (t) 046-05-0011 Germany/Frg (1t) 0130-0010 U.K. 0800-89-0011 Greece (t) 00-800-1311 Uruguay (t) 00-1161 Grenada (2) 872 * = await second tone t = Public phones require coin or card 1 = trial basis only 2 = limited availability I hope AT&T doesn't tell the SS that this is a internal secret document that costs millions ... I got mine for free from the 800 number above. Disclaimer: I don't work for AT&T, though that isn't too bad an idea. To Cornell, I'm just a number and a source of money. All typos are most probably mine. Use with care. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 03:58:00 CDT From: Daniel Jacobson Subject: North American and World Areacode/Place Matcher Organization: AT&T-BL, Naperville IL, USA I put this in alt.sources: Archive-Name: areacode.danj1/part01 [of 1]. You get: length mode name 1453 -rw-r--r-- areacode.1 16315 -rwxr-xr-x areacode (I had to get this out to the masses before it got too stale.) Yes, this is Alex Dupuy's (dupuy@cs.columbia.edu) program with my one-time enhancements. I don't intend to stay in the "areacode biz," so in the future look to the Telecom Archives and Alex for updates to his version. Folks who can't access the alt.sources newsgroup: I can e-mail you a copy. It's a UNIX shell script. ------------------------------ From: "S. Keith Graham" Subject: Caller-ID Again Date: 12 Aug 90 07:35:50 GMT Organization: Office of Computing Services, Georgia Institute of Technology I realize that this subject has been discusses extensively, but a simple suggestion that I have't heard: Why not give the purchaser of a new line the choice (at no charge) whether to send caller-id or not by default? Then add (also at no charge) the ability to turn on (or off) caller ID for a single call, much as someone uses "*70" to turn off Call Waiting. I would, normally, leave caller-id off, but if a friend was paranoid about getting calls from strangers, I could turn it back on. Also, does anyone out there object to the phone company charging for the "service" that allows you to report that the last call received as a crank call? Its several dollars a month here (BellSouth), for the "right"... Plus installation. KEITH GRAHAM Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!vapspcx ARPA: vapspcx@prism.gatech.edu ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: 555's 666's Date: Sat, 11 Aug 90 13:39:47 CDT We return you to the daze of volume 10, issue 555, where Dave Levenson typed: | I changed my mind about 800 service from MCI. Our best-selling | software product is the MoneyRoom(tm). They were offering us the | number 1-800-MONEYRM, but unfortunately, that's 800-666-3976, and you | never know what sort of nut will run up our 800 bill over that prefix! You had no worries there. Just advertise the number as 1-800-MONEYRM and the fundie fanatics won't ever realize that it translates to something beginning with three sixes. After all, you think more than a couple of the extreme nutcases who would call you satanic for having that number actually would order computer software? Later in that issue, il Moderatore commented to Donald Kimberlin thus: | [Moderator's Note: If he wanted to get 800 service, I guess MCI would | be out of the question. After all, 800-666-POPE would be a dead | giveaway! :) PT] One could always ask MCI for a number on a different prefix. When I first heard about "beasting" people (using the lengths of the words in Reagan's name was really a cheap substitute, as was the forcible introduction of a factor of six when it was done to Henry Kissinger and Ken Johnson), it took me a few minutes to get 666 from Jesus's name. So I guess that at the tender age of nineteen I managed to disprove Christianity and expose it as Satanism, right? For the record, I was naked at the time I did it, because I was taking a shower. Yup, didn't even need pencil or paper. David Tamkin Box 7002 Des Plaines IL *0018-7002 708 518 *7*9 312 *93 0591 MCI Mail: 42*-1818 GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com [Zip code 60018 is adjacently northeast of zip code 60666. Anyone jealous?] ------------------------------ From: Steve Hamley Subject: 666 And All That Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 14:26:18 BST > Just Dial 1-900-230-POPE > [Moderator's Note: If he wanted to get 800 service, I guess MCI would > be out of the question. After all, 800-666-POPE would be a dead > giveaway! :) PT] Funny you should say that. In the UK, Redemptorist Publications, who publish a Catholic newsletter, runs its own premium-charged helplines. They give out such information as what the church thinks about divorce, what to do when your kids stop going to mass, etc. These are on the numbers 0898 666 XXX. Their service provider also seems to have a slight clash of interests. At the same time as the Redemptorists were running a line on 'should you read horoscopes' they announced new improved, interactive horoscopes run in conjunction with a daily paper. ------------------------------ From: Kenneth R Crudup Subject: Re: 666 and Ignorant People Organization: Software Tool&Die, (Boston), MA Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 19:33:12 GMT The "location" (I can't call it a "city") of Somerville, MA, has the 666 exchange. Kenny Crudup, Unix Systems Consultant nubian!kenny@ima.ima.isc.com 14 John Eliot Sq. #2B, Roxbury, MA 02119-1569 (617) 442 6585 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Aug 90 19:59:12 PDT From: Jonathan Story Subject: Re: 666 and Ignorant People In Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (area code 604) the 666 exchange is used by ... the Canadian Government. jonathan@jspc.wimsey.bc.ca ------------------------------ From: roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: Re: 666 and Ignorant People Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 17:26:35 GMT optilink!cramer@uunet.uu.net (Clayton Cramer) writes: > In the first century A.D., there was a type of numerology called > *geametria* (a corruption of the Greek word for geometry), in which the > letters of the alphabet were assigned different numeric values, and the > name of a person was calculated to a particular number. I don't know what this has to do with telecom anymore, but 19 centuries later, gemetria (the way I've always seen it spelled, but who knows?) is still practiced. Each letter in the Hebrew alphabet is a number and number games are still played by Jews. For example, when I got married, various people sent me checks for $72 (I'm sure I'll get corrected if I got the numbers wrong!). The Hebrew word for life adds up to 36, so 72 is two lives together. BTW, I grew up in 201-666. To the best of my knowledge, I have no tendencies towards being an ax murderer. 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 ------------------------------ From: John Debert Subject: Re: 666 and People Who Prefer to be Ignorant Date: 11 Aug 90 20:22:50 GMT Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 241-9760} Hoo hoo haw ho ho ho hee! Please! No more! I can't stand it! Stop! hee hee! All seriousness aside, folks, I haven't had such a laugh over anything on the net in some time. I'm kind of tempted to change my data line to end with the Number of the Beast and reset the hello message and all that ... It'd be a real hoot to see what kind of stuff gets left in the mailbox. jd onymouse@netcom.UUCP ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #564 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11078; 13 Aug 90 4:17 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26463; 13 Aug 90 2:43 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27295; 13 Aug 90 1:39 CDT Date: Mon, 13 Aug 90 0:45:54 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #565 BCC: Message-ID: <9008130045.ab23877@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 13 Aug 90 00:45:32 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 565 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: A Thesis on Caller ID [Gilbert Amine] Re: 666 And All That [Isaac Rabinovitch] Re: MCI, VISAPhone, and Call Canada/Europe/Pacific [Jim Budler] Re: 1-800 Numbers From Europe [Jim Budler] Re: Len Rose Indictment [Carl M. Kadie] Re: Unlisted Numbers and E911 [Marc T. Kaufman] Re: Telephone Diverters [Dave Levenson] Re: Caller-ID Again [Dave Levenson] Re: "Follow Me" Roaming Question [Robert Gutierrez] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 17:29 EST From: Rochelle Communications <0004169820@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: A Thesis on Caller ID In the August 11 issue of TELECOM Digest (Volume 10, Issue 562) Jerry Leichter argues that the "peephole" analogy often stated by Caller ID proponents is not valid. He writes: >Your ethicist is demonstrating how easy it is to get the answer you >want if you just can choose the question. His argument falls apart on >close examination.... However, virtually all the complaints about >invasions of privacy have had to do with potential abuses by BUSINESSES. This is simply not the case. Most complaints about Caller ID stem from the right of callers to make anonymous phone calls, not the right of being spared from telephone solicitations from overzealous salespeople. Several cases have been effectively raised by Caller ID opponents to stress the need for anonymity: a) A psychologist calling patients from her home, b) A woman calling her husband from a special shelter for battered housewives, c) Individuals who may be "scared away" from calling certain hotlines (AIDS, drug abuse, crime tips, etc.). Many have argued that Caller ID would inevitably result in an increase in telephone solicitations as businesses compile more "telephone lists" of potential customers, and share such lists with other businesses. There is some validity to this argument, but one should consider that telemarketers have access to such lists today, and that Caller ID by itself, wouldn't add much information (I have an unlisted number and I do get several solicitations daily). It is important to recognize that this is essentially a telemarketing problem and not a Caller ID problem. Proper regulation of telemarketing practices is the best way to limit the excesses of telemarketing. As Jerry noted, Congress has just passed a law that would prohibit telemarketers from making computer-generated calls to individuals who have listed their telephone numbers in a special database. Jerry goes on to say: >the telco's REALLY want to sell Caller-ID to, you got it, businesses. >That's where the money is. I don't know on what basis this assertion is made. Caller ID is viewed today by telephone companies as a residential service and has been aggressively marketed it as such. Bell Atlantic indicate that 94% of their Caller ID subscribers are residential customers. This is not to say to Caller ID does not appeal to businesses. There are many great applications of this technology in the business community including computer security, caller-specific voice messaging, pizza delivery, and customer service. But telephone companies seem to be focusing on the residential market since it will give them the critical mass to make the service economical to them. Finally, Jerry expresses an interest in ... > A better Caller-ID system, though perhaps technically impractical - >would be a button or setting on your phone that explicitly asked for >Caller-ID. I would receive a notification of the request and could choose >to allow my identification to be sent, or not. This would be the >electronic analogue of your asking for my name - except that I would be >unable to lie about it... A system such as this is not far-fetched and may provide the ultimate answer to the Caller ID debate by balancing the caller's "right" to anonymity and the called person's right of privacy. I understand that AT&T and NTI are developing a similar feature at the switch level. Individuals who do not wish to receive anonymous telephone calls would be able to request that when such calls are attempted, that a recording be produced essentially stating that "the party you are calling does not accept anonymous calls. Please dial 1 to have your number transmitted or hang up..." Gilbert Amine Rochelle Communications Austin, Texas voice: +1 512 794 0088 ------------------------------ From: Isaac Rabinovitch Subject: Re: 666 And All That Date: 13 Aug 90 00:15:41 GMT Reply-To: amdcad!netcom!ergo@ames.arc.nasa.gov Organization: UESPA In <10777@accuvax.nwu.edu> tharr!steveh@relay.eu.net (Steve Hamley) writes: >In the UK, Redemptorist Publications, who publish a Catholic >newsletter, runs its own premium-charged helplines. They give out such >information as what the church thinks about divorce, what to do when >your kids stop going to mass, etc. >These are on the numbers 0898 666 XXX. >Their service provider also seems to have a slight clash of interests. >At the same time as the Redemptorists were running a line on 'should >you read horoscopes' they announced new improved, interactive >horoscopes run in conjunction with a daily paper. I seem to recall reading that, on paper at least, the Roman Catholic Church is still banned in the UK. All of this reminds me of a cartoon I saw once in *Punch*. Two Africans are walking down an English street, passing a newstand that apparently caters to the credulous: giant headlines about UFOs and Satanism, books on Astrology and the Occult, and so on. One of the Africans is saying to the other, "The locals are actually quite nice, once you get used to their quaint superstitions!" ergo@netcom.uucp Isaac Rabinovitch atina!pyramid!apple!netcom!ergo Silicon Valley, CA uunet!mimsy!ames!claris!netcom!ergo Disclaimer: I am what I am, and that's all what I am! ------------------------------ From: Jim Budler Subject: Re: MCI, VISAPhone, and Call Canada/Europe/Pacific Reply-To: Jim Budler Organization: Silvar-Lisco,Inc. Sunnyvale Ca. Date: Mon, 13 Aug 90 00:57:09 GMT In article <10662@accuvax.nwu.edu> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >I don't even like the *idea* of FAX. It's an expensive, inefficient, >and clumsy *technological* solution to the *political* problems of >electronic mail. Someday, I hope as you, that email will be universal. But if you'd been in Taiwan at the end of the day, faced with your choice of staying up 'till midnight to make a phone call, and sending a FAX home, you'd realize the value of FAX in today's world. In fact, even if it had been midnight and I knew people were in the plant, I would have sent the FAX, given they would have put me on hold, created a conference call and gathered everyone concerned (can you say 10 minutes or more while my ear burns and my sleep is delayed?). Email isn't there yet. >You know any other Email-FAX gateways I might use? They get enough of >my money on letters to Australia. Uhh, yes. ATTmail, Compuserve, maybe GEnie and Delphi. Please note that I have not the slightest idea if any of these are cheaper, just answering your question. Fax modems are dropping to lower prices than I paid for my first 1200 baud modem, maybe it's time to do a study of how much you pay regularly for that email to FAX translation service and buy your own Faxmodem and do it yourself? >> And to those on this forum who HAVE responded and reacted in >> the sense of opening electronic democracy... >*Opening* electronic democracy? Maybe to the folks with expensive toys >or the ability to mooch off the office FAX machine. 900-number polls >seem more democratic to me. Democratic??? I don't think this survey is democratic, I think it's *demographic*. It is going to be presented as upper-middle-class and above results based upon the fact that it contains only respondents with access to a FAX machine. In addition, I doubt that it qualifies as any sort of scientific survey, as it will be biased towards those with enough energy to make a statement, which in this case is those upset by her performance. It's unlikely there will be a groundswell of people *actively* supporting her. Much as I disliked her performance, and think it was in terrible taste, I think the issue is trivial, and of no major importance. Jim Budler jimb@silvlis.com +1.408.991.6061 Silvar-Lisco, Inc. 703 E. Evelyn Ave. Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086 ------------------------------ From: Jim Budler Subject: Re: 1-800 Numbers From Europe Reply-To: Jim Budler Organization: Silvar-Lisco,Inc. Sunnyvale Ca. Date: Mon, 13 Aug 90 01:25:14 GMT In article <10697@accuvax.nwu.edu> wrf@mab.ecse.rpi.edu (Wm Randolph Franklin) writes: >In article <10639@accuvax.nwu.edu> ge@phoibos.cs.kun.nl (Ge Weijers) >asks about calling an 800 number from Europe. >Not any more. AT&T's Dial Direct (or whatever) will call at least >some 800 numbers from Europe. I think they charge the regular amount: >$4 plus $1/minute, regardless of the time of day. I haven't tried >MCI's Call America, which is about the same price; they might do 800 >numbers also. But don't both of these assume you have an account with ATT or MCI? Didn't a recent Digest article explain that it is difficult or impossible for a European resident to get an ATT Calling Card? Even assuming I'm wrong, ATT direct can only connect to ATT 800 numbers, and MCI Call America can only connect to MCI 800 numbers and unless the caller can decypher which is which he's outa luck. And there are other 800 numbers not provided by either ATT and MCI. Still no joy in reaching 800 numbers from Europe or anywhere outside the US. Conclusions: Responsible advertisers should always include both their 800 number and their real number. Jim Budler jimb@silvlis.com +1.408.991.6061 Silvar-Lisco, Inc. 703 E. Evelyn Ave. Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 20:55:16 -0500 From: "Carl M. Kadie" Subject: Re: Len Rose Indictment How come in Craig Neidorf's indictment the "Legion of Doom" is defined as a "closely knit group of computer hackers", but in Len Rose's indictment it is a "loosely-associated group of computer hackers."? [Moderator's Note: I suspect its part of the government plot to persecute Mr. Rose. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Marc T. Kaufman" Subject: Re: Unlisted Numbers and E911 Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University Date: Mon, 13 Aug 90 02:03:22 GMT In article <10764@accuvax.nwu.edu> amdcad!netcom!onymouse (John Debert) writes: >How could they possibly know the name of the person calling without >asking? Billing name does not necessarily equal the name of the >caller. So, why waste space displaying the name? >GTE would have done better leaving names off the display. Could be >misleading and result in errors on the part of E.R. personnel. What is wanted is not the name of the caller, but the information that this is the "Frobaz" residence. It often proves useful -- e.g: officers on the beat tend to know that "Joe Frobaz" always beats his wife, or when they talk to someone at the door, if they ask for identification, and the name isn't Frobaz, they get suspicious. Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Neon.stanford.edu) ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Telephone Diverters Date: 13 Aug 90 02:51:16 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <10763@accuvax.nwu.edu>, motcid!segal@uunet.uu.net (Gary Segal) writes: > I wrote (in an earlier posting): > >What in the world is "reverse modem detection"? The originating modem > >remains silent, expecting answer-tone from the answering modem? and Gary responds, in part: > Here is a guess ... The device is looking for V.25 calling tone. V.25 and to my statement: > >As far as I know, some fax machines, in some originating modes, > >generate the CNG tone when they're awaiting answer. I know of no > >non-fax modems that would work with the device described above. Gary responds: > All fax machines are supposed to generate calling tone when the > machine dials. If an autodialing fax machine doesn't generate calling > tone (CNG), it is in violation of the T.30 recommendation for fax > machines. Our FAX machine (Brother 200) only generates CNG tones when it is in autodial mode. The trouble is, in autodial mode, if it gets a busy signal or a ring-no-answer, it just reports ERROR and drops the call. Therefore, I generally use it in manual-dial mode, where I can hear the call-progress tones from its speaker. I wait until I hear answer-tone from the far-end FAX machine, and then I press the START button. At that point, the speaker is cut off, and the machine sends CNG tones, followed by the actual data carrier. If I got a silent answer, I guess I'd have to assume its a diverter, and press the START button and hope... Doesn't sound very practical, does it? 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: Caller-ID Again Date: 13 Aug 90 03:03:31 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <10775@accuvax.nwu.edu>, vapspcx@prism.gatech.edu (S. Keith Graham) writes: > Also, does anyone out there object to the phone company charging for > the "service" that allows you to report that the last call received as > a crank call? Its several dollars a month here (BellSouth), for the > "right"... Plus installation. I doubt that I'd object; I just wouldn't buy it, if it were charged by the month as Keith describes. Here in NJ, it's the only one of the "Class" services for which there is no monthly charge. There is a per-use charge, which I _think_ is $1.00. I usually don't know, at the beginning of the month, whether or not I'll be receiving intra-lata crank calls! With the introduction of Caller*ID service, however, crank calls have all but disappeared in this area. 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 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 22:10:13 -0700 From: gutierre@nsipo.nasa.gov Subject: Re: "Follow Me" Roaming Question DREUBEN@eagle.wesleyan.edu) (DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN) writes: |> Had a question about "Follow Me" Roaming (*18/*19) on the "B" cellular |> carriers: |> I have service through GTE Mobilnet in San Francisco. When I go back |> East, and try to activate Follow Me Roaming, it works until about |> 12AM, Eastern. If I activate Follow Me before 12AM, everything is |> fine, and Follow Me Roaming will continue to work until 3 hours later, |> ie, 12AM Pacific time. I recently experienced the joys of "Follow-Me-Ripoff"... err ... "Roaming" while I was in San Diego, California about 2 weeks ago. One of the problems I came across was that San Diego (Pac-Tel Celluar) seemed not to have been able to handshake with my cell phone too well. Calls through the local dial-in worked fine, but calls forwarded from GTE Mobilnet/San Francisco seemed to die at San Diego. I would hear my phone being polled, but it gave up and then I got Pac-Tel's unavailable recording. I tried this about 3 times. I then tried *18 to (re)activate it, and it did work this time, but I sometimes wonder if it really worked after that. Another thing was that my phone was being polled about every 1/2 hour while I was in San Diego. I thought this very strange, as why would Pac-Tel Celluar care if I was still around or not, and what if I was in and area where it wasn't working (like inside the Performing Arts Center, where I was attending a convention). This is annoying because (a) I would assume it's putting a drain on my batteries and (b) it has a Rat Shack 3db antenna on it, and it screwed up our VCR's while I was making some copies, even though it was ten feet away! Hmmm. Robert Michael Gutierrez Office of Space Science and Applications, NASA Science Internet - Network Operations Center. Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #565 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01910; 14 Aug 90 2:37 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31696; 14 Aug 90 0:55 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15316; 13 Aug 90 23:51 CDT Date: Mon, 13 Aug 90 23:38:23 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #566 BCC: Message-ID: <9008132338.ab00221@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 13 Aug 90 23:38:00 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 566 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: A Thesis on Caller ID [Ken Abrams] Re: A Thesis on Caller ID [Bernie Cosell] Re: A Thesis on Caller ID [Mike Godwin] Re: A Thesis on Caller ID [Ronald L. Fletcher] Re: A Thesis on Caller ID [siegman@sierra.stanford.edu] Re: Privacy and Itemized Billing (was: Re: 800 ANI) [Ken Greer] Re: More ANI Fun! [Robert Gutierrez] Re: More ANI Fun! [Robert Savery] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ken Abrams Subject: Re: A Thesis on Caller ID Date: 12 Aug 90 15:39:52 GMT Reply-To: Ken Abrams Organization: Athenanet, Inc., Springfield, Illinois In article <10740@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >Your ethicist is demonstrating how easy it is to get the answer you >want if you just can choose the question. His argument falls apart on >close exami- nation. I don't usually respond to articles of an argumentative nature but I just can't let this one pass. Your entire prose demonstrates how logic can be reverse engineered just like software. Choose the outcome you wish to substanitate and then work backwards so that the initial circumstances and events appear to lead logically to the desired conclusion. I contend that your argument falls apart even WITHOUT close examination. To wit: >a) He pulls at the emotional heartstrings of "privacy in your own >home" to try to argue for Caller-ID. However, virtually all the >complaints about invasions of privacy have had to do with potential >abuses by BUSINESSES. And I suppose that you would have us believe that the opponents of caller ID are not making an emotional pitch for our sympathy rather than a factual pitch for our support based on FACTS? Bunk, quite the opposite. Note "potential abuses by BUSINESSES" above. The key word is "potential". Aren't we on a witch hunt here and crying wolf to boot? Businesses already have access to a wealth of information about almost all of us, including our phone number if they want that. Every time you pay by check or credit card you have given up your privacy. And just how, pry tell, do you intend to do business with a company by phone without identifying yourself in some manner which reveals a lot more than your phone number? It's going to be pretty tough. It seems to me that what you really want is not to retain your right to pivacy but to create a NEW right to be anonymous. I think there is a BIG difference and the latter just simply doesn't exist in most legal definitions. >All you can get from this argument is that NON-BUSINESS lines have a >right to receive Caller-ID. For all their talk about protecting >people's privacy, the telco's REALLY want to sell Caller-ID to, you >got it, businesses. That's where the money is. There you go assuming things again. I find this hard to believe since the residence lines in most wire centers outnumber the business lines at least two to one. In some cases it is much higher. In order to completely debunk this argument, I need figures on national totals of residence vs. business lines and I don't have that so I am not on firm ground either on this point. Maybe someone else can provide more solid facts. I contend that the residence market for this feature is MUCH larger than the business market. >I'll argue that the knock on the door and the ring of the telephone >are equal invasions of privacy. In each case, you have the right to >ask for identifica- tion. In each case, I can refuse to provide it - >in which case you can close the door or hang up the phone. That's as >far as your rights go if I refuse to identify myself. You had a good start here but got side-tracked again with warping the logic to suit your desired result. The phone ringing is analgous to a knock on the door. Answering the phone is like OPENING the door. I contend that I have a right to know who is outside (either physically or electronically) BEFORE I open the portal, not after. >BTW, the analogy of the "no solicitors" sign is your ability to say >that you don't want any telemarketing calls. In the past, you've had >no way to enforce this. The bill just passed by Congress, requiring >that telemarketers respect a list of "no calls" numbers, provides >exactly this ability. As an individual, just exactly how do you think you can see to it that this is enforced if there is no fool proof way to identify the caller? Just another well meaning statute that is effectively useless because the worst offenders just won't identify themselves. As you probably already can tell, I support the Caller ID feature (and this is a personal opinion and has nothing to do with my employer). As a matter of fact, as an individual, I really don't care if blocking is offered or not. When fully implemented, I simply will NOT answer any calls where the calling number is not present. Very simple and very effective. I simply will not deal with anyone who wishes to remain anonymous. Ken Abrams uunet!pallas!kabra437 kabra437@athenanet.com Illinois Bell Springfield (voice) 217-753-7965 ------------------------------ From: Bernie Cosell Subject: Re: A Thesis on Caller ID Date: 13 Aug 90 12:04:56 GMT 0004169820@mcimail.com (Rochelle Communications) writes: }In the August 11 issue of TELECOM Digest (Volume 10, Issue 562) }Jerry Leichter argues that the "peephole" analogy }often stated by Caller ID proponents is not valid.... }Finally, Jerry expresses an interest in ... }> A better Caller-ID system, though perhaps technically impractical - }>would be a button or setting on your phone that explicitly asked for }>Caller-ID. I would receive a notification of the request and could choose }>to allow my identification to be sent, or not. This would be the }>electronic analogue of your asking for my name - except that I would be }>unable to lie about it... }A system such as this is not far-fetched and may provide the ultimate }answer to the Caller ID debate by balancing the caller's "right" to }anonymity and the called person's right of privacy. You can have such a system *today*, and have no need to affect the privacy of anyone else in having it. Someone markets a 'call screener' [does anyone know who does, or if it is really still available ... I confess to not having seen any ads for it in a couple of years]: it will pick up the phone and nominally route *every* caller to an answering machine ... but ... you can program 'security codes' into it, and you can simply tell your friends whatever security code(s) you choose. The box will recognize the code, and your actual phone will ring ONLY after a person enters an acceptable code. For example, you could have a single 'password', and just tell everyone. OR ... you could have a group-password: give everyone at work one password, give the folks on your Ultimate Frisbee team a different number, etc. OR.. you can simply 'special' people to use *their*phone*number* as their 'password': that has the interesting side effect of your knowing that it is your brother calling no matter WHERE he is calling from. There are two interesting properties of this kind of approach, versus the 'big brother should do it all' approach: (a) no ones privacy is coercively invaded, and (b) only the people who want this kind of incoming-call-filtration need pay for it, and only their correspondents will have to deal with it. /Bernie\ ------------------------------ From: Mike Godwin Subject: Re: A Thesis on Caller ID Date: 13 Aug 90 11:34:13 GMT Reply-To: Mike Godwin Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas In article <10786@accuvax.nwu.edu> 0004169820@mcimail.com (Gilbert Amine) writes: >This is simply not the case. Most complaints about Caller ID stem from >the right of callers to make anonymous phone calls, not the right of >being spared from telephone solicitations from overzealous >salespeople. I realize this may be a naive comment, but won't "the right to make anonymous phone calls" be preserved so long as we still have pay phones in this country? Wouldn't pay phones allow for effective caller anonymity even if phones had optional settings that demanded caller phone numbers before putting calls through? Mike Godwin, UT Law School mnemonic@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (512) 346-4190 [Moderator's Note: You are correct about payphones, but what phreak do you know who is going to go stand on a dark street corner on a cold January night with a modem and terminal hunting for lines that answer with carrier? Some payphone abuse will continue, granted. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Aug 90 15:21:11 EDT From: Ronald L Fletcher Subject: Re: A Thesis on Caller ID Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <10740@accuvax.nwu.edu>, leichter@lrw.com (Jerry Leichter) writes: > I'll argue that the knock on the door and the ring of the telephone > are equal invasions of privacy. In each case, you have the right to > ask for identification. In each case, I can refuse to provide it - > in which case you can close the door or hang up the phone. That's as > far as your rights go if I refuse to identify myself. > In telephony terms, this means that I should have the right to send my > ID or not; and you have the right to receive it, and refuse to answer > if I didn't send it. This analogy is not quite complete. The last time I used the "knock on the door" analogy against Caller ID, a co-worker pointed out that it is actually an argument for Caller ID. People forget that doors have windows and peepholes. If someone knocks on my door, I can see the person knocking and given that information, I decide whether or not to even answer the door. If I recognize the person, I have their identification without asking them for it. The same is true for Caller ID. Upon seeing the calling number, I can decide whether or not to answer the call. The ring equals the knock, and the Caller ID equals the window/peephole. I dont really understand why so many people have this "telemarketing list" fear of Caller ID. The way I see it, when Caller ID is fully implemented and ALL numbers are transmitted we will then have a powerful tool to filter out the meaningful calls from the chaff. This same co-worker has an idea that I like. He says that in addition to the number, CID should carry a code describing whether the call originates from a residence or business, then someone can market a high-tech phone that can be programmed to send all calls marked "business" to /dev/answering-machine. Ron Fletcher att!mtgzy!rlf ------------------------------ From: siegman Subject: Re: A Thesis on Caller ID Date: 13 Aug 90 21:51:14 GMT Organization: Stanford University Jerry Leichter writes: >In telephony terms, this means that I should have the right to send >my ID or not; and you have the right to receive it, and refuse to >answer if I didn't send it. >A better Caller-ID system - though perhaps technically impractical >- would be a button or setting on your phone that explicity asked >for Caller-ID. I would receive a notification of the request and >could choose to allow my identification to be sent, or not. This >would be the electronic analogue of your asking for my name - >except that I would be unable to lie about it. You've got it! Exactly right! The telco won't like it, the prospective business users of Caller-ID will absolutely hate it, BUT I WANT THAT BUTTON! (NOT some special code I have to send each time, NOT a special service I have to pay for, but _that button_, right there on the phone for each and every call). (And it's not technically impractical at all either, is it?) ------------------------------ From: Ken Greer Subject: Re: Privacy and Itemized Billing (was: Re: 800 ANI) Date: 13 Aug 90 11:14:33 GMT Reply-To: kgreer@mcnc.org.UUCP (Ken Greer) Organization: MCNC; RTP, NC In article <10649@accuvax.nwu.edu> Kolkka Markku Olavi writes: >|> Privacy ?? I'm confused. You mean that in France I can >|> "non-invade" someone's privacy by calling him, but "invade" his >|> privacy by knowing his phone # (which I would know, since I had called >|> him) ? >The basic idea is to protect _your_ privacy by not showing to someone >else where you have called. If the nubers are shown on the bill, that >means that they are stored somewhere, and someone can go through them >to see if you have made any 'suspicious' calls. Don't you consider >this an invasion of your privacy? Excuse me, but I thought the discussion was about the printing of the numbers that I call, printed on _my_ phone bill ... which means that they would come to _me_ and then I could choose who or who not to show them to. So why store any part of the number ?? A lot of good it is to me to tell me I called someone (out of > five million in NC, say). >Don't you consider this an invasion of your privacy? Not unless the phone company decided to market this info, which so far, I have not heard any concrete evidence of. While we're on the subject, companies have known for a long time that even the exchange you live in tells a lot (well, a least some) about the person. Affluent neighborhoods will be targeted much more for some marketing ploys than will be a ghetto neighborhood. Kim L. Greer try: klg@orion.mc.duke.edu Duke University Medical Center kgreer@mcnc.org Div. Nuclear Medicine POB 3949 klg@dukeac.ac.duke.edu Durham, NC 27710 919-660-2711x5223 fax: 919-681-5636 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 22:44:50 -0700 From: gutierre@nsipo.nasa.gov Subject: Re: More ANI Fun! cowan@marob.masa.com (John Cowan) writes: |> Well, I tried the 800-666-6258 ANI demonstration number in several |> different ways. ["Different ways" deleted except #7] |> 7) Finally, Susan got through [from MCI]. I expected another |> 212-555-1212 ANI |> failure. What I got, though, was 914-939-XXXX! A check with 914 DA |> informs me that this is a number in Portchester, NY, a suburb north of |> NYC. I called back to 914 DA and asked for MCI in Portchester: I |> received a 914-937-XXXX number in Ryebrook, the next town over. |> (Probably they share a CO.) MCI's North East customer service center is in Ryebrook, NY. The MCI rep was just dialling from her ACD console, and confrencing you in. The "outside" lines on the ACD's are just good ol' POTS lines with MCI as it's default carrier. I did this all the time also from San Francisco's customer service center (called the Pacific Division). Before MCI got it's first TOPS operator center in Omaha, Nebraska, we "completed" calls by geting one of these POTS lines on the ACD, calling 950-1022, dialling the number(s) ourselves, bridging the customer on, then releasing the call. The connection was poor, but the customer usually was concerned about getting through, and not too much concerned about line quality. If you call that MCI Ryebrook number back, you should get Customer Service, at least that's how it was set up on the old Infotron ACD's ... but now, they bought new Aspect ACD's, and the Aspect's may require dedicated outgoing trunks, as opposed to Infotron's ability to share incoming/outgoing lines. If you do get through, you may get a surprized rep, since the display on her console shows which trunk group the call is from ("Calling Card", "Trouble Reporting", "Customer Service", etc...) In San Francisco, it showed up as "POTS Trunk", and the reps had no idea what POTS meant :-) Robert Michael Gutierrez Office of Space Science and Applications, NASA Science Internet - Network Operations Center. Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 22:04:42 EDT From: Robert Savery Subject: Re: More ANI Fun! Reply-to: Robert.Savery@p5.f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537 I sure would hate to be anywhere near that office when they get this months phone bill!! I hope the bean counters have their nitro pills handy!! See Ya'll Later, Bob [1:285/666.5@fidonet] Trebor's Castle, Lavista Ne. --- Through FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 Robert.Savery@f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #566 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03042; 14 Aug 90 3:44 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03947; 14 Aug 90 1:58 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab31696; 14 Aug 90 0:55 CDT Date: Tue, 14 Aug 90 0:15:12 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #567 BCC: Message-ID: <9008140015.ab30249@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 14 Aug 90 00:14:27 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 567 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Fastest Pulse-Dialable Number? [John Cowan] Re: Fastest Pulse-Dialable Number? [Jerry B. Altzman] Re: Telephone Diverters [Alan Millar] Re: 1-800 Numbers From Europe [Craig R. Watkins] Re: More ANI Fun! [Robert Savery] Re: Pennies to Heaven [Sergio Gelato] Re: Slowest Dialable Number [Thomas Lapp] Re: AT&T 800 Directory [Lars Poulsen] Re: Censure Roseanne Barr by Fax [Robert Savery] Re: Knowing You're a Call Waiting Beep [Ian G. Batten] Re: 666 and Ignorant People [Henry Troup] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Cowan Subject: Re: Fastest Pulse-Dialable Number? Organization: ESCC, New York City Date: Mon, 13 Aug 90 14:33:08 GMT In article <10691@accuvax.nwu.edu> contact!djcl@uunet.uu.net (woody) writes: >Here's a challenge for the TELECOM Digest readers ... what is the >fastest pulse-dialable number in working order? >In North America, the first choice would be +1 212 211 1111 (there >seems to be a 211 prefix in 212 according to one source). Failing >that, That does fail. Here in 212-land, 211 is the code for the automated credit system, which deals with "I lost money in this &*@(# payphone!" calls. +1 212 213 1111 gives some kind of modem warble, perhaps a TDD; I'm not sure exactly what a TDD sounds like, but it certainly isn't Bell 103 or 212, or Racal-Vadic, nor yet V.24 bis or Telebit. Perhaps someone with a TDD would like to try calling? cowan@marob.masa.com (aka ...!hombre!marob!cowan) e'osai ko sarji la lojban ------------------------------ From: "Jerry B. Altzman" Subject: Re: Fastest Pulse-Dialable Number? Reply-To: "Jerry B. Altzman" Organization: mailer daemons association Date: Mon, 13 Aug 90 14:13:31 GMT >In North America, the first choice would be +1 212 211 1111 (there >seems to be a 211 prefix in 212 according to one source). 211 is NYTEL's "automatic crediting system" It doesn't count. Cheating just like 411...sorry! :-( jerry b. altzman 212 854 8058 jbaltz@columbia.edu jauus@cuvmb (bitnet) NEVIS::jbaltz (HEPNET) ...!rutgers!columbia!jbaltz (bang!) ------------------------------ From: AMillar@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: Telephone Diverters Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 14:51:44 PDT dave%westmark@uunet.uu.net <10707@accuvax.nwu.edu>, Dave Levenson writes: >What in the world is "reverse modem detection"? In normal modem operation, the originating modem dials the phone and is silent until it sees a carrier presented by the answering modem. The answering modem detects a ring, goes off-hook, and sends a carrier to the originating modem. Then they go through their "connection" business to figure out if the other end is Bell 103 or 212A or whatever. An alternative mode of operation is available in my Micom-brand US$99 Hayes-clone modems. As part of the dialing command, there is a specifier to make the _originating_ modem produce a carrier after it dials, as if it were answering a call. The modem that is being called must pick up the phone as if it were making a call, and it will hear the carrier given by the calling modem. Reverse connections are no big deal in a manually-dialed call, because manual modems just have an originate/answer switch, and you flip it on both ends. In an automated Hayes-command environment, you have to change the way your software interacts with your modem. On my Micoms, the calling modem requires pause commas after the phone number in the "ATD" dialing command to wait for the call to go through. A letter "R" as the last part of the dialing string tells the modem to produce carrier instead of looking for it. On the answering end, I have not figured out any way to do auto-answering in originate mode with these modems. So, the software waits for the "RING" message from the modem, and then does a dial (ATD) command with no phone number. The answering modem thinks it is dialing a call, picks up the ringing phone line, and then detects the carrier produced by the calling modem. They do their "connect" thing and everybody is happy. There may be other modems that will auto-answer in originate mode, and mine may even do it (I just haven't bothered to pursue it). So ... Why would anybody want to do this? The first situation is the fax/modem switch-box, where the switch-box looks for modem carrier produced by the calling modem and transfers it to the answering modem. I use it for a modem on my company's PBX with Octel Aspen "automated attendant" call direction. There are no DID lines to people's desks at work. To reach an extension without going through a human operator, you call a main number that is answered by Aspen. You give it a touch-tone extension number, and it transfers you to that extension. The problem is that when the person picks up their phone, they get a message from Aspen saying "Transfer... Transfer..." and it takes fifteen seconds or so for you to get put through. It's no big deal on the voice side, but when you are a modem calling, and the answering modem picks up the line, it presents its carrier to the "Transfer..." message and by the time you get through, it's too late. With the reverse-originate setup, I can put in a delay which waits long enough for the real end-to-end connection before doing carrier. (You may ask why I didn't go for a direct-line to the outside. This way, the modem can be called from any internal extension and take advantage of tie-lines between sites. Besides, it's one less trunk to pay for... :-) The whole thing sounds like a pain, I know, but it takes longer to explain it than to set it up (as long as you can customize your software on each end). It works here! - Alan Millar AMillar@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ From: "Craig R. Watkins" Subject: Re: 1-800 Numbers From Europe Date: 13 Aug 90 17:45:43 EST Organization: HRB Systems In article <10789@accuvax.nwu.edu>, Jim Budler writes: > Even assuming I'm wrong, ATT direct can only connect to ATT 800 > numbers, and MCI Call America can only connect to MCI 800 numbers and > unless the caller can decypher which is which he's outa luck. And > there are other 800 numbers not provided by either ATT and MCI. Last time I tried, ATT Direct couldn't / wouldn't connect me to an ATT 800 line -- this was about a year ago. The operator also didn't have a suggestion on how I could complete my 800 call. Neither of which surprised me. On the topic of (not) calling 800 numbers from overseas, it always amuses my simple mind that I actually have to pick a city to call when I need to place a call back to a US airline (of which, I would know the 800 number from dialing it enough in the States). I just usually pick one of the airline's hub cities when asking information for the number. 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: Sun, 12 Aug 90 22:02:27 EDT From: Robert Savery Subject: Re: More ANI Fun! Reply-to: Robert.Savery@p5.f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537 >> I heard mention of MCI, as well, but my default carrier at home is >> Telecom USA. In any case, I was given my correct number, so it's >> getting ANI from more than just MCI. Not that it matters in the context of this discussion, but in case you missed the news, Telecom USA was bought out by MCI. I too had Telecom as my carrier until this sad day. I refuse to have anything to do with MCI. Their business practices are just a little too close to sleasy for my tastes. Not including taxes, their having switched me to their service without my approval has cost me approx. $40.00. Headaches like that I just don't need. While I havn't actually done it yet, looks like I'm gonna be one of the people switching back to AT&T. See Ya!! Bob [1:285/666.5@fidonet] Trebor's Castle, Lavista Ne. --- Through FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 Robert.Savery@f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 22:07 EST From: Sergio Gelato Subject: Re: Pennies to Heaven From: 0004133373@mcimail.com (Donald E. Kimberlin), Message-ID: <10665@accuvax.nwu.edu> > Here's news on the latest offering via 900 service, from the >August 6, 1990 edition of : > Just Dial 1-900-230-POPE If you prefer to hear him in Spanish, the number is +39 7779 3030. Might be cheaper too, at the current rate for calls to Italy. (Disclaimer: I haven't called myself, but the number is advertised on Vatican Radio.) It isn't clear whether the Italian telephone company donates anything to the Vatican out of gratitude for the increased revenue from Latin America; but there are other such intercontinental "hotlines". '****Sport', a British weekly (full name withheld since they don't pay me to do their advertising), has a very popular (or so they say) "0898" number (actually, they just switched to Mercury, so it's 0839 123123 in case anyone wants to waste 25p). Since they have many readers outside the UK, a few months ago they offered a way of reaching their service from abroad: "just dial +611 411 421, normal inter- national rates apply". (Kindly enough, they added "N.B. From Australia dial 00551 4009". And before you try calling: they haven't been advertising this number for the past two months, so the service may have been discontinued.) My question is: what's in it for them? Does Telecom Australia give them a share of the revenue from the calls they get? Sergio Gelato ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Aug 90 11:20:22 EDT From: Thomas Lapp Subject: Re: Slowest Dialable Number > And what is the slowest pulse-dialable number? It is a real number; > the Covenant House Nine Line: (1-800-999-9999) for runaways. > [Moderator's Note: I think, but am not willing to dial and find out, > that a 'slower' number would be 900-999-9999. I believe the 900-999 Would dialing 1-900-555-1212 get you the info on what that number was or would one be billed for the information call as well (at $3 for the first minute and $2 for additional minutes...? :-) 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: I assume (don't know for sure) that 900-555-1212 is a free call, however the last time I tried it, about a year ago, it was merely a recorded announcement listing 'a selection' (i.e. the clean ones) of services available, and the price, which seems to be based on the first three digits. It did not cross reference existing numbers to names. Does anyone know if there is a printed 900 directory available yet, with prices, etc?) ------------------------------ From: Lars Poulsen Subject: Re: AT&T 800 Directory Organization: Rockwell CMC Date: Mon, 13 Aug 90 04:31:11 GMT From: Lars Poulsen >>I get it [the AT&T 800 Directory] for free, too, and always promptly throw >>it out. ... it is a directory of "selected, consumer-oriented ATT-based 800 >>numbers" that were willing to pay to get included. What a waste of trees. In article <10695@accuvax.nwu.edu> wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil (Will Martin) writes: >In these days of all the brouhaha about recycling, I'm surprised you >admit to throwing the directory away. After all, if it is a waste to >you, it may be of worth to someone else. Drop it off at your local >public library. If that is not feasible or too out-of-the-way, at >least leave it at work, at a laundromat, or by a public phone >somewhere so that somebody has a chance to find it and take it. It is >doubly a "waste of trees" to get something you don't need and just >pitch it instead of making some effort to pass it on to somewhere >where it might be used. I did indeed try to pass it on: I dumped it in the newspaper bin for our curbside recycling pickup. They returned it. They apparently only accept phone books one week of the year: When GTE passes out new directories. I did try to look up some customer service numbers of companies I might do business with: Sears, MCI :-), Fisher-Price toys, Scandinavian Airlines, and when none of these were in the directory, I declared it a loser ... it just did not have critical mass. Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer CMC Rockwell lars@CMC.COM ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 22:06:23 EDT From: Robert Savery Subject: Re: Censure Roseanne Barr by Fax Reply-to: Robert.Savery@p5.f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537 In a message of <08 Aug 90 22:38:20>, John Higdon (1:30102/2) writes: JH>Hopefully Americans aren't so stupid that they will, in mass numbers, JH>clog communications networks over something as supremely silly as the JH>Roseanne Barr non-event. Ah, but they are!! Look at all the money the 900/976 rip-off artists are raking in!! JH>(Somehow, I put whether my cat pees in the flower bed a couple of notches JH>above this "issue".) I was thinking about printing all this out and lining my bird cage with it. I'm still trying to figure out just what all this has to do with telecom stuff! See Ya!! Bob [1:285/666.5@fidonet] Trebor's Castle, Lavista Ne. --- Through FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 Robert.Savery@f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org [Moderator's Note: Actually, the telecom connection is growing rather thin on the topic, which should be closed at this time, so far as TELECOM Digest is concerned. Thanks. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Ian G Batten Subject: Re: Knowing You're a Call Waiting Beep Organization: BT Fulcrum, Birmingham Date: Mon, 13 Aug 90 09:04:05 GMT yazz@devnet.la.locus.com (Bob Yasi) writes: > II switch; I'm unsure of the software revision. Until just about a > week ago, a caller could tell whether he was causing a call waiting The BT System X exchanges are far more sensible; they give the caller a spoken message saying ``The phone you are dialing is in use; we are attempting to connect you.'' ian ------------------------------ From: Henry Troup Subject: Re: 666 and Ignorant People Date: 13 Aug 90 14:24:18 GMT Reply-To: Henry Troup Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ltd. In article <10727@accuvax.nwu.edu> mea@ihlpl.att.com (Mark E Anderson) writes: >myself ignorant but I would never accept a number with a 666 exchange >or any 3 sixes in a row. If I were to get one, I'd simply ask for >another number. I didn't even like it when my current number had 2 6s >in a row. >I don't consider myself that superstitious but a phone number is sort >of like a personal identification of existence. It doesn't hurt to >play it safe just in case. Well, my home number is 613-59 666 43 (unusual spacing to show the 666 in it. No one has ever mentioned it to me, and I've had it for eight years. But then, I don't think of the number as part of me, but part of Bell. (Canada) Shouldn't we really take this to alt.folklore.urban? Sort of folklore: in Toronto, there is a store called 'The Occult Shop', which deals in new age and neopagan stuff. They were for a while located at 664 Queen St. They wanted to get 666, but the shoe store wouldn't move. Really! I know the owners, somewhat. Disclaimer: Good Christians don't believe in Satan, numerology, or the IRS :^) Henry Troup - BNR owns but does not share my opinions | 21 years in Canada... uunet!bnrgate!hwt%bwdlh490 HWT@BNR.CA 613-765-2337 | [Moderator's Note: This is another topic being closed at this time. We all had several laughs from it, but the telecom connection is gone. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #567 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03572; 14 Aug 90 4:32 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12965; 14 Aug 90 3:02 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab03947; 14 Aug 90 1:59 CDT Date: Tue, 14 Aug 90 1:02:31 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #568 BCC: Message-ID: <9008140102.ab30679@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 14 Aug 90 01:02:18 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 568 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: A Thesis on Caller ID [Jay Maynard] Re: Len Rose Indictment [Keith Henson] Re: Is Area Code 510 Actice? [Dave Berman] Re: Two-line Systems [David O'Heare] Re: Yellow Pages in Argentina [Manuel J. Moguilevsky] President Bush Uses Cellular? [Thomas Lapp] 411 in New Jersey [John R. Levine] ANI and COCOT's [Jack Winslade] Crosstalk on Quad-Wire [Roy M. Silvernail] Strange Payphone [Steve Forrette] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard Subject: Re: A Thesis on Caller ID Reply-To: Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 14:41:38 GMT In article <10740@accuvax.nwu.edu> leichter@lrw.com (Jerry Leichter) writes: >b) Even if we restrict ourselves to private homes and non-business >lines, his argument is weak. I have the right to knock on your front >door. You don't have to let me in unless I identify myself, but you >can't stop me from knock- ing. I don't believe a "no solicitors" sign >has any legal weight. (A "no trespassing" sign MIGHT - although I >can't enforce it selectively, letting some people in without >invitation and choosing to go after others.) My city does give "no solicitors" signs legal weight. Solicitors must be licensed, and they must respect such signs, or else they get fined and lose their license. Your statement above makes the case FOR Caller-ID. Yes, someone can ring my phone - but I don't have to answer it, just as I don't have to open my front door, unless they tell me who they are. If I ever have Caller-ID available, I will follow exactly such a policy - and never answer any calls from a blocked number. Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL jay@splut.conmicro.com [Moderator's Note: It is time once again to close the Caller ID discussion to further Digest input. This is not because your arguments are not interesting, but because we continue to run tight on space and a day behind on postings. We will start this topic again in a couple months. Thanks. PAT] ------------------------------ From: hkhenson@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: Len Rose Indictment Date: Mon, 13 Aug 90 00:00:04 PDT One aspect of the Len Rose case which has been discussed on the Well is the concept of "fair use" of copyrighted material. I know that ATT has put "This is copyrighted, but we don't intend to ever publish it" notices on Unix source code (and a lot of other chunks of binary unix copies too.) However, with thousands of copies of it sold, and at least that many in the hands of CS majors, a jury might well rule that ATT had effectively published the code. If so, then what Len had on his machine is very likely to fall under the "fair use" provisions of the copyright law. As is clear from the affidavit supporting the warrant under which Len's computers and reference materials were taken, ATT is the motivating force in the Len Rose case, just as Bell South was in the Neidorf case. It seems possible that this case might blow up in their faces even worse than the Neidorf case did, making Unix source code freely available as reference material (which might not be that bad for ATT). Another thing, I have been a faithful ATT LD customer since the breakup, but their role in this case is making me reconsider. Keith Henson hkhenson@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ From: daveb@comspec.uucp (dave berman) Subject: Re: Is 510 Area Code Active? Organization: Comspec Communications Inc., Toronto Ontario Canada Date: Mon, 13 Aug 90 06:03:23 GMT In article <10401@accuvax.nwu.edu>, contact!djcl@uunet.uu.net (woody) writes: > A check from Toronto seems to show that the area code 510 (California > split, San Francisco, to be completed late '91) is now active, and > accepting dialing for 1 510 555.1212. Does anyone else have 510 active > out there? Dear Woody (and others who read this): I live in Toronto, in area code 416, using exchange 766, and cannot (*NOT*) reach area 510 yet. I will keep trying, and will inform the net when it works for me. It seems to me that the whole worldwide voice net will go down the tubes real soon now, with features like IdentaCall and stuff all working to help use up all those numbers so fast. Are the telephone switching systems installed now able to handle a reprogramming, such as adding an extra digit in front of the usual exchange? Or adding a fourth character to the area code? In Toronto we have various test numbers, and I can only guess what they do. We have 2 secret numbers into repair services, 611 (the real one) 711 the secret one (I) and 511 the secret one (II). Well, I've rambled off topic long enough. Best wishes to all readers. Dave Berman 436 Perth Av #U-907 daveb@comspec.UUCP Computer at work Toronto Ontario uunet!mnetor!becker!comspec!daveb Canada M6P 3Y7 416-785-3668 Fax at work ------------------------------ From: David O'Heare Subject: Re: Two-line Systems Date: 13 Aug 90 13:49:00 GMT Organization: Goodgulf Greyteeth In article <10545@accuvax.nwu.edu>, TELECOM Moderator writes: > [Moderator's Note: Not all telcos charge for hunt, let alone charge > business rates for the lines involved. Check the rates to be certain. > Also, many telcos offer only regular hunt, which means upward in > number sequence. In the Ottawa area (served by Bell Canada), there is *only* circular hunt available. One must accept calls to any number in the sequence on any line in the hunt group, although *usually* the sequence is upward by calling number. Bell Canada does also charge for this service; $4 per month *per line* (which means that for a two-line hunt group as described, the charge would be $8 above the regular phone charge; for three lines the monthly charge would be $12, etc.). The customer is not required to pay business rates for their phone lines. They might have a bit of a time convincing the business office that they aren't a business, however. DISCLAIMER: I am in no way affiliated with Bell Canada, other than as a usually satisfied customer. The above information came from the local Bell business office. Your mileage may vary. David O'Heare oheare@gandalf.ca +1 613 723 6500 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Aug 90 06:52:10 MST From: Manuel J. Moguilevsky Subject: Re: Yellow Pages in Argentina Digest readers have written: >>The NUA of the yellow pages: 0 7222 211103127 >which seems to indicate that NUA is an abbreviation of some sort. >(with N standing for Numero?) About the NUA, it means IDN in English: IDN = Identification Data Network (121 CCITT RECOMENDATION) DNIC = Data Network Identification Code NTN = Network Terminal Number IDN = DNIC + NTN Manuel ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Aug 90 00:15:31 EDT From: Thomas Lapp Subject: President Bush Ues Cellular? In a photograph which ran in my local newspaper (source: AP wirephoto), it showed President Bush talking to a military leader from his golf cart. The phone appeared to be a plain old cellular telephone, although there was a smaller box attached to the main transceiver unit. From the photo, I couldn't tell if the box was an outboard battery pack, or something else. I'm wondering if the administration could be niave enough to think that they could talk about national security issues over a cellular phone and not expect to have their signals received somewhere nearby. Can I rest knowing that his cellular phone call was scrambled? Or should I continue to fear that this is a security breach? After all, although the ECPA says I can't legally listen to it, and I certainly can't repeat it, if I am with an intellegence agency, I'm guessing that isn't really going to stop me from trying. Comments? tom internet : mvac23!thomas@udel.edu or thomas%mvac23@udel.edu uucp : {ucbvax,mcvax,psuvax1,uunet}!udel!mvac23!thomas Location : Newark, DE, USA ------------------------------ Subject: 411 in New Jersey Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 22:21:29 EDT From: "John R. Levine" Here in the Garden State, 411 gets you directory assistance for your NPA. The 609 NPA is divided up into two little bitty LATAs, but 411 will give you numbers in either LATA for free. (Well, free for the first 10 calls per month, but that's pretty close.) The local phone book, which lists both 908 and 609 numbers doesn't say whether 411 from a 908 phone will provide 201 numbers. I'm sure it does now, but I wonder whether they plan to split the current 201 DA bureau into two parts, and if so, whether they want to charge for calls from 201-555-1212 from 908 and vice versa. Calls from 609 to 201-555-1212 are inter-LATA calls and cost whatever your carrier charges. My carrier, Sprint, charges 50 cents with no free monthly allowance, even though they still give you a free interstate DA call per month. Meanwhile in Massachusetts, 411 gives you local DA, and 1-555-1212 gives you long distance DA within your NPA. At least before the 617/508 split, I would occasionally dial 411, and when I named the city the operator would tell me to call 555-1212 instead. Since the split, nearly every point in 617 is a local call from nearly every other point and I don't know whether they still bother to make the distinction. The last time I checked, 617 and 508 had the same DA bureau, you could call 508-555-1212 and get a 617 number. From residence phones all intra-state DA calls in Massachusetts are free. My Sprint bill occasionally has a call to 413-555-1212 with a listed .00 charge. New England Tel uses the 555 prefix for a variety of special services, most notably 555-1616 is residence or coin phone repair. Regards, John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!esegue!johnl ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 22:07:58 EDT From: Jack Winslade Subject: ANI and COCOT's Reply-to: Jack.Winslade@f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537 (For those of you who aren't tired of this ...) That's a handy number to have. Since they disabled (or changed ??) the 958 and/or 311 numbers here, there's been no easy way to identify which line you're calling from. Anyway, here's a summary with some expected -- and unexpected results: 1. Home. Worked fine and gave the complete, correct number, even though the Pollen Alert prompted me to enter a number. I used one of the modem lines, so if some sleazoid telemarketer calls, he'll just get the tone. (Serves him right ;-) 2. Office. (System 85 w/DID) Gave the number for one of the trunks used for outgoing only, not the calling extension. Accounting and billing is done internally with a call detail recorder, so I can see how it's not important. 3. Cellular. Gave a number on one of the prefixes with the switch in the same building as the Ma Bell cellular switch. Nothing even close to the actual calling phone number. 4. Here's the interesting one. COCOT's. The first one I tried was at the University. It's a Genuine Bell COCOT, complete with logo. (I would have thought that Genuine Bell would have put in something better than that funky phony dial tone. Sounds like a 555 chip. Also I would have thought Genuine Bell would have silenced the real dial tone and the outpulsing of the stored DTMF.) Surprisingly, the ANI registered the EXACT number posted on the phone. When I tried it from another phone ... 'The nummmberrr you have reaaaached ... is not in {scratch!} serrrrrvice {click} for incoming ...'. At a local shopping mall, there's a whole row of counterfeit Bell COCOTs (sans logo, of course) all with the same number. ANI gave NOT the posted number, but a similar number on the same prefix. Out of curiosity, I called it. It rang, but the COCOT did not ring. When I picked it up, it was obvious that it was the correct number, but talking path (both ways) was blocked. When I punched the keypad of the called COCOT, it did transmit to the calling phone. The bottom line is -- were I a telemarketer and I were compiling a list of numbers to harass, er.. I mean contact, would I find this service of use ?? Out of four examples, only two gave an accurate report of the calling number. Out of those two, one of them is a COCOT which cannot receive incoming calls. That drops it down to 25%, if you consider the modem line to be a valid 'hit'. If you consider only the cases where a telemarketer could call the number and get someone with a pulse, it scores a big zero. In any case, it's a good demonstration of what the system can and cannot do. I think that's what they had in mind. 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 ------------------------------ Subject: Crosstalk on Quad-Wire From: "Roy M. Silvernail" Date: Mon, 13 Aug 90 00:42:54 CDT Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: > I am willing to defer to hard evidence to the contrary, but I > have trouble believing you could get any appreciable amount of > crosstalk between two properly balanced circuits (even if not using > twisted pairs) over the, say, 100 feet of wire you might find in a > common residential installation. In my Anchorage apartment, I ran ~75 feet of quad. One line was my voice line and the other was for my BBS. While I never experienced any interference with modem connections, I could _always_ hear a distant squall in the background when I was on the voice line and the BBS was in use. The other party rarely could hear it, however. Roy M. Silvernail | roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 23:42:55 PDT From: Steve Forrette Subject: Strange Payphone I saw the strangest "payphone" in Pacifica, CA today. I guess it could be considered a COCOT, although it looks like it's been there since long before such things were legal in California. It certainly isn't registered with Pacific Bell. It's just some cheesy thing the merchant has installed... It is styled much like an old-fashioned 2500 set, but is beige and push- button (I didn't place a call, so don't know if it's DTMF or what). However, it is taller, as it has a coin box built into the bottom. It has a slot in the top designed to take quarters, and a sign "LOCAL CALLS ONLY - 25 cents for 3 minutes." The instructions were "Deposit 25 cents, dial the number. When the party answers, press the 'push to talk' button. At the end of 3 minutes, you will hear a beep - deposit another 25 cents for three more minutes." I'll bet it's hooked up to a POTS line. Since it was at the cashier's desk at a restaurant, I wouldn't be surprised if it's on the "main" number for the business. There was a "coin return" chute, apparently for calls where you hung up before pressing the "push to talk" button. The label on the back said that the beast was called a "Europhone Coin Telephone". The manufacturer is American Communication Technology, at (213) 217-1818. The set was padlocked to the counter. It was at the "Park Pacifica Cafe" - 650 Cape Breton Drive, Pacifica, CA. (*really* obscure place - at a horse stable accessible through a residential area. Great food, great prices, though!) I was with some friends, so I didn't have time to play with it. It would be interesting to see just how it works, how it enforces the "local calls only" restriction, as I believe Pacifica still doesn't require a "1" for long distance intra-LATA calls. From the looks of it, I doubt very much that it could have any intellegence inside of it. [Moderator's Note: The tone pad is special, and is programmed to restrict more than seven digits, or numbers beginning with 1. It partly depends on the honor system, which is why this model usually sits near the watchful eye of the cashier or owner of the establishment. We have one here next to the cashier in a liquor store on Howard Street. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #568 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03629; 14 Aug 90 4:35 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab12965; 14 Aug 90 3:04 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac03947; 14 Aug 90 1:59 CDT Date: Tue, 14 Aug 90 1:55:12 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #569 BCC: Message-ID: <9008140155.ab03053@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 14 Aug 90 01:54:44 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 569 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Sprint FON-Card and Answer Supervision [Steve Forrette] DA Puts the Call Through [Scott D. Green] Norristown PA Announces a New Weapon Against the Drug Trade [Scott Green] Billing of Multi-Lines [Bill Huttig] Western Union City Mnemonics [Peter J. Dotzauer] More on Cable & Wireless 800 Service [Steve Forrette] The LAW vs. Telephone Access Devices [A J Annala] Los Angeles Service Numbers [A J Annala] A Satisfied Customer of GTE [Brian D. McMahon] Globe & Mail Faxed News Service [David Leibold] Re: Caller ID Again [Sedat Yilmazer] Re: To Broadcast or Not to Broadcast? [Monty Solomon] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 23:43:04 PDT From: Steve Forrette Subject: Sprint FON-Card and Answer Supervision You may remember a few weeks ago when I described how I could determine when answer supervision occurred on my 1AESS (415-841) through the use of three-way calling. Basically, flashing the line is ignored before the call supervises, and produces the secondary dialtone after supervision. Well, I was fooling around tonight, and discovered that the Sprint FON-card system doesn't return supervision until the eventual destination answeres. So, during the time when I'm entering the destination number and my FON-card number, the call hasn't yet supervised. I find this quite interesting, and it has a number of side effects. Those of you having cellular phones and a carrier who pays attention to actual supervision in determining when to charge for calls, take note. This means that you can use your FON-card from your cellular, and not pay any airtime for non-answered or busy calls. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Aug 90 10:08 EDT From: "Scott D. Green" Subject: DA Puts the Call Through High on the list of "Why can't (fill in your favorite TelCo) do (fill in your favorite dream feature)?" is "Why don't they connect you to the number you've just requested from DA?" Well, in Philadelphia (215) they can. Once the DA operator turns you over to The System, you are first asked to press 1 if you wish to be connected directly. For $.30. In addition to the regular DA charge. Only after It explains that option will It recite the number you've requested. You may still press 1 at that point to call. It appears to work only from within the city so far. The other change is that you must dial 1-555-1212 to reach DA now. Formerly, (and in the exchanges where this is not implemented) one could dial 1-555-xxxx. The advantage there is that if you didn't use -1212 you wouldn't be billed with the DA call. Just wondering - wouldn't this be a neat way of reaching people with unlisted numbers? They now have two categories of "unlisted:" not published in the directory but available from DA; and totally unlisted. How about a third category: not published, not available from DA, but connectable through DA? scott ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Aug 90 10:18 EDT From: "Scott D. Green" Subject: Norristown PA Announces a New Weapon Against the Drug Trade Yesterday's {Philadelphia Inquirer} reported that Bell of PA, at the request of Norristown (a western suburb of Phila.), will be removing touch-tone public phones from drug areas and replacing them with rotaries! They got the idea from that other backwater town (I forget where) that we discussed a while back. Norristown believes that if they can't call the beepers, they can't score, the dealers will go out of business, and the drug problem will be solved. (Quick, somebody call George Bush). Some official (their tech consultant, no doubt) did mention that the tone generators were readily available elsewhere, but (get this) the possession of such an instrument could be construed as probable cause! Bell said that they are happy to help, but they will be watching the maintenance/vandalism rate, since rotaries are more easily vandalized. (Especially by druggies who can't score because the Radio Shack is closed). Bell said that if costs increased too much, they would have to go back to touch-tones. scott [Moderator's Note: The fools!! Haven't they visited Radio Shack lately and seen how the 'probable cause' abounds? Haven't they heard of voice pagers with direct dialed seven digit numbers upon which coded announcements can be recited, or tone only beepers with dual addresses, each of which has its own seven digit (easily rotary) dialed number making two pre-planned instructions possible? And cellular phones can't be dialed from rotary? All they are doing is making use of the phone more difficult for *everyone*. It stinks. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: Billing of Multi-Lines Date: 13 Aug 90 14:42:06 GMT Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL >[Moderator's Note: My two lines are both BILLED on the first line. I >get one bill each month, with long distance charges from the second >line appended on a separate page. When I tried the ANI number just now >from the second line, it read me the second, or calling number. Maybe >'billing number' is a local matter, depending on how your local telco >chooses to handle it. Maybe in my case I have two 'billing numbers' >with both bills shown on one monthly statement. I think there are some >semantics used here to define 'billing' and 'calling' numbers. PAT] Here is Southern Bell Land ... There are two ways to have lines billed together.. The first way is that they set up two separate accounts and put a 'pointer' on the second line that says to print billing info with the first. This cause AT&T reachout billing to show up on only one line. The second is when you have one account with two numbers. This is how your account should be set up for calling plans to show up on both lines. It took Southern Bell and AT&T four months to figure this out. I assume this affect the ANI information ... not sure. Bill [Moderator's Note: I get the 'benefits' of Reach Out America on both lines for a single fee. All LD charges go through ROA even though they are shown on my bill as 'calls from xxx-xxxx' (meaning my second line). PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Peter J. Dotzauer" Subject: Western Union City Mnemonics? Date: 13 Aug 90 21:04:23 GMT Organization: The Ohio State University (IRCC) Does anyone know the exact title of the publication that lists the Western Union city mnemonics (probably three-letter abbreviations of cities in the United States)? Strangely, some employees at Western Union customer services do not know about the city mnemonics that are the 'industry standard' for abbreviating city names. Peter Dotzauer, Analyt.Cart.& GIS, Dept.of Geogr., OSU, Columbus, OH 43210-1361 TEL +1 614 292 1357 FAX +1 614 292 6213 FIDO 1:226/330 CCnet mapvxa::pjd INTERNET pjd+@osu.edu BITNET pjd@ohstvmb UUCP ...!osu-cis!hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu!pjd ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Aug 90 17:51:17 PDT From: Steve Forrette Subject: More on Cable & Wireless 800 Service I've gotten several questions about my previous posting, and summarize here: Signal quality is good, at least to my ear (I don't have a Trailblazer to give quantitative results, though). Cable & Wireless claims to have a 100% digital network. Most of my experience has been in intra-state calls, so cross-country calls may or may not be a different story. Call completion time is slower than AT&T direct dial, but is reasonable. Detailed billing (with caller's ANI) is not available. You get a daily summary, as well as subtotals for hour of the day and day of the week. Customer service cannot be reached from Canada. There is no POTS number to call. Also, programmable 800 cannot terminate in Canada, although a US user can receive calls from there if you pay for the option. They claim to be working on Canadian customer service for availablility by year's end, but don't know more than that. They have about six prefixes from which to choose. ------------------------------ From: A J Annala Subject: The LAW vs. Telephone Access Devices Date: 14 Aug 90 03:32:41 GMT Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA I do some data communications technician type contracting work from time to time (e.g. installing modems, analog line testing, protocol analysis, etc). There have been notes on the network about police confiscating equipment of the type I often use in my work. These devices include ATT Craft Test Set, Progressive Electronics 200B Inductive Amplifier, Dracon D814 Impact Tool, and a Progressive 77M Tone Generator. The police claim is that such devices are telephone access devices which should not be in the hands of the public. I am curious about whether any other technical people have been challenged by the police and what answer has satisfied them to go away without hassle. All of these devices can be purchased over the counter or by mail at very reasonable prices from Graybar Electric Company, 210 S. Anderson Street, Los Angeles, CA 90033 (213)265-7000. In this context it appears to be to be completely ludicrous to claim these tools must not be found in the possession of members of the public. They are ordinary tools. AJ ------------------------------ From: A J Annala Subject: Los Angeles Service Numbers Date: 14 Aug 90 04:04:34 GMT Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA The number 1223 answers with a digital voice giving a single digit (always 0 when I call -- presumably related to the line type) and the number of the switched voice pair originating the call in the Los Angeles Airport area. However this number does not work on my campus CENTREX system or in the downtown Los Angeles area. I would like to assemble a list of similar numbers to call to get a positive identification on a switched voice grade line when I punch down cross connect wires from the telco demark to modems in my computer room and customer sites around town. As a matter of curiosity, I would be interested in learning about how sucxh numbers are allocated throughout the country, what the typical numbers are in local regions, and whether there are any other commonly supported numbers (e.g. ringback) for installation assistance? Thanks, AJ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Aug 90 10:25:25 cst From: "McMahon,Brian D" Subject: A Satisfied Customer of GTE In TELECOM Digest V10 #562, our Moderator writes: >[Moderator's Note: Based on all the complaints we get here about GTE, >I'm beginning to think divine intervention is the only thing which >might help improve their service. PT] Jeez, am I the only one who doesn't think GTE is, if not the Beast in person, at least a direct representative of all that is evil? :-) We're right smack dab in the middle of GTE-land, and I don't really see them as being all THAT much worse than anything else I've used. For my purposes (POTS, dial-in to the college, calls to Telenet in Des Moines [at the 55-mile distance rate! Ack!]), they seem to do the job. Then again, they've been taking it in the shorts over their proposed rate hike here. (Did I say "hike"? "Forced march" is more like it.) But being taken to the cleaners by the phone company is hardly a novel idea, and that's what we have PUCs for. But the phones do work. Heck, even the critter the college has installed (Omni S/III or something similar) seems to work all right, at least as far as I can tell from my desk. Maybe having GTE operations in town makes a difference. Grinnell until recently was the HQ for their Midwest operations, but I've lost track of what the heck they are these days. My monthly check now goes to GTE *North* (used to be GTE Midwest right here in town) in Indianapolis (which is to the *East* :->). That might matter -- if I can't get the attention of their repair service, I can always ram one of their vans... :-) :-) I hate disclaimers, but since this affects town-gown relations . . . The above is my personal opinion. It has nothing to do with Grinnell College, GCCS, the Board of Trustees, or the price of tea in China. Brian McMahon Grinnell College Computer Services Grinnell, Iowa 50112 (515) 269-4901 ------------------------------ From: woody Subject: Globe & Mail Faxed News Service Date: Mon, 13 Aug 90 23:14:09 EDT The {Globe & Mail} newspaper has set up a service called FaxSummary which is a four page condensed version of the day's {Globe and Mail} along with its Report on Business information. It works by calling 1 800 23 GLOBE and using a credit card and the number of the fax where you are at. Before long, the G&M sends down its stuff to the fax machine you specified. This is handy for travellers, say, who want to pick up the latest news and stuff. One interesting thing is that the {Globe and Mail}, being a Canadian paper, is using an MCI 800 number (according to the 800/OCN table in the TD archives, for 234 prefix) which would be accessible througout North America. However, the {Globe and Mail} ad says that this number should be accessible throughout the world (though outside North America at a toll charge). Can 800 numbers be accessed from outside North America via overseas dialing (other than a rigged-up in Japan)? [Moderator's Note: The {Chicago Tribune} also offers a similar service by pre-subscription. Every day at 4:30 PM they fax you the main stories in the paper for the next day. I liked it better (and it was a lot cheaper) when we were able to get the next day's actual paper anytime after 4 PM weekdays. We can still get the Sunday {Tribune} anytime after about 10 AM Saturday morning. The weekday Fax edition is very expensive. $$$$$ PAT] ------------------------------ From: yilmazer@suns01.UUCP (Sedat Yilmazer) Subject: Re: Caller-ID Again Date: 14 Aug 90 05:58:30 GMT Reply-To: yilmazer@suns01.Nowhere (Sedat Yilmazer) Organization: Alcatel Austria, Vienna In article <10793@accuvax.nwu.edu> dave%westmark@uunet.uu.net (Dave Levenson) writes: >With the introduction of Caller*ID service, however, crank calls have >all but disappeared in this area. At the cost of the callers privacy! Here in Vienna I got, up to now, no crank calls. So if you implement this feature in here, at least for me, it would mean the violation of the callers privacy. So if you are receiving crank calls , let there be a feature to trace back that call. Sedat Yilmazer | Tel: 277222465 Alcatel Austria | telex 277222146 Scheydg 41 A-1211| Home 2679825 [Moderator's Note: Yes! I said in the last issue that the Caller ID discussion was concluded in the Digest for the time being. This message arrived as the last issue was going out. Our correspondent from Austria could not have known, so his item is appearing. But this is it for now! Please no more Caller ID for a couple months. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Monty Solomon Subject: Re: To Broadcast or Not to Broadcast? Date: 14 Aug 90 05:59:41 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. In article <10443@accuvax.nwu.edu> roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 541, Message 6 of 10 >I heard a snippet on TV yesterday evening which, if I heard >and understood it right, said that the IRS is now listening in on >cellular calls, to gain evidence in tax evasion cases. Anybody know >anything about this? Cordless, not cellular. Monty Solomon / PO Box 45249 / Winter Hill, MA 02145-0003 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #569 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22695; 15 Aug 90 4:02 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02890; 15 Aug 90 2:16 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29823; 15 Aug 90 1:11 CDT Date: Wed, 15 Aug 90 0:58:10 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #570 BCC: Message-ID: <9008150058.ab18796@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 15 Aug 90 00:58:05 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 570 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Fastest Pulse-Dialable Number? [David Svoboda] Re: Fastest Pulse-Dialable Number? [Joel B. Levin] Re: Fastest Pulse-Dialable Number? [David E. A. Wilson] Re: Slowest Dialable Number [Barrey Jewall] Re: Slowest Dialable Number [Bill Huttig] Re: President Bush Uses Cellular? [Michael H. Riddle] Re: President Bush Uses Cellular? [bill@trace.eedsp.gatech.edu] Re: AT&T Reach Out America Plan [K. L. Stiles] Re: The LAW vs. Telephone Access Devices [Terry Kennedy] Gummint Paranoia [John Higdon] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Svoboda Subject: Re: Fastest Pulse-Dialable Number? Date: 14 Aug 90 15:06:11 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL From article <10817@accuvax.nwu.edu>, by cowan@marob.masa.com (John Cowan): > +1 212 213 1111 gives some kind of modem warble, perhaps a TDD; I'm > not sure exactly what a TDD sounds like, but it certainly isn't Bell > 103 or 212, or Racal-Vadic, nor yet V.24 bis or Telebit. Perhaps > someone with a TDD would like to try calling? Please be aware that some if not most of TDD units are acoustically coupled. Meaning that every time you call one of these, someone has to walk over and put the phone in the cradle. My cousin is deaf and just received a free TDD unit from the government. Sure enough, acoustically coupled. :-( Dave Svoboda, Motorola CID, RTSG, Arlington Heights, IL uucp => {uunet|mcdchg|gatech|att}!motcid!svoboda internet => motcid!svoboda@chg.mcd.mot.com ------------------------------ From: "Joel B. Levin" Subject: Re: Fastest Pulse-Dialable Number? Date: Tue, 14 Aug 90 13:17:22 EDT From: Bill Huttig >And what is the slowest pulse-dialable number? It is a real number; >the Covenant House Nine Line: (1-800-999-9999) for runaways. >[Moderator's Note: I think, but am not willing to dial and find out, >that a 'slower' number would be 900-999-9999. . . . ] The slowest number I can think of, if 900 has NXX exchanges, would be 900-900-0000, otherwise 900-990-0000. Aside: I think I actually saw an ad giving the 900-999-9999 number, and Our Moderator is correct, it was one of the "adult" services. Further aside: in a later digest Our Moderator notes: >[Moderator's Note: I assume (don't know for sure) that 900-555-1212 is a >free call, however the last time I tried it, about a year ago, it was >merely a recorded announcement listing 'a selection' (i.e. the clean >ones) of services available, and the price, which seems to be based on >the first three digits. . . .] When I listened to the recording through to the end, it explicitly stated that there was no charge for the call. I also have not tried it recently. The charges do indeed seem to be determined by the "exchange" digits, both from what is said on that recording, and from some of the rate schedule information that has been presented here in past months for 900 services from various companies. JBL levin@bbn.com ...!bbn!levin (617)873-3463 ------------------------------ From: David E A Wilson Subject: Re: Fastest Pulse-Dialable Number? Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University Date: Tue, 14 Aug 90 23:28:06 GMT Wouldn't something with more zeros be longer? ie 900-999-0000 or if they exist 900-990-0000 or 900-909-0000 or even 900-900-0000. [Moderator's Note: If in fact such numbers are actually in service, then yes, they would be slower. But we were trying to deal only with actual, in-service numbers. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Barrey Jewall Subject: Re: Slowest Dialable Number Date: 14 Aug 90 16:03:57 GMT Reply-To: Barrey Jewall Organization: Novell, Inc., San Jose, Califonia Our Esteemed Moderator Writes: > [Moderator's Note: I think, but am not willing to dial and find out, > that a 'slower' number would be 900-999-9999. I believe the 900-999.... Even slower than that one is the following, (900) 909-9999. This is Jeanne Dixon's Hot Stars line.... (no, I didn't call it, see below) >[Moderator's Note: I assume (don't know for sure) that 900-555-1212 is >a free call, According to the LD operator from here, (good old AT&T), 900-555-1212 is still a free call, despite it being a 900 number. When I called 900-555-1212, I got to listen to a LONG (about 3 minute) recording of services available via 900 number. The recording was (of course) scratchy, and barely audible during some portions. The numbers listed seemed to be in no particular order, just sort of jumbled in. The recording announced that calls to the 407 prefix were .45 per CALL, calls to the 350 prefix were .55 for the 1st Min/.35 each additional Min , and all other calls were charged at premium rates (NO, REALLY?!?)... I doubt many people use the 900-555-1212 number to find their 900 numbers. + Barrey Jewall ++ "My opinions are my opinions" + + barrey@novell.com ++ (rather self-evident, eh?) + + Novell, Inc.- San Jose, Calif.++ + ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: Re: Slowest Dialable Number Date: 14 Aug 90 15:27:59 GMT Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL >Would dialing 1-900-555-1212 get you the info on what that number was >or would one be billed for the information call as well (at $3 for the >first minute and $2 for additional minutes...? :-) There is a charge of .50 per call if I remember correctly. They give you very very little info ... This was 6 years ago though ... Maybe they got rid of the charge. Bill Huttig la063249@zach.fit.edu [Moderator's Note: But Mr. Jewall, in the message before yours, says he was told there is no charge. Maybe what his operator meant was no 'premium' charge, and just the usual DA charges made by AT&T. PT] ------------------------------ From: riddle@hoss.unl.edu (Michael H. Riddle) Subject: Re: President Bush Uses Cellular? Organization: University of Nebraska, Computing Resource Center Date: Tue, 14 Aug 90 21:52:19 GMT In <10833@accuvax.nwu.edu> Thomas Lapp writes: >In a photograph which ran in my local newspaper (source: AP >wirephoto), it showed President Bush talking to a military leader from >his golf cart. The phone appeared to be a plain old cellular >telephone, although there was a smaller box attached to the main >transceiver unit. >Can I rest knowing that his cellular phone call was scrambled? I didn't see the picture, but from somewhat dated personal knowledge of how the White House Communications Agency does business, I'd think that the unexplained smaller box was /exactly/ an encryption unit. The other option is that they merely agreed on when to talk on a /really/ secure line. It's always possible that they discussed real business on an open line, but the folks in that line of work didn't get there by being dumb! riddle@hoss.unl.edu riddle@crchpux.unl.edu mike.riddle@f27.n285.z1.fidonet.org Sysop on 1:285/27 @ Fidonet ------------------------------ From: bill@trace.eedsp.gatech.edu Subject: Re: President Bush Uses Cellular? Date: 14 Aug 90 18:07:58 GMT Reply-To: Organization: Home for Homeless Homing Pigeons In article <10833@accuvax.nwu.edu> thomas%mvac23.uucp@udel.edu (Thomas Lapp) writes: >In a photograph which ran in my local newspaper (source: AP >wirephoto), it showed President Bush talking to a military leader from >his golf cart. The phone appeared to be a plain old cellular >telephone, although there was a smaller box attached to the main >transceiver unit. [some concerns about the security of a cellular conversation deleted] Although I didn't see this particular photo, the Federal govt. does have 'secure' cellular and wireline telecommunications (voice and data) via a system called STU-III. I'm sure the President's conversation was duly encrypted prior to going to the local cell. I wouldn't be surprised if the cell or cells in that area turned out to actually belong to Uncle Sam too, although I don't know for sure either way. I think if I ever win the Presidency I'll have to turn it down. They never can truly "get away" for a real vacation. :-) ------------------------------ From: "K. L. Stiles" Subject: Re: AT&T Reach Out America Plan Date: 14 Aug 90 16:13:40 GMT Organization: AT&T, Denver, CO In article <10687@accuvax.nwu.edu>, rruxc!wws@bellcore.bellcore.com (Wayne Scott) says: > I've been subscribing to the AT&T ROA Plan for several months now and > I'm not sure that I'm saving any money. > What's the general opionion out there? Is it worth it or not? Let me first say that I am an AT&T employee, but the information here is from my personal phone bill and unbiased. I have the 24 hour ROA plan: for $8.70/mo., I get one hour night/wkend calls, 25% discount on evening calls, and 10% discount on daytime calls. The stats for my July bill (taxes not included in figures): 3.15 hours night/weekend - 1 hour allotment $ 8.70 - 2.15 hours at 6.60/hour $14.19 $30.01 evening at 25% discount $22.51 $15.02 daytime at 10% discount $13.52 ------- ROA Total $58.92 Non-ROA Total (price for each call is listed) $73.83 ------- ROA Savings $14.91 If I had only the basic plan which I believe is $7.15/mo., my ROA total would have been $66.37, a $7.46 savings. The bottom line is that it really depends on your calling habits. Analyze your own bill as I have done, and see for yourself. Every time I've checked mine (3 or 4 times a year), ROA has always saved me $$. Hope this helps. Kevin Stiles AT&T Bell Labs, Denver, CO [Moderator's Note: I wanted the 24 hour plan, and it is advertised as being available here in IBT territory. However, when I ordered it I was told I could not have it because the computer would not accept both the daytime five percent discount AND the intrastate 'transparency' which I have at night. Apparently intrastate calls do not get the daytime five percent discount, and IBT has not been able to figure out how to give both that and the intra/inter on one account at the same time without getting daytime intrastate calls involved. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Terry Kennedy, Operations Mgr" Subject: Re: The LAW vs. Telephone Access Devices Date: 14 Aug 90 22:53:19 EDT Organization: St. Peter's College, US In article <10844@accuvax.nwu.edu>, annala%neuro.usc.edu@usc.edu (A J Annala) writes: > The police claim is that such devices are telephone > access devices which should not be in the hands of the public. I am > curious about whether any other technical people have been challenged > by the police and what answer has satisfied them to go away without > hassle. Well, it *should* depend on where you are/what you're doing with them. If you're up on a pole in a parking lot in the middle of the night, they should be more suspicious than if you're working in an office in the middle of the night. It is always helpful to have the name and number of the person who authorized your doing the work handy. I was installing for a customer who had the misfortune to move his office during the great NJ phone strike. Since he couldn't get any service orders through, and I informed him of the probable backlog once the strike was over, we decided to run our own poles and cable since it was all on his property. I had a few inquisitive looks from the local police when I was up on the poles, since there was a *lot* of vandalism in the area (things like a pedastal terminal being pulled out of the ground by a pickup truck). In fact, one of the customer's building feeds (500 pr) was cut, and a *very* over-worked manager showed up to splice it. I wound up splicing it while the manager got a well-deserved rest, since I was about 4x faster. So, it depends on the situation. Even a simple screwdriver could be considered burglar's tools in the right situation - but if you indeed have business in the area, it shouldn't be a problem. Terry Kennedy Operations Manager, Academic Computing (& part-time freelance installer) terry@spcvxa.bitnet St. Peter's College, US terry@spcvxa.spc.edu (201) 915-9381 ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Gummit Paranoia Date: 14 Aug 90 11:16:22 PDT (Tue) From: John Higdon "Scott D. Green" writes: > Some official (their tech consultant, no doubt) did mention that the > tone generators were readily available elsewhere, but (get this) the > possession of such an instrument could be construed as probable cause! A J Annala writes: > devices include ATT Craft Test Set, Progressive Electronics 200B > Inductive Amplifier, Dracon D814 Impact Tool, and a Progressive 77M > Tone Generator. The police claim is that such devices are telephone > access devices which should not be in the hands of the public. We have a problem here. Taken ad absurdam, having a computer with a modem attached could be contrued as a telephone access device. After all, look how much crime is perpetrated these days with such equipment. The other question concerns the definition of "public". Does one have to be an employee on definite assignment by a bona fide telephone utility to legally carry and use telephone test equipment? I, and a number of my friends, do a heavy amount of telecom consulting. We routinely use line analyzers, punchdown tools, and butt sets. None of us "work" for anyone but ourselves. Is it time to register our dangerous "weapons" with the police? > I am curious about whether any other technical people have > been challenged by the police and what answer has satisfied them > to go away without hassle. Some years ago, I needed to perform some audio measurements on a small FM station in Los Gatos. The Los Gatos cops are jokingly referred to by the locals as the "Los Gatos Metropolitan" police. I have personally seen repeated instances where the LG Fuzz act as if they are NY wanabees, having about as much small town finesse as a bulldozer and a wrecking ball. Anyway, shortly after midnight I was carrying equipment (distortion test set, monitor receiver, etc.) from my truck into the studio. Suddenly, an officer pulled up and demanded to know what I was doing and wanted to see "ID". I produced my license and explained that I was making tests on the radio station. This wasn't good enough. While he was eyeing over the equipment, he asked things like, "How often do you do this?" "Who 'authorized' this?" "How much is this equipment worth?" "Where are your receipts for it?" Finally, with the evening moving on apace and a lot of other things to do that evening, I told the officer that I had identified myself and explained my purpose in being at that location. All of his other questions were irrelavent and none of his business, that I had work to do, and invited him to either arrest me or leave the premesis. He considered that for a moment and decided that he would leave, but not without giving me some friendly warnings about doing "suspicious" stuff in his jurisdiction. The next day I called the Los Gatos Town Hall and informally complained about the incident. I got the expected "we're only doing our job" and then was told that the officers would be advised that midnight to six work would sometimes take place at the radio station. From the way things are going these days, my challenge to the officer would now result in my arrest. 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 #570 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23265; 15 Aug 90 4:52 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02056; 15 Aug 90 3:20 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab02890; 15 Aug 90 2:17 CDT Date: Wed, 15 Aug 90 1:38:27 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #571 BCC: Message-ID: <9008150138.ab20477@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 15 Aug 90 01:38:10 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 571 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Basic Questions About Telephones [Julian Macassey] Re: Knowing You're a Call Waiting Beep [Clive Carmock] Info Needed on Telecommunication Modelling [Elizabeth Krawczyk] Info Needed on Telecom Seminars [Dan Rich] Info Needed on COLAN [Andrew Lih] Continue Caller ID on Misc.Legal [Bruce Klopfenstein] Re: A Thesis on Caller ID [Jeff E. Nelson] Phone Service in Ireland [John O'Brien] Voice Recognition (Was: A New Feature) [Charles Buckley] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Julian Macassey Subject: Re: Basic Questions About Telephones Date: 12 Aug 90 16:59:42 GMT Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood California U.S.A. In article <10692@accuvax.nwu.edu>, drears@pica.army.mil (Dennis G. Rears (FSAC)) writes: It's Deja-vu telecom time again. > It seems as if each telephone cable contains four wires (red, > green, black, and yellow). For one line only the red and green wires > are used. The black and yellow wires are only used for the second > line. If only one line is installed in a jack why do the yellow and > black wires have to be attached? I suspect it doesn't. You are right, a telephone line requires two wires or "one pair" in telco speak. The first pair are the Red and Green and the second pair are the Yellow and Black. For a one line installation, you only need to connect the first pair (Red and Green). The second pair is often not connected through anymore - standards have gone to hell since divesture. The telco used to connect the second pair (Yellow and Black) when installing so that if they popped in a second line they wouldn't have to hunt round the premises to splice all the second pairs. > The modular jack that goes into the phone has four wires in it. Why > is that, if only the red and green are required for service? Just in > case you have a two line phone? There are several reasons for this besides a second line. At the end of this posting I am including something I posted in November 1988 in response to an inquiry just like yours. > Why is the jack that goes from the telephone headset to the > telephone a different size than the jack that goes from the phone to > the wall jack? Is it to idiotproof the process? Also why four wires > into the headset? Does the phone itself do anything to the signals > before it sends it to the headset? If the proper size jack was put on > the headset could you plug that into the wall jack and receive calls? Because it serves a completely different purpose. It idiot proofs it to some extent. But I have had customers plug the handset into the line jack and then call and complain that the line cord wont plug into the handset jack - this really has happened. Notice that a handset jack has and uses two pairs (four wires). It uses two wires to talk (Transmitter) and two wires to listen (Receiver). Ok, so the line jack is two wires (talk and listen on the same pair) and the handset has split talk and listen into separate pairs. Inside the phone instrument there is a device called a network that magically sends the voice signals to the right place. Yes, you could Micky Mouse a handset to work directly on the line, but the line voltage would soon kill the receiver magnet and the sound of your own voice would blow the wax out of your ears etc. So that is what the instrument stuff is for, if it wasn't needed, someone would have been selling handset to line cord adapters years ago. The Linesmans "Butt-set" has the network built into the handset as does the AT&T Trimline phone. > What do the two wires (red and green or yellow and black) carry? Is > one positive and negative like electrical wires? Yes, as a phone line is about 48V DC when "on hook" (hung up) and between 3 and 9V DC when "off hook", there is a DC voltage there. The normal voltage polarity is Green = + and Red = -. Some phone systems will reverse the polarity when a call goes through (rare these days). If the polarity is wrong, no biggy, some old 2500 sets may no longer dial, so flip the Red and Green and everything will work again. They phone wires also carry audio signals, Voice and Touch Tone. They also carry the ringing signal 40-150V AC. > In the case of my second line I bought a double wall phone outlet. I > installed the first line (R&G) to the top outline and installed the > second (B&Y) line to the bottom outlet. The first line worked the > second did not. The second line was live as I have a jack wired right > into at the NIU. I then disconnected the wires from the NIU for the first > line and reconnected them to the NIU for the second. That got the second > line working. That says to me that there must be something physically > wrong with the Yellow or Black wires. That seems strange to me as all > four wires are in the same cable and if there was a physical break in the > cable it would affect all the wires, not just one or two. Any thoughts > of this? Yes, you could have a break in just one wire in a cable. This is not uncommon. I have had this happen with long runs of cable, this is a good reason to install more pairs than you need. If you have a "bad pair", just mark it as such and progress. But as you are a domestic installation I would physically check the wire from the NIU (Protector) to the jack. There may be a connecting block or jack along the way that has not spliced the Black and Yellow pairs. One word of warning. Some lazy installers will often place the Black and Yellow under a screw in a a junction box/jack but will not strip the wires. It will look like two wires are connected under a screw head, but as they still have insulation, they are not. And now if you are still fascinated by all this stuff, here's more of the same. This is a posting from a couple of years ago that kinda covers the same ground. Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: The other pair of wires. Message-ID: Date: 9 Nov 88 10:11:08 GMT Sender: chip@vector.UUCP Lines: 54 There has been a fair amount of discussion about what you will find on the second pair of phone wires in a residence. Here is a list of what you might/could find: The first pair will always carry a regular phone line. These wires are usually Red and Green, they can be White with a Blue Stripe and Blue with a White stripe. They are referred to as Tip and Ring. The Green or White/Blue wire is Tip and the Red or Blue/White is Ring. Tip is Positive and Ring is negative. ( Yes I know the voltage thingy is more complex than that, this is not for experts. For folks with Rat Shack meters, what I have said is true) Ok, now the first pair is out of the way, let's look at the second pair. They are usually Black and Yellow or White/Orange and Orange/White. These wires can have several things happening to them, but not all at once. First of all, there can be nothing on the wires, and they may not be connected anywhere. Next, the Yellow wire can be grounded. This is rare these days, but you will find it on old installations. Another old thing you will find is AC voltage for lighting the dials of old Princess phones. If you look around, you will find a wall transformer wired into the Yellow and Black wires. If the transformer says, "Bell System Property" etc. That's it. If you no longer have a rotary dial Princess with a lighted dial, pull it. Talking of old, old style multiline "business" phones. Yes, the ones with the buttons that light up and flash, they needed a hard wire signal to know that a line was off hook. This was known in "Telco speak" as "A-Lead control". If a single line phone was used as an extension on one of these systems also known in "Telco speak" as "1A2", the second pair (Yellow and Black) were shorted together when the phone went "off hook" to let the system know that a line was in use so all the right blinky lights came on. If you used a phone without A-Lead control, it went into hold when you hung up - most inconvenient. These days, if the telco uses the second pair, it is usually for a second line. Looking back to the first paragraph, the Black wire is Tip and the Yellow wire is Ring, usually known as Tip 2 and Ring 2. Yup, that makes the first pair (Red&Green) Tip 1 and Ring 1. Now, when discussing PBXs and modern "Key Systems", the second pair can often carry "data", stuff controlling the phones. More details available upon request. Available for Bar Mitzvoth weddings and barbeques. 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 ------------------------------ From: Clive Carmock Subject: Re: Knowing You're a Call Waiting Beep Date: 14 Aug 90 20:32:25 GMT Reply-To: Clive Carmock Organization: Computer Science Dept. - University of Exeter. UK It was interesting to read that the US phone system doesn't distinguish calls waiting calls from any other sort. Here in the UK if you call a line that has call waiting activated and the phone is in use you get DEe Daa Daa The number called is busy, we're trying to connect your call please hold the line. This is repeated over and over until the called party answers or after thirty seconds when the exhange will time out and say 'Sorry your call could not be connected, please try later'. Clive Carmock ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Aug 90 12:17:53 NZS From: Elizabeth Krawczyk on cabernet Subject: Info Needed on Telecommunication Modelling Hi everybody, Does anyone have some experience with modelling telecommunication problems like: - cost effectivness of alternative technologies (eg. ATM vs STM) - cost effectivness of alternative policies (eg.impact of shortened technology lifetime on company financial performance) - change of the market environment (eg. appearance of competition) - introduction of new technologies and their impact on existing markets. If "YES": - what software have you used? - what are the strenghts and weaknesses of the software? Has anyone used the software package (from UK based company ANALYSYS) called STEM? If so I would appreciate some comments about it. Elizabeth Krawczyk Corporate Strategy Division Telecom Corporate Office Box 570 Wellington NEW ZEALAND Fax: +64 4 801 5417 E-mail: ela@corp.telecom.co.nz ------------------------------ From: Dan Rich Subject: Info Needed on Telecom Seminars Date: 14 Aug 90 15:54:48 GMT Reply-To: Dan Rich Organization: Dialogic Corp., Parsippany, NJ I am looking for seminars on FAX, CEPT, and ISDN. These need to be aimed at developers, and should cover the topics in depth at a protocol level. Does anyone know of any seminars in these areas? Please e-mail any responses. Our fileserver is low on disk space, and I may need to cut off our news feed until our new disks come in. Dan Rich | drich@dialogic.com || ...!uunet!dialogic!drich UNIX Systems Administrator | Dialogic Corporation|| (201) 334-1268 x213 ------------------------------ From: lih@probe.att.com Date: Tue, 14 Aug 90 11:45 EDT Subject: Info Needed on COLAN Can anyone give a description or refer me to some documentation on COLAN (Central Office Local Area Network)? Thanks. Andrew Lih lih@probe.att.com ------------------------------ From: Bruce Klopfenstein Subject: Continue Caller ID on Misc.Legal Date: 14 Aug 90 15:42:51 GMT Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh. > [Moderator's Note: Yes! I said in the last issue that the Caller ID > discussion was concluded in the Digest for the time being. This > message arrived as the last issue was going out. Our correspondent > from Austria could not have known, so his item is appearing. But this > is it for now! Please no more Caller ID for a couple months. PAT] I am again disappointed in this decision. Would those interested in Caller ID please continue the discussion in misc.legal? It has been a topic of interest there from time to time and that newsgroup is not moderated. This topic merits further discussion, and I'd be very surprised if there weren't more developments within the next couple of months. Thanks, Bruce C. Klopfenstein | klopfens@barney.bgsu.edu Radio-TV-Film Department | klopfenstein@bgsuopie.bitnet 318 West Hall | klopfens@bgsuvax.UUCP Bowling Green State University | (419) 372-2138; 372-8690 Bowling Green, OH 43403 | fax (419) 372-2300 [Moderator's Note: Better still, Bruce, why don't you begin a *mailing list* for interested parties to discuss this topic? You may recall that Computer Undergroun Digest got started as an offshoot of this Digest due to the overflow of messages pertaining to crackercrime, etc ... the Caller ID debate would prosper under your guidance. See the next message in this issue: You have a subscriber waiting for your list already! PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Aug 90 11:13:08 PDT From: Subject: Re: A Thesis on Caller ID I propose that we call this the "Subject that Wouldn't Die." I am past the point of being tired with the topic. I suggest that someone volunteer to set up a mailing list and/or newsgroup devoted to caller id. It is apparently hot enough to generate opinions for months -- if not years -- to come. This, of course, is just my opinion. Jeff E. Nelson, Digital Equipment Corporation, jnelson@tle.enet.dec.com Affiliation given for identification purposes only [Moderator's Note: See Bruce K. in the message before this one. I quite agree a mailing list to handle the overflow I am getting on this topic would be a good idea. I had to reject *nineteen* messages today on Caller ID and return them to the sender unused. Talk to Bruce. PAT] ------------------------------ From: John O'Brien Subject: Phone Service in Ireland Date: 14 Aug 90 14:45:58 GMT Organization: Nixdorf Computer Engineering Corporation, Burlington, MA I am going to Ireland in a couple of weeks and I am wondering what the phone service is like there. Specifically: 1.) Can I use my Sprint FON card to call the US? 2.) Can I use my Sprint card for local Irish calls? 3.) I have an AT&T Universal card. Can I use it to make calls within Ireland or to the US? Thanx in advance, John ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Aug 90 22:34:41 PDT From: Charles Buckley Subject: Voice Recognition (was: A New Feature) From: apple!well.sf.ca.us!well!nagle@uunet.uu.net (John Nagle) >Now here's a thought. We all know the announcments which begin >with a special three-tone sequence followed by "The number you have >reached...". How about a voice recognition unit to recognize the new >number and update your autodialer? I remember in 1977 calling the NJ Bell operator from a payphone in south Jersey (in order to find out how many quarters, dimes, and nickels I'd have to go schnorr from the cashier at the diner in which the instrument was located to pay for a three minute call down south), and I asked for the rate to . Lo and behold, as I listened in, the operator enunciated some command phrase, and the six digits I had given her. A digitized human voice responded with a string of digits which represented the rate (no punctuation, just digits). I asked the operator if the computer was controlled by her voice and she said "yes, it responds to my voice". Given that commercially available voice recognition was first trendy (and of miserable reliability) about 1980, that was truly neat stuff for the epoch. I'm looking for details: Who did it? Why was it dropped? Was it speaker-independent? How reliable? etc. Does anyone who was connected with the project or knows of it read this list? At any rate, the answer would have bearing on Mr. Nagle's question. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #571 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09309; 16 Aug 90 0:18 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10282; 15 Aug 90 22:39 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08532; 15 Aug 90 21:34 CDT Date: Wed, 15 Aug 90 20:41:39 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #572 BCC: Message-ID: <9008152041.ab28287@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 15 Aug 90 20:40:39 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 572 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson A Taste of Their Own Medicine [Chip Rosenthal] 800 "Out-of-Band" Announcements [Douglas Scott Reuben] More Follow Me Roaming [Douglas Scott Reuben] Numbering Plan Changes (was Re: Is 510 Area Code Active?) [Henry Troup] Crank Calls [Henry Troup] 1 800 LADYLIB [Jerry Leichter] Another One Bites the Dust [Rich Zellich] Sprint & WD40 [David Lesher] Getting Stoned by Telephone [Dolf Grunbauer] Teletype Marked "Crypto" and Other Found Treasures [Daniel Birchall] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chip Rosenthal Subject: A Taste of Their Own Medicine Date: 14 Aug 90 20:05:21 GMT Organization: Unicom Systems Development, Austin, TX When I opened up shop here, I got both AT&T Pro Wats and Pro Wats/Texas on my lines. Unfortunately, the service rep's description errantly led me to believe that Pro Wats/Texas was billed at six second increments as is (interstate) Pro Wats. Unfortunately, it turned out to be 1 minute increments. The discount rate for Pro Wats/Texas was crummy, and without the benefit of a six second increment, the plan became nearly useless for me. Thus Pro Wats/Texas was cancelled. (BTW...if you do any polling with Telebits, do check out Pro Wats. The discount is nice, but the six second increment is where I save the most money.) A month or so back, Pro Wats/Texas was overhauled to 30% discount, $5/month, and no setup fee. Even with the crummy one minute billing increment it now becomes worthwhile. So I called to sign up. But, just to avoid a repeat of the earlier fiasco, I asked for a printed description of the service. That way, I'd understand exactly what it was, and there would be no room for confusion as there was last time around. "I'm sorry, sir," the rep answered, "we don't have any literature available." I pressed for any information which described what the plan is. She appologized, but said all their stuff was for the old version of Pro Wats/Texas, and nothing was available yet on the new plan. So I inquired, "are you telling me that you can't put it in writing?" There was a very long pause on the other end. Eventually, the rep recovered, and in a very animated voice offered to draft a letter describing the service and include all the details I wanted. I think I found the right button. Chip Rosenthal chip@chinacat.Unicom.COM Unicom Systems Development, 512-482-8260 ------------------------------ Date: 14-AUG-1990 03:38:20.76 From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" Subject: 800 "Out-of-Band" Announcements Hi! Quick question: Why do you get the recording: "Your call can not be completed as dialed..." when you call a working/valid Canadian 800 number that doesn't serve the US, while if you call a working/valid US number from the US, but which doesn't serve your band/area code/whatever, you will get the message: "You have dialed an 800 number which can not be reached from your calling area." Wouldn't it make more sense for AT&T to extend that "out of area" message to Canadian 800 numbers as well, so that US callers will realize that they must dial direct to Canada, rather than fall under the impression that the firm in Canada which they are trying to contact no longer exists? Just wondering... Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet [Moderator's Note: I think you will find the recordings vary from one office to another as to their precise wording. Someone who set up the recordings on your end simply was not consistent with the verbiage used in other areas. I don't think there is any special intent behind the version you hear versus what Canadians hear in reverse. PT] ------------------------------ Date: 14-AUG-1990 03:43:27.99 From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" Subject: Follow Me Roaming in Boston I checked out Follow Me Roaming from Boston over the weekend, and the same thing happened: At 8PM, I activated it, and in three minutes it was working fine. At 12:30AM, it was still working fine. At 1:10AM, it was no longer working, ie, it defaulted back to my home system, and never made it Boston. I tried reactivating it, but that didn't work till 2AM, Eastern. When I talked to GTE about Follow Me a while back, they mentioned that the service is run through a central computer in Houston. (At least for GTE Mobile Net customers it is ... or so they say). Could the early termination of Follow Me Roaming have anything to do with the fact that at 1AM Eastern it is 12AM Central/Houston time? Perhaps that is why I am losing all my calls at 1AM, two hours before GTE in San Francisco SHOULD un-forward Follow Me. Any ideas on this? Incidentally, I can't recall who (Robert?) wrote that he experienced problems with Follow Me while in San Diego. I had a similar problem in Sacramento, and when I called GTE they told me that the reason the Follow Me is slow and/or that when I roam into another CA service area it doesn't work is becuase they are doing away with Follow Me in CA. Or, more aptly put, it will work automatically in all CA service areas, like Cell One already does. (In CA, if you have service with Cell One, you can be reached anywhere in CA or Reno, NV with one phone number. I'm not sure if this uses a DMX or it polls you as you enter a new area and lets your home system know where you are...) GTE apparently decided it was about time they did this to, so what happens is that when you roam into a service area in CA, your home switch is told where you are. However, since the system is new, and the trunk lines aren't avialble to call the ROAM system you are in, callers calling your mobile number will either get a re-order or dead silence, since no lines are available to call to the Roam system yet. GTE said that by the end of August this will be fixed, and that in the meantime to use Follow Me, even if you have to re-enter *18 a few times. I'm not sure if this answers your problem, but it sounded a bit similar to what I had experienced. Additionally, does entering *18 (repeatedly) force you to the back of the queue, thus slowing down the implementation of your request? IE, if I press *18, see nothing happens, and then try it again, does that cancel out the original *18 request, and make me wait for however long Follow Me takes to implement a new system? GTE told me not to enter *18 a lot of times, since it would just increase the time that it would take for Follow Me to activate at my home switch ... is this true? Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet [Moderator's Note: Through some agreement between (I think) all cellular carriers, there is a general cancellation of all 'follow me' requests activated during the day at midnight *using the time where the computer is located which is holding your request*. If California is holding your request, cancellation will occur at 3 AM Eastern. If New York is holding the request, then cancellation will be at 9 PM on the west coast. If GTE Mobilnet works from Houston, then Central time would prevail. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Henry Troup Subject: Numbering Plan Changes (was Re: Is 510 Area Code Active?) Date: 14 Aug 90 13:56:15 GMT Reply-To: Henry Troup Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ltd. In article <10830@accuvax.nwu.edu> daveb@comspec.uucp (dave berman) writes: >It seems to me that the whole worldwide voice net will go down the >tubes real soon now, with features like IdentaCall and stuff all >working to help use up all those numbers so fast. Are the telephone >switching systems installed now able to handle a reprogramming, such >as adding an extra digit in front of the usual exchange? Or adding a >fourth character to the area code? There's going to be a new North American Numbering Plan. The existing plan has approximately 160 NPAs (area codes/Numbering Plan Areas) with about 640 office prefixes and 10000 lines per office. That totals to just about one billion (1,024,000,000) lines. The reason we're running out, perversely enough, is not the dense area codes, but the sparse ones. Montana, for example, with a whole NPA to itself. The new NPA will impose everywhere what is already a fact of life in dense area - no 1 + seven digit toll calls. Then the area codes can be used as office prefixes, and (the real change) all office prefixes - now 800 - can be used as area codes. So the total capacity goes to 800 x 800 x 10000 or 6.4 billion. Disclaimer: I'm sure the numbers aren't right, it's five years since I looked at this stuff. Henry Troup - BNR owns but does not share my opinions | 21 years in Canada... uunet!bnrgate!hwt%bwdlh490 HWT@BNR.CA 613-765-2337 | [Moderator's Note: Another good example is little Rhode Island. All of an area code for what? ... a couple hundred thousand phones at most? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Henry Troup Subject: Crank Calls Date: 14 Aug 90 14:16:53 GMT Reply-To: Henry Troup Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ltd. In article <10848@accuvax.nwu.edu> yilmazer@suns01.Nowhere (Sedat Yilmazer) writes: >At the cost of the callers privacy! Here in Vienna I got, up to >now, no crank calls. ... Note: NOT about Caller-ID. I wonder if Sedat's blissful crank call-less world is due to the fact that most of Europe -- and I therefore presume Austria -- charges for local calls, making crank calling a much less attractive 'hobby' of the eight-to-ten year olds and drunks that I seem to get? Anyone have any facts or opinions on the relative rates of crank calls. On another track, when I lived in the U.K. we were taught to answer the phone with the number. I presume this dates from a time when the switching system was even less reliable than it is today. But in North America one thing you never do is tell a caller what number s/he has reached. How does the rest of the world answer the phone? Henry Troup - BNR owns but does not share my opinions uunet!bnrgate!hwt%bwdlh490 HWT@BNR.CA 613-765-2337 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Aug 90 11:02:40 EDT From: Jerry Leichter (LEICHTER-JERRY@CS.YALE.EDU) Subject: 1 800 LADYLIB The Lady With the Torch Wants Your 2 Cents Worth (and $15) Got $15 spare and an opinion on the meaning of liberty? Now, you can record it in a data bank in the Statue of Liberty. The money will go toward improving the historical museum in the statue's pedestal. A key supporter of the museum, George M. White, Architect of the U.S. Capitol, set up the fund-raising effort with help from American Telephone and Telegraph Co. Contributors can dial 1 800 LADYLIB, and an operator will take their donations via credit card and type their statements into a computer. The messages will be stored on an AT&T machine in the museum and visitors will be able to read them one by one or find messages by entering the donors' names and hometowns. The first contributor, AT&T Chairman Robert E. Allen, wrote "Liberty is coming of age in the Age of Information." [From Business Week, August 6, 1990. Page 70A. That page is Business Week's "Information Processing" column; they also have a "Developments to Watch" column. Both columns often contain articles of interest of TELECOM readers. For example, the August 6th "IP" column has articles about Chevron's replace- ment of ship-to-shore telex to its oil tankers with a PC-based Email system, and about a $60 device to connect your phone to your PC and use Caller-ID to look up the name of your caller; while the "DTW" column has articles on a "RobotOperator" which provides access to a database keyed off of Caller-ID, and about a new chipset for "smart TV's" that contains enough power to do all sorts of fancy processing - so you'll be able to by ROM chips with programming for new options. A bigger haul than most weeks, but a quick survey shows that there is usually at least one telecom-related article per issue.] Jerry ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Aug 90 12:24:50 CDT From: Rich Zellich Subject: Another One Bites the Dust Releigh Residence Inc., a senior citizens residence, pulled the plug Monday on its hand-operated switch, which AT&T believes is the last "cord board" in St. Louis. It was replaced by a Rolm electronic switch. [from the August 14th edition of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch; Accompanying photo, showing the new switch on top of the old switchboard, credited to Rolm Co.] ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Sprint and WD40 Date: Tue, 14 Aug 90 17:41:48 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers I got a letter from Sprint today. As *I* read it; it says: We won't credit invoice #1, but will credit #3. If you got charged $10.00 for the card, call for a refund. It ain't WD40's fault, it is Sprint's. Me thinks WD40 heard from folks and let Sprint have it in return. wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (305) 255-RTFM pob 570-335 33257-0335 ------------------------------ Organization: Philips Information Systems Subject: Getting Stoned by Telephone Date: Tue, 14 Aug 90 22:30:16 MET From: Dolf Grunbauer Patrick, A couple of weeks ago the following article was published in one of our newspapers: "De Volkskrant", in the column "Dag In, Dag Uit". Here is my translation of the article: Telefonica, the Spanish telephone company, was astonished. "Stoned by sniffing our telephones? Is that possible? Please don't spread it around! Otherwise no telephone booth will survive", a spokesman begged in vain. Spain's Conservative Party will make some questions about this telephone sniffing in the Parliament. The rumour started in Granada. A local newspaper stated that drug adicts were responsible for the sharp increase of vandalism of public telephone booths. A telephone technician said "They break the hearing part out of the telephone and burn the parts because the smoke has a narcotic influance with which they get stoned." His bosses immediately denied it and did counter research. This revealed that no "strange parts" were used in the telephone making. Still the rumour was all around Spain. The PTT acknowledges the increase of repairs of telephone booths. The police thinks that the rumour has started due to the fact that in Granada an old fashioned glue was used to glue the telephone horns together. So it is a variant on the old glue sniffing. No one has been able to prove that Spanish youngsters did get stoned due to the Spanish PTT, like the Spanish opposition keeps on claiming. The Spanish people will desperatly have to search for an undamaged telephone booth as long as the rage of the telephone sniffers lasts. Dolf Grunbauer Tel: +31 55 433233 Internet dolf@idca.tds.philips.nl Philips Information Systems UUCP ...!mcsun!philapd!dolf ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Aug 90 17:59:11 EDT From: Daniel Birchall Subject: Teletype Marked "Crypto" and Other Found Treasures My father and I recently acquired (read: took from a pile of trash marked "free") a teletype machine. I don't know much about such machines, and as far as I am concerned, there is nothing special about this one. Personally, I didn't want to get it. :) However, on the stand (under the keyboard part) someone labeled it (with a black marker, evidently) CRYPTO. Does that mean that this machine will put out encrypted transmissions? Or was it used by some department that had 'crypto' level clearances? Any guesses? Well, my father looked through the stuff we trashpicked, and we have a few questions [I am presuming that telecommunications includes radio frequency] one of the widgets is a CV-89A/URA-8A "Frequency Shift Converter" ... what the heck is that? :) Also, there was an RCA AR-88 Receiver, 540 KC to 32 MC ... Final question, who is or was W2VZM? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #572 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17206; 16 Aug 90 10:17 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06611; 15 Aug 90 23:43 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab10282; 15 Aug 90 22:39 CDT Date: Wed, 15 Aug 90 21:39:17 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #573 BCC: Message-ID: <9008152139.ab01907@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 15 Aug 90 21:39:03 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 573 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson No More Listening in on Cordless Phones in California [John R. Covert] Trunks and Countries [Alex Pournelle] Industry Update [Patricia O'connor] Using Residence Lines for Business [John Higdon] Can I Get to Texas From Here? [Dave Witherspoon] Wierd E-Mail Address [David E. Martin] Looking For On-Line V.35 Specs [Pushpendra Mohta] What is a "Cable Address"? [Davie Brightbill] Re: Basic Questions About Telephones [Craig R. Watkins] Re: 1-555-1212 for Local Directory Assistance? [Greg Monti via J. Covert] Re: Info Needed on COLAN [Marc T. Kaufman] Re: 1-800 Numbers From Europe [Herman Silbiger] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 14 Aug 90 19:05:55 PDT From: "John R. Covert 14-Aug-1990 2201" Subject: No More Listening in on Cordless Phones in California The California Senate has passed and sent to the governor a bill (AB3457) which gives conversations over cordless telephones the same legal protections from eavesdroppers as wire phone conversations. It makes it a misdemeanor, and in some cases a felony, to intercept cordless telephone call without the consent of the parties. The bill also bans manufacture, sale, and possession of any device enabling the user to intercept such communications. It provides for penalties from one year in county jail to three years in state prison with fines of up to $2,500. Don't these people realize that all you need to intercept a cordless phone call is another cordless phone? john ------------------------------ From: Alex Pournelle Subject: Trunks and Countries Organization: Workman & Associates Date: Wed, 15 Aug 90 01:43:02 GMT ndallen@contact.uucp (Nigel Allen) writes: >I called the AccessLogic Technologies ANI number from a University of >Toronto number (416-978-7xxx), and was told that I was calling from >716-852-4200, which is a Buffalo, N.Y., number. I assume the >University of Toronto centrex routed the call through a tieline to >Buffalo. W&A sells SwitchView, a switch management product for SL-1s that runs on XENIX. When we were training in Waterloo, it was mentioned at length (in the LCR and trunk section of our classes) that many Canadian companies lease a lot of lines into Buffalo, because even for intra-province calls, it's cheaper to dial inbound from NY than north of the border! Aren't tariffs a wonderful thing? I'm sworn to secrecy to NOT tell about the volume of 100 milliWatt laser connections between Windsor and Detroit used to bypass the large cross-border tariffs, too. Alex Pournelle, freelance thinker Also: Workman & Associates, Data recovery for PCs, Macs, others ...elroy!grian!alex; BIX: alex; voice: (818) 791-7979 fax: (818) 794-2297 bbs: 791-1013; 8N1 24/12/3 ------------------------------ From: Patricia O'connor Subject: Industry Update Date: 14 Aug 90 23:46:08 GMT Organization: FidoNet node 1:161/555 - MacCircles, Pleasanton CA Several major news items appeared recently: Westamerica Bank is the first bank in the U.S. to offer banking by fax. [Bus. Wire, 8/7] California's trend-setting PUC is embarking on its most far-reaching deregulation of telephone service yet. Its proposal would let the likes of AT&T and MCI compete for regional toll service with local carriers. Regional toll calls are currently priced higher than some long-distance calls. PacTel and GTE say they welcome the change, since the proposal would allow them to offer discounts to large-volume customers. The California agency's proposal could be a model for other states. [Bus. Week, 8/13/90] Bonnie Guiton, director of the US Office of Consumer Affairs, said the Bush Administration believes that Caller ID regulation should be left to state PUCs and the FCC. [Comm. Daily, 8/6/90] NYNEX is seeking an experimental license from the FCC to test digital radio technologies as a possible replacement for physical wires in the local loop. NYNEX would become the first telco to try to use digital radio transmission to deliver conventional telephone service in metropolitan areas. [WSJ, 8/3/90] --- TBBS v2.1/NM Patricia O'connor - via FidoNet node 1:125/777 UUCP: ...!uunet!hoptoad!fidogate!161!555!Patricia.O'connor INTERNET: Patricia.O'connor@f555.n161.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Using Residence Lines for Business Date: 14 Aug 90 23:51:41 PDT (Tue) From: John Higdon From time to time, someone posts how the local telco seems to have the hots to upgrade someone's residence service to business. In Pac*Bell land no one seems overly eager to do this. It took five minutes to convince a Pac*Bell rep that a friend's voice BBS was strictly a non-business enterprize. In fact, I once had the goods on a telemarketer who was using residence lines and got nowhere. In non-rural California, measured service is mandatory for business lines while residences can opt for flat-rate local calling. Some of the telemarketing slimeballs will go to some lengths to stash a couple of harassment machines in someone's house connected to residence circuits. One of these machines called me one evening without the mandatory live person introducing it. For the express purpose of nailing these guys, I answered the machine's questions and indicated that I wanted to have a callback. Then I listened to the machine drop off. To my ear, it was unmistakenly a call from another line in my crossbar's marker group. For those unfamiliar with this sound, it is essentially no sound -- the call just goes away. It can only do this with a call originating from the same switch. When the live person called I made up some excuse to have to call her back. She was very hesitant to give me a call-back number, but when I indicated that it seemed strange doing business with someone who refused to give out a number she gave it to me. It was 265-something. Sure enough, my switch. I reported this to the Pac*Bell business office, telling them that this particular machine had given me the spiel without a live person introducing it. I was later told that I must have some wrong information because the number I provided was residence service so it couldn't possibly be used in telemarketing -- "that would be against tariff!" "Besides," she told me, "the woman who answered the [residence] phone assured me that all the solicitation calls [pertaining to the business she apparently wasn't doing??!!] were made from Wisconsin." Yeah, and I'm Ronald Reagan. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Dave Witherspoon Subject: Can I Get to Texas From Here? Date: 15 Aug 90 13:08:42 GMT Organization: NCR Engineering & Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA I have a question concerning communications with a VAX from afar. A friend of mine is moving from Texas A&M to South Carolina (North Augusta) to begin his career. However, he has a little work left to complete on his thesis. The information (much of which is graphics) resides on one of several VAXes at TA&M. What steps should he take to find out if there is some locally accessible networking facility that will allow him communications with the VAX? Dialing into the VAX is an option, but a bit expensive. Please email or post any suggestions. And by the way, I never frequent this newsgroup as I know zero, zilch, na-da about such things. Thanks in advance. David.Witherspoon@Atlanta.NCR.COM NCR E&M Atlanta: (404) 623-7713 MY OPINIONS...ALL MINE!!! [Moderator's Note: Perhaps if you would frequent this newsgroup for awhile you might rise above your ignorance on telecom-related matters. Then again, maybe not! :) We'll see if anyone can answer you. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Aug 90 12:34:38 EDT From: David E Martin Subject: Wierd E-Mail Address Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, IL My uncle at Skjonberg Controls, Inc., has given me this bizarre email address: E-Mail IMC 3366 KNUT-US He's in Ventura, CA. Anybody have an idea how to get to this address? David E. Martin Phone: (708) 713-5121 FAX: (708) 713-7098 AT&T Bell Laboratories Internet: dem@iexist.att.com ATTMAIL: !dem Naperville, IL 60566 UUCP: ...!att!iexist!dem TELEX: 157212499 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Aug 90 17:44:04 PDT From: Pushpendra Mohta Subject: Looking For On-Line V.35 Specs I wonder if any one has on-line V.35 specs? Thanks, pushpendra ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Aug 1990 23:17:39 EDT From: DJB@scri1.scri.fsu.edu Subject: What is a "Cable Address"? Thanks for the interesting articles on TELEX/TWX in the past few weeks. Can anyone explain what a "cable address" is? For example, the cable address for the Gibraltar Broadcasting Corp. is "Broadcasts." If I wanted to send a cable to them, how would I do it, how would it get there, what would they receive it on, what role does the address play, who keeps track of the address, etc. Davie Brightbill [Moderator's Note: Cable addresses are nothing more than shorthand for the entire telex address. They were devised many years ago by Western Union as a sort of precurser to what we call 'speed dial' today, or 'abbreviated dialing'. Except, you really did not dial anything. You merely passed the cable address to the Western Union agent/operator, who had a lookup table of addresses versus telex numbers. They were used as advertising gimmicks, and ways to easily remember long numbers. Although 'cablegrams' were sent out of the United States and 'telegrams' were sent domestically, they were the same difference, and anyone could have a 'cable address' if they paid Western Union to list it in their tables of same. 'Cable addresses' tended toward to be easy to remember words and phrases. A few I remember still were 'University' (for the U of Chicago); 'Beacon Hill' (I forget who owned it); 'TribTower' (Chicago Tribune); and 'Symphony' (The Chicago Symphony Orchestra). This was all 1950/60-ish stuff. I did not know they were still making them available. I guess any telex carrier can do it. In your example, you would call Western Union and tell the operator to send a message to the cable address "Broadcasts". That is, *IF* s/he even knows what you are talking about! :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Craig R. Watkins" Subject: Re: Basic Questions About Telephones Date: 15 Aug 90 09:16:09 EST Organization: HRB Systems In article <10881@accuvax.nwu.edu>, Julian Macassey writes: > You are right, a telephone line requires two wires or "one > pair" in telco speak. The first pair are the Red and Green and the > second pair are the Yellow and Black. For a one line installation, you > only need to connect the first pair (Red and Green). During the 70's (days of four-prong phone jacks), Rochester Telephone seemed to wire most (single-line) phones with the Yellow/Black positions on the jacks. We all assumed that this was simply to discourage would-be amateur telephone installers. I've never seen the non-standard wiring on RJ-11s unless there were two lines involved. 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: Wed, 15 Aug 90 07:20:19 PDT From: "John R. Covert 15-Aug-1990 1021" Subject: Re: 1-555-1212 for Local Directory Assistance? From: Greg Monti Date: 15 August 1990 Subject: Re: 1-555-1212 for Local Directory Assistance? "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" writes: > 555-1212 - calls within the area code but not local (but almost ALL calls > in each of the area codes are local, except to/from Staten Island > or the Bronx in some limited cases...) Nope. Everything within New York City is local, whether within an NPA or between them, whether crossing a body of water or not. John Cowan writes: > Prior to the 212/718 split here in New York City, the standard method > for getting DA in Manhattan & Bronx was to dial 411; for DA in > Brooklyn, Queens & Staten Island (later to become the 718 NPA), > 555-1212 was standard. I don't know if this was mandatory or just the > recommended procedure. I believe the recommended procedure in the New York area is implied rather than spelled out in the directory: For numbers that would appear in the printed directory serving the area where the phone you are calling from is located, i.e., the directory for your home county or borough: 411. For numbers within your area code but outside the area where your home printed directory is distributed: 555-1212. ("1" never used for seven-digit calls.) For anything else: ("1," if rqd locally) + NPA + 555-1212. Greg Monti, Arlington, Virginia; work +1 202 822-2633 ------------------------------ From: "Marc T. Kaufman" Subject: Re: Info Needed on COLAN Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University Date: Wed, 15 Aug 90 15:50:49 GMT In article <10885@accuvax.nwu.edu> lih@probe.att.com writes: >Can anyone give a description or refer me to some documentation on >COLAN (Central Office Local Area Network)? DAVID systems has a PBX cum Ethernet which has been sold to Ameritech as a CO LAN. There are Ethernet jacks on the back of the phone sets, and any Ethernet capable equipment can be plugged in. Once the data gets to the PBX switch, it is turned into real Ethernet. "Real" Ethernet devices on coax can also be used with the system. Switches can be connected via coax, Ethernet, or (multiple) T-1 spans. Ethernet packets can be gatewayed between switches on any of these links. The CO LAN concept has all voice traffic directed to Centrex (thus removing the voice features of the PBX), while letting the PBX connect Ethernet packets within itself, and, via links to the CO, to other DAVID switches (hence: CO LAN). Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Neon.stanford.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Aug 90 17:29:24 EDT From: hrs1@cbnewsi.att.com Subject: Re: 1-800 Numbers From Europe Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories > Not any more. AT&T's USADirect > These numbers are not listed in foreign phonebooks in any place I've > looked, so be sure to take them with you, or failing that look in a > copy of the IHT. I have been in some countries where the USADirect, (and FranceDirect etc.) numbers are indeed listed in the telephone directory. This was true in Australia, but I think I also saw it some other places. I always read the telephone directory wherever I go. In many countries they provide pages in other languages for visitors. The Japanese directory is totally useless unless you know Kanji. In article <10700@accuvax.nwu.edu>, root@joymrmn.UUCP (Marcel D. Mongeon) writes: > Some time ago, I wrote that I was looking for a list of 800 numbers > for the inward direct service for as many countries as possible. I have found in some hotels in the US (Hyatt, Westin) a booklet with extensive information about calling home. It provides information on acceptance of credit cards, collect calls, etc. from and to other countries, Home Direct and USA Direct numbers, country codes, time zones, and a wealth of other information. The booklet is published by AT&T, but has a cover provided by the hotel. It may be possible to obtain a copy of this book from AT&T. You could try AT&T International Service information (1 800 874-4000). Herman Silbiger ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #573 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17532; 16 Aug 90 10:34 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31428; 16 Aug 90 9:05 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12273; 16 Aug 90 2:17 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab06619; 16 Aug 90 0:44 CDT Date: Thu, 16 Aug 90 0:21:33 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #574 BCC: Message-ID: <9008160021.ab22952@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 16 Aug 90 00:21:05 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 574 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Thirty Five Years of Recorded Announcements [TELECOM Moderator] Long Distance Piracy Jolts Phone Bills [TELECOM Moderator] Re: Slowest Dialable Number [Chris Williams] Re: A New Feature One Might Build Into a Phone [Danny] Re: The LAW vs. Telephone Access Devices [Jim Budler] Re: Plagued by Wrong Number Calls [Bob Hale] AT&T Catalog of Products [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 15 Aug 90 22:14:38 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Thirty Five Years of Recorded Announcements This summer marks the 35th anniversary of the first recorded announcements given over the telephone for other than telephone company purposes. Likewise, the 'time of day' message is from an earlier era. Beginning in 1927, telephone companies began getting tired of people ringing up the operator to ask 'what time is it?', so they established special numbers for that purpose. In the beginning, a live person sat there and announced the time upon request, and there were very few ten second intervals that *someone* did not dial in asking for it. The original number for the time of day in New York City was NERVOUS. A jewelry store in Manhattan sponsored it for many years. Recorded messages giving out the weather forecast started in 1950 in Philadelphia and Cleveland on an experimental basis. It seems a lot of people had been calling the operator to ask what the temperature was that day, and the telcos got tired of that also! :) But for other purposes, recorded announcements began in August, 1955 in Scarsdale, NY when Hitchcock Memorial Church began broadcasting recorded prayers continuously over a special telephone line installed for that purpose. By a year later, churches all over the United States were experimenting with this new technology, offering 'Dial-A-Prayer' telephone lines. New York's Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church averages 800 calls per hour around the clock on their present system. About 1958, theatres began using recorded announcements advertising the pictures and the times they played, however the recorded telephone message concept was mainly used by churches until the middle sixties. In 1968, Chicagoan Sherman Skolnik started a recorded message commentary on the news which ran five minutes in length, was changed daily, and has continued to this day, 22 years later. In the early 1970's, several non-religious recordings were available, including a convention and tourist message in Chicago; a 'gay news and events' recorded message here, and others. Of course today, there are literally thousands of free recorded annoucements to hear, to say nothing of the many operating on premium charge lines (900/976 numbers). Except for telco weather and time messages, public programming / general interest recorded announcements began 35 years ago this week. And, it was just ten years ago that 900 service was started by AT&T, to handle the calls received in the Carter/Reagan debate in 1980. Should we celebrate the anniversary? More than a few people have gotten rich from telephone recorded announcements, that's for sure! Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Aug 90 22:51:44 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Long Distance Piracy Jolts Phone Bills An article of interest in the {Chicago Sun Times}, Monday, August 13 discussed phone phreaks who gain access to companies' outgoing phone lines via incoming 800 numbers tied into the PBX. Writer Lisa Holton discussed 'sophisticated thieves who take advantage of lax firms, casuing (the firm) to pay the piper.' In one notorious example from the not-to-distant past in Chicago, a company had been getting monthly bills for their long distance service of $2500 to $4000 per month. Then one month, the bill came and the total was $105,000. It was not a misprint. It seems in this case, on a Saturday between 8 AM and 8 PM, when no one was working, there had been several *thousand* internatinal calls placed through the company PBX. Someone had gotten a list of the valid PIN codes, then sold them to dozens of buyers, usually in immigrant neighborhoods, for $20-$30 each. Sometimes more than one person bought the same code number. According to Loren Proctor, Chicago area regional security manager for US Sprint, incidents like this are quite common, although not necessarily as outrageous. He said Sprint can often times detect a fraudulent pattern going on, but the company disclaims responsibility for fraud calls made through a company's own switch. Ms. Holton discussed three common techniques used by phreaks to obtain access codes: 1) Playing the numbers game: This is simply the brute force technique. Have your computer just keep trying number combinations until one or more work. Because many PINS are only four digits, it is just a matter of time -- a short time, really -- until valid codes are found. 2) Buttering up the company operator: The phreak calls up a company, and asks to be transferred to the sales department, or somewhere. He gets the department receptionist and says he made a mistake, could he please be transferred back to the operator. Now his call is on an inside line, so who else could the operator be talking to besides an employee? If the operator is busy, or not paying attention to who she is talking to, the phreak can talk her into giving him an outside line. Bingo, a three hour call to his mother somewhere. 3) Looking for codes in all the right places: In this example, thieves were hanging out at Port Authority Bus Terminal and at LaGuardia International Airport. They were using binoculars and telephoto lenses on cameras to watch people making 800 calls into their company PBX. These guys were writing down the 800 numbers and PIN codes, then giving them to partners up on 171st Street who would sell them for $20 each. They also watched for people to enter 950 numbers followed by codes and Sprint's 800 number, followed by codes. This went on for about 24 hours before Sprint caught on to what was happening. So, according to Ms. Holton's article, the experts give these tips to help prevent piracy of your long distance lines: 1) Change PINS as often as possible. If PINS change quite frequently, it will be more difficult to find one that's valid. 2) Give the PIN as many digits as possible. According to Mr. Proctor of Sprint, fourteen digit codes are now common with long distance carriers. The longer the PIN, the more difficult it is to learn by the brute force method. 3) Limit access to the PBX: Take an analysis of everyone who is using the phone system and WATS lines. Does the shipping clerk need the same access as the Chairman of the Board? Toll-restrict 900 numbers, as well as off-site 800 number access by time of day or day of week. Limit the number of calls a user can make in a single day. Some companies go so far as to pull the plug on the PBX after 6 PM, so that *no one* -- phreaks included -- can use the phone. 4) A device is available from Information Innovators in Virginia Beach, VA which is attached to the PBX via a PC. It will shut down an 800 line for a short period or indefinitly if it senses someone is making repeated efforts to break in or locate a valid PIN. None of this, of course, comes as anything new to TELECOM Digest readers, but I thought you would enjoy excerpts from the 'tutorial' given in the {Sun Times} for businesses plagued with phone abuse problems. Another reference is the August issue of {Teleconnect}, which has a lengthy story on this same topic. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: cgw@vaxb.acs.unt.edu Subject: Re: Slowest Dialable Number Date: 15 Aug 90 13:14:29 GMT In article <10874@accuvax.nwu.edu>, barrey@ka (Barrey Jewall) writes: > When I called 900-555-1212, I got to listen to a LONG (about 3 minute) > recording of services available via 900 number. The recording was (of > course) scratchy, and barely audible during some portions. The numbers > listed seemed to be in no particular order, just sort of jumbled in. That's odd, when I called, the recording was very clear and understandable, although the woman speaking sounded like she was out of breath more than once or twice. :-) I didn't notice any sort of order either. > I doubt many people use the 900-555-1212 number to find their 900 > numbers. I also doubt that. I've seen more ads for 900 services in the backs of assorted magazines than were listed on the recording. chris williams, `gilligan' | cgw@vaxb.acs.unt.edu programmer/operator | UTSPAN::UTADNX::NTVAX::CGW university of north texas | CGW@UNTVAX {.bitnet} denton, texas 76203 | at&t : +1 817 565-4161 ------------------------------ From: U5434122@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au Subject: Re: A New Feature One Might Build Into a Phone Date: 16 Aug 90 10:20:18 (UTC+10:00) Organization: The University of Melbourne In article <10715@accuvax.nwu.edu>, synsys!jeffj@uunet.uu.net writes: > In Volume 10, Issue 547, Message 9 of 15, Message-ID: <10550@accuvax. > nwu.edu>, John Nagle posted: >> Now here's a thought. We all know the announcments which begin >>with a special three-tone sequence followed by "The number you have >>reached...". How about a voice recognition unit to recognize the new >>number and update your autodialer? The spoken digits are well > I'll go you one better: right after the tritone (that's called a SIT, > right?), transmit the data DIGITALLY with a modem, the same FSK as > used in Caller-ID. Rather than using a modem, DTMF signalling could be used. It is not as fast, but what's an extra couple of seconds, when you don't have to wait for the modems to CONNECT? > This is kind to machines: > The tritone is the header followed immediately by the data. Why not have the dialling machine respond with a DTMF (Touch tone) code which says, "Please inform of new number." This would necessitate putting a tone interpreter into the ANI (or whatever) system, but that can't be the hardest part of the exercise. Modems already have tone senders in them. A tone interpreter should not be too difficult, and the modem could inform the controlling software with messages like 'TONE 1' or 'TONE *' etc. > This is kind to humans: > The tritone is loud and annoying already so a little more screaming > won't hurt. > FAX/modem/autodialer manufacturers should love this: > If the machine recognizes the tritone and can act accordingly, you'll > prevent repeated failed calls. You could automatically update the > phone list when a new number is given. The retry mechanism could > adapt if the line is temporarily out of service or give up if it's > permanently out of service. > I'd expect a CCITT definition of the command to be something like a 16 > bit command followed by a variable length field. The commands would > be specified like: > command: 0000h Number out of service > following data: none CCITT could also define something like: Tritone - If you are a machine, press '* 0 #' to request status report. After the modem has dialled its '* 0 #' the CO can send: 1 - All lines busy 2 - Number out of service 3 - Number changed Modem responds with '*' New number is sent. etc. A really clever modem could conduct the conversation by itself, a more basic unit could simply report the tones received and allow software control. Of course, if there is no machine response after the initial tritone, a voice can inform the human of the number. Danny ------------------------------ From: Jim Budler Subject: Re: The LAW vs. Telephone Access Devices Reply-To: Jim Budler Organization: Silvar-Lisco,Inc. Sunnyvale Ca. Date: Wed, 15 Aug 90 06:48:02 GMT In article <10844@accuvax.nwu.edu> annala%neuro.usc.edu@usc.edu (A J Annala) writes: >I do some data communications technician type contracting work from >time to time (e.g. installing modems, analog line testing, protocol >analysis, etc). There have been notes on the network about police >confiscating equipment of the type I often use in my work. These [list of telecom devices deleted] >Tone Generator. The police claim is that such devices are telephone >access devices which should not be in the hands of the public. I am >curious about whether any other technical people have been challenged >by the police and what answer has satisfied them to go away without >hassle. >All of these devices can be purchased over the counter or by mail at [locations deleted for brevity] >appears to be to be completely ludicrous to claim these tools must not >be found in the possession of members of the public. They are >ordinary tools. Go down to your local hardware store. Buy a product called "Wonder Bar", or for that matter any of the similar high tensile steel *flat* crowbars. They are *very* useful tools around the home. *Don't* be caught carrying one of them at night behind someone else's home. The police call it a jemmy, and it is probable cause for arrest on suspicion of burglary. You can buy hollow point ammunition in any sporting goods store, but the practical difference between a hollow point cartridge and a "dum-dum" cartridge is none. And a "dum-dum" is illegal. The police *understand* how to determine realistically whether you are a burglar or a homeowner. They haven't a clue how to determine the same with the type of instruments you described. So they turned to the "experts", such as ATT and BellSouth. I think it was prudent on their part to go to experts. What is unfortunate is that they appear to have picked "experts" who have vested interests, and are willing to exercise them. The "police" have gotten burnt by BellSouth, and may be in the process of getting burnt by ATT. One hopes they learn from it. One point of view about this. If you were a policeman, and wanted to contact someone in a phone company, who would you call? Right, the *security guy*. Back in the old Marx Brothers movies, they were called "House Dicks". So now we have the police calling up their *security guy* at the phone company and saying "How can I identify a burgler?" Do you think they would get the same answer as they would get from Pat Townson, Gene Spafford, or even Robert Morris (take your pick of jr. or sr.)? I don't. Oops, sorry. Too long. But I own a "Wonder Bar", a couple handguns, and I recently bought over the counter some hollow point cartridges, and now wonder if these are "dum-dums" in police terms. I have to assume that since the "Wonder Bar" never leaves home, the pistols are at home or at the range, or in between, that I only have to worry during the "in between". Sigh. Jim Budler jimb@silvlis.com +1.408.991.6061 Silvar-Lisco, Inc. 703 E. Evelyn Ave. Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086 ------------------------------ From: Bob Hale Subject: Re: Plagued by Wrong Number Calls Reply-To: hale@btree.UCSD.EDU (Bob Hale) Organization: Brooktree Corporation, San Diego Date: Wed, 15 Aug 90 19:42:16 GMT In article <10568@accuvax.nwu.edu> erik@naggum.uu.no (Erik Naggum) writes: [wrong number discussion omitted] >My sleep-wake cycle is somewhat chaotic, so it gets very annoying at >times. I have ordered another phone line, unlisted ("secret" to the >Norwegian telco). I have a friend who used to have a major problem with wrong numbers. His number was different by 1 in one digit from that of the Camp Pendleton Marine Base brig near San Diego, California. He was awakened about 3AM one day by someone who wanted to know "Do you have Private Jones in the brig?" He quickly improvised the answer "No, we took him out in back and shot him." My friend eventually moved and abandoned the problem. I wonder if the new holder of that phone number is as inventive. Bob Hale ...!ucsd!btree!hale 619-535-3234 ...!btree!hale@ucsd.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Aug 90 22:14:38 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: AT&T Catalog Of Products The AT&T Catalog is now available to the public. Phones, computers, FAX machines, headsets and more. Almost everything they sell is listed. To get your copy, call 1-800-635-8866. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #574 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07968; 17 Aug 90 10:52 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11369; 17 Aug 90 9:27 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01012; 16 Aug 90 22:55 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00467; 16 Aug 90 21:20 CDT Date: Thu, 16 Aug 90 20:30:22 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #575 BCC: Message-ID: <9008162030.ab02487@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 16 Aug 90 20:30:11 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 575 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Teletype Marked "Crypto" and Other Found Treasures [Michael Riddle] Re: Teletype Marked "Crypto" and Other Found Treasures [David Ritchie] Re: What is a "Cable Address"? [Lars Poulsen] Re: What is a "Cable Address"? [Rich Zellich] Re: Basic Questions About Telephones [David Brightbill] Re: No More Listening in on Cordless Phones in California [John Higdon] Re: Long Distance Piracy Jolts Phone Bills [John Higdon] Re: Looking For On-Line V.35 Specs [Chip Rosenthal] Re: Info Needed on COLAN [Robert Halloran] Re: Numbering Plan Changes (was Re: Is 510 Area Code Active?) [Ron Newman] Re: Numbering Plan Changes (was Re: Is 510 Area Code Active?) [Carl Moore] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: riddle@hoss.unl.edu (Michael H. Riddle) Subject: Re: Teletype Marked "Crypto" and Other Found Treasures Organization: University of Nebraska, Computing Resource Center Date: Thu, 16 Aug 90 19:39:21 GMT In <10923@accuvax.nwu.edu> Daniel Birchall writes: >My father and I recently acquired (read: took from a pile of trash >marked "free") a teletype machine. >[marked] CRYPTO. Does that mean that this machine will put >out encrypted transmissions? Or was it used by some department that >had 'crypto' level clearances? Any guesses? >one of the widgets is a CV-89A/URA-8A "Frequency Shift >Converter" ... what the heck is that? :) Also, there was an RCA AR-88 >Receiver, 540 KC to 32 MC ... Final question, who is or was W2VZM? Ah, old memories! Sounds to me like you picked up the NON-crypto part of an old radio-teletype set. The CV-89 converted the frequency-shift keying into marks and spaces for the teletype machine. From the "Crypto" part, at least the table, if not the whole set, at one time was hooked through a cryptographic device. (I guess another explanation would be an offline crypto unit. I certainly spent many an hour repairing them). Your final question, W2VZM is an amateur call sign. I'll leave it for the hams in the group to explain if there was anything special about it. riddle@hoss.unl.edu riddle@crchpux.unl.edu mike.riddle@f27.n285.z1.fidonet.org Sysop on 1:285/27 @ Fidonet ------------------------------ From: David Ritchie Subject: Re: Teletype Marked "Crypto" and Other Found Treasures Date: 16 Aug 90 17:23:42 GMT Organization: Hewlett Packard - Boise, ID Sounds like a pile of surplus government equipment from one of the services. The CV-89A is a device for converting levels (in this case, the current loop from the teletype) into a pair of tones for transmission. It most likely does the inverse function also. In short, it is a modem. The AR-88 is a general coverage shortwave receiver. W2VZM is an amateur radio call. There is a server that is telnet'able that could provide you with the 'who' behind the call. Dave Ritchie N4DJS ------------------------------ From: Lars Poulsen Subject: Re: What is a "Cable Address"? Organization: Rockwell CMC Date: Thu, 16 Aug 90 16:54:36 GMT In article <10932@accuvax.nwu.edu> DJB@scri1.scri.fsu.edu writes: > ... Can anyone explain what a "cable address" is? ... >[Moderator's Note: Cable addresses are nothing more than shorthand for >the entire telex address. They were devised many years ago by Western >Union as a sort of precurser to what we call 'speed dial' today, or >'abbreviated dialing'. Except, you really did not dial anything. You >merely passed the cable address to the Western Union agent/operator, >who had a lookup table of addresses versus telex numbers. ...] Before FAX, there was TELEX (TWX), and before TELEX there was TELEGRAPH. In the original incarnation, telegraph was an "express mail service", where you took your (short) letter down to the railway station[*]; the telegraph operator sent the message in morse code down the line, until it wound up in the destination city, where it would get transcribed on paper and be delivered by messenger. In order to deliver the message, it needed to contain the destination street address. Since the messages were charged by the word, this could be quite a significant fraction of the cost, as well as being cumbersome and error prone. Thus began the practice of registering one-word "cable addresses", such as "Tribune, Chicago". I.e. the address would be just one word besides the destination city name. Since this produced less revenue for the cable carrier, they charged for registering the address. When TELEX was introduced, it was first used as an update to the implementation of the telegraph system. TTYs operated on point-to-point lines, and operators carried punched tapes across the room for the next hop of the journey of the message. This was faster than morse code, and required less operator training. Later, automated circuit switches (imported from the telephone world) allowed end-to-end connections, for the duration of the message, and allowed the wire carriers to lease terminals to subscribers for installation on their premises, similar to telephones. This must have happened in the 1940's or thereabouts. While the storefront small-user service remained unchanged, it was at that point merely an emulation of the old user interface; the whole system ran internally on dial-up TELEX service. When I lived in Denmark until ten years ago, the post office still offered telegram service, complete with messenger delivery. You could also phone in telegraph messages, and they would be charged on your phone bill, in the same manner as operator-assisted long-distance telephone calls. There was a SEPARATE service offered by the phone company, called "phono-telex" which was cheaper, for submitting messages to telex subscribers; i.e. there was no messenger involved. By the 1970's, old fashioned telegrams were only used for formal greetings to formal parties, such as weddings, confirmations, anniversaries, cityhood anniversaries, ship launchings, party congresses etc. For such occasions, the Postal Service offered formal "celebration forms" with art prints in various styles. I recently heard that the old fashioned telegraph service has now been completely abandoned, but at the same time souvenir covers are now offered as a delivery option for special delivery fax messages. The more things change, the more we get to appreciate the funny ways in which history survives. [*] The railways needed telegraphs for co-ordinating operations; it was natural that they should try to make a business out of excess capacity. But as the telegraph business grew, it apparently was spun off. I often wonder if the "Western Union" company is not really a railway company that has stopped running trains. Pat, do you have a piece on the history of WU ? / Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer CMC Rockwell lars@CMC.COM [Moderator's Note: There were numerous small telegraph companies all over the United States in the 1860-80 period. A group of investors began buying them up, using a lot of the same tricks -- uh, excuse me, I mean 'business techniques' -- Ted Vail would use a half century later to grab up hundreds of tiny telcos everywhere for his 'one way of doing things' Bell Telephone System. It was this merger, or 'union' of many telegraph companies, all of whom would be sharing their lines and facilities which led to the organization we call Western Union Telegraph Co. The fact that there were few competitors left in the United States attested to their success in monopolizing the market. Just as Ted Vail and his pals began an agressive effort to grab as much as possible once the patents on the telephone expired -- which forced them to deal with competitors -- so Samuel Morse and his partners wasted no time once Mr. Morse's patent was due to expire. By the time the telephone was invented, Western Union was already a huge organization. Unlike Alex Bell's first message on the telephone, ("Watson! Come here, I want you."), the first telegraph message from Samuel Morse to an associate was "What Hath God Wrought?" Indeed. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Aug 90 12:19:15 CDT From: Rich Zellich Subject: Re: What Are "Cable Addresses"? Does anyone remember the "Paladin" TV western series? His business card read "Wire PALADIN, San Francisco" - it was a few years after the series ended that I found out what that really meant. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Aug 90 08:37:27 -0400 From: David Brightbill Subject: Re: Basic Questions About Telephones My first experience with troubleshooting telco lines happened in a hotel during a tradeshow around 1975 or so. I was selling PLATO connect time and had brought a terminal to show off the system. The local telco supplied a phone instrument and jack (old four prong) which worked fine. When I plugged in my DAA (had one mounted in a briefcase with a trimline phone and transfer switch), I had a dead line. Of course, Southern Bell had supplied a line with the black/yellow pair live and had switched the lines on their instrument so that it would work. ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: No More Listening in on Cordless Phones in California Date: 16 Aug 90 10:43:23 PDT (Thu) From: John Higdon John R. Covert writes: > The bill also bans manufacture, sale, and possession of any device > enabling the user to intercept such communications. It provides for > penalties from one year in county jail to three years in state prison > with fines of up to $2,500. Wouldn't this be a little tough to enforce at a state level? You don't suppose they never heard of "mail order"? Besides, I thought all of this was under the auspices of the FCC, and that states and municipalities had no jurisdiction over the airwaves. And, once again, what about continuously tuned radios? By the time everyone gets their "protected" status, the only kind of receiver the public will be able to buy will be for broadcast transmissions. Judging from the state of broadcasting these days, it won't be long before interest wanes in these as well. > Don't these people realize that all you need to intercept a cordless > phone call is another cordless phone? True, but with the newer multi-channel, auto-select models, it is somewhat difficult. I have a Panasonic KX-T3900 and an AT&T 5500 that are frequently used simultaneously (the bases sit next to each other) and they never, ever experience mutual interference. It is most tricky to get one to "eavedrop" on the other. 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: Long Distance Piracy Jolts Phone Bills Date: 16 Aug 90 11:05:47 PDT (Thu) From: John Higdon TELECOM Moderator writes: > Ms. Holton discussed three common techniques used by phreaks to obtain > access codes: > 2) Buttering up the company operator: The phreak calls up a company, > and asks to be transferred to the sales department, or somewhere. He > gets the department receptionist and says he made a mistake, could he > please be transferred back to the operator. Now his call is on an > inside line, so who else could the operator be talking to besides an > employee? If the operator is busy, or not paying attention to who she > is talking to, the phreak can talk her into giving him an outside > line. Bingo, a three hour call to his mother somewhere. I would really be interested in knowing what kind of brain-dead PBX could be used to serve a large enough operation where one could hope to get away with this. Every system I have ever dealt with (AT&T, Rolm, ITT, Mitel, Siemens, Toshiba) clearly identifies to the attendant that an outside call being transferred back from a station is just that-- a returning outside call. It does not appear as an "inside" call. Giving that caller an outside line would become a "trunk to trunk" transfer, an option that can be denied in programming. Also, virtually all PBXes, even down to the lowly Panasonics, identify to a station whether the call is from the inside or outside via distinctive ringing. While transferring a call, the destination will have a double ring and when the person doing the transfer hangs up the ring will change to single. In short, it is just about impossible to masquerade as an inside call from the outside. There is one possible exception -- DISA access. This allows a person to dial a special line and then dial within the PBX. DISAs are protected by authorization codes, however, and on most switches still appear as outside calls to inside users, including the operator. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Chip Rosenthal Subject: Re: Looking For On-Line V.35 Specs Date: 16 Aug 90 17:10:21 GMT Organization: Unicom Systems Development, Austin, TX In article <10931@accuvax.nwu.edu> pushp@cerf.net (Pushpendra Mohta) writes: >I wonder if any one has on-line V.35 specs? If they do, the CCITT would probably like to know about it. These are copywritten materials. You can probably find the CCITT blue books at any reasonable engineering library. Chip Rosenthal chip@chinacat.Unicom.COM Unicom Systems Development, 512-482-8260 ------------------------------ From: Robert Halloran Subject: Re: Info Needed on COLAN Date: 16 Aug 90 19:37:03 GMT Organization: AT&T BL Middletown/Lincroft NJ USA In article <10885@accuvax.nwu.edu> lih@probe.att.com writes: >Can anyone give a description or refer me to some documentation on >COLAN (Central Office Local Area Network)? CO-LAN (at least the version I know about) is a data-over-voice network offered by some of the RBOC's. The user takes a VDM (voice-data mux), plugs it into the phone line, then connects the terminal/PC/whatever and the phone set into the VDM. The unit modulates the data stream above the voice band and carries it to the CO, where it is broken back out by another VDM there and typically fed into a Datakit VCS data switch for access to host services. The VDM can handle input to 19.2K baud. The user must be within three "wire-miles" of the CO for the VDM to be able to successfully drive the line. Our group (w/ NJ Bell) manages a CO-LAN for AT&T employees in four CO's of Monmouth county where the density makes it sensible (there must be a threshold number of potential users to justify parking the data switch at the CO). I know of at least one other CO-LAN for AT&T employees in northern NJ (the Murray Hill area). Bob Halloran Internet: rkh@mtune.dptg.att.com UUCP: att!mtune!rkh Disclaimer: If you think AT&T would have ME as a spokesman, you're crazed. ------------------------------ From: Ron Newman Subject: Re: Numbering Plan Changes (was Re: Is 510 Area Code Active?) Organization: Lotus Development Corp. Date: Thu, 16 Aug 90 20:56:29 GMT > [Moderator's Note: Another good example is little Rhode Island. All of > an area code for what? ... a couple hundred thousand phones at most? PAT] You'd be surprised, but the 1980 census shows 947,154 people living in Rhode Island. That's more than the District of Columbia and at least ten states, including Alaska, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Delaware. Ron Newman ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Aug 90 10:06:40 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Numbering Plan Changes (was Re: Is 510 Area Code Active?) Isn't Delaware even smaller, telephone-wise, than Rhode Island? (Rhode Island does have the smaller land area.) [Moderator's Note: Probably. Then there is Our Nation's (Drug and Murder) Capitol, which gets a whole code for itself, and as the earlier message points out, Alaska, Nevada and other states with an entire, mostly unused area code. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #575 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13561; 17 Aug 90 16:30 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad01646; 17 Aug 90 14:47 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12840; 17 Aug 90 0:31 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab01012; 16 Aug 90 22:55 CDT Date: Thu, 16 Aug 90 21:50:39 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #576 BCC: Message-ID: <9008162150.ab28063@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 16 Aug 90 21:50:21 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 576 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Solar Powered Cellular PBX [Alex Pournelle] Re: Phone Service in Ireland [B.J. Haughey] Re: No More Listening in on Cordless Phones in California [Kevin Mitchell] Re: Crank Calls [Carl Moore] Re: Thirty Five Years of Recorded Announcements [Carl Moore] Re: Gummit Paranoia [Colin Plumb] Using an ISDN D Channel to Set Up Analog Trunks [Eric Hildum] US Sprint WD-40 Promotion Revisited [David M. Kurtiak] Help Needed Building Home Intercom [Martin Grossman] Phonemate ADAM: All Digital Answering Machine [Michael Graff] Cell Phone Roaming/Daily Activation Fee [Peter B. Hayward] Easy Roaming Service [David J. Farber] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Alex Pournelle Subject: Re: Solar Powered Cellular PBX Organization: Workman & Associates Date: Thu, 16 Aug 90 09:56:35 GMT JDurand@cup.portal.com writes: >I am trying to size a solar power system to run the telephone system >at our reseach facility and need some help. Before anyone suggests >coverage and only need one CO line, the rest are intercom/PA). The >questions are: > 1. How much power does the Panasonic unit draw from the battery > input and at what voltage(s)? Pinout of battery connector? Call Panasonic or Rat Shack and ask. Better yet, find one (your local supplier will have one around, or won't get your order) in a working state and bring your ammmmmmeter along. Don't forget to plug in a device to all the ports and take them off-hook -- they're line-powered! Now, if you could just use 48 Volts, you could snarf power from TPC directly and not have any power costs :-)! Alex Pournelle, freelance thinker Also: Workman & Associates, Data recovery for PCs, Macs, others ...elroy!grian!alex; BIX: alex; voice: (818) 791-7979 fax: (818) 794-2297 bbs: 791-1013; 8N1 24/12/3 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Aug 90 14:20 GMT From: bjh Subject: Re: Phone Service in Ireland From: nixbur!jobrien@eecs.nwu.edu (John O'Brien): >I am going to Ireland in a couple of weeks and I am wondering what the >phone service is like there. Specifically: >1.) Can I use my Sprint FON card to call the US? >2.) Can I use my Sprint card for local Irish calls? >3.) I have an AT&T Universal card. Can I use it to > make calls within Ireland or to the US? Hi. It is possible to use the AT&T card to call the States - this would be done by calling the Operator responsible for international calls (114) and giving them the number, I suppose. You can't use the Sprint card. As for local calls, I'd just pay the 30c fee ! Regards, bjh University College Dublin ------------------------------ From: kam@dlogics.COM (Kevin Mitchell) Subject: Re: No More Listening in on Cordless Phones in California Date: 16 Aug 90 15:11:20 GMT Organization: Datalogics Inc., Chicago In article <10925@accuvax.nwu.edu>, covert@covert.enet.dec.com (John R. Covert writes: > Don't these people realize that all you need to intercept a cordless > phone call is another cordless phone? Or, you can use any good scanner. My Radio Shack PRO-34 sometimes stops on cordless phone frequencies -- they're crammed in between frequencies for other VHF services. Also, since a radio receiver can sometimes receive images offset by twice the Intermediate Frequency (10.7 MHz on the PRO-34, for an image offset of 21.4 MHz), I find it hard to search the 800 MHz public service bands for all the images of cellular calls that crop up there. (You get the image only if there isn't a stronger signal on the desired frequency). The PRO-34's come with the cellular range locked out. Changing the programming to avoid the few cordless frequencies hiding among other stuff would be prohibitive. My opinion on the matter are that other's phone calls are pretty boring and mundane anyway. Most of the cellular trash images that show up are either (1) Ringing tones, (2) somebody's answering machine message, or (3) "Honey I'll be a few minutes late." Federal law prohibits divulging the content in any case, or using the information received to commit a crime (spelled out in big bold letters on the first page of the {Police Call} frequency directory). Kevin A. Mitchell (312) 266-4485 Datalogics, Inc Internet: kam@dlogics.UUCP 441 W. Huron UUCP: ..!uunet!dlogics!kam Chicago, IL 60610 FAX: (312) 266-4473 [Moderator's Note: Actually, people who have done modifications to the PRO-34 to expand the coverage in the 800 megs range have discovered that in the process of moving a diode on the board, they lose all of the 30-50 meg (low VHF) range as a result. Highly illegal to make the mods in the first place, of course. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Aug 90 13:08:16 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Crank Calls Henry Troup writes that in UK he was taught to answer the phone with the number, but that in North America this is not done. If there is a problem with a wrong number, you might ask the caller what number he/she is trying to reach. Also, I have had at least one or two cases where I reached an answering machine which announced the number I had reached (in lieu of giving out a person's name?). ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Aug 90 13:25:40 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Thirty Five Years of Recorded Announcements Ten years ago that 900 service was started? (Stated reason was to handle calls received in Carter/Reagan debate, 1980.) It was also written in the Digest that Carter had a toll-free 900 number in 1977 for a special call-in. [Moderator's Note: I realy don't remember if he did or not. I think the first general use of 900 -- where it was offered for sale to companies promoting things -- was following the Reagan/Carter debates. Prior use, including the debate call-in was mostly experimental. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Colin Plumb Subject: Re: Gummit Paranoia Date: Thu, 16 Aug 1990 17:55:54 -0400 Organization: Array Systems Computing, Inc., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA Or you can consider the time I was wandering around downtown Toronto at 4:00 on a monday morning festooned with needle-nose pliers, a crescent wrench, vice-grips, wire cutters, a pin punch (very useful for breaking locks open, BTW), screwdrivers, and various other evidence that I would win an encounter with anything mechanical. On my back was a knapsack filled with 50m of climbing rope, a harness, webbing, a descender, carabiners ... just what all those urban commandos in movies need. Nobody even looked at me oddly, but it would have really troubled any paranoid authorities. (To forestall all the mail, it was a late-night fantasy gaming session which was "come as you are"; we'd try to tranlate the person that walked in the door into GURPS terms and dump them in a situation. I adopted the Boy Scout's motto and came prepared.) Colin ------------------------------ From: Eric Hildum Subject: Using an ISDN D Channel to Set Up Analog Trunks Date: 16 Aug 90 16:41:47 GMT Reply-To: ntmtv!hildum@amdahl.com (Eric Hildum) Organization: Northern Telecom (Mountain View, CA) Regarding SS#7 from PBX'es to CO's, you can even go one step further. It is possible to use an ISDN D channel to do call setup for your analog trunks and DS1 trunks as well as the B channels. See the ISDN product description in the Meridian I documentation (NTP 553-2901-100), ISDN Signalling Link. ------------------------------ From: dmk@cup.portal.com Subject: US Sprint WD-40 Promotion Revisited Date: Wed, 15 Aug 90 19:31:45 PDT Just today I received a bulk-mailed letter from US Sprint. Instead of just normally tossing it into the circular file, I opened it and discovered an apology for the "recent" WD-40 promotion. I'll save my comments for later ... body of letter follows: 8140 Ward Parkway Kansas City, MO 64114-8417 [US Sprint logo] August 1, 1990 Dear US Sprint Customer, Thank you for recently choosing US Sprint long distance service through the WD-40 promotion. Unfortunately, we have encountered problems in processing and applying your 60 minute credit to your first invoice. We have resolved this difficulty and your credit will appear on your third invoice. You may have also received a $10.00 FONCARD (sm) installation fee on the first invoice you received. You are not responsible for this fee and we will be happy to waive it if you will contact our Customer Service Center at 1-800-877-4646. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you. These systems problems were the result of unavoidable circumstances at US Sprint and were not connected in any way to WD-40's participation in this program. US Sprint appreciates your business and if you have any questions or concerns, please contact one of our Customer Service Representatives. Sincerely, [signed] Chris Stanford US Sprint Customer Service <** End of letter **> My comments: Gee, I guess that March of this year is recent enough to be called "recent" ... and seeing that I've never used the card, I guess it is appropriate to say "We're sorry" before you have to call and wait and wait and. I'd just *love* to hear of the "unavoidable" system problem that caused the "difficulty". Perhaps the old, formerly retired Z80 based TRS-80 Model I used for billing in the last decade has been reinstated in their marketing department ... any ideas?? :-) WD-40's participation is disclaimed enough, maybe they put 'em to it. Just a thought. David M. Kurtiak Internet: dmk@cup.portal.com K1X Computer Solutions ATT Mail: !dkurtiak P.O. Box # 74 Phone-net: (908)457-7693 Hampton, NJ 08827-0074 ------------------------------ Subject: Help Needed Building Home Intercom Date: Thu, 16 Aug 90 07:46:43 -0400 From: Martin Grossman I would like to setup a mini phone service at my home connecting just two or three phones. What do I need to buy (Radio Shack) to do this? -------- -------- |phone |------------------------|phone | | |------------------------| | -------- -------- |ringer| |ringer| -------- -------- MISC INFO: 1) There will be no connections to any regular telco phone lines. 2) The little box's above marked ringer should be small and right next to the phone(s). They should just have 1 button each and ring the other phone(s) when depressed. 3) The box's marked phone should be any phone that can be hooked upto the standard (US) phone system. 4) I understand just a little about how phones work... a) I think its 50-60VAC at 20-30HZ to ring a phone b) phone looks like inf resistance/reactance when on hook c) phone looks like approx 680 ohms when off hook d) there's a small DC voltage when off hook 5) The dial (or push buttons) won't be used (ie just the ringer box) 6) This will be used instead of multiple walky-talkies. USE: 1) One phone will be in the basment and the other 1 or two will be upstairs. I want to be able to signal (via the ringer) and talk without running upstairs or shouting. Besides...its a great project. QUESTIONS: 1) how do I connect tip and ring from each phone 2) what do I need between the phones to act as the phone co. 3) what do I use for the ringer box 4) what do I need to add if I want to hookup a third phone or fourth. PS in no way am I trying to compete against MA-BELL. Please send answers via email to: grossman@bbn.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Aug 90 16:32:04 PDT From: Michael Graff Subject: Phonemate ADAM: All Digital Answering Machine Reply-To: graff@mlpvm2.iinus1.ibm.com Last Sunday's Macy's insert in the {San Jose Mercury News} has an interesting item on page 59. It's a new Phonemate answering machine that records incoming and outgoing messages digitally, without cassette tapes. I've seen machines that used a digital recording for the outgoing message, but this is the first one I've seen that records the incoming messages digitally. Some of the highlights: "Listen to messages at a faster speed without that distorted 'chipmunk' effect." "You no longer have to wait for rewind or reset." "Save, skip, or repeat individual messages with voice confirmation." The ADAM has a built-in phone and is "sale" priced at $200. Speaking of answering machines, I know the Caller ID discussion in TELECOM is closed for the time being, but here's a twist I don't recall seeing discussed. Since many new answering machines tell you the date and time when a call was received, it seems like it would not be much more trouble for an answering machine to have Caller ID built in and tell you the phone number of the caller. Michael [Moderator's Note: Nothing is technically wrong with your idea, except of course that unlike the date and time, derived from the answering machine's own resources, the caller identication would have to be sent from the telco. I'm sure the information sent by telco could be stored on a chip somewhere and read back to you with the time and date. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Peter B. Hayward" Subject: Cell Phone Roaming/Daily Activation Fee Organization: The University of Chicago Date: Thu, 16 Aug 90 14:46:00 GMT Does anyone know if it is possible to make arrangements for a roaming daily activation fee other than the (seeming widespread) $3/day? I will be in two separate service areas in Maine for several weeks each next month, and the idea of $3/day seems excesssive. Peter B. Hayward N9IZT University of Chicago Computing Organizations pbhx@midway.uchicago.edu .........rutgers!oddjob!midway!pbhx [Moderator's Note: If I were going to be in the distant service area at least a month, I'd opt to have service turned on locally by the carrier in that area. But the start up fee and service for one month would probably not save enough over the daily roaming fee to make it very worthwhile. If you do have service turned on there, then simply do your own call forwarding from Chicago before you leave. But if you are only going to be there a month in total, then two local services for a month each, plus start-up fees might even wind up costing more than the estimated $90 ($3 times 30 days) the roaming would cost. I think you might be outta luck. Any ideas from readers? PAT] ------------------------------ From: "David J. Farber" Subject: Easy Roaming Service Date: 16 Aug 90 17:34:32 GMT Reply-To: "David J. Farber" Organization: University of Pennsylvania I have tried to get Easy Roaming service in the Philadelphia area with no success. Any idea why it is not available? David Farber; Prof. of CIS and EE, U of Penn, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6389 Tele(215): 898-9508(off); 274-8292 (home); FAX: 274-8293; Cellular: 870-0175 X400 address is: pn=david.farber/ou=cis/o=upenn/prmd=xnren/c=us [Moderator's Note: I am not sure what you mean by 'Easy Roaming' service. Are you referring to the ability to leave the Philadelphia area and have your cell calls follow you through instructions you send back from some distant point, or are you referring to the ability to be in Philadelphia and receive calls forwarded there from elsewhere? Have you asked the respective carriers in Philadelphia if they offer the service? Some companies, like Ameritech, require an advance subscription to the service, which here they call 'Fast Track Follow Me'. Also, if you have inquired/subscribed, and still cannot activate it, then it may be your serial number is on the denied list, meaning at some point in time some cellular carrier got paranoid about you. You would need to specifically ask customer service to remove this condition. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #576 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13969; 17 Aug 90 16:50 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ah01646; 17 Aug 90 14:54 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09913; 17 Aug 90 3:09 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04559; 17 Aug 90 1:32 CDT Date: Fri, 17 Aug 90 1:30:16 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #577 BCC: Message-ID: <9008170130.ab10046@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 17 Aug 90 01:30:20 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 577 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Country Direct from Australia [U5434122@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au] 0055 Numbers in Oz [U5434122@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au] Bit by the COCOT Collect Call [Will Martin] T1 Mux Info Needed [Timothy G. Smith] Thanks For Calling [Ken Thompson] Modem For a Cellphone (was: Fastest Pulse-Dialable Number?) [Ted Ede] Help Needed With AT&T Portable Phone [John T. Grieggs] Time Motion Tools 1990 Catalog Available [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: U5434122@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au Subject: Country Direct from Australia Date: 16 Aug 90 17:11:00 (UTC+10:00) Organization: The University of Melbourne Here are the OTC Country Direct numbers FROM Australia: USA Direct (ATT) 0014 881 011 Call USA (MCI) 0014 881 100 U.K. (BTI) 0014 881 440 Japan 0014 881 810 Canada 0014 881 150 France 0014 881 330 Italy 0014 881 390 Hong Kong 0014 881 852 Singapore 0014 881 650 New Zealand 0014 881 640 Note that except for USA and Canada the numbers are of the form 0014 881+ country code ( + 0 for two digit country codes.) ------------------------------ From: U5434122@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au Subject: 0055 Numbers in Oz Date: 16 Aug 90 17:04:03 (UTC+10:00) Organization: The University of Melbourne > Since they have many readers outside the UK, a few months ago they > offered a way of reaching their service from abroad: "just dial +611 > 411 421, normal inter- national rates apply". (Kindly enough, they > added "N.B. From Australia dial 00551 4009". And before you try > calling: they haven't been advertising this number for the past two > months, so the service may have been discontinued.) > My question is: what's in it for them? Does Telecom Australia give > them a share of the revenue from the calls they get? Since 0055- is the 'premium service' prefix in Australia, equivalent to 1-900, 0898, 0839, etc, it appears that they have set up a service in Australia to avoid international call rates. My guess is that most of their OS readership is in Oz. Charges for 0055 numbers are determined by the 6th digit: Sixth Digit 7,9 5,6 0-4 8am-6pm M-Sat 33 39 57 6pm-10pm M-F 22 26 38 10pm-6am 6pm Sat-8am Mon 13 15 23 Charges are given in cents/minute, but are charged in multiples of 22c. $A1.00 = $US0.80 = GBP0.43 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Aug 90 10:23:49 CDT From: Will Martin Subject: Bit by the COCOT Collect Call Just to add to the database of COCOT bad news. Back in June, I had a one-time, first-ever call from one of those COCOTs that does automated-voice collect calls. What I heard when I picked up the phone was a synthesized voice saying "You have a collect call from " and then, as it began to tell me to answer "yes" or press a number or whatever, I hung up the phone. The call had awakened me anyway, and the unidentifiability of the caller added to my annoyance, so I figured that if it was a for-real call, and not a wrong number, I'd get another call. Never did, so I figured it was a wrong number or random dialling by some idiot, and forgot about it. Well, on the phone bill from SW Bell that arrived yesterday was a tacked-on-the-back page from a company called "Integretel, Inc." for a one-minute collect call from (314) 569-3643 at a rate of $2.25, plus 7 cents federal and 13 cents state/local tax, for a total of $2.45. The really insane thing was that it is listed as being from "Ladue, MO". I'm in St. Louis City, and Ladue is a suburb well within the local calling area. A 25-cent call. (It also has a reputation of being a hoity-toity area of rich people, and I don't know anybody who lives there, being a real person myself... :-) Anyway, I called the SW Bell billing office this morning, and the helpful lady there had no hesitation about removing the improper charge from my bill. She, too, seemed surprised by the "Ladue" originating location. I wouldn't be surprised if bad billings from this "Integretel" company were common -- having a name somewhat like "integrity" is a real misnomer, I think; wonder if it would count as false advertising? :-) (She did try to sell me a second line as we concluded the business; I guess that's their current promotion. I didn't need one, and she wasn't pushy, so no problem there.) I think I'll include a letter to SW Bell with my bill, mentioning that she was helpful, and suggesting that it is not in SW Bell's best interest to act as the billing agent for sleazebags like this COCOT firm -- it reflects badly upon their own reputation and image to be associated in any way with AOS and COCOT firms who engage in this sort of underhanded business practice, and whatever small amount they make by doing this is far outweighed by the bad PR effect of SW Bell being identified with these actually-independent ripoff firms. I just called the (314) 569-3643 number, and it rang for about six or eight times, and then answered, and a synthesized voice said "Thank you" (at least I *assume* it said "thank" :-) followed by some rapid tones -- I think DTMF. Then nothing until it disconnected. Anybody out there who feels like calling this and reprogramming that COCOT to burst into flames or allow free calls to anywhere, please feel free to do so... :-) Anyway, I'm posting this as a caution -- even if you hang up immediately on these collect-calling COCOTs, it looks like they will try to stick you with the bill. Maybe the best solution is to find such phones and use them to make collect calls to other such COCOTs, so that the companies bill themselves, and each other, for those calls. A few million such uncollectible billings will do wonders to their viability. Regards, Will Martin [Moderator's Note: And you know what else is frightening? There are live operators from outfits like International Telesphere who perform AOS duties for some of the sleazebags. They will call and advise you they have a collect call from whoever -- and it may be someone you know and what to speak with -- but the operator will NOT tell you it is from a COCOT via an AOS. She will merely say "this is the operator, I have a collect call from Joe Doe, will you accept the charges? Caught off guard, of course you say yes. Then the next month you get *that* on your phone bill; and it may be $10-20, depending. Whenever you receive a call 'from the operator' ALWAYS ask "operator, who are you?" An AT&T or legitimate local telco operator will always identify themselves and the place where they are located. If the operator either refuses to give a straight answer or admits to COCOT/AOS affiliation, then quickly say, "Joe find an AT&T phone to call me," and hang up. Obviously, deny any charges which may show up. We telecom enthusiasts know about this sort of thing; can you imagine how badly the general public is getting ripped off by divestiture? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Aug 90 14:45:44 EDT From: "Timothy G. Smith - Technical Consultant" Subject: T1 Mux Info Needed I need to interface a T1 circuit directly into a VME based machine. The idea is to take the T1 circuit and feed it into the computer and twiddle the bits. In other words the computer will perform the functions of a DSU and T1 mux. I am trying to find a VME board that understands T1 signaling and framing. Does anyone know where I might find such a critter? While I am on the subject of T1 and serial IO I have a couple of other questions that the TELECOM Digest readers may be able to answer. 1) Can someone provide me with the names of the standards that define DS0, DS1, etc. I believe that in the old days DS0, DS1, etc were defined by AT&T's documents but I seem to recall that there is now an ANSI spec. 2) Does anyone know of a VME serial board that can handle a ~600kbps unformatted data stream? By unformatted I mean that there is no framing at all. The data consists of a raw bits and a clodk. Thanks, Tim Smith - Technical Consultant US mail:Sun Microsystems E-mail: 6716 Alexander Bell Drive internet:tgsmith@east.sun.com Suite 200 uucp :sundc!tgsmith Columbia, MD 21046 MaBell :(301)290-1234 PS: Please respond via direct mail and I will summarize to the Digest. Thanks again. ------------------------------ From: Ken Thompson Subject: Thanks For Calling Date: 16 Aug 90 15:52:46 GMT Organization: NCR Corporation, Wichita, KS DA within the area code is 1411 here. After talking to the human we hear the computer say: "Thank you for calling $outhwestern Bell. The number [you requested] is 666-1234 repeat 666-1234." So are they just thanking me for my money? Who the heck else am I going to call for DA? Ken Thompson N0ITL NCR Corp. 3718 N. Rock Road Wichita,Ks. 67226 (316)636-8783 Ken.Thompson@wichita.ncr.com They are thanking you in the same way the operators years ago used to ask Number Please, and Thank You. Not that there was any real competition, but simply as a way of courteously responding. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Modem For a Cellphone (was: Fastest Pulse-Dialable Number?) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 90 16:05:14 EDT From: Ted Ede >[Moderator's Note: If in fact such numbers are actually in service, >then yes, they would be slower. But we were trying to deal only with >actual, in-service numbers. PAT] How about "0", it's always in service, and fast to dial. 411 works in many areas, it may be faster than 0, depending on your fingers. (Mine left pinky really hurts when I have to crank that darned dial all the way around to 0, so I need to pause a couple of seconds before I can regain the strength to release the dial.) Can we drop this topic now? Does anyone know of any gadgets for a Novatel phone that would allow me to plug a standard jack into it and use a portable terminal? For those of you that have a Novatel phone, it's pretty easy to program. Just lock the phone with the fcn-lock command, and unlock it with #259. Hitting the volume button steps through the options, the SND (spend) key toggles any binary (SET/CLR) options and the END key saves options and reboots the phone. Ted Ede -- ted@mbunix.mitre.org -- The MITRE Corporation -- Burlington Road linus!mbunix!ted -- Bedford MA, 01730 -- Mail Stop B090 -- (617) 271-7465 ------------------------------ From: "John T. Grieggs" Subject: Help Needed With AT&T Portable Phone Date: 16 Aug 90 22:20:46 GMT Reply-To: grieggs@devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (John T. Grieggs) Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA I recently acquired an AT&T portable phone. I do not recall the specific model number, it is the one with two switchable channels. The problem is that the signal quality degrades rapidly, even within the house. Two rooms away, people who talk to me complain about the signal quality. I get crackles and pops, and sometimes some crosstalk (although never clearly), as well as a pretty high level of hiss. This is maybe twenty feet or so from the base station. Also, when I go anywhere near the computer room, it gets much worse still, to the point of being un-usable. How can I boost the power of the phone? Is there some modification I could make to the phone or the base station to increase the signal strength? Would a longer/better antenna on either the base station or the phone itself help? If so, where would I get such a beast? What about the interference? Would more signal strength help punch through this? Or, should I be looking at a line filter of some sort for the computer itself? Any help would be greatly appreciated. John T. Grieggs (Telos @ Jet Propulsion Laboratory) 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, Ca. 91109 M/S 301-320T (818) 354-0871 Uucp: {cit-vax,elroy,chas2}!jpl-devvax!grieggs Arpa: ...jpl-devvax!grieggs@cit-vax.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Aug 90 0:10:34 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Time Motion Tools 1990 Catalog Available A new catalog which arrived in the mail a few days ago is worth a mention here in the Digest: Time Motion Tools, of El Segundo, CA has a new 100 page catalog of tools and accessories for telecommunications and electronics professionals. Categories included are: o Voice and data communication measuring devices of all sorts o Telecommunication equipment o Quality tool kits o Static control products o Maintainence and repair tools o LAN equipment o Work stations o Test equipment o Shipping containers Several pages are devoted to computer and telecom equipment used for testing and repair work. They have an export department specifically to handle inquiries and orders from countries other than the United States. Export shipments can be made to all countries in the world except those prohibited by US law. Certain products may also be prohibited from export by US law or prohibited from import by other countries. All prices in the catalog are net industrial. A casual review indicates their pricing is quite competitive. They will accept most credit cards as payment, and will ship open account upon credit approval. The catalog was professionally done and will serve as a useful reference in your files. To obtain your copy of the 1990 Time Motion Tools Catalog: Phone: 1-213-772-8170 FAX: 1-213-322-7189 Write: Time Motion Tools, Inc. 410 South Douglas Street El Segundo, CA 90245-9917 USA Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #577 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21510; 18 Aug 90 1:54 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07803; 18 Aug 90 0:19 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03909; 17 Aug 90 23:15 CDT Date: Fri, 17 Aug 90 22:46:09 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #578 BCC: Message-ID: <9008172246.ab00411@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 17 Aug 90 22:45:30 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 578 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson I Need Your Help [Len Rose] Re: Federal Indictment of Len Rose [Gord Deinstadt] Looking for V.35 Board With Unix Driver For Sun 3/160 [Jose Diaz-Gonzalez] There *is* a Difference [Michael C. Berch] Butt-sets ... How to Choose? [Dave Platt] Future Mexican "Area Codes" [Carl Moore] Sprint Free 800 Installation [Steve Elias] CT-2 and CT-3 Standards [Bill Pritchard] Using a Fax Machine on a Boat [Manuel J. Moguilevsky] Cellular Marketing [Ken Jongsma] Kremlin Desks [Mark Brader] Answering Phrase (was: Crank Calls) [Nigel Allen] Static Causes Hassle on YaleNet [microsoft!t-jimc@uunet.uu.net] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 17 Aug 90 10:33 EDT From: len rose Subject: I Need Your Help Hi Patrick.. Due to the recent publicity in comp.docm.telecom it seems I have been kicked off my last internet account (ames.arc.nasa.gov) ... Is there any way you could post something like "Len Rose needs an Internet account" message ? Something on the east coast would be nice, but I will take whatever I can get. The reason I need one is that alot of my potential expert witnesses often ftp me things to forward to my attorney and this site is unstable with mail being erratic at best. Len [Moderator's Note: Here is your request, and I wish you good luck in finding a connection with Internet access and reliable mail, etc. Readers with suggestions or accounts to offer will no doubt write to you direct. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Gord Deinstadt Subject: Re: Federal Indictment of Len Rose Date: Thu, 16 Aug 1990 15:07:23 -0400 Organization: GeoVision Corp., Ottawa, Ontario >Access to source code permits a computer user to change the way >in which a given computer system executes a program, without the ^^^^^^^^^^^ knowledge of the computer system administrator. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >each program, are source code. Users who have source code are able to ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >see all of the commands that make up a particular program. They can ^^^ >change these commands, causing the computer to perform tasks that the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >author of the program did not intend. The authors of the indictment seem to think that merely posessing source code somehow gives one the ability to modify executable files on any system to which one has access. Since the indictment specifically talks about Unix systems, this is simply false; without the sysadmin's (root's) permission you can't modify executables in the public directories. In the case of "su", the executable file *must* be owned by root, so the sysadmin would have to be grossly negligent or act willfully to let an ordinary user alter it. This may or may not make a difference to the case against Leonard Rose, but it reflects a view of the world that ascribes great powers to those with technical knowledge, powers they (we) simply don't have. It's that view of the world that threatens us with the labels "hacker" and "phreak" simply because we program computers or read the TELECOM Digest. ------------------------------ From: Jose Diaz-Gonzalez Subject: Looking For V.35 Board With Unix Driver For Sun 3/160 Date: 17 Aug 90 18:11:34 GMT Organization: GTE Laboratories, Inc., Waltham, MA Hello there, The subject line says it almost all. I am trying to figure out how to make and ISDN data connection from our Sun 3/160. Due to the lack of BRI boards for this type of equipment, I'm thinking of using a Fujitsu SRS-410 TA which has a V.35 port that can be driven at up to 64 kbps. So, all I need now (at least that's what I think!), is a board that speaks V.35 at 64 kbps. Any suggestions? I am trying to avoid rate adaption protocols. Please respond by email, since I don't subscribe to all the groups where this msg will be posted. Thanks, Jose Pedro Diaz-Gonzalez SrMTS GTE Laboratories, Inc. Tel: (617) 466-2584 MS-46 email: jdiaz@gte.com 40 Sylvan Rd. Waltham, MA 02254 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Aug 90 11:27:43 -0800 From: "Michael C. Berch" Subject: There *is* a Difference I have been following the Sprint (etc.) bashing here in TELECOM and elsewhere (misc.consumers) for quite a while with a bemused smile, since I have never had reason to deal with US Sprint with regard to LD service (data communication has become another matter, alas, since US Sprint took over Telenet, but that's another story for another time). Over the next week or so I expect to be making a number of calls to Paris, France. I am a satisfied customer of AT&T LD, but brand loyalty goes only so far and if Sprint's or MCI's international service was much cheaper than AT&T's I'd certainly give them a shot, so I thought I'd start by making rate inquiries. The following transpired: AT&T ---- Me: [Dials '00'] AT&T Oper: AT&T, may I help you? Me: I'd like the direct-dial rate from California to France, please. AT&T Oper: Yes sir. There are three rate periods. The current rate is [rate info followed...] MCI --- Me: [Dials '10 222 0'] MCI Oper: MCI... Me: I'd like the direct-dial rate from California to France, please. MCI Oper: Oh, I'm sorry, you'll have to talk to Customer Service. I'm just an operator. Would you like me to connect you? Me: Please. MCI Oper: [Puts call through.] MCI CS: Thank you for calling MCI customer service... Me: (Asks for rate info, gets straightforward answer.) US Sprint --------- Me: [Dials '10 333 0'] Sprint Oper: US Sprint, may I help you? Me: I'd like the direct-dial rate from California to France, please. Sprint Oper: Oh, we don't have rate information. You'll have to call Customer Service. Would you like the number? Me: Please. Sprint oper: (gives me the 800 number) Me: [Dials '1 800 877-4646'] Recorded voice: Thank you for calling US Sprint, [blah blah, lengthy spiel with voice menu], "press 2 for a customer service representative," Me: [Dials '2'] [FIVE RINGS] Recorded voice: All US Sprint customer service representatives are presently assisting other customers. Please remain on the line... *** [8.5 MINUTES OF MUSIC-ON-HOLD] *** Sprint CS: US Sprint, may I help you? Me: I'd like the direct-dial rate from California to France, please. Sprint CS: May I have the number you're calling from? Me: It would be Mountain View, California. Sprint CS: I need the number. Me: (gives him a random number from our Telebit modem bank) Sprint CS: Yes, and your name please? Me: Look, I don't have an account with Sprint. I just need the rate information. Sprint CS: Well, I need a name for the billing inquiry. Me: It's not a billing inquiry. I just want to know how much it costs to call France. Sprint CS: Uh, OK, I guess I could do that. The rates are as follows... (gives rate info). *** The point of all of this is that even a trivially simple customer service question can be responded to with a rather broad spectrum ranging from the efficient and professional to the totally ludicrous. It also convinced me that I have absolutely no desire to do business with US Sprint, since it appears that if I ever have any problems requiring customer service intervention, not only will I have to wait a long time on hold at an off-peak hour, but I will then have the joy of speaking to someone completely unhelpful. By the way, the rates differed very little among the three companies; in the lowest rate period AT&T was $0.65/minute, and MCI and Sprint were both $0.64/minute. Michael C. Berch mcb@presto.ig.com / uunet!presto.ig.com!mcb / ames!bionet!mcb ------------------------------ From: Dave Platt Date: Fri, 17 Aug 90 12:44:06 PDT Subject: Butt-sets ... How to Choose? I'm interested in buying a decent butt-test set and some other phone-setup tools ... the job of maintaining our company's phone system and data-comm wiring has ended up on my list-of-things-to-do (not that I'm sorry about it at all, though!) I've got catalogs here from Techni-Tool, Time Motion Tools, and Specialized Products Company. There appear to be quite a number of butt-test sets which would meet my simple needs ... ranging in price from $150 up to $300 or so. The most widely-offered seem to be the Harris (or Dracon) TS-21 line ... the TS21-X89 (water-resistant) is priced about the same as the older, non-water-resistant models (sometimes less!) and seems to have some other advantages as well. It appears that the whole TS-21 line comes _without_ ringers, though ... is this true? Does anybody have any suggestions about specific models which work particularly well, or particularly badly, or are good bargains? I don't wish to spend more $$ than necessary ... but I don't insist on a bargain-basement model either (I've learned the hard way that "buying cheap" is often expensive in the long run). Any recommendations? Dave Platt VOICE: (415) 493-8805 UUCP: ...!{ames,apple,uunet}!coherent!dplatt DOMAIN: dplatt@coherent.com INTERNET: coherent!dplatt@ames.arpa, ...@uunet.uu.net USNAIL: Coherent Thought Inc. 3350 West Bayshore #205 Palo Alto CA 94303 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Aug 90 17:09:37 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Future Mexican "Area Codes" There was a note in this Digest about future Mexican "area codes" of the form 52x after U.S./Canada etc. (country code 1) has prepared for the coming of NNX area codes (in addition to the existing N0X/N1X area codes). Since the x in 52x is not necessarily 0, wouldn't this nix the continued use of 1+7D in some sparsely-populated NPAs? It had been suggested that, since there are a slew of NN0 codes at the head of the list of NPAs of NNX form, some sparsely-populated NPAs could disallow NN0 prefixes and thus continue to use 1+7D in lieu of having to go to 7D or 1+NPA+7D for intra-NPA toll calls. ------------------------------ Reply-To: eli@pws.bull.com Subject: Sprint Free 800 Installation Date: Fri, 17 Aug 90 18:09:19 -0400 From: Steve Elias On my current FONline 800 Sprint bill, there's a note saying that they are waiving the signup fee for all new accounts until 9/30. eli ------------------------------ From: Bill Pritchard Subject: CT-2 and CT-3 Standards Date: 17 Aug 90 20:22:49 GMT Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA Would anyone know where to locate standards for CT-2 and CT-3? Cordless Telephone - 2 is in use in the UK and is getting field trials in New York State. CT-3 is associated with Ericsson. Is there a standards agency overseeing this? I'm particularly interested in modulation formats, frequencies, etc. Thanks much for any information you might have. Bill Pritchard Internet: billp@hplsla.lsid.HP.COM Hewlett Packard Company Phone: 206-335-2567 Lake Stevens Instrument Division FAX: 206-335-2828 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Aug 90 05:37:10 MST From: Manuel J. Moguilevsky Subject: Using a Fax Machine on a Boat Is it possible to use a fax machine (a regular one, not a computer) from a boat? I mean, using a radio equipment, HF or VHF ? manuel%psi#telenet.astarg%ssl.span@noao.edu manuel%psi#telenet.astarg@ssl.span.nasa.gov manuel%psi#telenet.astarg%nssdca.span@noao.edu manuel%psi#telenet.astarg%ssl.span@star.stanford.edu ssl::psi%astarg::manuel ssl::psi%delphi::eze8a::manuel PSI MAIL address: PSI%07222211100717::MANUEL or PSI%072222111030218::MANUEL MCI: 4204071 WUI UW FAX: (541)786-0344 ------------------------------ Subject: Cellular Marketing Date: Fri, 17 Aug 90 9:33:09 EDT From: Ken Jongsma I'm beginning to suspect that cellular phones have no basis in reality, as we know it. If this country gets any closer to recession, a lot of people trying to get rich off of cellualar are going to be in for a rude shock. Consider the following print ad I saw recently: A person sitting in an airport terminal, talking to someone on a cellular phone. The blurb below: "Think of how much more productive you could be with a cellular phone." Uh, what's wrong with this picture? Let's see. I could spend .60+/min to use my cellular phone (plus roaming rates, etc), or I could pick up the pay phone right behind me and spend .25/min or less. Top two uses of a cellular phone based on my accidental tuning of cellular frequencies: 1) Person A claiming that Person B doesn't understand him/her and wondering when the next time he/she could get together with Person C. 2) Cellular salescritters talking about the latest rate increase and the kickbacks their getting from the carriers. Just seems like the whole industry is built on a shakey foundation. Ken Jongsma ken@wybbs.mi.org Smiths Industries ken%wybbs@sharkey.umich.edu Grand Rapids, Michigan ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken ------------------------------ From: Mark Brader Subject: Kremlin Desks Date: Fri, 17 Aug 1990 12:48:12 -0400 This was in the July 23 issue of {Newsweek}: It's well known that multiple telephones are a status symbol in Moscow. But the perks are not without their pitfalls, even at the pinnacle of Soviet power. While meeting in Moscow with top Kremlin official Georgi Shakhnazarov, Iowa Rep. David Nagle noticed his host had 12 telephones on his desk. Nagle also noticed there were no lights on the phones. "When one rings," he thought, "how does the guy know which one to pick up?" He doesn't. Each time a phone rang during the meeting, Shakhnazarov picked up one receiver after another until he found the right one. Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Aug 90 03:54 EDT From: Nigel Allen Subject: Answering Phrase (was: Crank Calls) Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada. Henry Troup writes in On another track, when I lived in the U.K. we were taught to > answer the phone with the number. .... > How does the rest of the world answer the phone? I answer my phone with my name. When I shared a house with three other people, I would answer the phone "Sixteen Major", since the house was 16 Major Street, Toronto. My housemates would just say "hello". Canadian government offices will often answer the phone bilingually: "CRTC [in English], bonjour". (Actually, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission = Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des telecommunications canadiennes has the same acronym in English and French.) I think Alexander Graham Bell once proposed "hoy-hoy" as the appropriate way to answer the phone. ------------------------------ From: microsoft!t-jimc@uunet.uu.net Subject: Static Causes Hassle on YaleNet Date: Fri Aug 17 11:08:45 1990 I run a terminal from my dorm room at Yale at 2400 baud over the regular YaleNet voice lines, usually with middling success. The age-old problem: bursts of static which destroy my connections and cause much misery. My equipment is not at fault; it has all been checked out and reconfigured, and the static problem seems to affect many farflung people on YaleNet. I have brought this problem to YaleNet front-office people (probably a mistake in and of itself), with little reaction. The static is hardly noticable during conversations ("I don't hear any static, sir") but reduces me to 1200 baud or less with some regularity. Many many phone calls and one "service visit" later resulted in my being told "We just rent you the line and give you a dial tone ... we make no guarantee of quality." Since the YaleNet fees are fairly stiff, this is not what I expect to hear. My plea: If anyone with experience twisting arms of University telecom types would drop a line suggesting a course of action, I would really appreciate it. (After 8/20 my email address changes back to cowie@cs.yale.edu ). Thanks in advance! jim ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #578 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22346; 18 Aug 90 2:50 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23373; 18 Aug 90 1:23 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab07803; 18 Aug 90 0:19 CDT Date: Fri, 17 Aug 90 23:21:11 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #579 BCC: Message-ID: <9008172321.ab25708@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 17 Aug 90 23:21:06 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 579 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Help Needed With AT&T Portable Phones [Hector Myerston] Re: Help Needed With AT&T Portable Phone [John Higdon] Re: No More Listening in on Cordless Phones in California [Lou Judice] Re: No More Listening in on Cordless Phones in California [Steve Lemke] Re: No More Listening in on Cordless Phones in California [Doug Faunt] Re: Billing of Multi-Lines [Rich Sims] Re: Teletype Marked "Crypto" and Other Found Treasures [Gabe Wiener] Re: Crank Calls (Why There are Fewer in Europe) [Wolf Paul] Re: A New Feature One Might Build Into a Phone [Eric Smith] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: myerston@cts.sri.com Date: 17 Aug 90 14:23 PST Subject: Re: Help Needed With AT&T Portable Phones Organization: SRI Intl, Inc., Menlo Park, CA 94025 [(415)326-6200] This old dog again..... FACTS: 1. In the US cordless telephone are assigned (by the FCC) a portion of the RF spectrum on a shared, non-interference basis only. 2. Power output is likewise severely restricted. 3. Given the above, performance is typically poor particularly in a high-RF environment such as a modern office. OPINION: 1. The "range" listed (typically 700 or 1000 feet) is very optimistic. In the presence of flourescent light PCs etc it is more like 100 feet. 2. The only legal way of improving range is higher gain antennas. Valor makes a large whip plus ground plane arrangement with an alligator clip at the end of the coax to connect to base antenna. We installed one in a hallway and outside the building. Performance improvement was nil. 3. None of this is likely to improve until new technologies such as Spread Spectrum and the like are implemented as in CT2 and PCN trials ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Help Needed With AT&T Portable Phone Date: 17 Aug 90 15:13:55 PDT (Fri) From: John Higdon "John T. Grieggs" writes: > I recently acquired an AT&T portable phone. > [Complaints about noise and signal quality.] > How can I boost the power of the phone? > Is there some modification I could make to the phone or the base > station to increase the signal strength? > Would a longer/better antenna on either the base station or the phone > itself help? If so, where would I get such a beast? It seems that about twice a year these questions come up. First, your cordless phone is not a cellular phone; it has some distinct and serious limitations. It is amazing how many people expect cordless phones to be perfect. Cordless phones fall under two sets of rules: Part 15, which covers the RF part of the phone; and Part 68, which addresses all the normal phone/network stuff. Any tampering with the transmitter in either the hand unit or the base will render the Part 15 certification null and void. This also applies to the antenna, however since the antennas are already optimized, tampering with them generally simply results in degraded performance. > What about the interference? Would more signal strength help punch > through this? Or, should I be looking at a line filter of some sort > for the computer itself? This isn't the answer you want, but sometimes an environment isn't suited for a cordless phone. While the Ministry of Information won't cut a hole in your roof and haul you away in a straight jacket for modifying your scanner (receiver), the FCC can sometimes get nasty about unauthorized modifications to devices that EMIT RF in normal operation. Cordless phones run at the limits prescribed; increasing anything on them is an FCC rule violation. BTW, 25-30 feet is about all you can expect from a cordless phone in an electrically hostile environment, such as the one I have here. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Aug 90 08:09:03 PDT From: "Lou Judice, 908-562-4103 17-Aug-1990 1103" Subject: Re: No More Listening in on Cordless Phones in California John Higdon asked if this sort of regulation isn't the province of the FCC and not the states... Well, in the wonderful Garden State (New Jersey), scanners, SW receivers and many kinds of ham radio gear are illegal when used in or near autos. I know of several hams who have been arrested or harrassed under this law (Public Law 1977). Currently a measure has been passed in the State Senate to repeal the law, but it still needs to pass the Assembly and be signed by the Governor. Some police groups oppose it, though some police I know really don't care - since as you say these laws (like ECPA) are impossible to enforce. I suggest that before you folks in CA. end up like New Jerseyans with a silly law on the books that you write, write, write. Trust me, writing to legislators works! ljj ------------------------------ From: Steve Lemke Subject: Re: No More Listening in on Cordless Phones in California Date: 17 Aug 90 18:28:04 GMT john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: >John R. Covert writes: >> The bill also bans manufacture, sale, and possession of any device >> enabling the user to intercept such communications. It provides for >> penalties from one year in county jail to three years in state prison >> with fines of up to $2,500. >...what about continuously tuned radios? >> Don't these people realize that all you need to intercept a cordless >> phone call is another cordless phone? Don't these people realize that there are many, many people who already own scanners which can pick up most cordless phone frequencies (usually around 49 MHz)? Will that make the sale and possession of scanners illegal as well? Steve Lemke, Engineering Quality Assurance, Radius Inc., San Jose Reply to: lemke@radius.com (Note: NEW domain-style address!!) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Aug 90 13:26:51 -0700 From: Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269 Subject: Re: No More Listening in on Cordless Phones in California >By the time everyone gets their "protected" status, the only kind of >receiver the public will be able to buy will be for broadcast >transmissions. Judging from the state of broadcasting these days, it >won't be long before interest wanes in these as well. In Germany, the ICOM R1, which is a receiver with a range of 100kHz to 1300MHZ (in most places), is sold with a VERY restricted range, 13.95 to 14.5MHz, 28-29MHz, 144-146MHz, 430-440MHz, and 1240-1300MHz. These are basically some ham bands. It's pretty clear that the Germans don't want their citizens listening to anything but hams and broadcasts. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Aug 90 01:13:54 EDT From: Rich Sims Subject: Re: Billing of Multi-Lines In-Reply-To: message from la063249@zach.fit.edu >> [Moderator's Note: My two lines are both BILLED on the first line. I >> get one bill each month, with long distance charges from the second >> line appended on a separate page. > Here is Southern Bell Land ... There are two ways to have lines billed > together.. The first way is that they set up two separate accounts and > put a 'pointer' on the second line that says to print billing info > with the first. This cause AT&T reachout billing to show up on only > one line. > The second is when you have one account with two numbers. > [Moderator's Note: I get the 'benefits' of Reach Out America on both > lines for a single fee. All LD charges go through ROA .... I'm about as deep into "Southern Bell Land" as you can get (South Florida), and my billing operates precisely as described in the Moderator's Notes. I have two lines that are separate accounts, but BILLED to one line for convenience. When I started up ROA, I gave AT&T the second number (the non-billing one) but have the ROA rates on both lines. Each bill shows a full breakdown of all ROA-eligible calls, grouped by number, and a "total" ROA charge which includes all eligible calls made on either line. According to the folks at AT&T, the criteria is purely the "billing" arrangement. From discussions with them, it seems that I could apply the ROA rates to any number of lines for a single fee, as long as they are all BILLED to a single number. That obviously works out in my favor, but is a bit surprising, since the billing arrangements are not made with AT&T, but with the local telco. I did notice several occasions where calls made on the first line were charged at the standard rate, but I *always* received a "credit" on the next month's bill for the difference between the actual charge and the charge that should have been applied using ROA rates. At least, I assume it was the correct difference, I never bothered to figure it out. The impressive thing (to me) was that I got the correction and credit from AT&T automatically, I have NEVER had to call and question the bill! This hasn't happened for quite a long time now, though, so perhaps they have a different system for figuring it all out these days. My other lines are also billed to a single number, not the same as the first two I mentioned, and are not included in the ROA plan. In the summer months, this results in a monthly "reminder" from AT&T that I could be saving money by using ROA on those lines. I have never felt the need to do this, but I'm curious as to what happens if I simply call Southern Bell and arrange to have ALL the lines billed to the same number as the first two. I am fairly certain that's not EXACTLY what AT&T has in mind with those reminders, though! :-) ------------------------------ From: Gabe Wiener Subject: Re: Teletype Marked "Crypto" and Other Found Treasures Organization: Columbia University Center for Telecommunications Research Date: Fri, 17 Aug 90 02:56:25 GMT In article <10953@accuvax.nwu.edu> riddle@hoss.unl.edu (Michael H. Riddle) writes: >Your final question, W2VZM is an amateur call sign. I'll leave it for >the hams in the group to explain if there was anything special about >it. I checked the North American directory and there is no W2VZM currently issued. The license may have lapsed. I suppose that you could dig back to older Callbooks if you wanted to find out whose set it was. Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ. "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings gabe@ctr.columbia.edu to be seriously considered as a means of gmw1@cunixd.cc.columbia.edu communication. The device is inherently of 72355.1226@compuserve.com no value to us." -Western Union memo, 1877 A note from a reader sent to someone else (with a copy to me) noted that it was now a Silent Key. PAT] ------------------------------ From: wolf paul Subject: Re: Crank Calls (Why There are Fewer in Europe) Date: 17 Aug 90 07:28:05 GMT Reply-To: wolf paul Organization: IIASA, Laxenburg/Vienna, Austria, Europe In article <10918@accuvax.nwu.edu> Henry Troup writes: >I wonder if Sedat's blissful crank call-less world is due to the fact >that most of Europe -- and I therefore presume Austria -- charges for >local calls, making crank calling a much less attractive 'hobby' of >the eight-to-ten year olds and drunks that I seem to get? Yes, Austria does charge for local calls. As far as I know, on subscriber lines, local charges start the moment you go off-hook and continue till you hang up again; on older-style payphones you provide your own answer supervision by pushing a button when the called party answers; newer payphones also seem to charge for the entire time you're off-hook. This does seem to be one of the reasons crank calls are less frequent; it does not eliminate them altogether, though. However, I also think that a low occurrence of crank calls is related to the overall social climate; Vienna also has a relatively low crime rate. I am sure that if you find a city with a higher crime rate, say London, Paris, Frankfurt or Hamburg, you will also find a higher incidence of crank calls, despite the fact that in all these cities, local calls are charged. >Anyone have any facts or opinions on the relative rates of crank >calls. See above. I don't have any facts, just guesses. >On another track, when I lived in the U.K. we were taught to answer >the phone with the number. I presume this dates from a time when the >switching system was even less reliable than it is today. But in North >America one thing you never do is tell a caller what number s/he has >reached. How does the rest of the world answer the phone? Actually, I think the British custom of answering the phone with the number stems from privacy concerns: presumably the caller KNOWS what number s/he has called; but if s/he has dialled a random number, why tell him/her whom s/he has reached? In Austria, and I believe in the rest of German-speaking Europe, residential phones are usually answered with the subscriber's last name; if a visitor answeres the phone, he may just answer with the subscriber's name, or else would say, for example, "bei Meier", "at the Meier's". Since not only are local calls charged for, but until recently, none of the fancy gadgets like auto-diallers were available here or licensed for connection to the phone system, phone solicitation is virtually unknown here, and most people here in Austria are not terribly concerned with privacy as it relates to telephones. This may change once Austria joins the EEC (5-6 years from now at the most) and the entire telecom area will be largely deregulated. Wolf N. Paul, Int. Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) Schloss Laxenburg, Schlossplatz 1, A - 2361 Laxenburg, Austria, Europe PHONE: +43-2236-71521-465 FAX: +43-2236-71313 UUCP: uunet!iiasa.at!wnp INTERNET: wnp%iiasa.at@uunet.uu.net BITNET: tuvie!iiasa!wnp@awiuni01.BITNET ------------------------------ From: Eric Smith Subject: Re: A New Feature One Might Build Into a Phone Date: 17 Aug 90 20:41:17 GMT Organization: Frobozz Magic Widget Company In article <10948@accuvax.nwu.edu> U5434122@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au writes: > In article <10715@accuvax.nwu.edu>, synsys!jeffj@uunet.uu.net writes: > > I'll go you one better: right after the tritone (that's called a SIT, > > right?), transmit the data DIGITALLY with a modem, the same FSK as > > used in Caller-ID. > Rather than using a modem, DTMF signalling could be used. It is not > as fast, but what's an extra couple of seconds, when you don't have to > wait for the modems to CONNECT? Using a FSK modulation doesn't imply a need for modems to handshake a connection, as is done with 212 and V.22bis modems. There is not really any advantage to using DTMF, and it is MUCH slower, and would delay the voice recording enough to be annoying. > Modems already have tone senders in them. A tone interpreter should > not be too difficult, and the modem could inform the controlling > software with messages like 'TONE 1' or 'TONE *' etc. Putting a DTMF tone decoder into a typical modem would requre the addition of an IC (such as an SSI 204), while many modems already have FSK demodulator chips that are capable of handling the required freqencies, even though the modem may not utilize the particular frequencies in its normal operation. This is common because there are general purpose modem chips which handle many standards. Eric L. Smith Opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those esmith@apple.com of my employer, friends, family, computer, or even me! :-) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #579 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04172; 18 Aug 90 16:58 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28060; 18 Aug 90 15:30 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26853; 18 Aug 90 14:25 CDT Date: Sat, 18 Aug 90 13:48:10 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #580 BCC: Message-ID: <9008181348.ab09930@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 18 Aug 90 13:48:07 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 580 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cell Phone Roaming/Daily Activation Fee [Jeff Wasilko] Re: Cell Phone Roaming/Daily Activation Fee [Rob Warnock] Re: President Bush Uses Cellular? [Michael J. Crockett] Re: Long Distance Piracy Jolts Phone Bills [William R. Pearson] Re: 800 "Out-of-Band" Announcements [Ken Abrams] Re: Thirty Five Years of Recorded Announcements [David Ofsevit] Re: What is a "Cable Address"? [Frank J. Wancho] Re: Southwestern Bell Humor (My Phone Bill) [Ron Heiby] Re: Butt-sets ... How to Choose? [Terry Kennedy] Pennsylvania Turnpike: New Cellular Emergency Number [Nigel Allen] Source Needed For 900 Pricing [Paul S. Sawyer] Caller ID Mailing List Being Started [Dennis G. Rears] Telecom*USA Voicemail via 800 Number [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Wasilko Date: Fri, 17 Aug 90 17:21:42 EDT Subject: Re: Cell Phone Roaming/Daily Activation Fee Peter B. Hayward asked about avoiding the $3/day roaming charge... One possible solution is a feature called MSNR (Mobile Subscriber Non Resident), that is generally available on Ericsson switches. This feature maps your home city number to a local number. So, when you are in the other city, you can receive calls to your 'other city' number normally. Placing calls generally involves a slightly different dialing pattern (ten digits for local calls and eleven digits for LD). Since you are essentially a customer of the 'other city', you'd need to make arrangements for billing. This way, you avoid the roaming charge and high per minute rates. While most Ericsson switches provdies this feature, I haven't found many companies that offer it. It never hurts to ask... Jeff Disclaimer: I used to be a CS rep for a cellular company. 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.| ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Aug 90 04:17:27 GMT From: Rob Warnock Subject: Re: Cell Phone Roaming/Daily Activation Fee Reply-To: Rob Warnock Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA In article <10991@accuvax.nwu.edu> by pbhx@midway.uchicago.edu, the Moderator adds: | [Moderator's Note: If I were going to be in the distant service area | at least a month, I'd opt to have service turned on locally by the | carrier in that area. But the start up fee and service for one month | would probably not save enough over the daily roaming fee to make it | very worthwhile... But we should not forget that the per-minute airtime change will also be (typically) a factor of two higher than service in one's home area, so if you talk for several minutes a day while roaming, it just might be cheaper to turn on local service. 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: "Michael J. Crockett" Subject: Re: President Bush Uses Cellular? Reply-To: mcrocket@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Michael J. Crockett) Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Wheeling, IL Date: Fri, 17 Aug 90 00:15:41 GMT >>In a photograph which ran in my local newspaper (source: AP >>wirephoto), it showed President Bush talking to a military leader from >>his golf cart. The phone appeared to be a plain old cellular >>telephone, although there was a smaller box attached to the main >>transceiver unit. >I'm sure the President's conversation was duly encrypted prior to >going to the local cell. I wouldn't be surprised if the cell or cells >in that area turned out to actually belong to Uncle Sam too, although >I don't know for sure either way. If the cellular system in that part of Maine is anything like the Wireline System in the Washington/Baltimore area, then facilties for encrypted service are installed as part of the system and are available to anyone that wants to pay for the service AND pay for the box that must be used at the cellular telephone. ------------------------------ From: wrp@biochsn.acc.Virginia.EDU (William R. Pearson) Subject: Re: Long Distance Piracy Jolts Phone Bills Organization: University of Virginia Date: Fri, 17 Aug 90 18:33:14 GMT ] I would really be interested in knowing what kind of brain-dead PBX ] could be used to serve a large enough operation where one could hope ] to get away with this. ... ] Also, virtually all PBXes, even down to the lowly Panasonics, identify ] to a station whether the call is from the inside or outside via ] distinctive ringing. ... ] In short, it is just about impossible to masquerade as an inside call Here at the U. Virginia we have a ROLM system. My phone has a distinctive ring from the outside. But if I fail to pick up the phone, the call is transfered to my secretary. She then calls me back and transfers the call, and I have no idea where it came from. Perhaps if she had simply caused my phone to ring again with the outside call, its ringing would be distinctive, but since she calls me, announces the call, and then connects it, I do not know whether the caller is inside or outside. Bill Pearson ------------------------------ From: Ken Abrams Subject: Re: 800 "Out-of-Band" Announcements Date: 17 Aug 90 16:53:04 GMT Reply-To: Ken Abrams Organization: Athenanet, Inc., Springfield, Illinois In article <10915@accuvax.nwu.edu> DREUBEN@eagle.wesleyan.edu) (DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN) writes: >Why do you get the recording: "Your call can not be completed as >dialed..." when you call a working/valid Canadian 800 number that >doesn't serve the US, while if you call a working/valid US number from >the US, but which doesn't serve your band/area code/whatever, you will >get the message: "You have dialed an 800 number which can not be >reached from your calling area." >Wouldn't it make more sense for AT&T to extend that "out of area" >[Moderator's Note: I think you will find the recordings vary from one >office to another as to their precise wording. Someone who set up the >recordings on your end simply was not consistent with the verbiage >used in other areas. I don't think there is any special intent behind >the version you hear versus what Canadians hear in reverse. PT] What Pat says is true but that doesn't really explain the difference that the poster refers to. First this is not an AT&T issue. The screening of 800 happens in the end offices (operating companies) and not in AT&Ts LD network (or any other carrier's network, for that matter). The difference has to do with the traditional "banding" of wats calls and the fact that Canada does not have a "band" in that scheme. BELLCORE keeps us updated on new 800 codes and advises us which band they belong in IF THE CODES ARE ASSIGNED TO AT&T FOR U.S. USE. There is no such mechanism to keep us updated on Canadian codes that are used only within Canada so as far as we are concerned (in the U.S.) those codes are simply unassigned as opposed to being "out-of-band". I agree with you that the out-of-band announcement would probably be better but there doesn't seem to be any practical way to administer it, partly because of the communication problem between countries and partly because there really isn't a band for Canada. Not a defense of the situation, just an explanation. Ken Abrams uunet!pallas!kabra437 Illinois Bell kabra437@athenanet.com Springfield (voice) 217-753-7965 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Aug 90 11:25:58 PDT From: David Ofsevit Subject: Re: Thirty Five Years of Recorded Announcements > The original number for the time of day in New York City was NERVOUS. That works in the Boston area; the 637 exchange is the time announcement. 637 is OFS as well as NER, giving new meaning to "For a good time, dial OFSEVIT." At least dialing my last name is mostly harmless! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Aug 1990 16:14 MDT From: "Frank J. Wancho" Subject: Re: What is a "Cable Address"? Hmm. I was under the now probably mistaken impression that cablegrams had a slightly different connotation from telegrams. Cablegrams were a special category of telegrams that sent to overseas destinations via undersea cable, rather than simply by wire (or wireless). Thus, a large corporation, such as a shipping firm, might have had two addresses, one for telegrams, and one for cablegrams, i.e., a cable address. Frank [Moderator's Note: The main difference, I think, was that 'cablegrams' were telegrams going to overseas destinations on the cable. But a network address via the cable was not a cable address. As per messages in recent issues, a cable address was simply an abbreviated form of the address for any subscriber who wanted to pay extra for the ease in addressing and/or advertising value of the phrase. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Ron Heiby Subject: Re: Southwestern Bell Humor (My Phone Bill) Date: 17 Aug 90 23:23:27 GMT Organization: Motorola Microcomputer, Schaumburg, IL I looked very carefully at my bills before signing up for ROA and figured out that I would probably end up paying something like two to four dollars per month more for the Night/Weekend calls than I otherwise would, but since the vast majority of my calling was during Evening hours (despite urgent pleas to my wife), I would save far more from the evening rate discount that I get with the plan. I signed up for whatever ROA plan gave me the biggest evening discount. Ron Heiby, heiby@chg.mcd.mot.com [Moderator's Note: Mr. Heiby is the Moderator of Usenet's comp.newprod newsgroup. Welcome to telecom! PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Terry Kennedy, Operations Mgr" Subject: Re: Butt-sets ... How to Choose? Organization: St. Peter's College, US Date: 18 Aug 90 14:03:53 EDT In article <11005@accuvax.nwu.edu>, dplatt@coherent.com (Dave Platt) writes: > The most widely-offered seem to be the Harris (or Dracon) TS-21 line > ... the TS21-X89 (water-resistant) is priced about the same as the > older, non-water-resistant models (sometimes less!) and seems to have > some other advantages as well. It appears that the whole TS-21 line > comes _without_ ringers, though ... is this true? I have two of the older TS21's, back when mute was an extra-cost option. They're pretty reliable (one's been perfect, one has an intermittent line switch). They don't have ringers, but you can hear the 20Hz hum in monitor mode if you're listening for it. The NJ Bell folks I've seen lately use TS21's, so they are either pretty reliable or they get a good discount 8-). Terry Kennedy Operations Manager, Academic Computing terry@spcvxa.bitnet St. Peter's College, US terry@spcvxa.spc.edu (201) 915-9381 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Aug 90 03:27 EDT From: Nigel Allen Subject: Pennsylvania Turnpike: New Cellular Emergency Number Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada. From {Motor Truck} Magazine, Toronto, August 1990 For truckers, reporting an emergency on the famous Pennsylvania Turnpike is now as easy as punching three buttons on the cellular telephone. It's as easy as dialling three digits, *11, to report accidents, incidents or calls for assistance. The call goes directly to dispatchers and state police on 24 hour duty. Seven cellular carriers in Pennsylvania are cooperating with the turnpike authority to provide the toll-free service, the first highway in the U.S. to provide cellular direct-dial emergency service. ------------------ [Notes from NDA: This is from a trucking magazine that isn't terribly telecommunications-literate, and sounds like a rewritten press release. I do not know whether the claim of being first is correct.] ------------------------------ From: "Paul S. Sawyer" Subject: Source Needed For 900 Pricing Organization: UNH Telecommunications and Network Services Date: Thu, 16 Aug 90 12:42:29 GMT In article <10872@accuvax.nwu.edu> levin@bbn.com (Joel B. Levin) writes: >The charges do indeed seem to be determined by the "exchange" digits, >both from what is said on that recording, and from some of the rate >schedule information that has been presented here in past months for >900 services from various companies. At one time this seemed to be so, maybe when it was all AT&T, but now any 900 number seems to be able to be priced as the end user wants, within (very few) limits imposed by laws, tariffs, and/or carrier policies. We need to price these calls for cost allocation to departments, and for customer (student) billing. At first, the software assumed .50 for the first minute, .35 for each additional minute (weren't those the good old days?). When 5.00 per call, 2.00 per min., etc. calls started appearing, we noticed that pricing was consistant by exchange, and could bill fairly accurately that way. Soon, we noticed that consistency by exchange was no longer.... Does anyone know of a source of 900 pricing that could be used to price these calls in a timely manner? We now wait for billing tapes, which themselves have up to two-month old calls, putting us up to three months behind on billing for these calls. (No, we don't wish to block these or any types of calls....) Paul S. Sawyer uunet!unh!unhtel!paul paul@unhtel.UUCP UNH Telecommunications attmail!psawyer p_sawyer@UNHH.BITNET Durham, NH 03824-3523 VOX: +1 603 862 3262 FAX: +1 603 862 2030 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Aug 90 12:17:17 EDT From: "Dennis G. Rears (FSAC)" Subject: Caller ID Mailing List Being Started Pat: If no one else wants to I will set up a mailling list for caller-id. Just send names of people who want to be on it to drears@pica.army.mil. I can set up in a day. Dennis G. Rears ARPA: drears@pica.army.mil UUCP: ...!uunet!fsac1.pica.army.mil!drears AT&T: 201-724-6639 USPS: Box 210, Wharton, NJ 07885 Work: SMCAR-FSS-E, Bldg 94, Picatinny Ars, NJ 07806 [Moderator's Note: You're on! There is a definite need for the list, and yours will be the second mailing list spawned as a result of the overflow of messages here in TELECOM Digest. Like Computer Underground Digest, you are welcome to pick up any relevant thread which begins here and continue it on your list. Let me know the address when you are established, and I will announce it here. I'd bet you'll have many subscribers on the list before the weekend is over! Best wishes. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Aug 90 13:38:57 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: TELECOM*USA Voicemail via 800 Number I recently decided to sign up for voice mail service from Telecom*USA. I get my own 800 number (not to be confused with the 800 number I have from them camped onto my residential line -- this is a different number) which terminates on voice mail. To enter maintainence mode, I use the 800 number assigned for accessing the Telecom*USA network, and after entering my PIN, I press a couple buttons to access voice mail. The cost is very reasonable: Like the personal hotline 800 numbers, the fee is $2.75 per month for maintaining the number, and 29 cents per minute at any hour for accessing voice mail, either to leave a message or pick up your messages, change your greeting, etc. The 29 cents per minute includes the cost of the called placed to you or your call in to the system, etc. As part of the Telecom*USA Calling Card package, they give you a free speed dial directory of nine numbers for your frequently dialed calls. Telecom*USA customer service is 1-800-728-7000. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #580 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16152; 19 Aug 90 5:14 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28259; 19 Aug 90 3:37 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17538; 19 Aug 90 2:31 CDT Date: Sun, 19 Aug 90 1:59:34 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #581 BCC: Message-ID: <9008190159.ab07918@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 19 Aug 90 01:58:42 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 581 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Phreak Pleads Guilty, Gets Two Years in Prison [TELECOM Moderator] Re: Gummit Paranoia [Isaac Rabinovitch] Re: Billing of Multi-Lines [Bill Huttig] Re: Thanks For Calling [Craig R. Watkins] Re: Teletype Marked "Crypto" and Other Found Treasures [Thomas Lapp] Re: TELECOM*USA Voicemail via 800 Number [Bill Cerny] Re: Crank Calls [Thomas Farmer] Re: Phonemate ADAM: All Digital Answering Machine [Dave Levenson] Follow Me Roaming in Houston (was Re: Boston) [Jay Maynard] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 18 Aug 90 19:32:08 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Phreak Pleads Guilty, Gets Two Years in Prison An interesting case in federal court here in Chicago Friday involved the sentencing of a woman who Judge Milton Shadur referred to as 'the mastermind behind 152 hackers and phreaks nationally ...' Judge Shadur sentenced her on Friday to two years in the custody of the Attorney General, based on her plea of guilty to one count of a seventeen count indictment. Leslie Lynn Douchette, 36, and mother of two small children was referred to by Secret Service investigators as 'the head of the largest ring of hackers and phreaks ever uncovered in the United States'. In TELECOM Digest, notice was made of Ms. Douchette at the time of her indictment and arrest, but unlike other high-profile cases, little more was noted about her in the media over the past few months. Ms. Douchette, of 6748 North Ashland Avenue in Chicago, along with her ring of phreaks and crackers (the term I prefer) allegedly cost various telephone companies in excess of one million dollars. In addition, Ms. Douchette and associates are alleged to have obtained over $600,000 from illicitly obtained Western Union money orders and merchandise acquired with fraudulent credit cards using the computer. Many members of her ring were juveniles, and many were associated with or considered themselves active in the Legion of Doom, although there is no evidence Ms. Douchette was a member of, or associated with the Legion. Six juveniles in four other states have been convicted as part of the ring operated by Ms. Douchette, and investigations of other ring members is continuing. Some of the pending investigations center around phreaks and crackers already under investigation for Legion of Doom activities, according to US Attorney William J. Cook, who prosecuted the case with attorney Colleen Coughlin. As part of her plea-bargained sentence, Ms. Douchette is cooperating fully with the government on pending investigations. She has given *additional names* and details to Secret Service investigators. Although Ms. Douchette said she once worked as a day care employee in Canada, Mr. Cook said she had been unemployed for some time, and appeared to be 'completely unskilled, unable to obtain any gainful and legitimate employment.' He continued, "her only skill seems to be her ability to use the telephone to manipulate people and computers." The sentence (actually two years and three months) is believed to be the stiffest ever given out to a phreak, and Mr. Cook noted this was given to her *despite* her plea of guilty. At the time of her sentencing, Judge Shadur remarked that he thought Ms. Douchette also needed psychiatric help, and his order calls for her to receive therapy while in prison. Ms. Douchette was represented by attorney Robert Seeder of the Federal Defender's Office here. At the time of sentencing, Mr. Seeder noted that Ms. Douchette's activities have now cost her the custody of her two children (both were taken from her and are now cared for elsewhere), and that by her plea, she had recognized and acknowledged responsibility for her actions. He asked Judge Shadur to show mercy upon the defendant and impose probation, with therapy as a condition. Judge Shadur refused, calling her 'the control center for phreaks and hackers everywhere.' Her motive, according to Mr. Cook, was the 'ego boost' she received as leader of the ring. Judge Shadur said 'phreaks and hackers need an example of what to expect when they are caught', and that Ms. Douchette's punishment and loss of custody of her children would serve that purpose. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: Isaac Rabinovitch Subject: Re: Gummit Paranoia Date: 18 Aug 90 19:57:43 GMT Reply-To: claris!netcom!ergo@ames.arc.nasa.gov Organization: UESPA In <10986@accuvax.nwu.edu> colin@array.uucp (Colin Plumb) writes: >Or you can consider the time I was wandering around downtown Toronto >at 4:00 on a monday morning festooned with needle-nose pliers.... >webbing, a descender, carabiners ... just what all those urban >commandos in movies need. >.. but it would have really troubled any paranoid authorities. Any Donald Westlake fan would tell you how to avoid suspicion in such circumstances: carry a clipboard. ergo@netcom.uucp Isaac Rabinovitch atina!pyramid!apple!netcom!ergo Silicon Valley, CA uunet!mimsy!ames!claris!netcom!ergo Disclaimer: I am what I am, and that's all what I am! ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: Re: Billing of Multi-Lines Date: 18 Aug 90 19:27:12 GMT Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL Stuff from me and Moderator deleted. The Moderator must have both the numbers as part of the same ACCOUNT. >I have two lines that are separate accounts, but BILLED to one line >for convenience. When I started up ROA, I gave AT&T the second number >(the non-billing one) but have the ROA rates on both lines. Each bill >shows a full breakdown of all ROA-eligible calls, grouped by number, >and a "total" ROA charge which includes all eligible calls made on >either line. Are you sure they are separate accounts? >According to the folks at AT&T, the criteria is purely the "billing" >arrangement. From discussions with them, it seems that I could apply >the ROA rates to any number of lines for a single fee, as long as they >are all BILLED to a single number. That obviously works out in my >favor, but is a bit surprising, since the billing arrangements are not >made with AT&T, but with the local telco. Well as in all companies sometimes AT&T (The Atlanta GA offfice for sure) doesnt know what the H*LL they are talking about half of the time. THey usually give different answers to the same questions. Only if they are the SAME account!! As I stated in a previous posting. >I did notice several occasions where calls made on the first line were >charged at the standard rate, but I *always* received a "credit" on >the next month's bill for the difference between the actual charge and >the charge that should have been applied using ROA rates. At least, I >assume it was the correct difference, I never bothered to figure it >out. The impressive thing (to me) was that I got the correction and >credit from AT&T automatically, I have NEVER had to call and question >the bill! The reason you always received credit automatically is because a AT&T representative checked your charges monthly and submitted the credit manually. You state that calls on the first line use to be charged at regular rate and then credit the next moth. Well that was because the phone numbers where set up with separate accounts. For example my account number is 407 676 xxxx 321 while the first number is 407 676 xxxx and the second is 407 952 xxxx .. When they were separte accounts the 407 952 xxxx line was account # 407 952 xxxx 453. >This hasn't happened for quite a long time now, though, so perhaps >they have a different system for figuring it all out these days. Yeah because Southern Bell as transfered both numbers to ONE account. (In the month that things became okay did you have a lot of credits and charges on the Sothern Bell part? Things like credit for service removed month xx to month uu?) >the need to do this, but I'm curious as to what happens if I simply >call Southern Bell and arrange to have ALL the lines billed to the >same number as the first two. I am fairly certain that's not EXACTLY >what AT&T has in mind with those reminders, though! :-) Those calls will still be billed at regular rates and all your charges will be printed on the same bill. I will be happy to discuss this in email with anyone who would like. Bill Huttig la063249@zach.fit.edu ------------------------------ From: "Craig R. Watkins" Subject: Re: Thanks For Calling Date: 18 Aug 90 15:40:07 EST Organization: HRB Systems In article <10997@accuvax.nwu.edu>, Ken Thompson writes: > DA within the area code is 1411 here. After talking to the human we > hear the computer say: > "Thank you for calling $outhwestern Bell. The number [you requested] > is 666-1234 repeat 666-1234." Here in Bell of PA area, it's 1-555-1212 and after you dial that, you get "Thank you for calling directory assistance" BEFORE you get the human. > So are they just thanking me for my money? Who the heck else am I > going to call for DA? Well, sometimes in my case, they're thanking the COCOT owner since DA is free to me if the COCOT is operating within state regulations. > They are thanking you in the same way the operators years ago used to > ask Number Please, and Thank You. Not that there was any real > competition, but simply as a way of courteously responding. PAT] At the point in time in which they do it here, it simply annoys me as all it does is delay the access to the information which is being purchased. 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: Sun, 19 Aug 90 00:13:21 EDT From: Thomas Lapp Subject: RE: Teletype Marked "Crypto" and Other Found Treasures > I checked the North American directory and there is no W2VZM currently > issued. The license may have lapsed. I suppose that you could dig > back to older Callbooks if you wanted to find out whose set it was. > A note from a reader sent to someone else (with a copy to me) noted > that it was now a Silent Key. PAT] I've heard the term, but do most readers know that a Silent Key is an amateur operator who has died? tom internet : mvac23!thomas@udel.edu or thomas%mvac23@udel.edu uucp : {ucbvax,mcvax,psuvax1,uunet}!udel!mvac23!thomas Location : Newark, DE, USA ------------------------------ Subject: Re: TELECOM*USA Voicemail via 800 Number Organization: Sun, Surf 'n Sushi, San Diego, CA Date: 18 Aug 90 20:38:01 PDT (Sat) From: Bill Cerny In article <11035@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >I recently decided to sign up for voice mail service from Telecom*USA. >I get my own 800 number (not to be confused with the 800 number I have >from them camped onto my residential line ^^^^^^ Forgive me, but I must take exception to your use of "camp on." Really now, Patrick, you embarrass me; "camp on" is PBX terminology for queueing to a busy station. I believe you should state that "the 800 number is routed to my residential line." Indeed, until CCS7 connectivity is a coast-to-coast reality, no IXC can "camp on" your residence line. ;-) Bill Cerny bill@toto.info.com | attmail: !denwa!bill [Moderator's Note: You are correct in the strictest use of the term 'camp on'. However, it is also used commonly to refer to the process by which auxilliary phone numbers with no actual wire pair assigned to them are associated with 'real' numbers. The term is also commonly used to describe the condition when a call-waiting is placed on your line in the background -- at the CO -- until you choose to bring it up by flashing. Your phrase 'routed to' is the most accurate way to describe it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Thomas Farmer Subject: Re: Crank Calls Organization: Actrix Public Access UNIX, Wellington, New Zealand Date: Sun, 19 Aug 90 03:04:22 GMT In article <10918@accuvax.nwu.edu> Henry Troup writes: >I wonder if Sedat's blissful crank call-less world is due to the fact >that most of Europe -- and I therefore presume Austria -- charges for >local calls, making crank calling a much less attractive 'hobby' of >the eight-to-ten year olds and drunks that I seem to get? >On another track, when I lived in the U.K. we were taught to answer >the phone with the number. I presume this dates from a time when the >switching system was even less reliable than it is today. But in North >America one thing you never do is tell a caller what number s/he has >reached. How does the rest of the world answer the phone? Well, firstly, I live in an area with free local calling (Praise the Lord! :-) and I have never had a crank call yet ... A few wrong numbers, but no crank calls. And that's on both lines! Secondly, what you say about answering the hone with the number is interesting. I suddenly understand where my friend with British parents gets the habit from! But it appears that the standard here is to answer the phone with a "Hello?" if it's a private line. Of course businesses answer with their name. mail: tfarmer@actrix.co.nz (I think) ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Phonemate ADAM: All Digital Answering Machine Date: 18 Aug 90 18:28:20 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <10990@accuvax.nwu.edu>, graff@mlpvm2.iinus1.ibm.com (Michael Graff) writes: > Speaking of answering machines, I know the Caller ID discussion in > TELECOM is closed for the time being, but here's a twist I don't > recall seeing discussed. Since many new answering machines tell you > the date and time when a call was received, it seems like it would not > be much more trouble for an answering machine to have Caller ID built > in and tell you the phone number of the caller. ... and Pat adds: > [Moderator's Note: Nothing is technically wrong with your idea, except > of course that unlike the date and time, derived from the answering > machine's own resources, the caller identication would have to be sent > from the telco. I'm sure the information sent by telco could be stored > on a chip somewhere and read back to you with the time and date. PAT] If you have Caller*ID, you receive the date and time on every call, and the calling number on some calls. The time and date, therefore, would not have to be generated internally by the answering machine. The commercially-available display units have memory, allowing you to scroll back through the last several calls received (30, in the case of the one I use) and display the date, time, and calling number of each. It has been very useful, at times, to be able to correlate the memory of the unit with the tape on the answering machine, when the call-back number in the recorded message was garbled or incorrect. Combining the display unit into the answering machine is probably a very sensible product design ... though of limited marketability until Caller*ID service is more widely available. 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: Jay Maynard Subject: Follow Me Roaming in Houston (was Re: Boston) Reply-To: Jay Maynard Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX Date: Sat, 18 Aug 90 13:14:05 GMT >[Moderator's Note: Through some agreement between (I think) all >cellular carriers, there is a general cancellation of all 'follow me' >requests activated during the day at midnight *using the time where >the computer is located which is holding your request*. ... > If GTE Mobilnet works from Houston, then Central time would prevail. This is consistent with my experience; GTE Mobilnet in Houston says that Follow Me Roaming ends at midnight Central time. I didn't know that GTE Mobilnet's computer was in Houston, though. I'll post the description from the brochure when I get home this evening. Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL jay@splut.conmicro.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #581 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26618; 21 Aug 90 3:15 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25836; 21 Aug 90 1:33 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22825; 21 Aug 90 0:30 CDT Date: Mon, 20 Aug 90 23:57:37 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #582 BCC: Message-ID: <9008202357.ab19675@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 20 Aug 90 23:57:26 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 582 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Caller-ID List is Now Established [Dennis G. Rears] Phone Rates USA To/From Japan [Norman R. Tiedemann] Area Code Data Requested [Ken Basye] Free Terminals from USW [Mnematics Videotex via UKTony@cup.portal.com] Key System Light Timing [Alan Nishioka] Lineman's Handset Help Needed [frankl@xrtll.uucp] Voice Recognition (was: A New Feature) [Charles Bryant] Laser Bypass; Hot-Wiring Out-of-Area 800 Numbers, etc [David Leibold] 500/2500 Handsets [Roy Smith] Why, Where, How: Voice Terminal [Peter M. Weiss] I Need Help With Internet Access [Len Rose] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 20 Aug 90 16:22:55 EDT From: "Dennis G. Rears (FSAC)" Subject: Re: Caller-ID List is Now Established Hello everyone. I have set up the list. The list name is and the request name is . The list will not be able to recieve any mail until 0330 on 21 August. In the meantime you can send submissions to me . I have added about twenty names to the list. Our machines were down over the weekend so mail is still coming to me in bunches (I just received the TELECOM Digest that had my message in it). The list will be unmoderated for now and probably never will unless there is a need for it. Currently right now let's stick to the caller ID subject. I figure this could be a temporary list or if I have Pat's blessing a permament list that concerns non-technical issues of telephone privacy. I will hold off on acknowledging additions to the list until tomorrow. Dennis G. Rears Internet: drears@pica.army.mil UUCP: ...!uunet!fsac1.pica.army.mil!drears AT&T: 201-724-2474 USPS: Box 210, Wharton, NJ 07885 Work: SMCAR-FSS-E, Bldg 94, Picatinny Ars, NJ 07806 [Moderator's Note: My congratulations and best wishes for the success of your mailing list. If it grows substantially, you will want to talk to Chip Rosenthal about possibly distributing it via an alt newsgroup as well. And certainly, you are free to debate telephone privacy all you like! :) By the time this message circulates, your list address should be up and running. You are the second spin-off from TELECOM Digest. For the several inquiries I've had recently, the first of these sub-groups was Computer Underground Digest. The CUD is devoted mainly to the legal and social issues involved with phreaking and computer hacking. Despite the nice things they said about me in today's issue, I shall provide their address once again for those who have not yet subscribed: TK0JUT2@NIU.BITNET PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Aug 90 16:44:33 EDT From: Norman R Tiedemann Subject: Phone Rates USA to/from Japan Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories A short time back, there was a discussion about telephone rates between USA and Japan and which way was cheaper. A few people quoted some rates, but I never saw a good collection. Since I was in Japan last week, I checked over there with the three Japanese long distance companies and I checked over here with three carriers: AT&T, MCI, and US-Sprint. Here is the summary list of comparison. The Yen/Dollar rate used is 150. That is midway between the buy and sell rates quoted last week. (And it makes the division easier). (-: AT&T MCI US-Sprint Japan Time 2PM-8PM (1st minute) 3.05 2.89 2.87 (4AM-10AM) (2-n minute) 1.24 1.17 1.18 8PM-3AM (1st minute) 2.55 2.52 2.54 (10AM-5PM) (2-n minute) .99 .98 .98 3AM-2PM (1st minute) 2.16 2.15 2.15 (5PM-4AM) (2-n minute) .81 .80 .80 The basic calling rates for all three Japanese phone companies are the same, but the features are different. KDD is the only one that offers operator assisted calls, and appears to bill in six second increments. ITJ has a different rate if you are calling from a pay phone (which is cheaper for short calls only). IDC offers all sorts of automated time and charges callback, and alternate billing features. (The alternate companies are reached just like here, with an access code. IDC's features are accessed using different access codes.) 1st 2-n ITJ Pay Phone BASIC RATE FOR ALL 3 COMPANIES Minute Minute (All Minutes) M-F 8AM-7PM 2.27 1.13 1.45 M-F 7PM-11PM, WkEnd 8AM-11PM 1.80 .93 1.18 11PM-8AM 1.33 .73 .90 KDD is the "standard" (until two years ago, national phone company). Access 001... ITJ is the International Telecom Japan (its slogan is "Digital Optical Fiber"). Access 0041... IDC is the Intrntl. Digital Communications Inc. (It's slogan is "The Intelligent Choice"). Access 0061... (0062-0065 for feature calls) These are all calculations on the rates quoted, the ITJ pay phone rate quotes is #seconds/100 Yen rate, the basic rate for KDD is calculated from a Yen/6 seconds rate (both the first and addition minutes). NOTES AND EXCEPTIONS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MCI has a bulk rate plan to four Asian Countries including Japan which costs $3.00/month and allows you to call between 10PM and 2PM (almost the full two cheaper periods) for only $.79 per minute (including the first minute). Using AT&T's USA DIRECT from Japan to the US is the same as the premium rate plus a service charge. (Access 0039-111) Those rates, all times all days, are: Service charge 2.50 1st Minute 3.05 2-n Minute 1.24 KDD Operator Assisted Rates are: (I didn't find out about US rates for this) besides, does anybody really use these anymore? Station-Station (first 3 minutes) $12.60 Person - Person (first 3 minutes) $21.00 Each Addition Minute for both $ 3.00 That's all the info I have. The basic conclusions are: 1.) Only in the premium time do you save "significantly" over AT&T with the other 2 US carriers. 2.) The rates are generally cheaper calling from Japan to the USA, but it depends on the time you are calling. (It is interesting to note that Japan's Premium rate is during their working hours, while USA's are when both countries might have people in the office.) 3.) If you make a lot of calls during the cheaper period the MCI bulk plan could save you some money. Hope this is of interest to someone. Norm Tiedemann AT&T Bell Labs IH 2G-419 att!ihlpy!normt 2000 Naperville Rd. normt@ihlpy.att.com Naperville, IL 60566 ------------------------------ From: Ken Basye Subject: Area Code Data Requested Date: 21 Aug 90 01:11:11 GMT I'm looking for a machine-readable copy of a list of U.S. and Canadian cities and their area codes. What I really want is the location of some site I can ftp the list from. I'd settle for just not having to type in the meager list from the front of the phone book, but a more extensive list would be better. I'm looking for this information because I find myself frequently trying to get directory information about some company in some town whose area code I can only guess at using the map in the book. Alternatively, I have the number of some company and want to see where they are located without searching the map for the right area code. Incidently, while the placement of the state borders in the map is pretty accurate, have a look at a real map and compare the location of some of the cities on the area code map sometime when you need a laugh. Trying to locate the right area code by triangulation is clearly out. You can see what my solution will be, but if you have some other way of solving these problems I'd love to hear about them. Thanks a lot, Internet/CSnet kjb@cs.brown.edu U.S. MAIL Ken Basye UUCP uunet!brunix!kjb Box 1910 Dept. of Computer Science Brown University Providence, RI 02912 ------------------------------ From: UKTONY@cup.portal.com Subject: Free Terminals From USW Date: Mon, 20 Aug 90 13:00:21 PDT FREE TERMINAL OFFER ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Mnematics Videotex and U.S. West are giving away 200 terminals. The terminals are being given away to introduce you to Mnematics Videotex, an international online information service and Community Link, U.S. WEST's gateway service that provides access to Mnematics and other online services. If you qualify, you get a terminal (described below) NO STRINGS ATTACHED!!! There is no obligation of any kind other than to meet the requirements set forth below. ***** Even if you do not qualify, you may know someone who does, so please pass this information on! ***** WHO QUALIFIES: * You must live in the Omaha, Nebraska area * You must be a U.S. WEST Customer * You must NOT be a Mnematics Videotex subscriber or user * You must NOT be a Community Link user * You must show ID and pick up your terminal in Omaha * This offer expires the end of August, so get moving! HOW TO GET THE TERMINAL: ---> * Send EMAIL to: mneuxg!service@uunet ...!philabs!mneuxg!service ...!lamont!mneuxg!service * Include the name, address, and home phone number of the elegible individual. * Qualifying individuals will be mailed a certificate for the terminal. You simply pick up the terminal in Omaha as directed. DESCRIPTION OF THE TERMINAL: The terminal being given away is the Phillips M2. This terminal is designed to handle Minitel and VT100 ("ANSI") formats. It has a built-in 1200 baud modem. You plug it into a grounded outlet, plug in a modular telephone connection, and you're ready to go online. The screen is 9" diagonal, and can display 80 columns by 24 rows and 16 shades of grey in Minitel mode. It has a chicklet type keyboard suitable for casual use of online services, mounted in a drawer that conceals and protects it when the unit is not in use. The foot- print is about 12 square inches. It has a screen-saver function, can autodial one telephone number (or you can dial any number using the numeric keypad). The terminals are brand-new and unused. They currently sell for $150 or more. This is a no-cost way to introduce someone you know to the online world. Caveats: * 7 bits, even parity, 1200 baud **ONLY** * Single-chip design, not suitable for hardware hacking and/or modification * No RS-232 interface SUMMARY: * First come, first served. * When they're gone, they're gone. That's all there is to it. Mnematics Videotex 722 Main Street Sparkill, NY 10976-0019 (914) 365-0184 mneuxg!service@uunet ...!philabs!mneuxg!service ...!lamont!mneuxg!service Since 1983 "The people you've been wanting to meet are online with Mnematics" Mnematics Videotex is a Service Mark of Mnematics, Incorporated Community Link is a Service Mark of U.S. WEST [Moderator's Note: This sounds almost too good to be true. Will someone in the Omaha area who takes up these folks on their offer please get back to us with details? Is it for real? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Aug 90 19:03:32 -0800 From: Alan Nishioka Subject: Key System Light Timing I am trying to build a box for my five line key system phone. I want it to flash the lights and do automatic hold. Does anyone have the light flashing cadences? (frequency and duty cycle). The system I was going to time has been dismantled and replaced with Panasonic phones with LEDs so you can't tell which line is ringing... Alan Nishioka KC6KHV atn@cory.berkeley.edu ...!ucbvax!cory!atn ------------------------------ From: frankl@xrtll.uucp Subject: Lineman's Handset Help Needed Date: Mon, 20 Aug 90 18:19:30 EDT I was thinking of putting together a linesman's handset here, and I was wondering, is it really as easy as putting good-quality Alligator Clips onto a rotary dial phone's two wires? I've always wanted to make one of these beasts, and I'd rather not pay the $110 can I've seen them here in surplus stores. Any help appricated. ------------------------------ From: Charles Bryant Subject: Voice Recognition (was: A New Feature) Organization: Datacode Communications Ltd, Dublin, Ireland Date: Sun, 19 Aug 90 16:16:29 GMT From: apple!well.sf.ca.us!well!nagle@uunet.uu.net (John Nagle) >Now here's a thought. We all know the announcments which begin >with a special three-tone sequence followed by "The number you have >reached...". How about a voice recognition unit to recognize the new >number and update your autodialer? How about the phone company giving the number using DTMF after the voice message? That would be trivial to recognise, unlike a human voice! Charles Bryant ------------------------------ From: woody Subject: Laser Bypass; Hot-Wiring Out-of-Area 800 Numbers, etc Date: Sat, 18 Aug 90 23:36:04 EDT Alex Pournelle mentioned the use of lasers to bridge the Detroit-Windsor frontier ... it does cost a bit of coin just to phone across the creek either way. I wouldn't be surprised to see some folks try telecommunications with those 100 mW walkie-talkies on 40 MHz.... In any case, there was a Buffalo number set up by some Canadian satellite dealers in order to allow satellite dish owners access to U.S. 800 numbers. Dialing the (716) xxx.xxxx number would get a dial tone; using a tone pad, the 800 number for the U.S. would be dialed, bypassing the Canadian restrictions (but at the cost of a call to Buffalo). This is apparently no longer in service, though. Are there any numbers out there that allow access to 800 numbers by bypassing zone restrictions? Or is this a job for 1 900 STOPPER, the service that allows Caller ID bypass at $2/min? It might be interesting for some of the LD carriers to provide an area bypass service (at long distance cost) to get at 800 numbers, especially where the regular phone number was not known or available. [Moderator's Note: I'd rather not publish the *actual numbers*, you understand, since this is a family Digest and I'd like to remain here with my in-laws and my cats. Correspond direct with Woody, please. PAT] ------------------------------ From: roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: 500/2500 Handsets Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City Date: Mon, 20 Aug 90 16:54:29 GMT OK, here's a question that's been bothering me for probably about 20 years. Why, on a standard 500/2500 handset, does the microphone just drop in but the speaker have screw terminals? 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 ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Monday, 20 Aug 1990 10:33:20 EDT From: "Peter M. Weiss" Subject: Why, Where, How: Voice Terminal I guess the subject almost says it all ... I wonder how it was that ATT decided to coin the noun Voice Terminal? (I used to that it was an affectation, but take it more seriously today.) Peter M. Weiss | pmw1@psuvm or @vm.psu.edu 31 Shields Bldg (the AIS people) | not affiliated with PSUVM | VM.PSU.EDU University Park, PA USA 16802 | Disclaimer -* +* applies herein ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Aug 90 10:33 EDT From: len rose Subject: I Need Help With Internet Access [Moderator's Note: In case you missed this the first time over the weekend, I am repeating it here. PAT] Hi Patrick.. Due to the recent publicity in comp.docm.telecom it seems I have been kicked off my last internet account (ames.arc.nasa.gov) .. Is there any way you could post something like "Len Rose needs an Internet account" message ? Something on the east coast would be nice, but I will take whatever I can get.. The reason I need one is that alot of my potential expert witnesses often ftp me things to forward to my attorney and this site is unstable with mail being erratic at best. If this is impossible for you to do, then maybe you could suggest an alternative. Len ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #582 ******************************   Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27887; 21 Aug 90 4:12 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa32234; 21 Aug 90 2:37 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab25836; 21 Aug 90 1:34 CDT Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 0:39:04 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #583 BCC: Message-ID: <9008210039.ab24168@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 21 Aug 90 00:38:45 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 583 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Pennsylvania Turnpike: New Cellular Emergency Number [Paul Robichaux] Re: Pennsylvania Turnpike: New Cellular Emergency Number [Bob Goudreau] Re: Pennsylvania Turnpike: New Cellular Emergency Number [Paul Wilczynski] Re: Fastest Pulse-Dialable Number? [Jeremy Grodberg] Re: Help Needed With AT&T Portable Phone [Irving Wolfe] Re: Thirty Five Years of Recorded Announcements [Gordon Burditt] Re: Thirty Five Years of Recorded Announcements [Dave Bonney] Re: Phone Service in Ireland [Deryck Fay] Re: No More Listening in on Cordless Phones in California [Mitch Wagner] Scanner Diodes, etc (was: Re: No More Listening) [Nicholas J. Simicich] Re: Home Intercom Custom Calling Service [Charles Hawkins Mingo] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paul E. Robichaux" Subject: Re: Pennsylvania Turnpike: New Cellular Emergency Number Date: 20 Aug 90 14:06:36 GMT Organization: Georgia Tech College of Computing Actually, the Onslow County, NC area offers (and has for at least a year; maybe longer) a direct link to the NC highway patrol. Dialing "*HP" will connect you to a dispatcher. This systems seems like a good replacement for 911 calls while on the highway; it doesn't suffer many of the liabilities of cellular 911 calls that were discussed here a while back. Paul E. Robichaux BEST: gt0818a@prism.gatech.edu OK: ...!gatech!prism!gt0818a Of course I don't speak for Tech. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Aug 90 13:21:26 edt From: Bob Goudreau Subject: Re: Pennsylvania Turnpike: New Cellular Emrgency Number Reply-To: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC In article <11032@accuvax.nwu.edu>, contact!ndallen@uunet.uu.net (Nigel Allen) writes: > For truckers, reporting an emergency on the famous > Pennsylvania Turnpike is now as easy as punching three buttons on the > cellular telephone. > [Notes from NDA: This is from a trucking magazine that isn't terribly > telecommunications-literate, and sounds like a rewritten press > release. I do not know whether the claim of being first is correct.] It is indeed incorrect. Here in the Research Triangle area of North Carolina, for instance, road signs on Interstate 40 advising motorists that the cellular number for the state Highway Patrol is "*HP" have been around for a couple of years. I believe that the same service is also available in other parts of the state. Bob Goudreau +1 919 248 6231 Data General Corporation 62 Alexander Drive goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!goudreau USA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Aug 90 04:15 EST From: Paul Wilczynski <0002003441@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Pennsylvania Turnpike: New Cellular Emergency Number Nigel Allen , from a press release, writes ... > From {Motor Truck} Magazine, Toronto, August 1990 >Seven cellular carriers in Pennsylvania are cooperating with >the turnpike authority to provide the toll-free service, the first >highway in the U.S. to provide cellular direct-dial emergency service. The first highway, huh? They must have a pretty sophisticated system to stop the service from working once I get off the Turnpike! Massachusetts has had a similar system for quite a while. It's not restricted (!) to highways, though. ------------------------------ From: Jeremy Grodberg Subject: Re: Fastest Pulse-Dialable Number? Date: 18 Aug 90 04:47:32 GMT Reply-To: Jeremy Grodberg I think the fastest pulse dialable number is 1-212-221-1111. It rang for a while when I tried it. No one answered, and I didn't get an intercept, so I don't really know what kind of a number it is. Jeremy Grodberg jgro@apldbio.com ------------------------------ From: Irving Wolfe Subject: Re: Help Needed With AT&T Portable Phone Date: 19 Aug 90 06:12:02 GMT Organization: Happy Man Corp., Seattle In <11015@accuvax.nwu.edu> john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: >BTW, 25-30 feet is about all you can expect from a cordless phone in >an electrically hostile environment, such as the one I have here. He doesn't know how lucky he is, or how bad Panasonic cordless phones can be despite the quality of their other phone equipment. Mine starts becoming a little noisy at five feet and is about as noisy as it can be and still be usable at fifteen feet. My AT&T oordless phone, on the other hand, probably can go twenty-five feet or more (but not very much more). However, I don't accept output power limitation by the FCC as a legitimate excuse. We pick up little tiny signals from satellites that are thousands of miles away. Ham radio operators pick up -- when the ionosphere or somebody up there provides a cooperative bounce -- low level signals from around the world. The FCC probably doesn't prescribe a particular sort of modulation or the use of the cheapest chip available. If a 0.6 watt handheld portable cellular phone can talk to a cell site miles away, which it can, with clear reception both ways, certainly someone could design a cordless phone that really lives up to the traditional 1,000 foot claim. If anyone knows of one, please let me know! I'd like to buy a couple. Irving Wolfe Happy Man Corp. irv@happym.wa.com 206/463-9399 ext.101 4410 SW Point Robinson Road, Vashon Island, WA 98070-7399 fax ext.116 ------------------------------ From: Gordon Burditt Subject: Re: Thirty Five Years of Recorded Announcements Date: 19 Aug 90 07:57:52 GMT >Should we celebrate the anniversary? More than a few people have >gotten rich from telephone recorded announcements, that's for sure! If the anniversary of the invention of 900 and 976 numbers is to be celebrated, let it be celebrated in the same way as the Hinsdale central office fire, the first use of an atomic bomb in warfare, the invention of the electric chair, the legalization of the COCOT, the millionth "accidental" switching of someone's long-distance carrier without their knowledge, and the coming-to-a-slum-near-you "piss test" pay phones -- for when the drug dealers discover Radio Shack tone generators. Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Aug 90 13:20 EST From: CTC Wang Labs <0004248165@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Thirty Five Years of Recorded Announcements Several issues ago our Moderator wrote: > The original number for the time of day in New York City was NERVOUS. David Ofsevit has noted: > That works in the Boston area; the 637 exchange is the time announcement. In both the 617 (Metro-Boston) and 508 (Eastern Mass) NPA's, any number in the 637 exchange will give you the NewEngland Tel time announcement, although the 'official number' is 637-1234. In the days of 'named exchanges' this was the MERidian (637-) exchange [Websters: (archiac) the hour of noon]. I have a feeling that while NER-VOUS [637-8687] works just fine, the 'original' exchange in NYC was also MERIDIAN ... Comments?? Dave Bonney MCIMail: 422-4552 ------------------------------ From: dpfay@vax1.tcd.ie Subject: Re: Phone Service in Ireland Date: 17 Aug 90 16:51:34 GMT Organization: Computer Laboratory, Trinity College Dublin > I am going to Ireland in a couple of weeks and I am wondering what the > phone service is like there. Specifically: > 1.) Can I use my Sprint FON card to call the US? > 2.) Can I use my Sprint card for local Irish calls > 3.) I have an AT&T Universal card. Can I use it to > make calls within Ireland or to the US? The only U.S. card that Telecom Eireann accepts is one issued by AT&T, and only for calls to the U.S. To use it, call the international operator on 114 if in Dublin (01 area code) 10 from the rest of the Republic One problem is that the international operator lines are very busy at this time of year due (according to popular mythology) to tourists, expecially language students, looking for reverse-charge (collect) calls home. It's probably easier, and cheaper in the long run, to dial direct and get your caller to phone you back (All students know this trick...!) International calls can be made from any private phone (or hotel phone, at great expense) and from all payphones, except the antique black ones which you may come across in pubs, etc. The dialling code is: 16 - 1 - area code - local number The number of the payphone is normally written on it, or nearby, and you can give this to your caller. The country code for Ireland is 353. On a general note, the phone service in Ireland improved out of all recognition during the 1980s and over half the local exchanges are now digital. This isn't bad for a country where some places still had manual exchanges until quite recently. Nevertheless, payphoenes are often out-of-order, and long-distance calls are expensive. If you are going to Northern Ireland or Britain, you may be able to use Sprint card from there. International services are cheaper, and there is also a Call U.S. Direct service from the U.K. Deryck Fay Geography Dept., Trinity College, Dublin DPFAY@VAX1.TCD.IE ------------------------------ From: Mitch Wagner Subject: Re: No More Listening in on Cordless Phones in California Date: 20 Aug 90 03:11:52 GMT Reply-To: wagner@utoday.com (Mitch Wagner) Organization: UNIX Today!, Manhasset, NY In article <11016@accuvax.nwu.edu> judice@sulaco.enet.dec.com (Lou Judice, 908-562-4103 17-Aug-1990 1103) writes: # Well, in the wonderful Garden State (New Jersey), scanners, SW # receivers and many kinds of ham radio gear are illegal when used in or # near autos. I know of several hams who have been arrested or # harrassed under this law (Public Law 1977). Currently a measure has # been passed in the State Senate to repeal the law, but it still needs # to pass the Assembly and be signed by the Governor. Some police groups # oppose it, though some police I know really don't care - since as you # say these laws (like ECPA) are impossible to enforce. In New Jersey, effective early-1989 at least, you could use a scanner in your car if you got the municipal police chief's permission. The rationale was that crooks would use the scanner to find out where the police were, and know to commit their crimes elsewhere. Mitch Wagner VOICE: 516/562-5758 GEnie: UNIX-TODAY UUCP: wagner@utoday.com ...uunet!utoday!wagner ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Aug 90 11:14:55 EDT From: "Nicholas J. Simicich" Reply-To: Nick Simicich Subject: Scanner Diodes, etc From: TELECOM Moderator > I beleive it is illegal in and of itself to make the mods in a radio > simply because having done so, the radio loses its type acceptance > from the FCC, and radios without type acceptance cannot be used. > All radios, even those that 'only' receive, such as scanners, still > none the less also transmit, even just a little, using the > intermediate frequency. That's why no mods are allowed, since you > could, if you know not what you are doing, cause the radio to transmit > in an inappropriate way ... even a scanner. My belief is that one is allowed to build receivers without government type acceptance. I know that all radios that receive using a superhetrodyne circuit also transmit (radar detectors, for example) but I don't think that the emissions are considered to be "enough" to matter. I believe this, partially, because you can commercially purchase receiver kits and build them without any sort of permission or warnings against modification. > You take a diode from one place, and set it in another place. To > merely remove it is not enough (I don't think). You have to replant it > elsewhere to do the job, and in so doing, you lose 30-50. There is a ftp site which maintains a list of mods for radio equipment, scanners, etc. A friend of mine pulled the Pro 34 mod for me. I've reproduced this file at the end of the note. I believe that it does indicate that you remove the diode, and throw it away. If you are interested in the name of the site, I've copied him on the note. Respond, and I'm sure that he will be happy to tell you the name of the site and give you FTP instructions. > I might be wrong on that, but to prove it, I'd need to open the unit > again, and pull the diode from where it is now and see if 800 still > was open in the process along with 30-50. Anyway, 30-50 is pretty much > a dead issue around here (most other places also?). No one is down > there to speak of. Around here, all of the local Fire Departments are down around 39 Mz or so. VHF Low is alive and kicking in NY. There is also some County Sheriff activity in VHF Low. Nick Simicich (NJS at WATSON, njs@ibm.com) ---SSI AOWI #3958 Date: 4 Apr 89 14:24:01 GMT Subject: PRO-34 Scanner Modifications In the May 1989 edition of Popular Communications is a "Letter to the Editor" on the Radio Shack PRO-34 Scanner. Below is the text of that letter. PRO-34 Scanner Modification In regard to the information presented (March Issue) on the handheld Radio Shack PRO-34 scanner, my own observations on the modifications have been: 1. To restore missing 800 MHz frequencies, remove D-11. 2. To add 66 to 88 MHz (European Coverage), install a diode at D-9. 3. D-10 must remain in place for full 800 MHz coverage. 4. If a diode is added at D-13 it cuts out aero band, also seems to affect 800 MHz channel spacing. 5. D-12 added dosen't seem to have any affect. 6. Only D-10 and D-11 are factory installed. I wish to thank you for a fine and informative magazine. I have had much reading enjoyment. Sam S. Jones, Rebel Antenna, Falls Church, VA Julian Macassey, n6are julian@bongo ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian n6are@wb6ymh (Packet Radio) n6are.ampr.org [44.16.0.81] voice (213) 653-4495 ------------------------------ From: Charles Hawkins Mingo Subject: Re: Home Intercom Custom Calling Service Date: 19 Aug 90 20:17:49 GMT Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA In article <10651@accuvax.nwu.edu> Dan.Birchall@samba.acs.unc.edu writes: >Just saw on the news here (Philadelphia) where Bell of PA. is now >going to offer a new custom calling service, Home Intercom... Service >is aimed toward elderly, handicapped, and people with several phones >on the same line. From a phone with the service, you can dial your >own number, and other phones on the line will give a distinctive ring. >Price is the usual two bucks and change per month. When I was growing up in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada we could do this too. The exchange (902/423-xxxx) dated from the early fifties, did not allow touch-tone, and apparantly had this feature to accomodate party line customers who wished to call one another (according to the phone book, where I first discovered this). Anyway, one dialed 41091, hung up, and the phones rang with a double length ring. You waited until the ringing stopped (meaning someone else had answered the phone), and picked up yourself. I had used this feature as recently as April 1988 (when I was convalescing at home with a broken leg); however, when I tried it in August 1989, after the exchange went digital, it worked no more. Plus ca change, plus le meme chose. Charlie Mingo Internet: mingo@well.sf.ca.us 2209 Washington Circle #2 CI$: 71340,2152 Washington, DC 20037 AT&T: 202/785-2089 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #583 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28800; 21 Aug 90 5:13 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04819; 21 Aug 90 3:42 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab32234; 21 Aug 90 2:37 CDT Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 1:55:01 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #584 BCC: Message-ID: <9008210155.ab31004@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 21 Aug 90 01:54:29 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 584 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cellular Marketing [Jill Holly Hansen] Cellular Calls and Equipment Modifications [Lou Judice] Re: Billing of Multi-Lines [Lars Poulsen] Re: Answering Phrase [Danial Hamilton] Re: The LAW vs. Telephone Access Devices [Gary S. Mayhew] Re: Help Needed Building Home Intercom [Tim Stradtman] Re: What is a "Cable Address"? [John Cowan] Re: Static Causes Hassle on YaleNet [William Clare Stewart] Re: Western Union Mnemonics [Dig@cup.portal.com] 1-555-1212 vs. 411 [Clayton Cramer] Administrivia: IBM's Internal Telecom List [David Singer] Administrivia: Our Addresses [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jill holly hansen Subject: Re: Cellular Marketing Organization: Home for the incurables Date: Mon, 20 Aug 90 15:33:20 GMT In article <11010@accuvax.nwu.edu> wybbs!ken@sharkey.cc.umich.edu (Ken Jongsma) writes: : I'm beginning to suspect that cellular phones have no basis in : reality, as we know it. If this country gets any closer to recession, : a lot of people trying to get rich off of cellualar are going to be in : for a rude shock. : Consider the following print ad I saw recently: A person sitting in an : airport terminal, talking to someone on a cellular phone. The blurb : below: "Think of how much more productive you could be with a cellular : phone." : Uh, what's wrong with this picture? Let's see. I could spend .60+/min : to use my cellular phone (plus roaming rates, etc), or I could pick up : the pay phone right behind me and spend .25/min or less. The poster seems to make making two statements: 1) "cellular phones have no basis in reality" 2) pay phones are cheaper than cellular phones The second point is correct, while bogus. The first point is just plain bogus. 1) "cellular phones have no basis in reality" Do you remember when hand-held calculators were introduced in the early 70s? They then cost at least $100 for units with limited functions, and many of my colleagues couldn't understand why I could pay that much when a slide rule did the job just as well. Cell phones started out at $3,000; now you can get a transportable for $100 that you can leave under the front seat of your car for emergencies. In a few years, cell phones *are* going to be as ubiguitous as pocket calculators. And that means that *someone* is going to do well if not get rich. 2) pay phones are cheaper than cellular phones Certainly true. However, when I am stuck in an airport with my garment bag, my brief case, and my envelope full of 11 x 14 documents that I *need* to refer to when calling back to Chicago to discuss changes in the client's specs, I certainly don't want to have to do all this business from a payphone in a noisy hallway. Admittedly, I would rather make such a call from an quiet office, but failing that, I can park myself in an unused airport waiting area or at a restaurant table, spead my papers out around me, and then do my business on my cell phone. Considering that a business trip easily costs upwards of $200-$400/day exclusive of air fare, the roaming fees for the cell call are a small matter. Then, when I get back to O'Hare, instead of waiting for a payphone to check in with voice mail, I can grab a cab and do business as we creep down the Kennedy. Productive? I would like to believe so. Jill Holly Hansen jill@midway.uchicago.edu [Moderator's Note: Your mention of the high prices of the early calculators brought back some nostalgia. I bought a TI-58 and a TI-59 programmable calculator from Texas Instruments in 1976. They cost almost five hundred dollars each! That included the little printer device you mounted underneath the calculator. And my very first 'home computer' was the Ohio Scientific 'Challenger', model C-1-P. It had all of 4 K-bytes of ram. I got it early in 1977, and it cost a mere six hundred dollars. I converted it to 8 K ram and installed a 'lower case chip' by bravely following the instructions in some hobbyist magazine I found. My friend bought an Apple II with 64 K a couple years later and I wondered, what do you need *that much* ram for? :) PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Aug 90 07:10:45 PDT From: "Lou Judice, 908-562-4103 20-Aug-1990 1005" Subject: Cellular Calls and Equipment Modifications Pat indicates that it's "highly illegal" to modify a radio to receive cellular. No way, Pat. It's just illegal to USE it to listen to cellular, or to build and sell something that is specifically intended to receive cellular. There are numerous radios that you can buy today that will easily receive cellular communications. I agree with the previous poster, though, that it's usually not very interesting and I personally don't believe in "evesdropping". I've ALWAYS been careful on cordless phones and cellular to avoid business related or overly personal conversations ;) /ljj ------------------------------ From: Lars Poulsen Subject: Re: Billing of Multi-Lines Organization: Rockwell CMC Date: Mon, 20 Aug 90 17:28:24 GMT [From PAT:] > >I have two lines that are separate accounts, but BILLED to one line > >for convenience. When I started up ROA, I gave AT&T the second number > >(the non-billing one) but have the ROA rates on both lines. Each bill > >shows a full breakdown of all ROA-eligible calls, grouped by number, > >and a "total" ROA charge which includes all eligible calls made on > >either line. In article <11043@accuvax.nwu.edu> Bill Huttig writes: >The Moderator must have both the numbers as part of the same ACCOUNT. >Are you sure they are separate accounts? I must confess to a lack of understanding; if the two lines are billed to the same number, and the charges appear together on one bill, how can that not be one account ? How do you define the word "account" ? In my use of the word "account", I would use the term to define a subscriber record, for which a bill is written, and for which a running total of amounts due is kept. I.e. you may have two accounts in the same name, with separate "customer" records in the accounting database, and for which separate bills are issued (probably on different billing cycles). Or you may have one combined account, aggregating the billing for several different lines, possibly with enough itemization to permit tracing each charge to the line from which it was incurred. Is there a defined use of the word "account" in telco contexts, that is different from this? Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer CMC Rockwell lars@CMC.COM ------------------------------ From: Danial Hamilton Subject: Re: Answering Phrase Date: 20 Aug 90 17:30:04 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL contact!ndallen@uunet.uu.net (Nigel Allen) writes: >I think Alexander Graham Bell once proposed "hoy-hoy" as the >appropriate way to answer the phone. I believe the Japanese have a greeting that is reserved for use on the telephone. Something like "moshi moshi". ------------------------------ From: "Gary S. Mayhew" Subject: Re: The LAW vs. Telephone Access Devices Date: 20 Aug 90 14:05:05 EST Organization: HRB Systems In article <10844@accuvax.nwu.edu>, annala%neuro.usc.edu@usc.edu (A J Annala) writes: > The police claim is that such devices are telephone > access devices which should not be in the hands of the public. I am > curious about whether any other technical people have been challenged > by the police and what answer has satisfied them to go away without > hassle. >>In this context it appears to be to be completely ludicrous to >>claim these tools must not be found in the possession of members >>of the public. They are ordinary tools. Here in the rolling green hills of central Pennsylvania, I seriously doubt if any of the ``LOCAL'' police forces would even know what the purpose of such tools constituted. However, in answer to your comment, I believe that a very sraight-forward declaration of purpose would seffice. I dabble into PBX installations on the side and would be ***stunned*** if stopped by the local authorities and questioned as to "why I carry such equipment?". Gary S. Mayhew Internet: GSM@ICF.HRB.COM HRB Systems, Inc. Bitnet: GSM%HRB@PSUECL.Bitnet State College, PA. USA UUCP: ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!gsm (814) 238-4311; 237-6345 {DID}; 234-7720{FAX} ------------------------------ From: Tim Stradtman Subject: Re: Help Needed Building Home Intercom Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH Date: Mon, 20 Aug 90 18:52:08 GMT In article <10989@accuvax.nwu.edu> Martin Grossman writes: >I would like to setup a mini phone service at my home connecting just >two or three phones. What do I need to buy (Radio Shack) to do this? I would also like to know this information, but for a differant reason - we need to test various used modems for compatibility and operation. Sending someone home with one so that we have a phone line between them can be a real pain. Thanks, tim@ncoast.org or ak215@cleveland.freenet.edu ------------------------------ From: John Cowan Subject: Re: What is a "Cable Address"? Organization: ESCC, New York City Date: Mon, 20 Aug 90 15:16:13 GMT In article <10932@accuvax.nwu.edu>, The Moderator writes (in a note): >Orchestra). This was all 1950/60-ish stuff. I did not know they were >still making them available. I guess any telex carrier can do it. In >your example, you would call Western Union and tell the operator to >send a message to the cable address "Broadcasts". That is, *IF* s/he >even knows what you are talking about! :) PAT] Cable addresses are alive and well. To contact a friend of mine in Western Samoa, for instance, the procedure is to either cable UNDEVPRO APIA (the U.N. Development Program office in Apia, the capital of W.S.), or failing that, to cable AGGIES APIA (Aggie Grey's Hotel in Apia). I'm not quite sure what "failing that" means in this context, unless it means that the UNDEVPRO machine is off-line or busted -- not unlikely in W.S. conditions. cowan@marob.masa.com (aka ...!hombre!marob!cowan) e'osai ko sarji la lojban ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Aug 90 16:54:57 EDT From: William Clare Stewart Subject: Re: Static Causes Hassle on YaleNet Organization: Conspiracy? What conspiracy? In article <11013@accuvax.nwu.edu> microsoft!t-jimc@uunet.uu.net writes: ] regular YaleNet voice lines, usually with middling success. The ] age-old problem: bursts of static which destroy my connections and ] hardly noticable during conversations ("I don't hear any static, sir") ] but reduces me to 1200 baud or less with some regularity. Don't you just HATE that?! I had a lot of conversations about the same topic with New Jersey Bell, which were only resolved when the static got too loud to do voice on the line ("I don't hear any static" "That's because I'm calling from the other line that works - you couldn't hear me when I called you on the bad line.") Turns out it was a bad drop line going through one of my trees; I had tried to tell them the problem was mainly during bad weather. They also tried to suggest that if I had a business line instead of a second voice line then maybe I could get guaranteed service quality. A few years ago one of the Utah folks (? Donn Seeley or Jay Lepreau?) related a story about trying to tell the local phone company that he was getting phase jitter problems and there was a T1 out of sync. "What does it sound like?" "You get these }}}}i}} curly braces every second" "But what does it SOUND like?" "Is your supervisor there?" # Bill Stewart 201-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs # AT&T Bell Labs 4M-312 Holmdel NJ 07733 ------------------------------ From: ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com!Dig@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Western Union Mnemonics Date: Mon, 20 Aug 90 17:36:46 PDT Western Union's city mnemonics are more like code words than abbreviations, if you're talking about what I think you're talking about. I work at a store that provides Western Union services, and people use these code words whenever they make a "Quick Collect Payment" (Which is a payment made to a specific company, usually a credit card company, to pay a bill. The company doesn't have to make any special effort to collect what was sent to them. Apparently this service is used to make payments at the last possible moment.) You may want to try calling Western Union again. They recently went through some labor problems, and were using a lot of "scabs". You may have talked to one of these. They are back to their union operators now, who, generally, have been around longer and know what's going on. Dig@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ From: Clayton Cramer Subject: 1-555-1212 vs. 411 Date: 20 Aug 90 17:44:20 GMT Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA My wife and I went on vacation along the Mendocino County coast last weekend, and found another pocket of phones where 411 doesn't get you information. The phone company is Continental Telephone. The card on the payphone claims that 411 gets local directory assistance -- but when I called 411, after a long delay, the recording asked me to check the number again, because it wasn't in service! I tried 1-555-1212, and reached directory assistance. Mendocino County is a remote, backwater part of California, recently occupied by the U.S. Army in the pursuit of marijuana. Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer You must be kidding! No company would hold opinions like mine! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Aug 90 08:36:05 PDT From: David Singer Subject: Administrivia: IBM Internal Telecom List Patrick -- I see that you've gotten at least one query from an IBM'er wanting to know how to get the TELECOM Digest redistribution. Here's the information; feel free to publish this in the Digest, or just send it to IBMers asking about it. Thanks! IBMers wishing to subscribe to the TELECOM Digest redistribution list can find it as TELECOM DIGEST on the NETFORUM disk, run by ARCNET at ALMVMA. Questions about NETFORUM should be sent to NETADMIN at ALMVMA. yhos, David [Moderator's Note: And welcome back to the IBM readers. A redistribution list was available a few years ago at ibm.com, then for various reasons, distribution was discontinued to ibm.com sites until about three weeks ago. I'm glad to have you back. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 1:45:03 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Administrivia: Our Addresses From time to time people write me at chinet or somewhere other than telecom and say they tried to get through here and the mail bounced. Here are the addresses you may use in writing to the Digest or myself: INTERNET/UUCP: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (articles for publication) telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu (administrivia) ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu (personal mail to me) telecom@hogbbs.fidonet.org (an alternate which is forwarded to telecom@eecs.nwu.edu) ptownson@csbu.bu.edu (an alternate for me personally) FROM BITNET: telecom@nuacc.bitnet (forwards to telecom, above) FROM FIDONET: Telecom Digest 1:129/87 (forwards to telecom, above, via Heart of Gold BBS) FROM MCI MAIL: 222-4956 *Only* if you must! I pay to forward here! FROM ATT MAIL: !ptownson *Only* if you must! I pay to forward here! FROM TELEX: 6502224956 or 155296378 US MAIL: Telecom Digest, Box 1570, Chicago, IL 60690 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #584 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16642; 22 Aug 90 3:26 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21592; 22 Aug 90 1:54 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26137; 22 Aug 90 0:50 CDT Date: Wed, 22 Aug 90 0:40:18 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #585 BCC: Message-ID: <9008220040.ab18442@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 22 Aug 90 00:40:08 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 585 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Local 900 Sleaze [John Higdon] Those Cellular Phone Deals [John Higdon] Re: Cellular Marketing [Ken Jongsma] Kuwait Cellular Phones [Brian D. McMahon] Re: Answer Phrase [Brian D. McMahon] What Would it Take For Modems to Recognize Call Waiting? [Dan Bernstein] Antique Equipment [Jack Winslade] Why Are Phone Systems so *Stupid*? [Ole J. Jacobsen] 800 Bypass [Roy M. Silvernail] Observations [Hector Myerston] Oceanic Fiber Optic Cables in Meditteranean Area [Hank Nussbacher] Re: Oceanic Fiber Optic Cables in Meditteranean Area [P. Kirstein] Telecommunications Industry Association [Mary Ann Corsetti] A Typographical Error [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Local 900 Sleaze Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 20 Aug 90 23:40:12 PDT (Mon) From: John Higdon So you think you've heard it all when it comes to 900 scams. From flag burning to self improvement, sex to "inspiration", nothing would surprise you. Well, hold on for the latest: "[Name Forgotten] accurately predicted the October 17 earthquake within four days. His [mumbo jumbo] method of predicting earthquakes has been demonstrated to be alarmingly correct. He has predicted another moderate quake in the San Francisco Bay Area before August 31. You should be prepared for the sake of your loved ones and family. Write this number down: 900 844-JOLT. You will get valuable information on surviving earthquakes and [Name Forgotten] will explain his infallible methods for earthquake prediction. It's a matter of survival. Call 900 844-JOLT. Two dollars for the first minute, one dollar each additional." Valuable information on survival of earthquakes? Like that in the front of the phone book? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Subject: Those Cellular Phone Deals Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 20 Aug 90 23:26:49 PDT (Mon) From: John Higdon Somewhere the question was raised about those "deals" on cellular phones that are tied in to activation with a carrier who provides kickbacks to the dealers. In California, it is no longer legal to market cellular phones and require activation as a condition of sale. But those "great" deals still abound. How do they do it? Your investigative reporter has just finished some undercover work and here's the scoop: You walk into Jack's Souper Sellular, where he is offering the Gouchygama handheld phone for $499 (ad quote, "Cellular activation not required..."). You ask to look at the Gouchygama and he produces the dummy demo model. At the same time, he produces a Cellular One (or GTE Mobilnet) service and credit application form. From that point, one of two things happens if you decide to buy. CASE 1: You start filling out the application. At that point, he goes to the back room to get your phone. He appears periodically to see how you are coming on the application. "Oh, that's right. I need to get your Gouchygama. I'll be right back." Magically, when you have finished with the application, he produces the phone, programmed with your new number. You pay and leave. CASE 2: You say, "Actually, I just want the phone with no activation." He says, "Let me go in back and check stock." Moments later, he appears with the sad news that he is out of stock. Yes, he'll take your order, but it could be some time before he gets any more. Don't call him, he'll call you. You ask to see something else. Isn't it the damnedest thing? He is out of stock on almost every model! And that (with variations), friends, is how cellular phones are sold in California. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Cellular Marketing Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 9:23:00 EDT From: Ken Jongsma In her reply to my original post on the economics of Cellular Phones, jill@midway.uchicago.edu correctly points out that there are some very valid uses of Cellular Phones. I think we both agree that there must be a cost benefit trade off when using any business tool. However, based on my limited sampling of calls in one city, at various times of the day and night, Cellular Phones have a very high degree of misuse. 1) Jill's example of setting up an office at a quiet gate is a good use of the tool. However, would it be cheaper to use a desk in the airline "Red Carpet Club"? Maybe, maybe not. Cost benefit again. 2) The analogy regarding calculators is a good one. Let's look at where we are on the technology curve though. I think we're still at the beginning stages of cordless, personal communication devices. While the costs of the cellular phone are low, the overall cost of service is much higher than wireline service. It's much less expensive to run a radio tower to 1000 customers than it is to bury cable to those same customers. I suspect the novelty of the service and the lack of real competition is keeping rates much higher than they could be. Note: I realize that LA is running out of capacity, but in most of the country, scarcity of capacity is not a factor in pricing. Cellular has it's place. It's just being misused in many cases. Ken Jongsma ken@wybbs.mi.org Smiths Industries ken%wybbs@sharkey.umich.edu Grand Rapids, Michigan ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 8:40:36 cst From: "McMahon,Brian D" Subject: Kuwait Cellular Phones An interesting telecom angle on Iraq's occupation of Kuwait came up in an NPR (National Public Radio in the U.S.) report, heard at 0815 CDT today over KUNI. According to the report, Kuwaitis who had escaped to Saudi Arabia are using cellular phones as they attempt to reach friends and family who remained behind. Regular phone service has of course been cut, but apparently cellular still works sometimes. (Probably not often; according to the report, the Kuwaitis drive to the border area every day to try again.) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 8:40:36 cst From: "McMahon,Brian D" Subject: Re: Answer Phrase Danial Hamilton writes: >contact!ndallen@uunet.uu.net (Nigel Allen) writes: >>I think Alexander Graham Bell once proposed "hoy-hoy" as the >>appropriate way to answer the phone. >I believe the Japanese have a greeting that is reserved for use on the >telephone. Something like "moshi moshi". In Germany, there is a special formula for terminating a phone conversation. The usual "auf Wiedersehen" (meaning approximately, "until we see each other again") makes no sense over the phone, and German is a very precise language, so the correct way to say good-bye becomes "auf Wiederhren," or "until we HEAR each other again." Brian McMahon Grinnell College Computer Services Grinnell, Iowa 50112 (515) 269-4901 ------------------------------ From: Dan Bernstein Subject: What Would it Take For Modems to Recognize Call Waiting? Date: 21 Aug 90 14:33:07 GMT Organization: IR In this city, a local phone call of unlimited length has fixed cost. Call waiting is a lot cheaper than an extra line. It occurs to me that modems could reasonably recognize the call waiting beep. Then the user could answer the call and talk normally, without dropping the computer connection. In other words, for a monthly call waiting charge, you could get a permanent, basically free connection to the computer of your choice. What would it take to get this working in practice? The modem technology would be relatively simple: the hardest part would be convincing the modem on the other side not to hang up during a regular phone conversation. (It shouldn't be hard to make this work with answering machines either.) But what would the phone companies think of people getting connections so cheaply? Dan [Moderator's Note: Suppose you could set your modem to never time out; to never drop carrier, meaning you could flash your switchhook to take a call and your modem would just sit there waiting. If you could do that, how would the other end know you were on a call-waiting and had not disconnected abrubtly? What would prevent the other end from dropping carrier after it found your carrier was lost? Now if the one on the other end was fixed like yours, to ignore loss of carrier and just sit there humming away waiting for someone to return, then what would happen if some other user called and got accidentally cut off? How would the distant modem recover from that? What you are asking for is not as easy as merely fixing your own modem to ignore loss of carrier while you are on another call. And if your modem did work that way, would you want to sit there and try to converse with someone over the carrier tone (which was still there since you told it not to leave)? I don't think it would work out at all. And do not think that the telco is very concerned 'about people getting calls so cheaply', since most modem owners probably already have a second line to start with, and a phone bill double what a non-modem user is paying. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 19:57:59 EDT From: Jack Winslade Subject: Antique Equipment Reply-to: Jack.Winslade@f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537 This is a true story. I wouldn't have believed it had it happened to a friend of a friend, but it happened to me. Just recently, the rectifier tube in my 30's vintage Atwater-Kent superhetrodyne (it picks up '77 WABC {clang}' here in Omaha, if only I wanted to listen to it ;-) started arcing and sparking in yellow and blue flashes. Halfway joking, I asked one of our local electronic distributors to include a number 80 rectifier tube in our next order. I almost fainted when he replied that they always stocked the number 80. He said that one of the larger independent phone companies buys a lot of them for their carrier equipment. No, he wasn't kidding. I now have a brand new number 80 in the A-K. For those of you who are old enough to remember tube shapes, this one is labeled '80' but looks like a 5Y3 with a glued-on 4-pin base. With all of this talk about digital ESS and interoffice fiber, I find it amazing that equipment of that age is still in use, even in central Nebraska. For those of you who don't know tubes, the number 80 was phased out in the 1940's. 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: Tue, 21 Aug 1990 21:09:51 PDT From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" Subject: Why Are Phone Systems so *Stupid*?? Why is it that most phone systems insist on "knowing" about CO lines, *only* if these lines are properly "grabbed" by requesting extensions on the other side of the switch? If I can buy a cheap "line status indicator" which "knows" that a CO line is off hook, why can't the switches use similar brain power to figure the status of CO lines? The problem arises when you try to hook devices (modems, answering machines, faxen, etc.) *directly* to CO lines (which are also connected to the phone system). The phone system (stupidly) has no way of knowing when such a line is active and will merrily grab it at random with disastrous effects. Please don't tell me to hook my modem into an extension port, I only have 16, and that's not enough for a one bedroom place, besides having to dial 9....:-) P.S. This problem is present on both cheap systems like the Panasonic KX-T61610 and the expensive Merlin 2. Both fail the basic intelligence test in this respect. Arrg. Ole J Jacobsen, Editor and Publisher ConneXions--The Interoperability Report Interop, Inc. 480 San Antonio Road, Suite 100 Mountain View, CA 94040 USA Phone: (415) 941-3399 FAX: (415) 949-1779 ole@csli.stanford.edu ------------------------------ Subject: 800 Bypass From: "Roy M. Silvernail" Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 02:15:50 CDT Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN contact!djcl@uunet.uu.net (woody) writes: > Are there any numbers out there that allow access to 800 numbers by > bypassing zone restrictions? Several years ago, when I still lived in Kenai, Alaska, I used GCI as my LD carrier. In most cases, I could dial 800-numbers through GCI and pay for a Seattle call (~0.15/min off-peak). As time went on, more and more 800-numbers became available from Alaska, and I had less use for this feature. Eventually, Alascom began offering access to nearly all wide-zone 800's, as they became more competitive. It's interesting to note that Kenai-Seattle is ~2800 miles. Kenai-Anchorage is only 160 miles by road and 60 by air, yet a Kenai-ANC call was 0.10/min off-peak. You don't even want to _know_ what Tymnet (via Alaskanet) cost! Roy M. Silvernail | roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu | (tiny Telecom .sig :-) ------------------------------ From: myerston@cts.sri.com Date: 21 Aug 90 08:54 PST Subject: Observations Organization: SRI Intl, Inc., Menlo Park, CA 94025 [(415)326-6200] Re: The claims of emergency Cellular coverage on the PA Turnpike. 1. Experience has shown that, just as in the real world, any claim of the First, Last, and Only whatevers are likely to be bogus and open to challenge. A search of the archives will reveal, for example, numerous claims of "The Last Cordboard", "The Last Magneto Phone" etc. All are bogus without a long list of qualifiers. (For example there are still hundreds of each left in places like the military). 2. The best ways to prolong a thread endlessly are: (A) For someone to use the key phrase "FINAL WORD" and (B) For Patrick to announce he is closing the topic. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 15:46:25 P From: Hank Nussbacher Subject: Oceanic Fiber Optic Cables in Meditteranean Area I just got a map of the new fiber-optic undersea cable infrastructure being laid in this area of the world. Some of it already exists, and some is in the process of being installed. The installer of the cable is SUBMARCOM - a subsidiary of CGE (France). - EMOS-1 a cable from Palermo, Sicily to Tel-Aviv, Israel with shunts off to Lechaina, Crete and Marmaris, Turkey.. - MAT-2 a cable from Palermo, Sicily to Palma, some small island off the eastern shore of Spain (Balearic Islands). - MAT-3 is a cable from Palma to Estephona, Spain. - From the Estephona area, there is a connection to TAT-9, one of the two optic transatlantic cables. Since both TAT-9 and TAT-8 end near Plymouth, England there is the cabability of selecting either TAT-8 or TAT-9 for transatlantic service. Hank Nussbacher Israel ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Oceanic Fibre Optic Cables in Meditteranean Area Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 14:37:41 +0100 From: P. Kirstein@cs.ucl.ac.uk There a further transatlantic cable laid by Cable and Wireless and a number of others called PTAT-1. There is substantial choice of alternate routes - though you must be very careful of how the final national and local routing goes. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 08:47:36 EST From: Mary Ann Corsetti Subject: Telecommunications Industry Association Organization: State University of New York - Central Administration Does anyone have a mailing address for the Telecommunications Industry Association? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 23:53:17 -0400 From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Typographical Error In a recent TELECOM Digest, I quoted an address at Boston University as: ptownson@csbu.bu.edu. One too many bu's in there - should be: ptownson@cs.bu.edu. My thanks to Bruce Howells at BU for catching this and telling me. PT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #585 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11295; 23 Aug 90 2:43 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01287; 23 Aug 90 1:05 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24952; 23 Aug 90 0:02 CDT Date: Wed, 22 Aug 90 23:45:22 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #586 BCC: Message-ID: <9008222345.ab19930@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 22 Aug 90 23:45:07 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 586 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Answering Telephone [Paolo Bellutta] Re: Phone Rates USA to/from Japan [Norman R Tiedemann] Re: IRIDIUM: Motorola's New Cellular Phone System [Jeff Carroll] Re: 500/2500 Handsets [Christopher Owens] Re: 500/2500 Handsets [Rob Warnock] Re: 500/2500 Handsets [Herman Silbiger] Re: Free Terminals From USW [Mark Jones] Re: Free Terminals From USW [J. Eric Townsend] Re: Modems Recognizing Call Waiting [John McHarry] Re: Cellular Marketing/Future Capacity and Old Calculators [Ted Ede] Re: Lineman's Handset Help Needed [Julian Macassey] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paolo Bellutta Subject: Re: Answering Telephone Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 13:55:29 MET DST contact!ndallen@uunet.uu.net (Nigel Allen) writes: >I think Alexander Graham Bell once proposed "hoy-hoy" as the >appropriate way to answer the phone. In Italy the typical answering phrase is "pronto" (= ready). Paolo Bellutta I.R.S.T. vox: +39 461 814417 loc. Pante' di Povo fax: +39 461 810851 38050 POVO (TN) e-mail: bellutta@irst.uucp ITALY bellutta%irst@uunet.uu.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 14:17:48 EDT From: Norman R Tiedemann Subject: Re: Phone Rates USA to/from Japan Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories To add to my comparison of phone rates between USA and Japan: AT&T has a "Reach Out World" Plan which can includes Japan. The costs and times are very similar to MCI's except after 10 minutes of calling per month the rate actually drops below MCI's. AT&T Reach Out World to Japan: $3.00 per month charge (same as MCI) Calling times 10PM-2PM (same as MCI) Cost $ .80 per minute (the standard one cent more than MCI) BUT after ten minutes per month the cost goes to $ .76 per minutes, a whole three cents per minute less than MCI's plan. So for lots of calling, this is the cheapest USA -> Japan and almost the cheapest around. (Japan to USA, after the first minute rate of 0.73 is still cheaper based on 150 Yen/Dollar exchange.) Here I worked for the company and I didn't know about this plan until someone else told me about it. Norm Tiedemann AT&T Bell Labs IH 2G-419 att!ihlpy!normt 2000 Naperville Rd. normt@ihlpy.att.com Naperville, IL 60566 ------------------------------ From: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: IRIDIUM: Motorola's New Cellular Phone System Date: 21 Aug 90 22:55:26 GMT Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle In article <10706@accuvax.nwu.edu> gronk!johnl@uunet.uu.net (John Limpert) writes: >mk59200@metso.tut.fi (Kolkka Markku Olavi) writes: >>Does anybody know what kind of compression they plan to use to squash >>8kHz bandwith sound through a 4800bps channel? >The original article said that the system used vocoders, not telco >style A/D converters. A vocoder (voice encoder/decoder) can operate >at very low data rates. The Texas Instruments Speak and Spell toy >used vocoder technology (linear predictive coding) to fit digitized >voice into the toy's ROM chip. A vocoder uses a model of the human >vocal tract to transmit speech. It continually adjusts the model to >approximate the speech input and periodically transmits the parameters >to the decoder on the other end. The USAF has been using 10th order LPC vocoders for a number of years. They operate at 2400 bps, with a couple of different (incompatible) types in use. These are early '80s technology, and everyone tends to sound a little bit like Donald Duck - but really not much worse than analog cellular. (The signal/noise requirement in most tactical voice comm systems is only 10 or 12 dB anyway.) Jeff Carroll carrol@atc.boeing.com ------------------------------ From: Christopher Owens Subject: Re: 500/2500 Handsets Reply-To: Christopher Owens Organization: University of Chicago Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 18:12:34 GMT In article <11093@accuvax.nwu.edu>, roy@alanine (Roy Smith) writes: > OK, here's a question that's been bothering me for probably >about 20 years. Why, on a standard 500/2500 handset, does the >microphone just drop in but the speaker have screw terminals? The microphones on 500/2500 handsets were (still are?) made using a pellet of tightly-packed granulated carbon as the transducer. These pellets go bad (mechanical wear? environmental contamination?), resulting in lousy fidelity. A phone in this state can often be brought back to prime condition for a short while by giving the handset a rap on the desktop. But eventually the microphone needs to be replaced. It's about the only part of a 500 or 2500 that doesn't last forever. Someone at Bell undoubtedly decided that, since they expected to own the phones forever, the money spent at the factory on the drop-in mount would be more than paid back in savings of the repairman's time. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 22:30:39 GMT From: Rob Warnock Subject: Re: 500/2500 Handsets Reply-To: Rob Warnock Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA Just a guess: I suspect that the failure rate for carbon microphones is *far* higher than electrodynamic earphones, thus the "quick-change" connection. 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: Tue, 21 Aug 90 22:39:10 EDT From: hrs1@cbnewsi.att.com Subject: Re: 500/2500 Handsets Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <11093@accuvax.nwu.edu>, roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: > OK, here's a question that's been bothering me for probably > about 20 years. Why, on a standard 500/2500 handset, does the > microphone just drop in but the speaker have screw terminals? The "standard" 500/2500-type handset is/was the G-type handset. It originally had a U-1 ring armature receiver, but I forgot the code for the carbon trans- mitter. Note the use of the terms "receiver" and "transmitter", rather than speaker and microphone. The receiver is an electromagnetic device, and rarely fails during the life of the telephone set. The carbon transmitter depends on the action of the carbon granules, which have to remain mobile. They have a tendency to pack, however, especially if the fone is used in the same position for a long time. This often happens in a wall phone. While this can often be fixed by banging the handset against a hard object, it is an easy matter to open the handset and slip in a new transmitter capsule. New telephone sets now usually have electromagnetic ot electret transmitters, and the handsets cannot any longer be opened. Herman Silbiger ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 16:22:59 +0200 From: mark@motown.altair.fr Subject: Re: Free Terminals From USW In article <11087@accuvax.nwu.edu> the Moderator writes: >[Moderator's Note: This sounds almost too good to be true. Will >someone in the Omaha area who takes up these folks on their offer >please get back to us with details? Is it for real? PAT] These terminals have been offered to clients of France Telecom (the French national telephone monopoly) for five years now, under terms even more liberal than those in Nebraska. The program had some trouble getting off the ground, but is now considered a major success. At first the idea was that the Minitel terminals would be used essentially for directory lookups, and that the money saved in printing directories would more or less pay for the terminals. Income from Minitel services such as electronic shopping, train and air reservations and the like (these are privately-run and charged somewhat like 900 numbers) was not predicted to amount to much. The directory replacement idea didn't work as well as planned, since people demanded the hard-copy directories anyway. What turned the tide was the advent of message services, and in particular the "pink" ones (soft-core porn), for which the French public seems to have an unlimited budget. The pink message services were a two-year fad and have now faded out somewhat, but they did the trick: The Minitel is now firmly anchored in the French way of life, and service income from the average user far exceeds the couple of hundred dollars that the termnals are worth. I use mine a lot to log in to my work computer from home, via Transpac. It's cheaper than buying a PC (especially at French prices). My guess is that USWest and Mnematics are counting on a similar scenario in Nebraska. Note that in France, and I presume in Nebraska (the USW posting was cagey on this point), the terminal remains the property of the telco; only the *use* of the terminal is offered for free. In any case, however, the economics of home terminals can be an excellent investment for a telephone company. Mark James or ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 17:07:18 CDT From: "J. Eric Townsend" Subject: Re: Free Terminals From USW In Houston, if you subscribe to U.S. Videotel (Minitel in the States, essentially, but with no "Rose" services and severe restriction of users) you get a terminal for "free". Base cost is $14.95/mo. I cancelled several months ago, and they still haven't asked for their cheesey Minitel terminal ... :-) (This is the really old, non-anything else, V.23 only terminal.) J. Eric Townsend -- University of Houston Dept. of Mathematics (713) 749-2120 Internet: jet@uh.edu Bitnet: jet@UHOU Skate UNIX(r) ------------------------------ Date: Wednesday, 22 Aug 1990 08:19:48 EST From: John McHarry Subject: Re: Modems Recognizing Call Waiting In Vol 10: Iss 585 PAT commented that setting the modems to never time out would eliminate the call waiting problem, but would cause the system to remain off hook (and hung up by never hanging up!) in the event of a disconnect. Some, but I think not all, lines have a feature called "forward disconnect." This is invoked by the switch on a disconnect, and causes the line to go either open or short, interrupting the -48v feed. I think it was provided to knock down hold buttons when the far end hung up. The hold button set a relay which was held in by the -48v feed, keeping the off hook condition when the phone was on hook. Picking up a phone drew off enough current to drop the relay, but it was necessary for the switch to interrupt the current when the other end hung up. I believe this is also used by some answering machines to detect and hang up on no message or the end of a short message. At any rate, it could be used to knock the modems down on a disconnect, if the modems were designed to sense it, or if some ancillary circuitry were provided to handle the case, perhaps by cycling the power on the computer (?!) My opinions only, with the exception of the last suggestion, which even I cannot accept. * John McHarry (703)883-6100 McHarry@MITRE.ORG * [Moderator's Note: But didn't you know that call-waiting plays the same kinds of tricks on the voltage in the phone? For example, I know someone with a five line / six button phone. He foolishly had call waiting installed on a couple of those lines, which were all independent and not in hunt or anything like that. If a line was on hold when a call-waiting signal came through, it would always knock down the hold and dump the party holding, allowing the call-waiting to force its way onto the line instead. Call-waiting is not compatible with any electronic device which depends on changes in line voltage or what it 'hears' on the line to decide what to do. Modems, hold circuits, you name it. It even makes some PBX's think the call they are handling is complete and should be disconnected. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Ede Subject: Re: Cellular Marketing/Future Capacity and Old Calculators Date: 22 Aug 90 13:14:43 GMT Organization: The MITRE Corp., Bedford, MA In article <11111@accuvax.nwu.edu> jill@midway.uchicago.edu (jill holly hansen) writes: >In a few years, cell phones *are* going to be as ubiguitous as pocket >calculators. Does anyone have an idea how today's technology will meet the capacity demands of say, 1995? Can the cellular companies just keep adding cells to keep up with the increasing density of cellular calls? >[Moderator's Note: Your mention of the high prices of the early >calculators brought back some nostalgia. I bought a TI-58 and a TI-59 >programmable calculator from Texas Instruments in 1976. They cost >almost five hundred dollars each! If you want to talk vintage calculators, my dad has one of the first Bowmar calculators. In 1973 it cost $189.95 and had four functions. They bought the chip from TI, who later refused to sell them the six function chip, wedging them out of the market. He bought it back in '73 and got a deal on it because he sold them the LED displays. Power supply and all still work today, seventeen years later. Ted Ede -- ted@mbunix.mitre.org -- The MITRE Corporation -- Burlington Road linus!mbunix!ted -- Bedford MA, 01730 -- Mail Stop B091 -- (617) 271-7465 ------------------------------ From: Julian Macassey Subject: Re: Lineman's Handset Help Needed Date: 22 Aug 90 13:52:00 GMT Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood California U.S.A. In article <11090@accuvax.nwu.edu>, frankl@xrtll.uucp writes: > I was thinking of putting together a linesman's handset here, and I > was wondering, is it really as easy as putting good-quality Alligator > Clips onto a rotary dial phone's two wires? Simply put yes. > I've always wanted to make one of these beasts, and I'd rather not > pay the $110 can I've seen them here in surplus stores. Simply speaking, you can get a 500 or 2500 set from a swapmeet or garage sale, add some zip cord and roach clips from Rat Shack and goferit. But I assume you wanted something more portable and less clunky than that. Consider though, just a regular telephone set with leads attached will work very well, it even has a ringer. If you want to look hip, you will feel pretty silly with a 2500 set hanging from your belt. The handset will keep falling off, and the handset cord will tangle. Many "phone rooms" have a wall mounted phone with long test leads a dangling, that provides an in situ buttset for $25.00 or so. If you want to build your own buttset, here is something I have done. Get a Western Electric (AT&T) Trimline phone (The one that looks like a hot dog that people insist on calling a Princess). Discard the base. Open the phone and perform the following surgery. Attach test leads to the Tip and Ring. You can buy real telephone buttset test leads - only $50.00! So I assume you will make your own. You can also add regular Rat Shack roach clips or buy the telco ones which cost $4.00 each. The Telco type clips are designed to attach to 66 blocks and also some have a bed of nails that will penetrate insulated wire for a fast connect. What you have now is a buttset that is touchtone only and has no monitor function. To add the monitor function you need to add a 2 uF (4 is better) 250V mylar cap. This cap is switchable in series with Tip and Ring. When the cap is in series, you can listen but not speak. A miniature toggle switch can fit in the lower part of the earpiece, the cap is best made up of units distributed in nooks and crannies round the set. Put the plastic together again and feel proud of your "do-it-yourself" buttset. Why the real ones cost so much. Real buttsets can survive being dropped from great heights. They come with a real man belt clip so you can bang them against other people's furniture as you stroll around. They have super tough test lead wire. They have a monitor function, some have polarity and other test features. 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 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #586 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12893; 23 Aug 90 3:50 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25925; 23 Aug 90 2:10 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab01287; 23 Aug 90 1:05 CDT Date: Thu, 23 Aug 90 0:44:16 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #587 BCC: Message-ID: <9008230044.ab17935@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 23 Aug 90 00:43:34 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 587 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Pennsylvania Turnpike: New Cellular Emergency Number [W. T. Sykes] Re: Why Are Phone Systems so *Stupid*?? [John Higdon] Re: Help Needed With AT&T Portable Phone [Shawn Nunley] Re: Cable Addresses [Larry Lippman] Re: 500/2500 Handsets [Julian Macassey] Re: Source Needed for 900 Pricing [Hector Myerston] Re: Typographical Error [Nigel Roberts] The Washington Post Reports on Local Calling Changes [Carl Moore] The Netherlands Direct (R) [Hans Mulder] Automated Salesmen [Steve Cirian] Cellular Error Recordings [John R. Covert] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 22 Aug 90 15:09:14 EDT From: W T Sykes Subject: Re: Pennsylvania Turnpike: New Cellular Emergency Number Organization: AT&T Federal Systems Advanced Technologies - Burlington, NC In article <11097@accuvax.nwu.edu> gt0818a@prism.gatech.edu (Paul E. Robichaux) writes: >Actually, the Onslow County, NC area offers (and has for at least a >year; maybe longer) a direct link to the NC highway patrol. Dialing >"*HP" will connect you to a dispatcher. >This system seems like a good replacement for 911 calls while on the >highway; it doesn't suffer many of the liabilities of cellular 911 >calls that were discussed here a while back. The information supplied above by Paul applies statewide (given the presence of a cell.) It seems that the cellular operators and the state have gotten together on this. There are signs posted on the interstate to advise drivers to dial *HP. Apparently it will connect you to the Troop dispatcher responsible for the area that the call is placed from. If the accident is out of the jurisdiction of the HP, they will notify the local authorities. Typically the HP is reponsible for all auto accident investigations that occur outside of corporate city limits. William T. Sykes AT&T Federal Systems Advanced Technologies Burlington, NC UUCP: att!burl!wts att!cbnewsl!wts ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Why Are Phone Systems so *Stupid*?? Date: 22 Aug 90 01:36:12 PDT (Wed) From: John Higdon "Ole J. Jacobsen" writes: > Why is it that most phone systems insist on "knowing" about CO lines, > *only* if these lines are properly "grabbed" by requesting extensions > P.S. This problem is present on both cheap systems like the Panasonic > KX-T61610 and the expensive Merlin 2. Both fail the basic intelligence > test in this respect. Arrg. Are you serious? What you describe is also true of the most expensive Mitels, ITT 3100s, Meridian/SL1s, etc., etc., ad nauseum. Why on earth should a PBX be equipped with "line status detection" when it was never intended that a trunk would be shared with foreign equipment? Would you dangle some gadget off of a four-wire E&M trunk and then expect a PBX to detect it and deal with it? A trunk to a PBX, whether it be two wire (ground or loop start) or four wire E&M is supposed to be a trunk to a PBX and is not intended to be shared with modems, answering machines, dialers, or any other doodads. Some PBXs accept trunks as T-spans. What kind of gadgetry would you expect to be able to tack on to those circuits and have the PBX recognize it and deal with it? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Shawn Nunley Subject: Re: Help Needed With AT&T Portable Phone Date: 22 Aug 90 22:17:49 GMT Reply-To: Shawn Nunley Organization: Excelan, Inc., San Jose, Califonia In article <11102@accuvax.nwu.edu> irv@happym.wa.com (Irving Wolfe) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 583, Message 5 of 11 >In <11015@accuvax.nwu.edu> john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: >>BTW, 25-30 feet is about all you can expect from a cordless phone in >>an electrically hostile environment, such as the one I have here. >He doesn't know how lucky he is, or how bad Panasonic cordless phones >can be despite the quality of their other phone equipment. Mine >starts becoming a little noisy at five feet and is about as noisy as >it can be and still be usable at fifteen feet. My AT&T oordless >phone, on the other hand, probably can go twenty-five feet or more >(but not very much more). I suspect that either the quality of cordless phones is on the rise, or that these folks have purchased defective phones. I purchased a Sony, tne channel cordless that performs very well in an electrically hostile environment. By very well, I mean that I can have a mostly noise-free conversation as far away as three houses down and across the street! That is well over 300 feet from the base station. In addition, the Sony has a stand-by battery life of seven days, twelve hours of continuous talking. When I am using my computer (a large beast of power cosumption), I notice no degredation in quality whatsoever. In fact, nothing in my house seems to affect the quality of sound at all. Internet: shawn@ka.novell.com UUCP: {ames,sun,apple,mtxinu,cae780,sco} !novell!shawn Shawn Nunley Tel: (408) 473-8630 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: What Are "Cable Addresses"? Date: 22 Aug 90 00:29:55 EDT (Wed) From: Larry Lippman In article <10932@accuvax.nwu.edu> TELECOM Moderator writes: > [Moderator's Note: Cable addresses are nothing more than shorthand for > the entire telex address. They were devised many years ago by Western > Union as a sort of precurser to what we call 'speed dial' today, or > 'abbreviated dialing'. Except, you really did not dial anything. You > merely passed the cable address to the Western Union agent/operator, > who had a lookup table of addresses versus telex numbers. They were > used as advertising gimmicks, and ways to easily remember long > numbers. Cable addresses are still used today, although telex traffic is, in general, declining due to better and lower cost international direct dialing. FAX is rapidly replacing telex. Cable addresses are coordinated in the U.S. by the Central Bureau for Registered Addresses in New York City. There is an annual fee for maintaining the cable address registration. A telex directed to a cable address gets routed to the telex number associated with the cable address. I believe there may be other delivery options, but I am only familiar with routing to an existing telex number. Cable addresses are often chosen for mnemonic significance. The cable address for my organization is "RECOGNIZE". Clever, huh? :-) If you send to our cable address, it will come in on our telex line furnished by RCA Global Communications (now MCI). We get very little cable and telex traffic these days, probably 5% of what we got 10 years ago, since most international communications now arrive via FAX. My favorite cable address is that of a law firm in Chicago which I have used as patent counsel on certain matters: Kinzer, Plyer, Dorn & McEachran. Their cable address is "ELECTRIFY". They get quite a bit of international traffic, and that cable address is not easily forgotten! Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. {boulder||decvax||rutgers||watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry VOICE: 716/688-1231 || FAX: 716/741-9635 {utzoo||uunet}!/ \aerion!larry ------------------------------ From: Julian Macassey Subject: Re: 500/2500 Handsets Date: 23 Aug 90 04:04:42 GMT Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood California U.S.A. In article <11093@accuvax.nwu.edu>, roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: > OK, here's a question that's been bothering me for probably > about 20 years. Why, on a standard 500/2500 handset, does the > microphone just drop in but the speaker have screw terminals? > Well, not only do 500 and 2500 sets have drop in microphones (Transmitters in telco speak), but all Western Electret sets using a carbon transmitter use the same device called a T1. Do not confuse a T1 transmitter with "T1 carrier". The reason for the easy removal of the transmiter is for simple field replacement. Carbon transmitters go bad more often than "speakers", known as receivers in telco speak. The following countries also have drop in transmitters, Denmark, Sweden, UK (old phones) Germany. There are no doubt others that I am not familiar with. Denmark also used to have drop in receivers. 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 ------------------------------ From: myerston@cts.sri.com Date: 22 Aug 90 11:16 PST Subject: Re: Source Needed for 900 Pricing Organization: SRI Intl, Inc., Menlo Park, CA 94025 [(415)326-6200] Re: The issue of pricing 900-calls from a PBX. This is major emerging problem. The problem has been highlighted by the increasing number of "legit" 900 services. For example, many software vendors are now providing technical support via 900 services. It simplifies their operation, encourages brevity and perhaps brings in a few bucks :-) If your company buys from these vendors then it makes little sense to block 900 calls. AT&Ts 900 service (Multiquest) prices on NXX-X ((900) NXX-X---). For example (900) 820-2--- is $3/1st min while (900) 820-5--- is >$50 Subject: Re: Typographical Error In Digest #585, PAT writes: ; In a recent TELECOM Digest, I quoted an address at Boston University as: ; ptownson@csbu.bu.edu. ; One too many bu's in there - should be: ; ptownson@cs.bu.edu. Could this be describe as a bu-bu? Nigel Roberts (I just _couldn't_ resist) [Moderator's Note: Very funny, and a clever play on words. :) PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Aug 90 11:01:23 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: The Washington Post Reports on Local Calling Changes I just now got to May 4, 1990 microfilm for the {Washington (DC) Post}. Page A-1 has article (continued inside) about the Oct. 1, 1990 local-calling change (must then use area code on DC-area local calls which cross area code boundaries). Comments I gleaned (opinions and examples are only from that article): "Whether the change will weaken the psychological ties among city and suburbs remains to be seen." People often do NOT take such changes kindly, but resistance is usually short-lived. In DC area, you generally know if you are calling DC, Md., or Va.; but in Mass. when 508 was formed, you had to learn the new code by town. C&P expects that if growth continues, Md. will need new area code in several years, but there currently is no decision about this. Under the new way of making local calls, someone living in Anacostia area (DC) could have the same 7D number as someone living in Oxon Hill (Md.), just a mile away. [ <-- note by me: this obviously puts an end to use of area code 202 for points not right in DC proper.] Up to now, DC area has had the "privilege" (since the 1950s, with quotes mine) of making local calls without area code; however, in Manhattan (NYC), you routinely use 718 area code to make local call to Brooklyn. There is a worldwide proliferation of phone numbers, and networks have to be reconfigured to allow more phone numbers (the article specifically mentions the London split occurring right around then). Article apparently came out before the announcement about Pentagon being put in 703 (Pentagon is physically in Virginia, but had been in area 202, NOT in 703). I should also mention that leading 1+ is cited as OPTIONAL in those local calls crossing NPA line. You are REQUIRED to use it for toll calls. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Aug 90 17:58:39 +0200 From: Hans Mulder Subject: The Netherlands Direct (R) It is still impossible to originate a collect call from the Netherlands, but collect calls can now be placed from many other countries via "the Netherlands direct (R)". Their numbers are: Australia 0014 881 310 Austria 0229 03031 (local call) Belgium 11 0031 Brazil 000 8031 Canada 1 800 363 4031 Denmark 800 10331 Finland 9800 10310 (local call) France 19 0031 Greece 00800 3111 Hong Kong 008 1311 (not from rotary phones) Indonesia 008 0131 (not from coin phones) Italy Rome and Milano 1720031 phone offices 1031 Japan 0039 311 New Zealand 0009 31 Portugal 0505 0031 (not from coin phones) Singapore 800 3100 South Korea 009 31 Spain 900 9900 31 Sweden 02 079 5731 (local call) United Kingdom 0800 890031 United States 1 800 432 0031 Yes, the country code for the Netherlands is 31. (BTW, can anybody explain the bit about rotary phones in Hong Kong?) If you live in the Netherlands, you can get a free flyer with this info from the folks at 06-0402. All typos are mine. Hans Mulder hansm@cs.kun.nl ------------------------------ From: Steve Cirian Subject: Automated Salesmen Date: 22 Aug 90 15:23:08 GMT Organization: EDS/TSD - Troy, MI Last night, I had a call from a computer at Kodak, trying to sell me something. After listening for a few moments, I lost interest, and hung up. I tried to call a friend a minute or two later. To my surprise, the recording was still going, and there was nothing I could do to break the connection. A thought occurred to me: what if I had an emergency, needed to call 911, and couldn't because Kodak had tied my phone up (for at least 5 minutes)? Is this legal? Shouldn't companies that use this sales strategy be required to have a system that would recognize a hangup, and break the connection? (I appologize if this subject has already been covered in detail, I am new to this newsgroup :-)) Steve Cirian 750 Tower Drive, Troy, MI 48007 (313) 265-5738 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Aug 90 14:12:35 PDT From: "John R. Covert 22-Aug-1990 1712" Subject: Cellular Error Recordings Some callers have expressed confusion over the two different NYNEX Mobil error messages. Let me try to clear this up. Message 1 (out of the service area) "Thank you for using the NYNEX Mobile Cellular System. Your call cannot be completed at this time. The mobile customer you have dialled has left the vehicle or travelled beyond the local service area. Please try again later." This means one of the following: a. I've turned the phone off because I'm in a meeting, movie, concert, or whatever. Please call later. b. I'm either completely out of the service area or in a dead spot. Please call later. c. I've gone to lunch in Nashua and "Follow Me Roaming" is taking its time about following me. It can take from five minutes to over an hour. Hopefully Judge Greene will someday let the two systems be connected together. Please call later. Message 2 (connection rejected) "Thank you for using the NYNEX Mobile Cellular System. I'm sorry, we're unable to complete your call at this time. Please hang up and try again later." This means the phone is turned on and responding to your call, but one of the following conditions exists: a. All channels in the cell site I'm in are busy. Try again right away, and you may get through. b. I'm in a weak but not completely dead spot (such as the ZKO cafeteria). Try again a few times; a different channel with better propagation characteristics might get selected. If my calls are being sent to a different area, the recordings may be completely different. Some systems use the same recording for both conditions; other systems provide reorder (fast busy) for the second condition. john ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #587 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05002; 24 Aug 90 0:52 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05396; 23 Aug 90 23:23 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02850; 23 Aug 90 22:19 CDT Date: Thu, 23 Aug 90 22:17:26 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #588 BCC: Message-ID: <9008232217.ab03098@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 23 Aug 90 22:17:18 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 588 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Answering Machine as Room Bug? [Tom Neff] NY State Police Round Up Hackers [Colin Plumb] Toll Calls on 800 Service [Sander J. Rabinowitz] Phone Calls to Kuwait [Carl Moore] Schematic For AT&T Cordless Phone [Bob Ansaldo] Where To Obtain The USOC Book [A. J. Annala] Phone Line RF Bypass Needed [Brian Kantor] Automated Collect Calling [David M. Archer] Rates, Wonderful Rates [Jerry Leichter] Inexpensive Test Sets and Other Telecom Equipment [Paul J. Zawada] Call Here For Instant ANI [The Blade] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Neff Subject: Answering Machine as Room Bug? Date: 22 Aug 90 07:21:15 GMT Reply-To: Tom Neff I turned on the shortwave receiver in my apartment this morning and was flipping past the 5-6 MHz neighborhood when I distinctly a voice coming from the speaker. It was my friend in the other room! I couldn't believe it. Throwing on headphones I told her "keep talking" (nothing surprises her at this point :-) while I fine tuned the messy signal. Something was broadcasting from my living room! (Nobody was on the phone, and there's no intentional transmitter in the apartment - not even a walkie-talkie.) Then I switched places and had her listen while I walked around the other room talking, to see if we could localize the source. Not much luck. So I started unplugging things. Speakers... no. Radios... no. The phone itself... no. The answering machine... YES! As soon as it was unplugged the signal disappeared. Plug back in... back comes the signal. Conversation anywhere in the living was audible and reasonably intelligible. This is a Panasonic KX-T1470 answering machine. It does have the "room monitor" feature where you press <5> from a remote phone to listen to what's going on at home. I wonder -- is the mike always live, with the only difference being that <5> switches it into the circuit? Is everyone with a Panasonic answering machine bugging himself? ------------------------------ From: Colin Plumb Subject: NY State Police Round Up Hackers Date: Wed, 22 Aug 1990 21:05:53 -0400 Organization: Array Systems Computing, Inc., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA In the latest {Computerworld}, Michael Alexander has written another interesting article. "The hackers allegedly used an 800 number to break into the computer, making it easy to identify them, Delaney said." "`The information gleaned from the computer is of unclassified, administrative nature,' said Major Steve Headley of the Air Force investigations office at Bollings Air Force Base in Washington, D.C. `However, the office of special investigations of the Air Force is concerned primarily that the act was criminal of itself and...while it was innocuous, unclassified stuff, in aggregate, over a long period of time, it could have meaning or be perhaps sensitive.'" Reference: Computerworld, August 20, 1990, Vol. XXIV, No. 34, page 99. Colin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Aug 90 16:18 EST From: "Sander J. Rabinowitz" <0003829147@mcimail.com> Subject: Toll Calls on 800 Service I just read of a disturbing development involving 800 service. Can anyone confirm or deny the following: (Detroit Free Press, 22 August 1990, Front page) "Starting September 15, with the football season opener against Syracuse University, fans can phone an 800 number and listen to the play-by-play of MSU football, basketball and hockey games, but for a price. "UNLIKE OTHER 800 NUMBERS, WHICH ARE TOLL FREE, CALLERS WILL BE BILLED FOR CALLING 1-800-CALL-300. (Note: Emphasis added.) "Football games, which usually last about three hours, would cost $36.50. To my knowledge (although I've subscribed to Telecom only since last week), this is totally without precedent. It disturbs me for the following reasons: 1) Up to this point, 800 service has been synonymous with toll-free calling (from the standpoint of the caller). It is conceivable that some businesses could abuse 800 service by advertising their number but withholding the fact that their number incurs a charge. (Or putting it in very small print.) 2) We have a five-year old in our house, and hearing of all the horror stories regarding 900 and 976 services involving children playing with the phone, we now have 900 and 976 service blocking. Now, with the advent of NON-tollfree 800 service, I am at a loss as to how to deal with it (aside from physically putting locks on the phones). Whereas I can generally do without 900 service, I don't think I can say the same regarding 800 service. 3) Businesses using 800 service should be outraged (again, assuming the above is true). If people become afraid to use 800 service because of the possibility of a charge, calls to 800 numbers in general may significantly decrease. Businesses that use 800 numbers as the primary means of dealing with their customers should be especially concerned. In all of this, I can't help but feel that Michigan State University deliberately took the 800 route to circumvent call blocking measures. This is a truly unfortunate occurance, and I would hope that this is the only time that anyone uses 800 service in this fashion. I am sending carbon copies of this message to Michigan Bell and my Congressman. Best wishes from Sander Rabinowitz MCI MAIL: 382-9147 Internet: 0003829147@mcimail.com [Moderator's Note: I think you will find the billing is on a credit card number which you must punch in when you first connect. You will NOT be billed by telco for the 800 call, but you WILL be billed by the University (or some affiliated organization handling university sports promotions, etc) via the credit card you authorize on the touch pad. Therefore, a person dialing that 800 number will be greeted only by a synthesized voice asking them to enter their card number. If it is not valid; or valid, but credit cannot be authorized, then it will simply disconnect you. Every example I've seen in the past like this has been for phone sex, horoscopes or similar services. I don't think you need to worry about anyone running up your phone bill, and I doubt your child has access to your credit card numbers. The price quoted, $36.50, would only buy five or ten minutes on many 900 lines. I suspect the University went with 800+credit card to keep the price down. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Aug 90 23:57:38 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Phone Calls to Kuwait In an issue of TELECOM Digest dated June 20, a writer said that Kuwait, before international DDD, had a U.S. area code. As you know, Kuwait has been invaded since then. I found that calls to Kuwait (country code 965) are being intercepted with message "914-1T": "Due to an emergency situation in the country you are calling, your call cannot be completed at this time. Please try your call again later." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Aug 90 09:25:28 EDT From: Bob_Ansaldo%es.uucp@lectroid.sw.stratus.com Subject: Schematic for AT&T Cordless Phone I am in search of a schematic for an AT&T model 4110 cordless telephone. I have one of these beasts that for some reason developed gobs of extra sidetone and I'd like to fix it. If anyone has or knows where I could get a schematic for it, please let me know. Replies direct to me to conserve net usage. Thanks. Bob Ansaldo | e-mail: Bob_Ansaldo@es.Stratus.com Stratus Computer, Inc. | or: ...uunet!lectroid!es!Bob_Ansaldo 55 Fairbanks Blvd. | Marlboro, MA 01752 | phone: (508) 490-6247 fax: (508) 481-8945 ------------------------------ From: A J Annala Subject: Where to Obtain the USOC Book Date: 23 Aug 90 07:52:05 GMT Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA Anyone know where to get a book of standards (e.g. USOC - Universal Service Order Code) for things like the order of colors to punch down on '50 blocks from 50 pair, 100 pair, 200 pair, etc cables? Thanks, AJ ------------------------------ From: Brian Kantor Subject: Phone Line RF Bypass Needed Date: 23 Aug 90 15:49:55 GMT Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd. Does anyone happen to remember the USOC or other ordering code for the widget used for bypassing phone line entry to radio transmitter buildings? Lemme spring this one on you: Ham radio repeaters on the 2m band are spaced 600 kHz between receiver and transmitter. About five miles from our repeater site is KOGO-AM, on 600 KHz. We didn't have a problem until the phone line was installed into our mountaintop site, but we've measured nearly a VOLT of 600 KHz KOGO on the phone line - seems that fifteen miles of rural phone lines will make a hell of an antenna. When combined with the very strong transmitter signal in the building, we get a mix that generates a weak carrier on the repeater station's input and it sits there and sings to itself. We've used one of the CORCOM power line EMI filters to bypass the telco line we have, but we're going to be ordering several new lines installed in the next few weeks and I'd rather have the "official" filter box if I can get it. Our installer wasn't able to find the ordering codes in his references. Thanx! Brian ------------------------------ From: David M Archer Subject: Automated Collect Calling Date: 23 Aug 90 15:52:13 GMT Reply-To: v116kznd@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu Organization: University at Buffalo A week or so ago, I received a most interesting call on one of my phone lines. For some reason I at least seem to get a lot of wrong numbers on this line, so a wrong number is not at all unusual. What was somewhat interesting was that it was one of those automated collect call handling systems whereby I hear a recorded message along with a recording of the calling party saying his/her name, and am then asked to reply either yes or no. Now, I've heard about these systems for some time, so I wasn't too astonished, except that for some reason I wasn't in the right frame of mind and replied "what?". Luckily it interpreted that as a no, and it said goodbye and hung up. But it does make me wonder how foolproof it is, and just how many people have or will be charged for collect phone calls that they didn't authorize. I'm wondering if there are any readers of this newsgroup who have had troubles with this system and if they have any comments? [Moderator's Note: A few days ago, someone said they recieved such a call, said NO and got billed anyway. Was your call from a telco payphone or from a COCOT, or could you tell? Phone phreaks love the easy way fraud can be committed with this system: When asked to tape record their name, they say, "Call me at xxx-xxxx" or otherwise deliver some message. A live operator would never accept that for a 'name', but the equipment can't tell the difference. It calls and tells me there is a collect call from 'call me back at xxx-xxxx', and will I accept the charges. I say no, but that's okay; the message was delivered! PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Aug 90 09:08:02 EDT From: Jerry Leichter (LEICHTER-JERRY@CS.YALE.EDU) Subject: Rates, Wonderful Rates All of you who complain that you local Telco is still charging for Touchtone - or justify charges for services like Call Waiting as needed to offset development costs and such - will be delighted with the rate increase that SNET has filed for. It's the first increase in eight years, and comes to a total of $86.4 million. (BTW, I've never been able to figure out what those totals are sup- posed to mean. Are they saying "$86.4 million extra in the first year? Each year, on average, for the next eight? Over the next eight years?") The increases apply to almost everything. Basic rates for residential custo- mers increase by anywhere for $.80 to $1.70; the current range is from $5.17 for "Select-A-Call" (no message units included, you pay per call) to $11.02 (Class III flat rate). (All the exchanges in the state are in one of three "classes", depending presumably on the number of phones in your local area or something like that.) Business rates will increase by $2.40 to $4.97; currently, they range from $15.61 to $22.38. One thing SNET fails to mention in its brochure - unless you look in the fine print - is that a number of exchanges are changing class. Surprise: Every one of them is moving to a higher (i.e., more expensive) class. A rough count seems to indicate that as a result of the changes, the majority of exchanges will now be in Class III, whereas previously a majority were in Class II. Here are some other changes. (Totalphone includes speed dial, call waiting, call forward, three way calling, and one other thing I can't remember: It was added after I got Totalphone on one of my lines and the only reason I found out about it is that I later added Totalphone to another - and now I can't find the new brochure! I think it also includes Touchtone. You can't get the individual services "unbundled" - except, it appears, for call forwarding, which the business office didn't tell me about when I asked.) Current New Touchtone Residence $1.85 $2.20 Business 2.13 2.50 PBX 3.12 3.70 TotalPhone Residence 6.58 7.80 Business 11.59 13.80 Call Forwarding Residence 2.84 3.35 Business 4.73 5.60 Non-listed # .57 1.00 Non-published # 2.08 3.05 !!! Add res. lstng .52 1.00 Add bus. lstng 1.09 1.50 Add nonlcl lst 1.09 1.55 Oper dialing free .75 Verify busy free 1.00 Interrupt call free 1.00 Calling card .24 .65 !!! Bill 3rd party .71 1.75 !!! Person-2-person 1.42 3.50 !!! There are many other increases e.g., residential FX lines go up by between $6.76 and $14.41 a month. On the plus side, in-state long distance calls are going down. The example they give of a "typical" call from Hartford to Stamford (about 60 miles, at a rather rough estimate) at daytime rates for 3 minutes goes from $.92 to $.78. Some "business services", including WATS and 800 and "some digital private line services" are also going down. Local coin calls remain at a dime. Jerry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Aug 90 14:38:27 -0500 From: Paul J Zawada Subject: Inexpensive Test Sets and Other Telecom Equipment Lately people have been discussing cheap test sets and test sets in general ... Here's what I was fortunate enough to stumble onto ... I bought two Western Electric rotary butt sets at the Dayton Hamvention last April for only $25. The vendor had HUGE box of these things. Most were in "average" shape. Some looked and worked real well (including the two I bought) a few were pretty ugly looking. (I tested the sets on a 12 V battery the vendor supplied.) I guess the former BOCs have replaced most of the craftsmen's rotary sets with the fancy new pushbutton type. I've been pretty lucky at hamfests for telcom equipment ... I've picked up: ... a bunch of telco or "bed of nails" clips for $2.00 a pair. (Instead of the normal price of four for $25...) ... Western Electric three pair cross connect wire 600' for $5.00 ... Scotchlok IDC connector crimper (cartridge type - the model number escapes me right now) complete with a couple of boxes of UR connector catridges for $30. ... Plantronics StarSet II phone headset - brand new in original packaging - $10 (This alone is worth over $150) ... and a few other bargains. Paul J Zawada | zawada@ei.ecn.purdue.edu Titan P3 Workstation Support | ...!pur-ee!zawada Purdue University Engineering Computer Network ------------------------------ From: The Blade Date: Thu, 23 Aug 90 15:52:31 PDT Organization: The Dark Side of the Moon +1 408 245 SPAM Subject: Call Here for Instant ANI More 800 ANI fun, with less the wait. To get an instant replay of the number you are dialing from, without having to listen to any garbage: 800 648 2980 I believe it belongs to MCI. The Blade [Moderator's Note: I've tried it off and on over the past two hours. It has been continuously busy. If anyone else tries it, don't bother writing with your results unless it is different than with the other thing we tried a couple weeks ago. Even then, I don't really care if you write about it or not. 800-649-2981 is also always busy. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #588 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07362; 24 Aug 90 3:16 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08704; 24 Aug 90 1:31 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31454; 24 Aug 90 0:23 CDT Date: Thu, 23 Aug 90 23:42:15 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #589 BCC: Message-ID: <9008232342.ab05962@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 23 Aug 90 23:41:31 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 589 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Telephone Handset Receiver Elements [Larry Lippman] Building a 1A2 Key Service Unit [Larry Lippman] 976- and 900- Phone Numbers [Robert M. Hamer] Re: System 75 Abbreviated Dialing [David Ptasnik] Legal Aspects of "Those Cellular Phone Deals" [Ted Ede] CINDI and No-Light Phones [Pete Holsberg] Re: Automated Salesmen [Chris Petrilli] Re: Automated Salesmen [John Higdon] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Telephone Handset Receiver Elements Date: 23 Aug 90 13:29:58 EDT (Thu) From: Larry Lippman In article <11093@accuvax.nwu.edu> roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: > OK, here's a question that's been bothering me for probably > about 20 years. Why, on a standard 500/2500 handset, does the > microphone just drop in but the speaker have screw terminals? That's a pretty good question! In attempting to give you a reasonable answer, I must first point out that some telephone handsets did have drop-in receiver elements. For example, the WECO 300-type telephone set used the F-type handset, which used the HA-type receiver. The HA-type receiver was of the drop-in variety. Some older operator headsets, like the 51-type and 52-type use the HC-type receiver which also drops in place. Other vendors of telephone apparatus, such as Automatic Electric, Northern Electric (pre-Northern Telcom days), and Stromberg-Carlson also had telephone handsets which used drop-in elements. The introduction of the WECO 500-type telephone set around 1953 with the G-type handset created a departure from drop-in receiver elements. There is no singular reason why the G-type handset, using U-type receiver elements, no longer employed a drop-in receiver. The reasons are multiple, and include but are not limited to: 1. The receiver element was now more reliable, and therefore much less prone to failure and replacement. Better varistors across the receiver element, and additional varistor loop current limiting in the "newer" 425-network (as opposed to 300-type sets) resulted in less likelihood of overcurrent and failure of the receiver element. 2. Eliminating the receiver element drop-in contacts resulted in a cost reduction. 3. Eliminating the receiver element drop-in contact assembly resulted in a size and weight reduction of the G-type handset over its F-type predecessor. 4. Eliminating the receiver element drop-in contacts resulted in an elimination of failure or noise as a result of receiver element contact corrosion. The carbon transmitter, however, was still a source of potential failure, and therefore remained as a drop-in device for ease of its replacement. BTW, when is the last time that anyone saw a 300-type telephone set in service? Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. "Have you hugged your cat today?" {boulder||decvax||rutgers||watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry VOICE: 716/688-1231 || FAX: 716/741-9635 {utzoo||uunet}!/ \aerion!larry [Moderator's Note: Last 300 phone seen, about five years ago, admittedly in an obscure location: The clock and bell tower of Holy Family Church on West Roosevelt Road. A tiny room in the tower, rarely visited, where the clockworks was located. The phone was probably for use by the men who did the repair work on the clock and bells or the sexton, from the days when the clock had to be wound with a crank. The phone did operate; it was an extension of a line in the office downstairs. On the bottom was penciled in a date in 1938. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Building a 1A2 Key Service Unit Date: 23 Aug 90 13:00:57 EDT (Thu) From: Larry Lippman In article <11088@accuvax.nwu.edu> atn@cory.berkeley.edu (Alan Nishioka) writes: > I am trying to build a box for my five line key system phone. I want > it to flash the lights and do automatic hold. > The system I was going to time has been dismantled and replaced with > Panasonic phones with LEDs so you can't tell which line is ringing... I would suggest that you look around for a used key service unit (KSU) with 400-type line cards, which will perform all of the functions you desire. With the extensive proliferation of electronic key telephone systems and "mini" PABX's, such used KSU's often sell for very little money - especially at say, an amateur radio flea market. Design of a 1A2 key system to work with your telephones is not a trivial effort. It's not that difficult, either, but you will spend some time doing it. If you are determined to build it from scratch, I would suggest a "non-traditional" approach. Use a microprocessor with I/O expander for all logic and timing functions. Detect ringing and loop current using optoisolators. Drive the lamps with ten volts DC switched by suitable current drivers. Sense the A-lead ground closures preferably with optoisolators. Use a reed relay to place a 300 ohm hold resistor across the telephone line. In summary, your microprocessor would have five ringing detector inputs, five loop current detector inputs, five A-lead inputs, five lamp outputs, five hold relay outputs, and one common audible relay signal output. Everything else is software. :-) The lamp signals and interrupted common audible signal sequence would be generated under software control. Yet another alternative would be to obtain just the 400-type line cards, make your own card cage, and build a power supply and interrupter circuit yourself. All you need is -24 volts DC for the 400-type line card control power and ten volts AC for lamps (do not substitute DC for AC on the ten volt lamp circuit with newer 400-type line cards since they use triacs or SCR's for lamp control instead of relay contacts). The standard KSU interrupter operates from the ten volt AC supply. You will also need 18 volts AC or 20/30 Hz ringing for common audible signals, depending upon whether you use buzzers or ringers. > Does anyone have the light flashing cadences? (frequency and duty > cycle). Lamp flash for incoming calls is interrupted at 60 IPM with a 50% on-duty cycle (i.e., 500 ms on, 500 ms off). Lamp wink for hold is 120 IPM with an 80% on-duty cycle (i.e., 400 ms on, 100 ms off). Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. "Have you hugged your cat today?" {boulder||decvax||rutgers||watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry VOICE: 716/688-1231 || FAX: 716/741-9635 {utzoo||uunet}!/ \aerion!larry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Aug 90 17:00 EDT From: "Robert M. Hamer" Subject: 976- and 900- Phone Numbers I am troubled by the use of 976- and 900- type phone numbers, and also by AOS, COCOT, etc exploitation of some of the stupider and less sophisticated members of our society. I am troubled saying this, as I would basically like to be a libertarian, and feel people ought to keep themselves informed and make informed choices. However... My wife, who is not a stupid person, did not realize until I told her, that the owner of a 900-type phone number did not just collect for the long distance charges, but in fact could collect anything he or she wished, and have it appear on your phone bill. (She also can't set our VCR to the correct time when the clock fails after a power failure.) I am beginning (only beginning; I'd like the thoughts and opinions of other telecom readers to help me focus my thinking) to for the opinion that the only thing phone companies should be allowed to stick on your phone bill is the cost of telephone calls. If someone wants to have a 900- or 976- number and stick me with the cost of the call, fine (although at that point a POTS phone number would serve as well), and if, once I call them, they want a credit card number so they can charge me $15 to hear Jose Canseco (did I spell that right) babble, or hear someone else talk dirty, then that's their business. But when I get my phone bill, all I want to see on there is telephone charges. Now my thinking is not at all fully focused or complete on this. I'd like to hear others' opinions. [Moderator's Note: The ignorance of the general public relating to matters of telephony is what the 900, AOS, COCOT, and OCC industries have relied on since their inception. I'll bet very few if any of the 900 services would bother stating their rates in their ads if the telcos did not make them do it under their contract. PAT] ------------------------------ From: David Ptasnik Subject: Re: System 75 Abbreviated Dialing Date: Thu, 23 Aug 90 9:09:20 PDT In article 7629 of comp.dcom.telecom, GREEN@wharton.upenn.edu (Scott D. Green) writes: >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 Sorry that it has taken so long to reply to this, but I just attended an AT&T System 75 training course. You cannot send a # in any way from a 75. Hard to believe but true. It cannot be dialed manually, and it cannot be embedded in a speed dialing string. AT&T doesn't use it, so it must not be important to them. At least, neither the AT&T instructor, nor any of the eight class members could get it to do it. This is with the latest software available for the switch. Coming from a Key System background, I found the limitations on this switch very disconcerting. I thought PBX's were supposed to provide more user functions, not fewer. davep@u.washington.edu [Moderator's Note: So if I use a bank by phone service, a digital display pager, or dial international calls and would prefer to time myself out with an octothorpe on the end I am high and dry with a System 75, eh? Marvelous. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Ede Subject: Legal Aspects of "Those Cellular Phone Deals" Date: 23 Aug 90 17:55:00 GMT Organization: The MITRE Corp., Bedford, MA >In California, it is no longer legal to market cellular phones and >require activation as a condition of sale. I know this is a dumb question, but what's the logic behind the law? >And that (with variations), friends, is how cellular phones are sold >in California. And is Massachusetts, that's how it's done too. Fretter and Highland regularly sell Novatel transportables for under $200, and other cellular phones for as low as $79. And they get a kickback of $200-$400 depending on how hard up either Cellular One or Nynex are. When I bought my phone, I was obligated to use Cellular One for three months. I signed a slip saying I would pay Highland $300 if I dumped service before the end of the three month period. My mom bought a phone. That week Fretter had the better deal, and she was forced onto Nynex for three months. She stuck with it for about six months, but when Nynex raised basic service almost $20/month, she called Cellular One. Within two days they set up service and, at no charge, went to her office to reprogram the phone. (Heck, they saved the original $300, that'll pay for bus fare to just about anyone's office!) Sure, it's a bit of a scam, but who cares, I don't need a law to protect me from it, I knew the deal before I went to the store. Saving the $300 made it economically feasible for me to buy a phone. It was well worth sticking with a company for two or three months. And with two carriers in most areas, it's hardly a problem. If you're looking to buy a phone, and you don't like the carrier that the store is pushing, just go to their competition. They're sure to be pushing the other carrier. I think the people that are doing most of the complaining are the shops that specialize in cellular phones. They can't do the business that the department stores do. Either they can't get the same sizeable kickbacks, or choose not to apply it to the price of the phone, and now they can no longer compete. I have a hard time feeling sorry for them. Ted Ede -- ted@mbunix.mitre.org -- The MITRE Corporation -- Burlington Road linus!mbunix!ted -- Bedford MA, 01730 -- Mail Stop B090 -- (617) 271-7465 ------------------------------ Subject: CINDI and No-Light Phones Date: Thu, 23 Aug 90 15:15:54 EDT From: Pete Holsberg CINDI is a voice messaging system that we have installed at the college. However, we do not have phones with "message waiting" lights on them. Does anyone know of a mod we could make so that we could add those lights? Otherwise, we have to poll CINDI every time we return to the office! Yuck!! Thanks, Prof. Peter J. Holsberg Mercer County Community College Voice: 609-586-4800 Engineering Technology, Computers and Math UUCP:...!princeton!mccc!pjh 1200 Old Trenton Road, Trenton, NJ 08690 Internet: pjh@mccc.edu [Moderator's Note: Another option might be instead of message-waiting lights to modify the phone switch to give 'stutter dial tone' as an indicator of a message, the way some telcos like IBT and Centel handle it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Chris Petrilli Subject: Re: Automated Salesmen Date: 23 Aug 90 14:22:53 GMT Reply-To: Chris Petrilli Organization: The University of Texas at Austin In article <11213@accuvax.nwu.edu> cirian@einstein.eds.com (Steve Cirian) writes: >Last night, I had a call from a computer at Kodak, trying to sell me >something. After listening for a few moments, I lost interest, and >hung up. I tried to call a friend a minute or two later. To my >surprise, the recording was still going, and there was nothing I could >do to break the connection. A thought occurred to me: what if I had >an emergency, needed to call 911, and couldn't because Kodak had tied >my phone up (for at least 5 minutes)? Is this legal? Shouldn't >companies that use this sales strategy be required to have a system >that would recognize a hangup, and break the connection? I also had one of these "calls" about one week ago, which after fifteen MINUTES! was still on the line. It also kept calling back until I listened to it (it tried five times). To say the least I was annoyed (a little stronger word here), and I immediately called the Texas Attorney General the next day. According to the lady I talked to there, they are already investigating it, and looking at filing charges against them. When I phoned SWBT, they were unable to tell me who it was, but they had also had complaints, so they probably knew who it was, and they said that they had given the company one week to stop, or they would disconnect service, and look into legal action. Sounds like a major problem to me. Chris Petrilli "Opinons represented here University of Texas at Austin do not necessarily INTERNET: petrilli@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu represent those of a sane SNAILMAIL: 429 Brady Lane, Austin, Texas, 78746 person. Take them as PHONE: +1 512 327 0986 simply that." ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Automated Salesmen Date: 23 Aug 90 11:47:51 PDT (Thu) From: John Higdon Steve Cirian writes: > Last night, I had a call from a computer at Kodak, trying to sell me > something. After listening for a few moments, I lost interest, and > hung up. I tried to call a friend a minute or two later. To my > surprise, the recording was still going, and there was nothing I could > do to break the connection. If you have three-way calling, you can always flash the switchhook and make a call in that manner. My favorite method of handling these people provides double satisfaction. Although you theoretically cannot transfer a call outside of a Commstar group, there is a way to "trick" the switch into allowing a call to be transferred to another telephone within the control group (switch). In preparation for the hapless junk computer call, I prepare a list of slimy businesses that have telephone service served by applicable prefixes. This being a bedroom CO, there aren't many, but I managed to scrape up two or three. When the XYZ Portrait Offer calls, I simply transfer the call to Big Al's Used Cars or some such. It is no longer tying up my line and it gives Big Al something to do! 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 #589 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07373; 24 Aug 90 3:16 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab08704; 24 Aug 90 1:36 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab31454; 24 Aug 90 0:23 CDT Date: Fri, 24 Aug 90 0:23:03 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #590 BCC: Message-ID: <9008240023.ab27621@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 24 Aug 90 00:22:52 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 590 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Answering Telephone [Roy Smith] Re: Help Needed With AT&T Portable Phone [Jim Gottlieb] Re: Phone Rates USA to/from Japan [Jim Gottlieb] Re: 800 "Out-of-Band" Announcements [Linc Madison] Re: Source Needed For 900 Pricing [Linc Madison] Re: Cellular Marketing/Future Capacity and Old Calculators [C. Petrilli] Re: Billing of Multi-Lines [Bill Huttig] Re: Maintenance Calls, Two-line Phones [Jordan Hayes] Re: Why Are Phone Systems so *Stupid* [Peter da Silva] Re: The Netherlands Direct [John R. Levine] Re: Lineman's Handset Help Needed [Brian P. Crawford] Make Your Own Buttset [Larry Lippman] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: Re: Answering Telephone Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City Date: Thu, 23 Aug 90 15:33:23 GMT In article <11193@accuvax.nwu.edu> bellutta@irst.it (Paolo Bellutta) writes: > In Italy the typical answering phrase is "pronto" (= ready). I was taught that the proper phrase in Spanish for answering a phone is "Diga me", literally "Speak to me", but, at least from what I have observed in Mexico, the most common phrase is just "Bueno", literally "Good". Probably different Spanish speaking countries have different idioms. 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 ------------------------------ From: Jim Gottlieb Subject: Re: Help Needed With AT&T Portable Phone Date: 23 Aug 90 09:53:05 GMT Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb Organization: Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan In article <11102@accuvax.nwu.edu> irv@happym.wa.com (Irving Wolfe) writes: >He doesn't know how lucky he is, or how bad Panasonic cordless phones >can be despite the quality of their other phone equipment. Mine >starts becoming a little noisy at five feet and is about as noisy as >it can be and still be usable at fifteen feet. My AT&T oordless >phone, on the other hand, probably can go twenty-five feet or more >(but not very much more). This is on cordless phones rated to be usable up to 300 meters. Here in Japan, the maximum allowed is 100 meters. Some of the ones sold here are rated at a maximum of ten meters. Now if it really goes ten meters this shouldn't be a problem since most Japanese apartments are not more than ten meters wide or long (think of them as a walk-in closet). But my sister tells me that her 300 meter cordless phone (in New York) fades out if she crosses to her husband's side of the bed. I wonder if you actually have to sit on top of the base unit on these ten meter models? I'll find out soon. I'm supposed to hook up a jack for one in the next few days. Note that because Japanese living quarters are so small, the local market is full of space-saving devices. The big rage right now is combination telephone/cordless-phone/answering-machine units. I just saw an ad for one that adds a fax to the above. ------------------------------ From: Jim Gottlieb Subject: Re: Phone Rates USA to/from Japan Date: 23 Aug 90 09:45:49 GMT Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb Organization: Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan In article <11085@accuvax.nwu.edu> normt@ihlpy.att.com (Norman R. Tiedemann) writes: > AT&T MCI US-Sprint Japan Time ^^^^^^^^^^ Note that the times listed are relative to Central time (U.S.). The time in Japan is different for those in other time zones. >KDD is the only one that offers operator assisted calls, This is true. >and appears to bill in six second increments. All the carriers's rates are based on six-second increments. But calls from public telephones must be charged slightly differently, as the phone can not collect 32 yen (or whatever) every six seconds. It can only collect 100 yen per X seconds. >KDD is the "standard" (until two years ago, national phone company). You are thinking of NTT, which was privatized two years ago. KDD (Kokusai Denshin Denwa [International Telegraph & Telephone]) has always been a private company (at least as private as big companies in Japan get). >ITJ is the International Telecom Japan (its slogan is "Digital > Optical Fiber"). Access 0041... >IDC is the Intrntl. Digital Communications Inc. (It's slogan is "The > Intelligent Choice"). Access 0061... (0062-0065 for feature calls) Likewise, ITJ uses 0042 and 0043 for some of its features. IDC is partially owned by, among others, Pacific Telesis. IDC, however, has inferior connections to ITJ. I don't know if they are using some kind of compression or what, but their calls to the U.S. always sound muddy. >MCI has a bulk rate plan to four Asian Countries including Japan which >costs $3.00/month and allows you to call between 10PM and 2PM (almost >the full two cheaper periods) for only $.79 per minute (including the >first minute). AT&T has an identical plan except that the rate is $0.81 per minute. I keep meaning to order that for the line my Telebit uses to call here twice a day on. >(It is interesting to note that Japan's Premium rate is during >their working hours, while USA's are when both countries >might have people in the office.) Yes, the rates from here to anywhere in the world use the same rate periods. AT&T figured out a few years back that they should base their rates on both time zones (and actual usage?). The cheapest time to call to Japan from the U.S. is the time when either _you_ are sleeping or the person you want to call is sleeping. Jim Gottlieb Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan or or Fax: +81 3 237 5867 Voice Mail: +81 3 222 8429 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Aug 90 03:50:14 PDT From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: 800 "Out-of-Band" Announcements Organization: University of California, Berkeley Two years ago, I was in western Canada, and placed a couple of calls to the 800 number for the ATM-locator service on my ATM network. They use the same 800 number for calls from anywhere in the US/Canada. From Vancouver, B.C., the calls completed fine, but then when I tried from Victoria, B.C., I got a recording that NNX-XXXX is not a working number. I didn't get a chance to look up to see where the particular prefix was located, but it seemed that the mapping of the 800 number to a POTS line was very specific, or else the switch on the island was out of date in its database. Linc Madison = linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Aug 90 04:32:12 PDT From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: Source Needed For 900 Pricing Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article <11033@accuvax.nwu.edu> Paul Sawyer writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 580, Message 11 of 13 >levin@bbn.com (Joel B. Levin) writes: >>The charges do indeed seem to be determined by the "exchange" digits, >At one time this seemed to be so, maybe when it was all AT&T, but now >any 900 number seems to be able to be priced as the end user wants, >within (very few) limits imposed by laws, tariffs, and/or carrier >policies. >[First .50/.35, then some exchanges 5.00/0.00 or 2.00/2.00, etc., and > finally no consistency at all within an exchange.] I happened to notice that the exchange 900-535 has a wide variety of charges for calls. There are some adult services advertized in local freebie papers and 4:30 a.m. tv shows on this prefix, and also some of the "call this number and get a guaranteed $1000 credit card" types, with charges of at least $8 or $9 and maybe more on some of them. I saw one that I *think* was on this prefix that had a charge of something on the order of $35. Linc Madison = linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ From: Chris Petrilli Subject: Re: Cellular Marketing/Future Capacity and Old Calculators Date: 23 Aug 90 14:15:57 GMT Reply-To: Chris Petrilli Organization: The University of Texas at Austin >>[Moderator's Note: Your mention of the high prices of the early >>calculators brought back some nostalgia. I bought a TI-58 and a TI-59 >>programmable calculator from Texas Instruments in 1976. They cost >>almost five hundred dollars each! >If you want to talk vintage calculators, my dad has one of the first >Bowmar calculators. In 1973 it cost $189.95 and had four functions. >They bought the chip from TI, who later refused to sell them the six >function chip, wedging them out of the market. >He bought it back in '73 and got a deal on it because he sold them the >LED displays. Power supply and all still work today, seventeen years >later. This is nothing ... a friend of mine has a Wang Programmable Calculator Mainframe (key word) ... it supports six add on "terminals", and is implemented in discrete logic (i.e. 1000s of transistors). The main unit is about 4'x4', and makes an aweful sound when on. At the moment it doesn't work, and for some strange reason, Wang doesn't support it anymore (I wonder....). The date on it is 1969. Chris Petrilli "Opinons represented here University of Texas at Austin do not necessarily INTERNET: petrilli@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu represent those of a sane SNAILMAIL: 429 Brady Lane, Austin, Texas, 78746 person. Take them as PHONE: +1 512 327 0986 simply that." ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: Re: Billing of Multi-Lines Date: 23 Aug 90 16:26:54 GMT Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL In article <11113@accuvax.nwu.edu> lars@spectrum.cmc.com (Lars Poulsen) writes: [Stuff PAT and I wrote about his phone billing deleted.] >I must confess to a lack of understanding; if the two lines are billed >to the same number, and the charges appear together on one bill, how >can that not be one account ? How do you define the word "account" ? [Lars definition deleted] A account is a file on the BOC's computer giving a account # (which is the billing number plus three digits ... the three digits are the time the account was opened. (Don't ask me what they do between 10-1 :)) It also contains the address and other info about the customer. Associated with the account can be one or more phone numbers. Now if you have two or more accounts and recive one bill then the other accounts have a field that says 'take all charges and forward them to account NPA NNX XXXX xxx for billing ... it normally calculates the charges before the transfer of charges. (It appears to do that). I hope that clarifies things. Bill [Moderator's Note: Actually, the three digits are the RAO, or Regional Accounting Office code. At least they were prior to the tragedy. I can't imagine them being used now for 'the time the account was opened'. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Aug 90 16:00:10 EDT Subject: Re: Maintenance Calls, Two-line Phones Organization: Morgan Stanley, & Co., Inc. / New York City, NY From: Jordan Hayes I have had Panasonic three-line phones (3170?) that I got for $169. Your mileage may vary since I live in NYC and I also am a good haggler ;-). They have conference, hold, speakerphone, 50 programmable numbers, good feel, wall or desk, music-on-hold jack (sub-miniature, pretty cool), automatic outgoing line hunter, three input jacks for folks who can't get an RJ-25 out of the phone company or Rat Shack, although the first jack also accepts an RJ-25 with all three lines on it. I treat it like a sick dog and it has never given me a problem. I even have a *really* clumsy girlfriend who seems to drag one of them (I have three) off the four-foot-high table it sits on to crash down onto the floor once per week. jordan ------------------------------ From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Why Are Phone Systems so *Stupid*?? Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Date: Thu, 23 Aug 90 21:21:57 GMT Why not stick an answering-machine-cutoff gadget on the line to the switch that you want to put the modem on? Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com ------------------------------ Subject: Re: The Netherlands Direct Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA Date: 23 Aug 90 10:46:35 EDT (Thu) From: "John R. Levine" In article <11212@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >It is still impossible to originate a collect call from the >Netherlands, but collect calls can now be placed ... via "the >Netherlands direct (R)". ... I see that the USA Direct number in the Netherlands is 06-022-9111, which gets you an AT&T operator in the U.S. Any idea what happens if you tell that operator that you want to call a number collect? Regards, John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!esegue!johnl ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Aug 90 16:25:56 -0700 From: "Brian P. Crawford" Subject: Re: Lineman's Handset Help Needed Well, don't know what features you're looking for in a lineman's handset, but I've often used a standard one-piece phone, then built a two-tone tester to go along with it. Is this too primitive? ------------------------------ Subject: Make Your Own Buttset Date: 24 Aug 90 00:29:37 EDT (Fri) From: Larry Lippman In article <11203@accuvax.nwu.edu> julian@bongo.uucp (Julian Macassey) writes: > > I was thinking of putting together a linesman's handset here, and I > > was wondering, is it really as easy as putting good-quality Alligator > If you want to build your own buttset, here is something I > have done. Get a Western Electric (AT&T) Trimline phone ... > Attach test leads to the Tip and Ring. ... > What you have now is a buttset that is touchtone only and has > no monitor function. To add the monitor function you need to add a 2 > uF (4 is better) 250V mylar cap. This cap is switchable in series with > Tip and Ring. When the cap is in series, you can listen but not speak. > A miniature toggle switch can fit in the lower part of the earpiece, > the cap is best made up of units distributed in nooks and crannies > round the set. A word of caution on creating a monitor function through the above technique... This will work, but it will create a monitor function that will bridge a rather low impedance across the telephone line under test. A very noticeable "click" will be heard if the telephone line is in use, in addition to a noticeable degree of attenuation. Furthermore, should a data call be in progress, you may cause interruption - unless there are error-correcting modems in use. "Real" buttsets are carefully designed to create as high an impedance as possible in the monitor mode - typically 6,000 ohms or better. The "talk-monitor" key switches more leads that just a capacitor in series with one side of the line. A transformer is switched in and out of the circuit, with the transformer providing coupling between the receiver element and the telephone line. A series capacitor is also used; however, in better quality buttsets this capacitor is typically 0.02 uF - which is a far cry from 2 uF. While a trimline telephone set makes a good poor man's buttset, there is almost no room to attempt any circuit modification to improve monitor mode sensitivity by increasing its impedance. Incidentally, here is an old trick to minimize click when connecting a buttset in monitor mode. Connect one lead first, then use your finger to bridge the gap between the other lead and its terminal; then make the connection. The presence of your finger will usually provide enough series resistance to charge the monitor circuit series capacitor, thereby minimizing the click. Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. "Have you hugged your cat today?" {boulder||decvax||rutgers||watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry VOICE: 716/688-1231 || FAX: 716/741-9635 {utzoo||uunet}!/ \aerion!larry ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #590 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08448; 24 Aug 90 4:11 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13709; 24 Aug 90 2:40 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac08704; 24 Aug 90 1:36 CDT Date: Fri, 24 Aug 90 1:16:26 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #591 BCC: Message-ID: <9008240116.ab01967@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 24 Aug 90 01:16:02 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 591 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Local Networks Proposal From Canada [David Leibold] SIT Tone Sequences [CTC Wang Labs] Re: Industry Update [Linc Madison] Re: The Washington Post Reports on Local Calling Changes [Robert Hamer] Administrivia [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: woody Subject: Local Networks Proposal From Canada Date: Thu, 23 Aug 90 0:26:36 EDT [The following appeared as a Canadian Department of Communications notice last year. While somewhat outdated, the discussion on this will still continue, and provides some ideas for local loop competition possibilities.] Department of Communications Act Notice No. DGTP-09-89 - Local Distribution Telecommunication Networks Introduction The conversion from analogue to digital switching and transmission, the deployment of optical fibre and other technical improvements are enabling both the telecommunications common carrier and cable television industries to offer increasingly similar services over two presently independent networks. These developments are eroding the existing barriers which previously prevented each major player from offering the others' services. Current trends in technology, market environments and service opportunities involving both the cable television and common carrier industries, appear to be leading towards a local duopoly offering a range of common services. The need has been identified to establish new rules to govern the operation of these two, presently distinct industries so that each may flourish in a healthy competitive environment. The Minister of Communications, under the Department of Communications Act, has the responsibility to promote the establishment, development and efficiency of telecommunications services and facilities for Canada. Similarly the Minister, under the Broadcasting and Radio Acts, has certain responsibilities with respect to the Canadian broadcasting industry. Under the Radio Act, for example, the Minister is authorised to control all technical matters relating to the planning for and the construction and operation of all broadcasting facilities, which include cable television systems. Background Both the telecommunications common carrier and cable television industries are now utilising high capacity fibre optic cables in their distribution systems. Some cable television operators are endeavouring to enter the common carrier services market by developing non-programming services. At the international level, on-going development of technical standards for future broadband (high capacity) Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) services will accelerate the convergence of narrowband and broadband technology and service carriage. The Canadian carrier industry is introducing on a trial basis new narrowband (moderate capacity) ISDN services. All these activities together make it necessary to consider the need for new ground rules governing the introduction of new services and to encourage economical development of network infrastructures. The telecommunications policy framework, as reflected in the announcement by the Minister of Communications on July 22, 1987, has three main objectives: - universal access to basic telephone service at affordable prices; - an efficient telecommunications network infrastructure; - a competitive marketplace in the supply of telecommunications services and equipment in all regions of Canada. Last year, the government introduced the Broadcasting Bill C-136 in the House of Commons for first reading on June 23, 1988. In Section 3 of this Bill a Broadcasting Policy for Canada is enunciated which obliges cable television companies to provide efficient delivery of programming at affordable rates, using the most effective technology avaiable at reasonable cost. The Department is desirous of encouraging competition both in services and carriage and with this aim, the Minister of Communications outlined in his speech to the CCTA Convention in Toronto on May 8, 1989, two possible rules which might be applied. Firstly, cross- subsidisation between broadcasting services and telecommunications services would not be permitted, and secondly, cable television operators should allow telecommunications service suppliers to access their infrastructure on a non-discriminatory basis (as is the case presently for federally-regulated telephone companies). This approach would permit a continuing status quo operation for those cable companies not wishing to enter the telecommunications service market. The policy review now underway within the Department of Communications will be undertaken with a view to fostering the development of local distribution network(s) to facilitate the efficient delivery of voice, video and data services. It will seek to determing the legitimate roles of the major players in the industry, to establish new ground rules and an appropriate regulatory framework within which the industry will operate. To this end, public comment is invited on any or all issues, whether regulatory, technical or socio- economic, which are considered pertinent. Issues To date, public policy initiatives and regulatory control of the cable television and telecommunications industries have safeguarded the public interest as these services have expanded. These measures include, inter alia, the following: - cable hardware ownership regulations imposed by the CRTC; - specific prohibitions imposed on some telecommunications carriers to exclude them from holding a broadcast licence. The Department is in favour of a competitive environment for locally distributed services. It thus follows that the Department is supportive also of local duopolies for this competitive service provisioning, unless it can be shown that such duopolies would result in economic hardship for the service providers or service users. Comments are invited on the economic and regulatory aspects of local duopoly networks, both for and against. In addition, the Department solicits from the cable television and telecommunications industries a forecast of what they foresee as the major technological and economic forces that in the next 10 years are likely to affect the growth and type of new services. Based upon these technological, market and service projections, interested parties are invited to outline what policy initiatives and regulatory environment should be introduced in order to ensure the rapid and economical introduction of these new services while reconciling the requirements and public service obligations of both the cable television and common carrier industries. There is a need in the policy review to investigate the effectiveness of the hardware ownership rules. Is there a need for any limitations to be imposed? Industrial concentration both vertically and horizontally, concentration of cable industry ownership, telephone company, parent and affiliated companies' ownership of cable television companies and cable company investment in common carriers are issues which also need to be addressed in the assessing of the regulatory status of both industries. Summary On the basis of the above issues or any other pertinent issue, the Department would encourage interested parties to comment on these important structural and regulatory questions. In addition views are also solicited on what would be the most appropriate next step for the Department to take in considering public input in response to this Notice, to propose policy options and to reach appropriate conclusions and recommendations. Public Submissions All written submissions from interested parties on any aspect of the issues listed above, or on any other matters deemed pertinent to the policy review underway on the evolution of broadband network infrastructures and services should be addressed to Mr Paul Racine, Director General, Telecommunications Policy, Department of Communications, 300 Slater St, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0C8 and to ensure consideration must be postmarked on or before January 2, 1990 or delivered by other means by the same date. All submissions must cite the publication date [2 Sept. '89] and notice number of the _Canada_Gazette,_ Part I [DGTP-09-89]. These submissions will be placed on the public record on or about January 16, 1990. Written comments on these submissions may be submitted, in the same manner as described above, on or before February 28, 1990. All submissions and comments received in response to this Notice will be made available for public viewing at the Department of Communications Library, 300 Slater St, Ottawa and at the regional offices of the Department in Moncton, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver for a period of one year from the closing date for comments. Approximately 14 days after the close of submissions, copies of all written submissions may be obtained by phone, mail order or over the counter from Kwik-Kopy Printing, 300 Slater St, Ottawa, Ontario. Reasonable costs of duplication and distribution will be charged. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Aug 90 14:10 EST From: CTC Wang Labs <0004248165@mcimail.com> Subject: SIT Tone Sequences Some time ago, there were several inqueries and comments concerning SIT tones (the do-da-dee tones) and their uses: In Digest dated 18 July, Kenny Crudup writes: > In article <9798@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon > writes: > >Does this give anyone any ideas about saving money when checking your > >messages on your machine or voice mail? Oops, did I say that? > Don't worry. Beat you to it. What *I* need are frequencies.... > ($10 bucks says the mod ices this note....) > [Moderator's Note: You lose. I don't know what kind of 'frequencies' > you are seeking, but they all are of public record at the FCC. Could > you be more specific in your request, please? PT] I suspect that the following is what Kenny is looking for: Special Information Tones (SIT Codes) are used by some telephone companies for automating various reporting and network observation operations. They are special coded tone sequences transmitted at the beginning of network advisory recorded announcements. There are four sequences defined: Seq Symb Catagory Announcements 1 NC Trunk Blockage No Circuit, emergency. 2 IC Customer Irregularity Vacant Number, AIS, CENTREX Number Change and Non-Working Station, Access Code Not Dialed/Dialed in Error, Manual Intercept Operator. 3 VC Vacant Code Vacant Code. 4 RO Equipment Irregularity Reorder Announcement. The tone sequences are coded as follows: Seq First Tone/Duration Second Tone/Duration Third Tone/Duration 1 985.2 Hz / 380 msec 1428.5 Hz / 380 msec 1776.7 Hz / 380 msec 2 913.8 Hz / 274 msec 1370.6 Hz / 274 msec 1776.7 Hz / 380 msec 3 985.2 Hz / 380 msec 1370.6 Hz / 274 msec 1776.7 Hz / 380 msec 4 913.8 Hz / 274 msec 1428.5 Hz / 380 msec 1776.7 Hz / 380 msec Note that these tones are defined for 'advisory messages' and are not (usually) used for billing or supervisory purposes. P.S. Kenny: Did you ever pay off our esteemed Moderator?? dab Dave Bonney MCIMail: 422-4552 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Aug 90 04:18:36 PDT From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: Industry Update Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article <10927@accuvax.nwu.edu> Patricia O'Connor writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 573, Message 3 of 12 >California's trend-setting PUC is embarking on its most far-reaching >deregulation of telephone service yet. Its proposal would let the >likes of AT&T and MCI compete for regional toll service with local >carriers. Regional toll calls are currently priced higher than some >long-distance calls. PacTel and GTE say they welcome the change, >since the proposal would allow them to offer discounts to large-volume >customers. The California agency's proposal could be a model for >other states. [Bus. Week, 8/13/90] Umm, but, uh, Pac*Bell already *does* offer discounts to large-volume customers. They call it "Call Bonus." For customers large enough for the monthly fees to be negligible, the discounts range from 30% to upwards of 50%. They have three basic plans: "Community" (pick a C.O. and get a discount of around 50%), "Circle" (discount of about 35% on all calls outside Zones 1, 2 and 3 but still within 40 miles), and "Wide Area" (about 35% off all calls within your LATA, including Zones 2 & 3, but only during night/weekend and noon-2pm and 9-11pm). The Community plan is of somewhat limited utility, because San Francisco is three "communities," and even FREMNTNWRK (Fremont/Newark) is two. I had "Wide Area" when I shared a line with 17 other people, and had the Community plan when I was running up about $30 a month to the same number. You can have more than one plan, but only one discount applies on any given call, and you might not be able to make all conceivable combinations. Linc Madison = linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Aug 90 09:02 EDT From: "Robert M. Hamer" Subject: Re: The Washington Post Reports on Local Calling Changes On Wed, 22 Aug 90 11:01:23 EDT Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) writes: >Up to now, DC area has had the "privilege" (since the 1950s, with >quotes mine) of making local calls without area code; however, in >Manhattan (NYC), you routinely use 718 area code to make local call to Two weeks ago I stayed in the Crystal City Hyatt (I like Hyatts; they tend to be classy hotels) and the phone behavior was as follows: (A telephone call from Crystal City to DC proper is a local call.) When I tried to dial a local call from 703 to 202 using 9+NPA+7D on the room phone (the instructions said to use 9+ for local calls) the computer told me I had to dial an 8 first. When I called the front desk, they said I would be charged the minimum fee (a $1.25 or $1.75 surcharge; I forgot which) for the call although it was a local call. I finally gave up on trying to do things right and dialed it using 9+7D which still works, but won't as of Oct 1 if I read things right. My question is, how are other hotels adjusting to the increasing number of local calling areas which are split between area codes. Are they mostly using it as an opportunity to rip off customers? How about some of you who have recently stayed in hotels in local calling areas split between area codes telling us about your experiences, and those of you who travel to such places, trying things out? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Aug 90 0:37:16 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Administrivia This issue marks the conclusion of nine years of publication of TELECOM Digest. The Digest's first issue was dated August 24, 1981, however that issue was actually mailed August 25. For much of that time, the Digest has been distributed both as a mailing list and as Usenet's comp.dcom.telecom newsgroup. Jon Solomon, was the founding Moderator of TELECOM Digest, and conducted this forum through the late summer of 1988. I assumed responsibility for the Digest in October, 1988. Just as Computer Underground Digest and the Caller*ID mailing list began as offshoots from this Digest, likewise TELECOM Digest itself began as an offshoot of the HUMAN-NETS group; and its original purpose was to discuss telephone topics which had been raised in the HUMAN-NETS group which were not of interest to most readers there. Chip Rosenthal maintained the gateway between TELECOM Digest and the comp.dcom.teleom newsgroup for a few years. Many of you have been participants since the very beginning. It has been fun, and the time has passed quickly. The changes we have seen, documented and discussed in the Digest are rather incredible. But the changes in the telecom industry in the past decade have been pretty incredible also. Here's to another nine years of the Digest! OVER THE WEEKEND: An Illinois Bell service representative, in dire need of money to pay her bills was bribed to provide some confidential company data to an outsider. Names and specifics tomorrow. PT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #591 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02011; 25 Aug 90 6:43 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11661; 25 Aug 90 4:51 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01948; 25 Aug 90 3:46 CDT Date: Sat, 25 Aug 90 3:03:31 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #592 BCC: Message-ID: <9008250303.ab05342@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 25 Aug 90 03:03:06 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 592 Inside This Issue: This issue starts our tenth year! Re: System 75 Abbreviated Dialing [Doug Faunt] Re: System 75 Abbreviated Dialing [Kevin L. Blatter] Re: Lineman's Handset Help Needed [Gordon Wilson] Re: Crank Calls [Jeff Carroll] Re: Toll Calls on 800 Service [John Higdon] Re: Legal Aspects of "Those Cellular Phone Deals" [John Higdon] Re: Automated Salesmen [Craig R. Watkins] Re: Automated Collect Calling [Jerry B. Altzman] Re: Phone Calls to Kuwait [Bryan M. Richardson] Re: Billing of Multi-Lines [Bill Huttig] Re: Teletype Marked "Crypto" and Other Found Treasures [Tad Cook] Re: The Washington Post Reports on Local Calling Changes [Carl Moore] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 24 Aug 90 10:16:00 -0700 From: Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269 Subject: Re: System 75 Abbreviated Dialing Sorry, this is incorrect. We have a System 75 here, and the "#" is used with the Octel Voicemail system, and works just fine, manually. There are also "#"'s in the system abbreviated dialing strings, and that function also works. We're running V1R3. ------------------------------ From: "Kevin L. Blatter" Subject: Re: System 75 Abbreviated Dialing Date: 24 Aug 90 16:18:17 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Labs Middletown/Lincroft NJ USA In article <11251@accuvax.nwu.edu>, davep@u.washington.edu (David Ptasnik) writes: > In article 7629 of comp.dcom.telecom, GREEN@wharton.upenn.edu (Scott > D. Green) writes: > >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 > Sorry that it has taken so long to reply to this, but I just attended > an AT&T System 75 training course. You cannot send a # in any way > from a 75. Hard to believe but true. It cannot be dialed manually, Yes it does sound incredibly odd to me. What happens if you dial it manually? No tone generated? We have a system 85 here in the building and an octothorpe is an integral part of the operation of the "voice terminal". I use the octothorpe key several times a day to retrieve my messages from AUDIX. (The octothorpe key is an integral part of the AUDIX product -- it would be impossible to use without it.) I have also used the key several times to call my bank and perform financial transactions. Never have I seen it where I could not use the key. I don't know who originally devised the specification which the world now uses for DTMF dialing, but I have always believed that AT&T has tried to comply to that specification. It is a part of every AT&T specification that I have seen which refers to dialing on the system 85, 75 or 5ESS. The reason I bring up the stuff about using it with a System 85 is that the voice terminals for the '85 are identical to those of the '75. While working on a previous assignment with the '75 we used the octothorpe key for several programming features. I'm not questioning the abilities or findings of the original posters or anything like that. My guess is that the PBX is not configured properly and the problems stem from that. Perhaps someone from Bell Labs in Denver where the System 75's are made can give a more accurate description of what these people have been experiencing and what to do to correct it. Kevin L. Blatter AT&T - Bell Labs Lincroft, NJ Disclaimer -- Even though it may sound like I am speaking for the company, it truth I am not, nor would I ever speak for the company unless they told me what the company wants said. ------------------------------ From: Gordon Wilson Subject: Re: Lineman's Handset Help Needed Date: 23 Aug 90 21:33:02 GMT Organization: HP Design Tech Center - Santa Clara, CA > I was thinking of putting together a linesman's handset here, and I >was wondering, is it really as easy as putting good-quality Alligator >Clips onto a rotary dial phone's two wires? > I've always wanted to make one of these beasts, and I'd rather not >pay the $110 can I've seen them here in surplus stores. Hello Frank, I have an old linesman handset, rotary dial and heavy black rubber frame. Make me an offer, it has been sitting unused for many years. Gordon Wilson hp@hpdtc.hp.com 1334 Spoonbill Way Sunnyvale, Calif 94087 ------------------------------ From: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: Crank Calls Date: 23 Aug 90 18:22:55 GMT Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle In article <10984@accuvax.nwu.edu> cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) writes: >Henry Troup writes that in >UK he was taught to answer the phone with the number, but that in >North America this is not done. I usually answer the phone this way at the office. Since at least half my calls at the office come from other Boeing-owned phones, it's kind of silly to say "Boeing Company, may I help you?". To most callers from outside, the name of my department is meaningless, especially since it was designed to be that way, so that doesn't make sense either. Almost all the phones here are shared by two to four people, most of whom get calls from people who have no idea who the other person(s) assigned to that line are; so it doesn't make sense to answer with one's name, as if one expected to be recognized by the caller. But most of all, it's very consistent with Boeing corporate culture for engineers to pick up the phone and say in an irritated tone, "6349. Carroll." So that's what I do. It makes Boeing people feel at home, and if it makes salesmen slightly uncomfortable, so much the better. >If there is a problem with a wrong number, you might ask the caller >what number he/she is trying to reach. Also, I have had at least one >or two cases where I reached an answering machine which announced the >number I had reached (in lieu of giving out a person's name?). We do this at home. Some of us *like* our anonymity. If the caller doesn't know who he's calling, it's none of his business. Wrong numbers are easily rectified anyway. Jeff Carroll carroll@atc.boeing.com ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Toll Calls on 800 Service Date: 23 Aug 90 23:43:12 PDT (Thu) From: John Higdon "Sander J. Rabinowitz" <0003829147@mcimail.com> writes: > 2) We have a five-year old in our house, and hearing of all the horror > stories regarding 900 and 976 services involving children playing with > the phone, we now have 900 and 976 service blocking. Now, with the > advent of NON-tollfree 800 service, I am at a loss as to how to deal > with it (aside from physically putting locks on the phones). Whereas > I can generally do without 900 service, I don't think I can say the > same regarding 800 service. Excuse, please. Pray tell, what do you do about all of those hundreds of "pay" prefixes (like 212, 303, 415, etc., etc.) with that five-year-old in the house? For years I have heard people moan the big groan about how tough it is with small children in the house who could accidently pick up the phone and dial things that would actually COST MONEY!!! But it is always in reference to 900/976 (the evil, wallet-sucking devil prefixes) and never about the mundane, simple, little-talked-about toll calls. Other than possibly the amount, what's the difference? Reminds me of an incident at a client's business. The controller was looking over some phone bills. There was (probably) page after page of major employee phone abuse -- personal short-haul toll. Many tens of dollars were involved. Then her eyes zeroed in on one particular call: Memphis TN. It was for $0.16., made on a Sunday. You would have thought that she had nailed D. B. Cooper. "I'm going to find out who made this call and make them pay for it." Sixteen cents? No the problem was that it was Memphis, TN. Never mind that office people routinely chat to their wives, girl/boy friends, etc., and run up bills for individual calls as high as a few dollars. It's that someone would have the nerve to use a company phone to call THAT FAR AWAY without copping to it. During the business day a local call of 11 minutes would cost $0.16. I wonder how many of those are personal. 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: Legal Aspects of "Those Cellular Phone Deals" Date: 24 Aug 90 01:29:55 PDT (Fri) From: John Higdon Ede writes: > I think the people that are doing most of the complaining are the > shops that specialize in cellular phones. They can't do the business > that the department stores do. Either they can't get the same sizeable > kickbacks, or choose not to apply it to the price of the phone, and > now they can no longer compete. I have a hard time feeling sorry for > them. In California, the whole flap over hardware tied to service arrangements came about from the squealing of service "resellers". These are middlemen who buy up banks of numbers from the provider and then work in conjunction with retailers. These agreements came up at the beginning of cellular service in the area, but seem to be on the wane. Resellers were complaining that they were being squeezed out, having to share more and more of their kickbacks with the retailer so that their "customers" could remain competitive with those doing business directly with the provider. What really hurt were those retail operations that were operated by the provider directly. As you might expect, if it were up to the provider, you would be given a phone for free if they could expect a certain level of usage in return. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Aug 90 10:51 EDT From: "Craig R. Watkins" Subject: Re: Automated Salesmen Organization: HRB Systems In article <11213@accuvax.nwu.edu>, cirian@einstein.eds.com (Steve Cirian) writes: > Last night, I had a call from a computer at Kodak, trying to sell me > something. Are you sure it was from Kodak and not just from some house that was possibly selling you Kodak products? I certainly don't rule out that it was Kodak, but that just doesn't seem like the kind of thing that Kodak does. (warning: written by ex-Kodak employee) Craig R. Watkins Internet: CRW@ICF.HRB.COM HRB Systems, Inc. Bitnet: CRW%HRB@PSUECL.Bitnet +1 814 238-4311 UUCP: ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!crw ------------------------------ From: "Jerry B. Altzman" Subject: Re: Automated Collect Calling Reply-To: "Jerry B. Altzman" Organization: mailer daemons association Date: Fri, 24 Aug 90 15:18:43 GMT In article <11243@accuvax.nwu.edu> v116kznd@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu writes: >[Moderator's Note: A few days ago, someone said they recieved such a >call, said NO and got billed anyway. Was your call from a telco >payphone or from a COCOT, or could you tell? Phone phreaks love the >easy way fraud can be committed with this system: When asked to tape >record their name, they say, "Call me at xxx-xxxx" or otherwise >deliver some message. A live operator would never accept that for a >'name', but the equipment can't tell the difference. It calls and >tells me there is a collect call from 'call me back at xxx-xxxx', and >will I accept the charges. I say no, but that's okay; the message was >delivered! PAT] My freshman year of college, when I was poor and not yet employed by Columbia (who is not speaking for me now, by the way! DISCLAIMER!) I used to call home collect, and my parents would refuse the charge, and call me right back. Well, Bell of PA saw this pattern happening on a regular basis (this was before a cousin's wedding, and we had to talk on an every-other-day basis to get info back and forth) and decided to bill my parents for the *refused* collect call, their (unsaid) reasoning I suppose being "We know what you're doing, so you can't get away with this..." Mom didn't take lightly to this, and raised hell as only a mom can :-) in the local BPA office. The charges were later taken off. Has anyone else seen this? I was giving my full name to the operator, not some code like "yes, my name is 'callmeback Altzman'" As always: DISCLAIMER: This isn't Columbia. This is me. Columbia is them. jerry b. altzman 212 854 8058 jbaltz@columbia.edu jauus@cuvmb (bitnet) NEVIS::jbaltz (HEPNET) ...!rutgers!columbia!jbaltz (bang!) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Aug 90 11:33:26 EDT From: Bryan M Richardson Subject: Re: Phone Calls to Kuwait Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <11239@accuvax.nwu.edu> cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) writes: >I found that calls to Kuwait (country code 965) are being intercepted >with message "914-1T": "Due to an emergency situation in the country >you are calling, your call cannot be completed at this time. Please >try your call again later." The "914-1T" is not the announcement number, but rather the identification of the switch playing the announcement. This is used, as needed, to trouble-shoot things in the network. I can tell that you are presubscribed to AT&T, and this call entered the network at the 4 ESS in White Plains, New York. Thanks for using AT&T! Bryan Richardson AT&T Bell Laboratories ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: Re: Billing of Multi-Lines Date: 24 Aug 90 16:27:32 GMT Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL >[Moderator's Note: Actually, the three digits are the RAO, or >Regional Accounting Office code. At least they were prior to the >tragedy. I can't imagine them being used now for 'the time the account >was opened'. PAT] Nope they are time account was opened for years here at Southern Bell according to the lady that told me about it. There are actually more numbers ... For example my current account is 407-676-xxxx 321 3147 but on the payment part under the date is: CP 0514 R07 046267 The R07 is the RAO and the 3147 is the central office I think, but the 321 is the time the account was opened. ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: Re: Teletype Marked "Crypto" and Other Found Treasures Date: 24 Aug 90 06:04:15 GMT In article <10953@accuvax.nwu.edu>, riddle@hoss.unl.edu (Michael H. Riddle) writes: > Your final question, W2VZM is an amateur call sign. I'll leave it for > the hams in the group to explain if there was anything special about > it. Nothing special about W2VZM. It is not listed in my 1990 Callbook, but I have an old 1963 Callbook, and it shows Joseph G. McGettigan of 1880 N. 42nd St, Pensauken, NJ as the holder of W2VZM. You probably inherited some RTTY gear from a ham who passed on. 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 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Aug 90 12:58:51 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: The Washington Post Reports on Local Calling Changes It occurs to me that you can now dial any call (within country code 1, for international readers of the Digest) in the DC area as 1+NPA+7D. The May 4, 1990 {Washington Post} article (excerpted & paraphrased in very recent posting from me) cited optional 1+ for local calls across NPA lines, and the new NPA+7D calling scheme works within your own NPA if you are calling locally in & around DC, right? If correct, this is beginning to answer the problem of moving speed- dial program, etc., across NPA lines. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #592 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02619; 25 Aug 90 7:23 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26793; 25 Aug 90 5:56 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab11661; 25 Aug 90 4:51 CDT Date: Sat, 25 Aug 90 4:21:16 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #593 BCC: Message-ID: <9008250421.ab26682@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 25 Aug 90 04:20:53 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 593 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: 976- and 900- Phone Numbers [John Higdon] Re: Help Needed With AT&T Portable Phone [John Slater] Re: Automated Collect Calling [bill@trace.eedsp.gatech.edu] Re: Call Here for Instant ANI [Bob Yasi] Re: Answering Telephone [Ray Guydosh] Re: Answering Phrase [Steven King] Re: What is a "Cable Address"? [Tad Cook] Re: Answering Telephone [root@cs.tcd.ie] Re: Phone Line RF Bypass Needed [Brian Kantor] Re: Phone Line RF Bypass Needed [Larry Lippman] Multi-Media via Usenet? [David J. Camp] Touch Tone Decoding Service [John Lefor] How Should Telephone Numbers be Listed? [David J. Camp] Credit For Wrong 900? [Dean Sirakides] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: 976- and 900- Phone Numbers Date: 24 Aug 90 01:57:05 PDT (Fri) From: John Higdon "Robert M. Hamer" writes: > 900- or 976- number and stick me with the cost of the call, fine > (although at that point a POTS phone number would serve as well), and > if, once I call them, they want a credit card number so they can > charge me $15 to hear Jose Canseco (did I spell that right) babble, or > hear someone else talk dirty, then that's their business. But when I > get my phone bill, all I want to see on there is telephone charges. The whole point of 900/976 service is to provide a convenient "casual" means of billing for information providers, and to provide universal access to those services. Obviously, the moment you require a credit card, you have just excluded a significant number of people. You have also added a layer of billing complexity that would discourage some from entering the IP business. The original thought was that anyone with a telephone would have access to the information provided by the 900/976 system. It actually is a good idea in its purest form. IMHO, most of the objection to these services is not related to the technical implementation of the billing at all, but rather to the generally sleazy material that has taken over the industry. A lot of people, rather than being "unhip" criticizing the content, have concocted objections to the CONCEPT of 900/976. I find this intellectually dishonest. If you don't want to pay $15 to hear Jose babble, don't dial his number. If you are afraid of small children accidently dialing and running up your bill, you've got more than 900/976 to worry about. Give me fifteen minutes with your telephone and I'll run up charges that will curl your hair WITHOUT dialing a single 900/976 number. If you are worried about older children dialing these numbers on purpose to hear their dirty messages, then you have a larger problem than telephony. > [Moderator's Note: The ignorance of the general public relating to > matters of telephony is what the 900, AOS, COCOT, and OCC industries > have relied on since their inception. I'll bet very few if any of the > 900 services would bother stating their rates in their ads if the > telcos did not make them do it under their contract. PAT] Absolutely true. In fact, I submit that this is true of a significant portion of this country's market place. Space would not permit a comprehensive listing of situations where money is extracted from the American consumer under shady conditions. But a little knowledge goes a long way. And in all these years, I have yet to lose a dime to the 900/976 crowd. It's not really that hard to avoid. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: John Slater Subject: Re: Help Needed With AT&T Portable Phone Date: 24 Aug 90 17:17:04 GMT Reply-To: John Slater In article <11206@accuvax.nwu.edu>, shawn@ka (Shawn Nunley) writes: >the Sony has a stand-by battery life of seven days, twelve >hours of continuous talking. ... and the hernia is getting better by the day. I'm saving up to buy the optional Batt-Kart(TM) accessory, which enables me to drag the battery unit around on wheels rather than lift it. Is this the world's first "transportable" cordless phone ? :-) Seriously, if it can do that then it's an impressive beastie. My SouthWestern Bell model does 24 hours/1 hour, I think. John Slater Sun Microsystems UK, Gatwick Office ------------------------------ From: bill Subject: Re: Automated Collect Calling Date: 24 Aug 90 17:58:18 GMT Reply-To: bill Organization: Home for Homeless Homing Pigeons What is this "Automated Collect Calling?" Sounds like a great way to cut down man-hours, sort of... ;-) What Telcos use it and in what areas? Bill [Moderator's Note: It is a method of placing collect calls without operator intervention. The calling party records his name; the person who is being asked to pay for the call hears the recorded message and accepts or rejects the call. Many of the COCOTs (privately owned payphones) currently use this system; in addition, many actual telephone companies have recently experimented with it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bob Yasi Subject: Re: Call Here for Instant ANI Date: 24 Aug 90 20:50:34 GMT Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, San Diego, CA You can get a pretty instant ANI from 800/666-6258: just hit the octothorpe (#) when the voice starts talking and the sales pitch is skipped. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Aug 90 21:58 EST From: Ray Guydosh Subject: Re: Answering Telephone Reflecting on recent comments about how the telephone is answered in various countries, whatever is it that the resident of Fiji says when he answers the telephone in the AT&T television ad? ------------------------------ From: Steven King Subject: Re: Answering Phrase Date: 24 Aug 90 20:49:45 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL] In article <10918@accuvax.nwu.edu> Henry Troup writes: >On another track, when I lived in the U.K. we were taught to answer >the phone with the number. I presume this dates from a time when the >switching system was even less reliable than it is today. But in North >America one thing you never do is tell a caller what number s/he has >reached. How does the rest of the world answer the phone? I answer my home number with simply "Hello?" and my work number with "Motorola, this is Steve." My father answers his home number with "King's" and has his secretary answer his work number. (Ah, the life.) I was recently in Bangkok for a few weeks, and found the people there have the annoying habit of always answering the phone with "Hello" -- regardless of whether or not they spoke English! I don't speak a word of Thai, and I couldn't keep from expecting that if the phone was answered in English then the person on the other end should UNDERSTAND English. Linguistic prejudice, I know. Steve King, Motorola Cellular (...uunet!motcid!king) ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: Re: What is a "Cable Address"? Date: 24 Aug 90 06:12:42 GMT > Unlike Alex Bell's first message on the telephone, > ("Watson! Come here, I want you."), the first telegraph message from > Samuel Morse to an associate was "What Hath God Wrought?" Indeed. PAT] Well, not really. Any "first" telegraph message is lost in antiquity. S.F.B. Morse sent "What hath God Wrought?" when he demonstrated the telegraph before members of Congress, when he was seeking backing for his invention from the U.S. government. 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 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Aug 90 17:35:14 BST From: root@cs.tcd.ie Subject: Re: Answering Telephone (was Crank Calls) Organization: Computer Laboratory, Trinity College Dublin > Henry Troup writes that in > UK he was taught to answer the phone with the number, but that in > North America this is not done. Here in Ireland, when I was in school we were told to answer the phone with our number as a help to people using payphones. At that time the payphones in use here were the same as those intoduced by the U.K. Post Office around the 1930s. To use them the caller inserted the fee, dialled the number (local calls only) and when the called party answered, pressing button A connected the call and deposited the coins. If the called party announced his/her number upon answering, it assured the payphone user that the correct number had been obtained. In the event of reaching a wrong number, the caller could simply hang up and redial without paying again. The practice of answering calls with the number seems to be a minority practice in Ireland these days, but it is still common in Britain. The type of payphone described has long since been banished from the U.K., but some examples still survive here. ------------------------------ From: Brian Kantor Subject: Re: Phone Line RF Bypass Needed Date: 24 Aug 90 16:14:55 GMT Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd. Many thanks to those who replied; the answer seems to be a 40BA capacitor at the protector and a 1542A inductor connecting block. Per BSP 500-150-100. Brian ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Phone Line RF Bypass Needed Date: 24 Aug 90 23:58:42 EDT (Fri) From: Larry Lippman In article <11242@accuvax.nwu.edu> brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor) writes: > Does anyone happen to remember the USOC or other ordering code for the > widget used for bypassing phone line entry to radio transmitter > buildings? > We've used one of the CORCOM power line EMI filters to bypass the > telco line we have, but we're going to be ordering several new lines > installed in the next few weeks and I'd rather have the "official" > filter box if I can get it. Our installer wasn't able to find the > ordering codes in his references. What you want is generally referred to as a 1542AM Filter, which is used for radio frequency noise suppression on subscriber telephone lines. While this is the traditional WECO designation, the same type number is used by other telephone apparatus vendors, such as Suttle. GTE, as an example, calls it an SE1542 Suppressor Filter. This device is similar to a modular jack, but on a larger base with a potted toroidal dual-winding inductor. The modular jack version is the 1542AM, but a screw terminal-only 1542A is also available. Other vendors, such as Transcom, manufacture multiple units for simultaneous protection of several pairs. I can't easily help you with the USOC code, however. But if all else fails, and you *must* have the USOC code, let me know, since I do have a USOC handbook lying around somewhere. Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. "Have you hugged your cat today?" {boulder||decvax||rutgers||watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry VOICE: 716/688-1231 || FAX: 716/741-9635 {utzoo||uunet}!/ \aerion!larry ------------------------------ From: "David J. Camp" Subject: Multi-Media via Usenet? Organization: Division of Biostatistics, Washington Univ., St. Louis, MO Date: Fri, 24 Aug 90 08:14:17 GMT I just had an idea. There has been a lot of noise about upcoming multi-media products. We already distribute graphics images via .gif and other formats from archive systems. Why not distribute live video via Usenet? It has the perfect bandwidth-reducing (flooding) algorithm built-in. Of course, it may be necessary to increase the bandwidth of the transmission media, but that does not preclude us from using existing protocols. The expiration of such a newsgroup may need to be less than one second. I do not know what technical hurdles this will entail. I propose that we set up a test group for this purpose. In its early incarnation, it can simply distribute stills at a low rate, e.g. 1 per day. It would still be useful to test the idea, and experiment with software changes to make the protocol work. This is not a formal newsgroup proposal. I have yet to read news.announce.newusers to learn how to do that. I could not find the ideal newsgroup on which to post this, but for now address followups to rec.video, or (better) mail to me directly. I would be interested in hearing any comments regarding the feasibility or desirability of this scheme. david%wubios@wugate.wustl.edu David J. Camp ...!uunet!wugate!wubios!david +1 314 382 0584 ------------------------------ From: John Lefor Date: Fri, 24 Aug 90 12:28:06 EDT Subject: Touch Tone Decoding Service A few weeks ago I made available a "Touch Tone Decoding" service from my business answering system. A number of you have used it and I certainly hope it is useful. It turns out I am moving over the next few weeks. The number for the service will be disconnected and you will be asked to call a number in San Diego. This number will not have the Touch Tone Decoder service. As soon as I get the thing reconnected I will let you all know the number. Thanks, John Lefor University of Rochester Dept of E. Engineering 716-275-8265 jal@ee.rochester.edu uunet!ur-valhalla!jal ------------------------------ From: "David J. Camp" Subject: How Should Telephone Numbers be Listed? Organization: Division of Biostatistics, Washington Univ., St. Louis, MO Date: Fri, 24 Aug 90 16:45:31 GMT I have traditionally listed my telephone number as "(314) 362-3635". My previous work number was accessible via an internal 5-digit suffix, so I listed it as "(314) 36-23635". Someone complained that that was improper, and could cause problems for certain exchanges. Yet another sources suggested "+1 314 362 3635", under the vague impression that this was an international standard encoding. My question is: What is the most portable encoding of a USA telephone number? Is there a standards document that addresses this issue? Note that the number used in the example is no longer valid for me. david@wubios.wustl.edu David J. Camp ...!uunet!wuarchive!wubios!david +1 314 382 0584 [Moderator's Note: You really should not use () around the area code. The area code part of the number, there is nothing parenthetical about it. In other words, 123-456-7890 is the preferred way to write it. (123) 456-7890 is not preferred. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Dean Sirakides Subject: Credit for Wrong 900? Date: 24 Aug 90 18:38:34 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL So there I was dialing a 1-800 number from my desk. Of course, as usual, I was attempting to dial the number at record speed and with a minimum of attention. To dial out we have to dial 9 first. This, and a misguided finger lead me to dial 9,1-900-xxx-xxxx. As I pushed the last digit, the realization of what I had just dialed hit me and I quickly hung up (although I'm sure our PBX would have blocked the 900 call anyway). Question: could I get credit for mis-dialing a 900 number? Who would credit me, my local telco or default LD or 900 provider? I wonder if this has become a problem for companies offering say, customer service at 1-800-abc-defg, while some sleazy $35 service is at 1-900-abc-defg (or vice versa, but that seems much less serious). Is there any way to contact the business behind the 900 number to dispute a bill? Dean Sirakides | Motorola Cellular Group ...uunet!motcid!sirakide | Arlington Heights, IL Of course I speak for myself, not my employer... ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #593 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11431; 25 Aug 90 18:46 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18048; 25 Aug 90 17:03 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00282; 25 Aug 90 15:58 CDT Date: Sat, 25 Aug 90 15:37:29 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #594 BCC: Message-ID: <9008251537.ab00592@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 25 Aug 90 15:37:00 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 594 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson San Jose Mercury Strikes Again [John Higdon] Antique Wiring; Phone Service Goes Out When it Rains [Dennis G. Rears] Make Sprint Put it in Writing! [Christopher Ambler] Thoughts on 900 Service [Sander J. Rabinowitz] Re: Toll Calls on 800 Service Number [Sander J. Rabinowitz] More Than 7D on Local Calls From Hotel Rooms [Carl Moore] Re: How Should Telephone Numbers be Listed? [Joel Snyder] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: San Jose Mercury Strikes Again Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 24 Aug 90 00:09:34 PDT (Fri) From: John Higdon Several months ago, I related the story of the {San Jose Mercury News'} telemarketing boiler room and its calls to my ten home phone lines on a semi-regular basis. After speaking with the president of the telemarketing firm, I was led to believe that there would be no further calls. Not true. Last Monday evening at 7:40 PM, they hit again. When the first call came in, I tried to explain to the person that I had many lines in the hundreds group and would appreciate it if they could refrain from calling them. I was hung up on. Then, for the next thirty minutes, I went through modem hell. The next day, I called the president of the boiler room company as well as head of marketing for the {San Jose Mercury}. I posed this question: What would you do if every so often someone called you at home at various times of the day, disturbing your sleep, your dinner, and your work? In addition, they called all of your computer modem lines, wreaking havoc? And they continued to do this in spite of the fact that you had repeatedly asked them to stop and you had cooperated with them to the point of revealing all of the unlisted numbers to them for the purpose of having them not dialed inadvertantly? I told them that I considered this to be telephone harrasment. Then I asked for a good reason for me not to turn the matter over to my attorney for civil action. The reason one of them gave was, "This is a major telemarketing effort. It is virtually impossible to guarantee that some specific numbers won't be called in light of how many automated calls are made each day." Translation: Your telephone tranquility and privacy, Mr. Higdon, is secondary to the larger picture of telemarketing and commerce. My response was that I viewed the situation in reverse. My peace and privacy would prevail over their entire operation, if necessary. If I had to shut them down to keep from getting further calls, that's what I would do. Where did we leave it? They will block the entire 723 prefix from their machine until they figure out how to REALLY block individual numbers. (I guess all the previous conversations were just pissing in the wind; they never were able to block as they had claimed.) If the calls stop, that's just fine. Now when they call my 266 number... John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Aug 90 16:37:53 EDT From: "Dennis G. Rears (FSAC)" Subject: Antique Wiring; Phone Service Goes Out When it Rains I recently decided to checkout fully all the telephone wiring in my house. All the extensions are wired directly to the unit in the basement. I found many things that were wierd. First I have five rooms with active connections. I had nine pairs of wire attached to the unit though. Four of them led to various places in the basement and were then cut. I removed them. The interesting thing is that all the cables except for one was "standard" cable with red, green, black, and yellow wires. The one that wasn't I had never seen before. It consisted of three individual cables jacketed with a string like material and twisted together. Only two of the wires were used. It was as thick as thin wire ethernet. Has anyone ever seen such cable. BTW, John H. suggested I get Quad E jacketed wire to replace some of my broken wiring. I haven't been able to find any. I went to the AT&T phone store at the local mall and they had no idea what I wanted. They did try to sell me a Merlin system when they found out I had lines (really!). My phone service goes out when it rains hard. I have two lines, a 989 and 361 exchange. It seems as if the 989 will go out everytime it rains and the 361 about 50% of the time. The 361 will never go out unless the 989 goes out. When the service is out parties calling get a busy signal. I have service with NJ Bell. I have a relatively new (eight months) Network Interface Unit on the side of the house. Two black wires about the size of coax come from the NIU to the unit in the basement about a distance of ten feet. In the basement I have two units (one for each line) that takes one wire and splits it into the red and green component. I have tested that unit and found that it is dead or nothing but static when it rains. Current is getting there but no dial tone. Two other wires come from the NIU on the side of the house. One is grounded to the metal spike on the ground. The other goes two inches into the basement and is cut off. NJ Bell has come out and stated the problem is not with their stuff. Any idea what I should do? BTW, is there a name for what I call the unit that takes the wire from the NIU and breaks it into two components? Dennis [Moderator's Note: Judging from your comments about antique wiring, I suggest you have a problem with water getting into something. The next time this happens, why don't you try to isolate exactly where the problem is? Lift everything off the network block where NJ Bell enters your home. Allow a few seconds for the line to reset and see if dial tone is heard at that point (the network block). If it is heard on both lines, then the trouble is on your side. If you get no dial tone on either or both lines *at the network block, with everything removed* then call NJB and tell them there is no dial tone at the 'demarc'. PAT] ------------------------------ From: cambler@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Fubar) Subject: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! Date: Sat, 25 Aug 90 7:16:29 GMT Reply-To: cambler@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Fubar) Organization: Fantasy, Incorported: Reality None of Our Business. US Sprint says that their rates are lower than AT&T, and that they provide better service. And what's more, you can get it in writing. I decided to do so. After viewing their commercial on CNN touting the above claims, I called the number they gave. They answered with "US Sprint, Sales Department." I explained to the gentleman that I had just seen their commercial saying that they had better rates, and that they would put it in writing, and that I would like to receive such information. He put me on hold, saying that he would get me a number that I could call to order the information. I have to give US Sprint one bit of credit here: the music they have while you're on hold isn't bad. In fact, it's rather nice, compared to some of the myoozak I've heard out there. Some nice light jazz. But I digress. He returned six minutes later and said that the number was forthcoming from a supervisor. I asked him if this was such an uncommon request, especially since the commercial's main selling point was the documentation of superior services. He said yes, that is was uncommon. I then asked if he expected people to just call and switch, faithful in truth in advertising, that somewhere, the lower rates were, indeed, in writing. He was surprised, but curteous in his asking if I would hold just a bit longer. Sure. Seven minutes later, he was back, telling me that I would have to be called back, as the supervisor hadn't responded to him yet. I gave him my phone number. The home one. The one with the AT&T long distance service. Well, to be fair, ALL my numbers have AT&T. They never put me on hold. Immediately after getting my number, he said that the information was on it's way, if I could hold for just a moment more? Sure. All this to "get it in writing..." Three minutes later he informed me that I would have to be refered to the business office, which won't be open until Monday morning. I was surprised that after claiming in their commercial that I could get it in writing, that it was this difficult. He persisted in his courteous request for my address. I gave it to him. So, according to the salesman, I can expect it. The "in writing," that is, in 14 to 21 days. 14 to 21 days. "Thank you for calling US Sprint, we appreciate your business." Sure. ++Christopher(); --- cambler@polyslo.calpoly.edu --- chris@fubarsys.slo.ca.us ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Aug 90 09:26 EST From: "Sander J. Rabinowitz" <0003829147@mcimail.com> Subject: Thoughts on 900 Service In the 24 August 1990 issue, the Moderator wrote the following in reply to what I thought was the first non-tollfree 800 number: >[Moderator's Note: I think you will find the billing is on a credit >card number which you must punch in when you first connect. You will >NOT be billed by telco for the 800 call, but you WILL be billed by the >University (or some affiliated organization handling university sports >promotions, etc) via the credit card you authorize on the touch pad.] Well, that is a relief. Unfortunately, I had already dashed off that letter to my congressman ... but when it comes to 900 service, I scare kind of easy. =) Is it too much to ask to make it mandatory for the most expensive of the 900/976 services to require credit card billing? True, it won't prevent a really determined kid from "borrowing" his parent's Visa card, and perhaps 900/976 blocking may be needed anyway ... but my primary concern is this: What if you want to access a desired service (say, the "Weather Line" for example), and you accidentally dial "The Car Loan Connection"? The first service costs 25 cents, while the second costs $35.00 per call! (Now I don't know what the telephone numbers are, but I assure you the charges are NOT hypothetical.) Alternatively, there should be a warning for every 900 and 976 service that's out there that should give the caller the option of aborting the call without charge if the caller selected the wrong service or if it's too expensive and the caller changes his mind. Something like this: [Computer:] "You have reached a number that will result in a $______ charge (per minute) on your telephone bill. If you wish to proceed, press 1-2-3 on your touch-tone telephone, or wait 30 seconds. Otherwise, please hang up. Thank you." With that in mind, there could be three levels of 900/976 service, where everyone starts off at Level #2 (all services get the above computer message). Then, the subscriber can either go up to Level #1 (unlimited access to 900/976 services without the computer message), or down to level #3 (no access to 900/976 whatsoever). If the above is feasible, it can may 900 and 976 work to the advantage of everyone involved. If the service can be made more flexible for meeting the caller's needs, then the number of customers who are dialing the lines may increase. There would be less accidental dialing, so some of the burden would be lifted off the phone companies. Above all, the customer would be more satisfied. * * * Sander J. Rabinowitz 0003829147@mcimail.com * * * ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Aug 90 10:06 EST From: "Sander J. Rabinowitz" <0003829147@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Toll Calls on 800 Service "John Higdon" writes: >"Excuse, please. Pray tell, what do you do about all of those hundreds >of "pay" prefixes (like 212, 303, 415, etc., etc.) with that >five-year-old in the house? . . .Other than possibly the amount, >what's the difference?" First of all, I would never let the kid play with the phone ANYWAY. But this kind of this does happen ... and anyway, the amount DOES make a big difference. I am aware locally of a 976 service that costs as much for a single one-minute call as it does to dial ALASKA for at least twenty minutes! And where else do you get local numbers that charge you at least as much on a per-minute basis as a direct-dial call to EUROPE at prime time rates? The point is this: If I found that the kid was playing with the phone with strictly long distance numbers, it would take a lot of calls before the damage to the phone bill becomes serious, and hopefully I would be able to notice what was happening. But with a 900 or 976 number, a single call could inflict a lot of damage, and that's something that I'd rather not deal with. Of course, with 900/976 blocking, I don't have to deal with that problem. My original letter was concerned about the possibility of toll calls on 800 service, and I have since been reassured that there's no such problem. Above all else, I didn't see 800 service what 900 service is now. * * * Sander J. Rabinowitz 0003829147@mcimail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Aug 90 13:09:50 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: More Than 7D on Local Calls From Hotel Rooms How do the hotels handle those extended-area calls to the "Prince William" area from the Va. suburbs (DC area)? Those calls have to stay at 1+703+7D because of prefix duplication with Md. (not DC?), and cannot reduce to 7D until after the dust settles from the change to NPA+7D local calls in DC area. (But the other way around, they are already reduced to 7D.) Another area to try w/r to more-than-7D local calls from hotel rooms would be Chester/Concordville/Chadds Ford/Kennett Square area in southeastern Pa. in area 215. I know of hotels there (including one just off I-95 in Chester), and those areas have local service to Delaware (formerly 7D, now 1+302+7D). (215 area also has 1+NPA+7D local calls into NJ; I don't yet know what the story is for those few cases of local service from 215 into 717.) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Aug 1990 11:15:03 MDT From: "Programmin' up a storm." Subject: Re: How Should Telephone Numbers be Listed? I'm at home, so I don't have my Blue Books huddled around me, but there IS a CCITT standard for "how to write your telephone number," and it goes roughly like this: +1 602 795 3955 Because of the magic wonderfulness of the US country code being "1" and the number we all use to access long distance being "1," this is incredibly cosmic and confuses neither NA nor European subscribers. There is specific advice NOT to put parentheses around the area code, and there is discussion about writing it two ways: once for "national" callers and once for "international" callers, with the national being on the top, and the international on the bottom. There is also a specific symbol (which looks kind of like a Q) that you are supposed to put on the side of your number if you have an answering machine (actually, a "device substituting for a subscriber in his absence"). In fact, E.117 is the standard for what your answering machine message should be. Again, I forget the details. On a similar vein: there was a discussion several years ago about the # sign. While this may be called "octothorpe" in Bell parlance, it is not in CCITT parlance. There is, however, a specific format for displaying the sign, depending on whether you're in North America (in which case it's slanted, look on your phone if you don't remember, with a specific angle to the slant) or elsewhere, in which case it's straight up-and-down (as my terminal is displaying it now; your mileage may vary). There are specific rules about the ratio of the short pieces to the long pieces, as well. In general, I think that a large percentage of the questions of this nature in this newsfroup have good answers in the E-series recommendations: the touch tones, why the tri-tone is SO DAMN LOUD, etc. If the Moderator agrees, I'd be willing to type in some of the "official CCITT" answers to some of the more commonly and hotly debated questions here. Note, of course, that the CCITT is the CCITT and Bell is/was Bell, so no answer is authoritative -- and the history is often more interesting than the answer. Joel Snyder Member US Delegation to CCITT SG VII) [Moderator's Note: Yes, please send along some CCITT 'questions and answers' for the Digest. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #594 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12684; 25 Aug 90 20:42 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16709; 25 Aug 90 19:08 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01712; 25 Aug 90 18:03 CDT Date: Sat, 25 Aug 90 17:55:20 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #595 BCC: Message-ID: <9008251755.ab10441@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 25 Aug 90 17:55:18 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 595 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Illinois Bell Employee Given a Bribe [TELECOM Moderator] Re: 976- and 900- Phone Numbers [Marc T. Kaufman] Re: 976- and 900- Phone Numbers [David G. Cantor] Re: 976- and 900- Phone Numbers [John Higdon] Re: Cellular Marketing [Rich Sims] Re: Answering Machines as Room Bug? [Sander J. Rabinowitz] Re: System 75 Abbreviated Dialing [Herman Silbiger] Old Calculators [Rick Bensene] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 25 Aug 90 16:53:35 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Illinois Bell Employee Given a Bribe Denise Wilder, 37, has been employed for some time now by Illinois Bell Telephone Company in the Chicago area as a customer service representative. Like a lot of us working people, Ms. Wilder usually manages to make do with the paycheck she receives, while always thinking about ways to get more money. But Ms. Wilder had an all-to-common problem: she got over her head in debt, and began having trouble meeting obligations to her creditors. Gradually she was catching up, but one of her creditors got impatient and decided to place her with a collection agency. L & P Financial Adjusters, 6326 North Cicero Avenue in Chicago was the agency given the assignment of collecting a bill from Ms. Wilder. One characteristic of most collection agencies, including L & P, is their vigorous attention to their duty. Before long, Ms. Wilder was receiving frequent calls at work from the agency, demanding payment. One time, the collector even threatened to attach her wages if she did not pay. Then on August 8, Ms. Wilder recieved a call from the owner of L & P himself, Mr. Allan M. Michell. Michell, 39, of 553 Cobblestone Lane in Buffalo Grove, IL had an interesting proposition for Ms. Wilder, and he wondered if they could get together and talk about it. Ms. Wilder agreed to meet Mr. Michell to see what he had on his mind. Mr. Michell laid it all out: He needed a regular contact inside Bell to provide his agency with non-published phone numbers of debtors in the area. In particular, he had a list of 91 names. Could Ms. Wilder get him the current phone numbers and addresses for these people? In exchange for her cooperation, Mr. Michell offered to ignore any collection claims that might come in against her at his agency, and he would give her $50 extra for her trouble. Ms. Wilder thought about it. It seemed easy enough, and the extra money would be good to have ... but after thinking about it awhile longer she decided to tell her supervisors about it instead. Soon she was talking to Illinois Bell security representatives about what had taken place. Security asked her to go along with it, to help 'set the guy up' in a trap, and Ms. Wilder agreed. She met Mr. Michell in a restaurant near the office where she worked, and received a list of the 91 names he was seeking. Security was nearby to observe the transaction, and assist Ms. Wilder if anything went wrong. On this past Tuesday night, August 21, Ms. Wilder met Mr. Michell in the parking lot at the telephone building, 318 West Adams Street in downtown Chicago. She handed him a 'print out of what he wanted' -- or so he thought! -- and he handed her fifty dollars. Of course the security guys were nearby, watching it all, along with Chicago Police Sgt. Robert Gurwig, and detective James Mack. When Ms. Wilder opened the car door to step out and leave, the police officers rushed in and arrested Mr. Michell. Freed on $10,000 bond -- meaning, under Illinois law that $1000 in actual cash must be presented -- Mr. Michell appeared on Wednesday morning before Judge Dennis Dernbach, charged with one count of computer fraud and one count of commercial bribery. Judge Dernbach found probable cause to hold Mr. Michell for trial, and the preliminary hearing is scheduled for September 25. On conviction, Mr. Michell will note that Illinois law provides that his collection agency license will be pulled. Collection agencies here are regulated closely by the state, and he will be, very simply, out of business. Of course, under the Constitution of the United States, he has to be presumed innocent of the charges against him until he has his day in court. Thank you, Denise, for doing the right thing! Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: "Marc T. Kaufman" Subject: Re: 976- and 900- Phone Numbers Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University Date: Sat, 25 Aug 90 16:28:25 GMT In article <11307@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: >The whole point of 900/976 service is to provide a convenient "casual" >means of billing for information providers, and to provide universal >access to those services... This thread, on the similarity of 900 numbers to 800 numbers, with billing, raised the following question: Is there a POTS number for the 900 number? If so, what happens if you call the POTS numbers directly instead of using the 900 prefix (billing-wise)? Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Neon.stanford.edu) ------------------------------ Subject: Re: 976- and 900- Phone Numbers Reply-To: dgc@math.ucla.edu Date: Sat, 25 Aug 90 14:32:08 -0700 From: "David G. Cantor" [Moderator's Note: In this message and the one which follows, Cantor and Higdon share correspondence between themselves with the rest of the Digest readers. I've re-arranged part of Cantor's comments to make them follow Hidgon's response. PAT] John Higdon writes > "The whole point of 900/976 service is to provide a convenient > 'casual' means of billing for information providers . . . > Obviously, the moment you require a credit card, you have just > excluded a significant number of people. . . A lot of people . > . . have concocted objections to the CONCEPT of 900/976. I find > this intellectually dishonest. . . . If you are afraid of small > children accidently dialing and running up your bill, you've got > more than 900/976 to worry about. Give me fifteen minutes with > your telephone and I'll run up charges that will curl your hair > WITHOUT dialing a single 900/976 number." Mr. Higdon doesn't understand the concept of "contracts" and especially "adhesion" contracts. The 976 and 900 services (claim to permit) anyone who has access to my telephone to impose a charge upon me. By special provision of the state laws, telcos can impose such charges (for "telephone service") and, as a consequence, are heavily regulated. I don't consider 976 service nor 900 service to be telephone service. It won't be long before you can order flowers delivered, groceries, etc. using these services. I doubt that if the State laws that permit telco charges would, upon test in court, apply to 976 and 900 services. I wouldn't object to these services if the usual laws of contract applied, in particular: 1. The charge is to the one who enters into the contract-- i.e., not the "owner" of the telephone line. 2. Minors are exempt (contracts that minors make, except for necessities of life, may usually be voided). 3. The usual protections againts fraud and misrepresentation applied. 4. Protections provided to bank card holders apply here, also. As with such cards, before the sercvice is provided the user should request it and sign a contract for it. The argument that a service is "convenient" doesn't justify it. According to high-level staff of the California PUC, no California resident has ever lost telephone service by not paying 976 or 900 charges, and I've never head of anyone being forced to pay them by lawsuit. Most likely, for the reasons I've given, Courts won't enforce these charges. As for children running up lond distance bills: While they do it, it's much less of a problem. However, Mr. Higdon has given me fair warning: If he's ever near a phone for which I'm responsible, I'll watch him like an owl :-). David G. Cantor Department of Mathematics University of California at Los Angeles Internet: dgc@math.ucla.edu ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: 900 and 976 service Date: 25 Aug 90 13:11:40 PDT (Sat) From: John Higdon On Aug 25 at 12:19, David G. Cantor writes: > [massive psuedo-legal discourse deleted] > According to high-level staff of the California PUC, to whom I have > spoken on this matter, no California resident has ever lost telephone > service by not paying 976 or 900 charges, and I've never head of anyone > being forced to pay them by lawsuit. Most likely, for the reasons I've > given, Courts won't enforce these charges. Then what's the problem? Why the beef? Then who cares? As any IP will be quick to tell you, uncollectibles in the 976/900 business are the single most prevalent reason that services go under. In the case of 976, the telco reps will, if you make the slightest complaint about such a service, practically beg you to let them take the charges off of your phone bill. If it is possible to run up massive 900 charges and then just walk away from them, why even bother to complain? Sounds like you have inadvertantly come up with a major "gotcha" when dealing with IPs. > As for children running up lond distance bills: While they do it, > it's much less of a problem. I don't consider myself "intellectually > dishonest"; however, Mr. Higdon has given me fair warning: If he's ever > near a phone for which I'm responsible, I'll watch him like an owl. I'm the last person you have to worry about. Unlike many others, I have a plethora of LD accounts in good standing and I never NEVER make personal calls on other's phones and leave charges thereon. Besides, if I wanted to put massive charges on your phone, I wouldn't need to be anywhere near it. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: While he was in the process of correcting a couple things in his message, Cantor (and I) received Higdon's message, above. When he sent the corrected version of his original message (see above) Cantor added the footnote shown below. PAT] Note: The Moderator asked me to clarify a couple typographical errors in my message. While doing so, I received Mr. Higdon's reply. To save repeated messages, let me briefly address his main points: 1. He refers to "[massive psuedo-legal discourse deleted]". I don't claim to be a lawyer. All I'm saying is that consumer protections, of the type I describe, earned with great difficulty over many years, should apply. 2. He states: > Then what's the problem? . . . In the case of 976, the telco reps > will, if you make the slightest complaint about such a service, > practically beg you to let them take the charges off of your phone > bill. The above is true only when the amount is small. But, in my case, this has been a personal tragedy involving a family member with serious mental health problems. The amount of effort dealing with GTE has been great. I have been frequently lied to, mislead, and hassled. It was only with great difficulty that these charges, in the thousands of dollars, were removed. I've been involved in legal matters before and I want to avoid them. I believe that the recent PUC decision requiring GTE and PacTel to block 900 calls upon request, stemmed in part from my problems and complaints. GTE's original position was that it was not authorized to block 900 calls since Federal Law required it to provide equal access to all long-distance providers. dgc ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Aug 90 05:48:17 EDT From: Rich Sims Subject: Re: Cellular Marketing In-Reply-To: message from wybbs!ken@sharkey.cc.umich.edu (Ken Jongsma) > Cellular has it's place. It's just being misused in many cases. If the individual using the cellular phone is paying for such use, and they're not using it for illegal activities or to harass and annoy other folks, how can it possibly be construed as "misuse". If such were the case, I'd guess that we've been "misusing" the telephone since Day One!! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Aug 90 09:23 EST From: "Sander J. Rabinowitz" <0003829147@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Answering Machines as Room Bug? In reference to a TELECOM issue of 24 August 1990, Tom Neff wrote the following: "I turned on the shortwave receiver in my apartment this morning and was flipping past the 5-6 MHz neighborhood when I distinctly a voice coming from the speaker. It was my friend in the other room! I couldn't believe it. . . ". . .So I started unplugging things. Speakers... no. Radios... no. The phone itself... no. The answering machine... YES! . . ." The message went on to ask whether other Panasonic answering machines broadcast on radio frequencies. Tom Neff's machine was a Panasonic KX-T1470. I own a Panasonic KT-T1450 which I had purchased only 48 hours ago on sale at a local KMart, as well as a Sony ICF2010 shortwave receiver, and I wanted to see if I could recreate the above events. As it turned out, when the answering machine was idle but turned on, it did send out signals on 5,655 kHz. I then hooked up my tape recorder to the radio, and deliberately started speaking within various distances from the answering machine. When I played the tape back, I did recognize my voice, but it sounded so muffled as to make the signal useless for intrusion purposes. Two other things I noticed with my model: 1) The signal cuts off when the tape players are activated. In other words, it appears that telephone messages do not get sent over the air. 2) The apparent strength of the answering machine signal seemed to depend on whether or not the short wave receiver was plugged into an A.C. wall socket. When it was plugged in, I could pick up the signal as described above, but when the radio ran off of batteries, the receiver had to be practically next to the answering machine for the signal to be received. My tentative findings, then: Yes, the answering machine may be broadcasting, but a) the audio distortion is horrible, and b) the signal may not travel far beyond the confines of your living room. * * * Sander J. Rabinowitz 0003829147@mcimail.com * * * ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Aug 90 11:48:57 EDT From: hrs1@cbnewsi.att.com Subject: Re: System 75 Abbreviated Dialing Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <11251@accuvax.nwu.edu>, davep@u.washington.edu (David Ptasnik) writes: > Sorry that it has taken so long to reply to this, but I just attended > an AT&T System 75 training course. You cannot send a # in any way > from a 75. Hard to believe but true. It cannot be dialed manually, I don't believe this is true. When I was on a System 75, I used to dial many international calls, using # as a terminator. I am sure it was transmitted, since if I forgot it, the setup was noticeably longer. I also recently accessed my Audix system from someone on a System 75, and used the # a lot. Herman Silbiger ------------------------------ From: Rick Bensene Subject: Old Calculators Date: 24 Aug 90 20:22:27 GMT In <11261@accuvax.nwu.edu> petrilli@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Chris Petrilli) writes: >This is nothing ... a friend of mine has a Wang Programmable >Calculator Mainframe (key word) ... it supports six add on >"terminals", and is implemented in discrete logic (i.e. 1000s of >transistors). The main unit is about 4'x4', and makes an aweful sound >when on. At the moment it doesn't work, and for some strange reason, >Wang doesn't support it anymore (I wonder....). The date on it is 1969. Looks like time for comp.old.calculators. I have TWO of these, and a large number of the 'terminals'. I also have a working Wang LOKI-1, which I believe is Wang's FIRST calculator. Hardly a pocket-sized device. I'm always interested in old-calculator stories. Let's carry the rest of this discussion out via EMail, however, and leave comp.dcom.telecom for telecommunications topics. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #595 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13987; 25 Aug 90 22:43 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16926; 25 Aug 90 21:13 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29475; 25 Aug 90 20:08 CDT Date: Sat, 25 Aug 90 19:46:31 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #596 BCC: Message-ID: <9008251946.ab07640@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 25 Aug 90 19:45:50 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 596 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Symposium: International Telecommunications Futures [TELECOM Moderator] Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls [David Albert] Help a Model 500 Ring [Jamie Cox] Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! [Randal Schwartz] Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! [Darren Griffiths] Re: Automated Collect Calling [David M. Archer] Re: Multi-Media via Usenet? [Jamie Hanrahan] Class Action Suit Against Epson Charges Email Spying [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 25 Aug 90 18:34:03 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Symposium: International Telecommunications Futures The Second Annual Symposium on "International Telecommunicatons Futures" will be held October 4-5, 1990 at the Peter Kiewit Conference Center in Omaha, Nebraska. Sponsored by the International Center for Telecommunications Management and the College of Continuing Studies at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, this two-day symposium will include the following presentations: Thursday, October 4: New Directions in Network Development - Tom Thompsen, retired president of AT&T Technologies and other speakers. Privatization - John Crook, Telecom Corporation of New Zealand. Regulatory Approaches - various speakers. At luncheon, the guest speaker will be Richard Wiley, former chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. Friday, October 5: Telecommunications in the Infrastructure - Margaret Goatcher, president of Cimarron Telephone Company, Mannford, OK and other speakers. The Soviet Union and Eastern Europe - Speakers from the Soviet Union and Hungary will discuss telecom in their countries. Demonstrations of the latest in telecommunications technology and a tour of the telecommunications facilities of the Strategic Air Command will conclude the symposium on Friday afternoon. Attendees will have an opportunity to greet the symposium participants at a reception and dinner at the Henry Doorly Zoo on Thursday evening, and at the registration period on Wednesday evening, October 3, from 5PM to 9 PM at the Peter Kiewit Conference Center, 1313 Farnam, Omaha, Nebraska. Standard registration fee is $350, which includes all symposium materials, two lunches, one dinner, coffee breaks, etc. Academic registration fee is $200, a special reduced rate for college or university professors. Admission to the reception and dinner on Thursday evening is by ticket only; attendance is optional at no extra charge, but you must specify if you wish to attend. Admission to the telecommunications facilities of the SAC also requires advance arrangements. Please specify if you wish to be included in the tour. When registering, include your home address, your employer's name and work address, and your day and evening telephone numbers. Indicate if confirmation should be made to your home address or office address. Include your social security number. Payment can be made by check, credit card, or purchase order from your agency, institution or company. Checks should be made payable to, and charges will be identified as "University of Nebraska at Omaha". If you wish for your company to be billed later, include your supervisor's name in your request. Indicate your priority code when registering: (TELECOM Digest) "006" Mail your payment and registration information to: College of Continuing Studies Business Office University of Nebraska at Omaha Omaha, NE 68182-0330 For more information, telephone 402-595-2300, or Sharron Cook at 402-595-2316. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Aug 90 16:06:43 EDT From: David Albert Subject: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls Organization: Aiken Computation Lab, Harvard University v116kznd@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu wrote: >I used to call home collect, and my parents would refuse the charge, and >call me right back. Well, Bell of PA saw this pattern happening... >and decided to bill my parents for the *refused* collect call... In our family, accepted practice when I was in college was to call person-to-person for one's self. Of course, the requested person is not there, and then the operator would let you leave a message asking them to call you back at a given number. Now, my question is, obviously the phone company (this was pre-breakup) couldn't have been too thrilled about this practice, but was (is) it illegal? Immoral? Perfectly okay? David Albert UUCP: ...!harvard!albert INTERNET: albert@harvard.edu [Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell has stated your practice is not okay, nor the ruse of calling collect and getting called back, etc. Telco's rationale is that by pre-arrangement, you have still managed to deliver a message, even by using coded words and phrases to convey the message to the receiver of the call. They want to be paid for the message they delivered, namely that you are positioned at a telephone somewhere waiting for a call. This is not high on their list of priorities for types of fraud to be prevented, but it is fraud none the less, and a kind of cheap, petty fraud at that. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jcox@x102a.harris-atd.com (Jamie Cox) Subject: Help a Model 500 Ring Date: 25 Aug 90 22:17:23 GMT Reply-To: jcox@x102a.ess.harris.com (Jamie Cox) Organization: Harris Govt. Aerospace Systems Division This seems like an easy question for comp.dcom.telecom: I have an old desk top dial phone which works but does not ring. I would like it to ring. It is a model 500. The wires from the ringer solenoid have been disconnected. Where should they go? I have the original connections written down and tried that, but it still didn't ring. The ringer solenoid has four wires, red, white, red/white and black (or maybe it used to be green, it's hard to tell:-)). I have measured the resistance among these and its like this: Red R/W Blk White | | | | \/\/\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/ ~ 3k ohms ~ 1k ohms There was no connection between the two sides of the above diagram. Question number 1: Is the ringer solenoid broken? Question number 2: Please post or email information about likely wiring diagrams. The network is labeled with letters: GN, B, R, RR, F, K, G, L1, L2, A. Apparently some phones use numbers instead, and I already have a diagram for such a phone which doesn't help much. I have seen several different connection patterns in similar phones and have tried them on this phone, but still no ring. Wow, there are a lot of (apparently valid) ways to hook up a ringer. The phone in question is known to have rung when in service about seven years ago. It was on a different exchange, and I remember it had a distinctive ring back when called, and perhaps an unusual audible ring from the instrument. It may have been on a party line at one time. Thank you. Jamie Cox jcox@mlb.ess.harris.com | Phone: (407)-727-6397 (work) Harris Government Aerospace Systems,| (407)-723-7935 (home) MS 19/4827, P.O. Box 94000, | Melbourne, Florida USA | ------------------------------ From: Randal Schwartz Subject: Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! Reply-To: Randal Schwartz Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA Date: Sat, 25 Aug 90 22:04:43 GMT In article <11330@accuvax.nwu.edu>, cambler@polyslo (Fubar) writes: | Seven minutes later, he was back, telling me that I would have to be | called back, as the supervisor hadn't responded to him yet. I gave him | my phone number. The home one. The one with the AT&T long distance | service. Well, to be fair, ALL my numbers have AT&T. They never put | me on hold. Based on recent experiences of others here, I'd be calling 1-700-555-4141 every few days to make sure that my 1+ dialing didn't get switched over in the process. After all, you *did* call *them*. Maybe they consider that a request for a switch. :-) Just another phone user (with AT&T as my default and only carrier... we don't have 10xxx here), Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095 on contract to Intel's iWarp project, Beaverton, Oregon, USA, Sol III merlyn@iwarp.intel.com ...!any-MX-mailer-like-uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn ------------------------------ From: Darren Griffiths Subject: Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! Date: 25 Aug 90 22:23:18 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. In article <11330@accuvax.nwu.edu> cambler@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Fubar) writes: >Three minutes later he informed me that I would have to be referred to >the business office, which won't be open until Monday morning. I was >surprised that after claiming in their commercial that I could get it >in writing, that it was this difficult. He persisted in his courteous >request for my address. I gave it to him. >So, according to the salesman, I can expect it. The "in writing," that is, >in 14 to 21 days. >14 to 21 days. One of my sources within Pacific Bell tells me that US Sprint is going to come through on their promise to put it in writing. Pacific Bell does the billing for Sprint and they are currently working on software to distribute a "contract" along with bills. Evidently it is something a little unusual for Pacific Bell because the contract is supposed to be customized and different ones will go to people depending on what long distance service they currently have. This requires some customized software. It'll be interesting to see how well this works, Pacific Bell has had some problems with bill inserts in the past. They print a disclaimer on the back of the bills that lists the PUC address in case of complaints. They made the mistake of designing the bill so that the PUC address showed through the return window if someone put the bill in backwards. Many people did this and the bills dutiful where sent to the PUC causing all sorts of problems for Pacific Bell. The design of the bill has since been changed :-). Cheers, darren ------------------------------ From: David M Archer Subject: Re: Automated Collect Calling Date: 25 Aug 90 21:25:09 GMT Reply-To: v116kznd@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu Organization: University at Buffalo In article <11309@accuvax.nwu.edu>, bill@trace.eedsp.gatech.edu (bill) writes.. >What is this "Automated Collect Calling?" Sounds like a great way to >cut down man-hours, sort of... ;-) >What Telcos use it and in what areas? Interestingly enough, a day or so after I sent my message, I caught a story on the TV news that apparently some of the local operators are not very happy about these things, and they were on strike, or maybe not on strike, but very unhappy. I never saw the story in the newspaper, so I don't really know. But what I do remember was the phone company claimed it saves somewhere around $7,000 a day (gee, that's almost 2.5 million dollars a year, I wonder if that means they really don't need to raise rates? ) Actually, come to think of it, one TV station claimed it was automated customer services in general, and another station claimed it was automated directory assistance. Oh, Pat, you had asked if the call I received was from a COCOT or not. I somewhat remember a mention of NY telephone, so I assume it was the phone company itself. And speaking of automated directory assistance, what the heck is that? Don't tell me they've got voice recognition down good enough that I can ask a computer for "Joe Hergesheimer" and it will understand me? Or is it just the system where you tell the human operator who you're looking for, and then the recorded numbers come on the line? I never really considered that automated. [Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell operators recently had an 'informational picket' based on their fear of the automated collect calling feature being installed here. They're afraid it will take away their jobs. They should read up on telco history: In the 1940-60 period, as central offices all over the United States were being converted to dial from manual service, the operators raised cain about how the automated stuff would cause them all to get laid off. In fact it did not happen that way. The automated stuff merely made it possible for telco to keep up with increases in calling volume without having to hire, as the saying goes, every female in the world over the age of 18 to be a telephone operator. (Yes, that was someone's mathematical projection fifty years ago.) Regarding automated directory assistance, the only part here that is *not* automated is the typing on the keys at the terminal, to wit: 1) You dial 411. 2) Operator's pre-recorded voice: "Directory, Ms. Brown" 3) You cite your request, the operator sits there silently typing. 4) The number is located, and the cursor moved to it on the screen. 5) Computer says, "The number is xxx-xxxx" (and repeats it). In many (most) directory assistance calls here, the operator never says a word. Her pre-recorded voice greets you; the computer responds with the answer. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jamie Hanrahan Subject: Re: Multi-Media via Usenet? Date: 25 Aug 90 11:31:29 PDT Organization: Simpact Associates, San Diego CA In article <11318@accuvax.nwu.edu>, david@wubios.wustl.edu (David J. Camp) writes: > Why not distribute live video via Usenet? ... > I propose that we set up a test group for this purpose. In its early > incarnation, it can simply distribute stills at a low rate, e.g. 1 per > day. It would still be useful to test the idea, and experiment with > software changes to make the protocol work. While you're about it, go read (sort of) alt.sex.pictures. They're way ahead (if that's the word) of you. Jamie Hanrahan, Simpact Associates, San Diego CA Chair, VMSnet [DECUS uucp] and Internals Working Groups, DECUS VAX Systems SIG Internet: jeh@dcs.simpact.com, or if that fails, jeh@crash.cts.com Uucp: ...{crash,scubed,decwrl}!simpact!jeh ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Aug 90 16:12:56 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Class Action Suit Against Epson Charges Email Spying Several employees of Epson America have filed a class action suit against their employer, accusing Epson of spying on them for several months by monitoring thousands of their electronic messages. According to the suit, Epson's computer operations manager made printed copies of electronic mail sent and/or received by 700 workers. The plaintiffs claim this type of act violates a state wiretap law. Epson responds that the suit is entirely unfounded, and I agree with that assessment. The right to privacy in email or on the telephone means privacy on computers *you own or control* (i.e. lease or rent a mailbox, etc), and on telephone lines *you pay for*. Whoever legally controls the computer controls the information on it. Obviously if you lease a mailbox from MCI Mail, then you legally control that part of the MCI computer. If you subscribe to phone service, then you are entitled to privacy on *your phone and line*. If the Epson employees can demonstrate that their employer granted them the right to receive and send personal mail, then a case might be made in their favor. But I doubt any such right was given. And if the email is all business related, then what gives the employees the right to say their employer cannot supervise or review their work? Likewise with telephones: Your employer has the legal right to monitor your business phone calls to evaluate your performance, etc. If you do not like him listening to your personal calls, then a counter-question would be in order: why are your personal phone calls being made on company phone facilities? Use the payphone in the cafeteria. Use your own MCI Mail or ATT Mail account to send and receive personal stuff. Don't complain because the owner of the equipment wants to see how it is being used. The Epson employees deserve to lose this suit, and I hope the court requires them to compensate their employer for his expense in defending it. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #596 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14580; 27 Aug 90 10:44 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31684; 27 Aug 90 9:20 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02938; 26 Aug 90 18:08 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01615; 26 Aug 90 16:15 CDT Date: Sun, 26 Aug 90 16:05:11 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #597 BCC: Message-ID: <9008261605.ab17207@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 26 Aug 90 16:04:45 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 597 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: 976- and 900- Phone Numbers [John Higdon] Re: 976- and 900- Phone Numbers [siegman] Re: 976- and 900- Phone Numbers [John R. Levine] Re: Thoughts on 900 Service [John Higdon] Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls [Herman Silbiger] Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls [Daniel Jacobson] Re: Automated Salesmen [David M. Archer] Re: Building a 1A2 Key Service Unit [Steve Warner] Re: Why Are Phone Systems so *Stupid*?? [Steve Warner] Re: SIT Tone Frequencies [Scott Fybush] Re: Answering Phrase [Wolf Paul] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: 976- and 900- Phone Numbers Date: 25 Aug 90 18:33:31 PDT (Sat) From: John Higdon "Marc T. Kaufman" writes: > This thread, on the similarity of 900 numbers to 800 numbers, with > billing, raised the following question: Is there a POTS number for the > 900 number? If so, what happens if you call the POTS numbers directly > instead of using the 900 prefix (billing-wise)? To my knowledge POTS numbers are not used for 900 service. I am familiar with two types: Pac*Bell and LD carrier. In the case of Pac*Bell, 900 service can only be called from within the LATA. The IP must locate its equipment within the physical service area of a particular CO that issues the 900 lines. In the case of the San Francisco LATA, a 900 IP must locate his equipment within the area served by the "Bush/Pine" central office. This just happens to be the financial district of SF, so a lot of office buildings are picking up some extra bucks leasing basement space to IPs. It is not uncommon to see a bunch of IBM clones lined up on a shelf in the basement of a large office building. In any event, these lines have no POTS number assignment that can be called from an ordinary phone. The other type of 900 service involves dedicated lines from the carrier. Telesphere, AT&T (Megacom), and others will deposit a T-span in your facility which will break down into the requisite 900 circuits. The lines, since they don't even come through the LEC, have no POTS assignment. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: John, are you positive 900's are never translated into POTS at the final destination? I'm almost certain a couple of the talk lines here can be reached on 312-702 numbers. In fact, didn't we have a message here in the Digest more than a year ago where someone said there ought to be a 'handy lookup table' showing the POTS version of the 900 numbers? Most are done like you describe them, though. PAT] ------------------------------ From: siegman Subject: Re: 976- and 900- Phone Numbers Date: 26 Aug 90 01:38:53 GMT Organization: Stanford University >I'd like the thoughts and opinions of other telecom readers to help me >focus my thinking) to for the opinion that the only thing phone >companies should be allowed to stick on your phone bill is the cost of >telephone calls. 1) I _strongly_ agree with your thinking on this (even if you feel your own thoughts on the subject are not yet "fully focused"). The _only_ thing I want from the phone company, or on my phone bill, is telephone service. If they're going to serve as a collection agency for other services, then it should be on a separate bill; and it should be clear it's independent of my telephone service. 2) On a related track, if I'm supposed to pay a 900 provider for services, there must be a contract between us. I've asked repeatedly: When and how does a contract between us get created? Should just dialing a phone number -- whether knowingly, or unknowingly -- be able to create a contract, under which I have to pay the provider? I don't think so! The service should have to say, on _every_ call, "There's a charge for this service, do you want it? If so, do...". Wm. Baxter, one of the main sources of all these headaches, is back as a law school professor at my own university. Like to see what he thinks of all this one of these days... ------------------------------ Subject: Re: 976- and 900- Phone Numbers Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA Date: 25 Aug 90 00:09:02 EDT (Sat) From: "John R. Levine" There have been a lot of surprisingly fundamental changes in what phone companies do in the past few years. One of the worst is the way that local telcos have become bill collectors for everyone from reputable long distance companies to AOSes that charge you $14.75 for saying "NO" to a computerized collect call from a COCOT and 900 sleazos that charge $2/minute for your kids to hear this week's wisdom from Elmer the Pig, not to mention the 900 number lotteries thinly disguised as contests of skill. In particular, it used to be the case that when you dialed a phone number you could tell fairly easily from the number you dialed how much the call would cost. AOSes and 900 numbers have made a mockery of this. It seems to me that at the least, 900 numbers should answer with a message along the lines of "This number is serviced by . You will be charged $2.00 per minute starting after the third tone. ... boop ... boop ... boop" giving you a chance to hang up. But I suspect that the only really viable approach is to decree that no charge on a phone bill is collectable unless there is a signed agreement from the subscriber. If someone chooses voluntarily to pay a bill to a company without an agreement, OK, but as soon as you contest it the bill is cancelled unless they can show the paper. The agreement doesn't have to be fancy, the card you send in asking to switch long distance companies would be adequate. This might make it harder to switch long distance companies on a whim; I don't see anything intrinsically wrong with that. Regards, John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!esegue!johnl ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Thoughts on 900 Service Date: 25 Aug 90 18:11:46 PDT (Sat) From: John Higdon "Sander J. Rabinowitz" <0003829147@mcimail.com> writes: > Alternatively, there should be a warning for every 900 and 976 service > that's out there that should give the caller the option of aborting > the call without charge if the caller selected the wrong service or if > it's too expensive and the caller changes his mind. Something like > this: Funny you should mention this. This is exactly what many 900 service packages provide. Through a strange quirk of fate, I happen to know that both Telesphere and Pac*Bell 900 allow about twenty seconds of 900 supervision before the billing clock begins. IPs are admonished to provide a "chicken exit" on their recorded intros so that inadvertant callers can bail. In a previous Digest there was an article by someone who was worried that by simply dialing a 900 number and then instantly hanging up a charge would appear on the bill. Even if there is no "chicken exit", a 900 call must supervise just like any other for billing to begin. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: But if, as you pointed out earlier, the LEC is not involved at all, with the 900 guys putting a dish on your roof, etc, then *when* does the supervision take place? Who does it? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Aug 90 08:30:38 EDT From: hrs1@cbnewsi.att.com Subject: Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <11345@accuvax.nwu.edu>, albert@endor.harvard.edu (David Albert) writes: > In our family, accepted practice when I was in college was to call > person-to-person for one's self. Of course, the requested person is > not there, and then the operator would let you leave a message asking > them to call you back at a given number. Years ago, my kids lived in a different billing area from mine. I had extended area service, so I could call them free. If they called me, they would hang up after two rings. I would always let the phone ring at least three times. Thus, if there were only two rings, I would call them. Since there was never a voice on the line, the first call was not chargeable. However, the phone company might use such a practice as an argument why there should be charges for unsuccessful attempts. Herman Silbiger ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Aug 90 08:13:59 CDT From: Daniel Jacobson Subject: Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls Organization: AT&T-BL, Naperville IL, USA >[Moderator's Note: [...] you have still managed to deliver a message >even by using coded words [...] They want to be paid for the message >they delivered. Are there any cases of people using the utterly cheapskate idea of sending morse code via ring length to the other party? {\Law_Abiding_Tone=on One would hope that telcos can detect this so us regular folks' phone bills aren't subsidising all night (1 baud?) style communication. } Dan_Jacobson@ATT.COM +1 708 979 6364 [Moderator's Note: Regardless of the exact methods used, whenever the telephone service is manipulated to deliver a coded message -- be it by a certain ringing pattern; coded messages unwittingly delivered by the operator; or whatever -- telco says a message has been delivered. If they cannot prove that is what you did -- or can't conveniently prove it -- then of course they write it off. But these techniques are as old as the phone itself, and telco knows all the tricks. PAT] ------------------------------ From: David M Archer Subject: Re: Automated Salesmen Date: 25 Aug 90 21:09:34 GMT Reply-To: v116kznd@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu Organization: University at Buffalo In article <11301@accuvax.nwu.edu>, CRW@icf.hrb.com (Craig R. Watkins) writes... >> Last night, I had a call from a computer at Kodak, trying to sell me >> something. >Are you sure it was from Kodak and not just from some house that was >possibly selling you Kodak products? I certainly don't rule out that >it was Kodak, but that just doesn't seem like the kind of thing that >Kodak does. I recall getting the same call, and thinking the same thing, "Kodak has taken to computerized telemarketing? Odd.". So I listened a bit longer and it ended up being an independant company, most likely one of those companys that wants you to mail your film to them. I guess it was just another one of those cases where they are trying to mislead you, in this case, making the answerer think that the promotion/whatever is sponsored/whatever by a large company, Kodak. Another call which I seem to get every couple months, is one of those deals here they say to call within five minutes to claim a prize or something like that. With this one, the guy musically repeats the number to call over and over again ... to claim your prize, call 540-xxxx, 540-xxxx, the number to call is 540-xxxx, call 540-xxxx in five minutes to claim your prize, call 540-xxxx. And then the seedy part is where they are obligated to say how much the call costs, the guy musically mumbles, call costs $5.40. It's a fairly obvious attempt to make the listener not hear the cost of the call, while they are still legally stating the cost of the call. One might say someone would have to be pretty stupid to fall for that, but since you can't ask a recording a question, someone with bad hearing might not hear it quite right and not know it costs something. I guess that's progress. Nobody's walked up to me on the street and tried to sell me a Rolex lately, I guess they must have all moved to telemarketing. ------------------------------ From: Beach@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: Building a 1A2 Key Service Unit Date: Fri, 24 Aug 90 21:24:58 PDT On the subject of actually BUILDING a 1a2 ANYTHING -- After talking recently to a few phone system people in the SF BAY area, I would just go out any BUY 1A2 stuff if I needed it as these guys will sell it for practcally nothing. Examples $10 for five line phone ... Maybe $2 for a 400 line card. $50 would probably get you a complete system with phones if you call the right place. Since not many businesses WANT 1A2 stuff, and it gets traded in all the time, the trade in stuff is cheap and easy to come by. Do some calling in your area. In this case I think it is cheaper to buy it than build it. Steve Warner fremont, CA, USA, etc ------------------------------ From: Beach@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: Why Are Phone Systems so *Stupid*?? Date: Fri, 24 Aug 90 21:11:02 PDT > Why is it that most phone systems insist on "knowing" about CO lines, > *only* if these lines are properly "grabbed" by requesting extensions > P.S. This problem is present on both cheap systems like the Panasonic > KX-T61610 and the expensive Merlin 2. Both fail the basic intelligence > test in this respect. Arrg. The Merlin PLUS has an RJ-11 on the line card to which standard telecom stuff can be placed (modem/fax/etc). When a device loads this jack, by going off hook, the Merlin + busies out the associated line. I am sure the Merlin 2 has capability to connect standard equipment AFTER the switch. I suspect the reason most switches don't monitor incoming lines as you suggest is that doing so would probably cause more problems than the mostly nonexistant need for it would benefit. Steve Warner fremont, CA, usa, etc ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Aug 90 00:00:05 edt From: Robert Kaplan Subject: Re: SIT Tone Frequencies A friend (really!) of mine added the SIT tones to the start of his answering machine message a few weeks ago. I've spent some time calling his machine from various COCOTs to see what their response is. None has kept my quarter. Most of them spit the quarter right back as soon as they hear the tones...but none let you maintain the connection indefinitely. A couple have let me stay on the line long enough to leave a message, and one cut off my voice path as soon as it heard the tones. All this talk of SIT tones in lieu of answer supervision leads me to wonder: How does my university PBX (a Northern telecom SL-1) know not to bill me if I call an out-of-service number? Can it assume that I can hear the new number within the 42 uncharged seconds it gives me? Or does it, too, listen for SIT tones and stop billing if it hears them? You may draw your own conclusions ... I'd never want to defraud *any* beast, COCOT or PBX, that won't do 10xxx dialing, etc, etc... Scott Fybush / kaplanr@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu ------------------------------ From: wolf paul Subject: Re: Answering Phrase Date: 26 Aug 90 13:53:33 GMT Reply-To: wolf paul Organization: IIASA, Laxenburg/Vienna, Austria, Europe In article <11312@accuvax.nwu.edu> motcid!king@uunet.uu.net (Steven King) writes: )I was recently in Bangkok for a few weeks, and found the people there )have the annoying habit of always answering the phone with "Hello" -- )regardless of whether or not they spoke English! I don't speak a word )of Thai, and I couldn't keep from expecting that if the phone was )answered in English then the person on the other end should UNDERSTAND )English. Linguistic prejudice, I know. That's right, since the assumption that the phrase "H[aeu]llo", pronounced only slightly differently in each case, is English, is fallacious. I know of at least three other languages which have that word, meaning essentially the same thing, and being used to anser the phone in each of these languages. Wolf N. Paul, IIASA, A - 2361 Laxenburg, Austria, Europe PHONE: +43-2236-71521-465 FAX: +43-2236-71313 UUCP: uunet!iiasa.at!wnp INTERNET: wnp%iiasa.at@uunet.uu.net BITNET: tuvie!iiasa!wnp@awiuni01.BITNET ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #597 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18292; 27 Aug 90 14:14 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ax17473; 27 Aug 90 12:39 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25980; 27 Aug 90 3:02 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12761; 27 Aug 90 1:08 CDT Date: Mon, 27 Aug 90 0:30:16 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #598 BCC: Message-ID: <9008270030.ab13650@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 27 Aug 90 00:30:00 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 598 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Interop 90 - Networking Conference [TELECOM Moderator] Networking Conference - 91: Call For Papers [B.V. Jagadeesh] Octothorpes [Frederick Roeber] US Sprint: Another Satisified Customer [Syd Weinstein] Re: USA Direct From the Netherlands [John R. Levine] Re: Maintenance Calls, Two-line Phones [Jack Winslade] Re: Where to Obtain the USOC Book [Paul S. Sawyer] Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! [John Higdon] Re: Class Action Suit Against Epson Charges Email Spying [John Higdon] Re: Answering Machine as Room Bug? [Jack Winslade] Re: Toll Calls on 800 Service [Peter da Silva] Last Laugh! Re: Phone Calls to Kuwait [Robert J. Woodhead] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 27 Aug 90 0:17:01 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Interop 90 - Networking Conference You may wish to mark your calendar for the Interop 90 conference October 8 - 12, 1990 at the San Jose, CA Convention Center. A record 200 exhibitors are expected to demonstrate interoperable products based upon TCP/IP, GOSIP/OSI, the X-Window System and other Open Systems technologies. All major computer and communications vendors are represented at Interop 90, including IBM, Digital Equipment Corporation, Sun Microsystems, Hewlett-Packard, AT&T, Pacific Bell, and NYNEX, to name just a few. Plenary addresses will be given by Dr. Eric Schmidt of Sun Microsystems and Dr. Ira Goldstein of the Open Software Foundation. In addition, Dr. Valery Udalov, Vice Chairman of the USSR's networking authority will discuss opportunities for networking in the Soviet Union. Japanese Internet authority and Keio University professor Dr. Jun Murai will discuss Japanese internetworking developments. Attorney Geoffrey Stewart of the firm of Hale and Dorr will discuss "The Legal Implications of System Security Weaknesses". The conference fee prior to September 7 is $1050 per participant. After that date, the fee will be $1150. This fee includes your choice of one (out of two dozen) tutorials being offered. For more information on Interop 90 contact the sponsors as follows: Interop, Inc. 480 San Antonio Road #100 Mountain View, CA 94040 USA Phone: 1-800-INTEROP , extension 639 (within the USA) 1-415-941-3300, extension 639 (elsewhere) 1-415-949-1779 (FAX) If you want more information before registering, ask for a copy of the complete program ... it is far too detailed to include in a message here. PT ------------------------------ From: "B.V. Jagadeesh" Subject: Networking Conference - 91: Call For Papers Date: 26 Aug 90 07:51:53 GMT Organization: 3Com Corp., Mt. View, CA Papers are solicited for the Silicon Valley Networking conference to be held April 23rd to 25th, 1991 at Santa Clara, CA Convention Center. Papers are solicited in the following areas. Distributed Systems Internetworking Network Management X-windows Advanced File servers High Speed Networking Standards activities PC Networking. This conference is run by the same people who succesfully organised Systems Design and Networking Conference (SDNC) for the last three years. The conference typically attracts over 300 networking professionals every year and is a nice forum to discuss system design architecture and other networking system aspects. If you are interested in presenting a paper, please send me an abstract of the paper before October 1, 1990. If you have any questions about the conference, please send me email. Thanks, Jagadeesh Technical Program Chairman bvj@ESD.3Com.com ------------------------------ From: "Roeber, Frederick" Subject: Octothorpes Reply-To: roeber@portia.caltech.edu Organization: Caltech & CERN Date: 25 AUG 90 14:41:37 In article <11334@accuvax.nwu.edu>, JMS@mis.Arizona.EDU (Programmin' up a storm.) writes... >On a similar vein: there was a discussion several years ago about the ># sign. While this may be called "octothorpe" in Bell parlance, Along with the usual "wham" (or "bang") for `!', "splat" for `*', "hat" for `^', and sometimes "hunh" for `?', I've often heard and used "thud" for `#'. (thud as in pound, `#' can be a pound sign.) "Octothorpe," indeed! Frederick ------------------------------ From: Syd Weinstein Subject: US Sprint - Another Satisified Customer Date: Sat, 25 Aug 90 22:21:50 EDT Reply-To: syd@dsi.com So far, US Sprint has done fine by me. Bills on time, and mine, and I just dialed 00, got the operator, on the first ring, asked her for the new city code for an exchange in London, she keyed in a few digits and told me my answer within a few seconds, all in all quite pleasant. (Not that AT&T couldn't do the same thing, just as pleasantly.) Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP Elm Coordinator Datacomp Systems, Inc. Voice: (215) 947-9900 syd@DSI.COM or dsinc!syd FAX: (215) 938-0235 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: USA Direct From the Netherlands Date: Sat, 25 Aug 90 9:20:09 EDT From: "John R. Levine" WRT the note that you can't call anywhere collect from the Netherlands, AT&T's International Information people say that you can indeed call collect from the Netherlands via USA Direct. Does the Dutch PTT know about that? Regards, John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!esegue!johnl ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Aug 90 00:23:29 EDT From: Jack Winslade Subject: Re: Maintenance Calls, Two-line Phones Reply-to: Jack.Winslade@f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537 In a message of <23 Aug 90 20:00:10>, Jordan Hayes writes: > I have had Panasonic three-line phones (3170?) that I got for $169. > ... > They have conference, hold, speakerphone, 50 programmable Do you (or anyone) know for sure if they have a 'real' conference facility (bridged, amplified, equalized, etc.) or do they just do some kind of funky parallel or transformer coupling of the lines, which results in the end parties having to shout in order to be heard by each other over the line loss ?? Thanks. 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: "Paul S. Sawyer" Subject: Re: Where to Obtain the USOC Book Organization: UNH Telecommunications and Network Services Date: Sat, 25 Aug 90 16:56:42 GMT In article <11241@accuvax.nwu.edu> annala%neuro.usc.edu@usc.edu (A J Annala) writes: >Anyone know where to get a book of standards (e.g. USOC - Universal >Service Order Code) for things like the order of colors to punch down >on '50 blocks from 50 pair, 100 pair, 200 pair, etc cables? We had begged a USOC book from the operating company back when we had Centrex and dozens of billing codes to figure out; It did not address color codes or wiring standards, so you probably want a different Telco manual, or probably something similar from the local Radio Schlock. The basic wiring color code or pair count was addressed in this Digest some time back, so it may be available from the archives. Paul S. Sawyer uunet!unh!unhtel!paul paul@unhtel.UUCP UNH Telecommunications attmail!psawyer p_sawyer@UNHH.BITNET Durham, NH 03824-3523 VOX: +1 603 862 3262 FAX: +1 603 862 2030 ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! Date: 25 Aug 90 21:01:01 PDT (Sat) From: John Higdon Darren Griffiths writes: > One of my sources within Pacific Bell tells me that US Sprint is going > to come through on their promise to put it in writing. Pacific Bell > does the billing for Sprint and they are currently working on software > to distribute a "contract" along with bills. Er -- excuse me. My Sprint bill, which includes all calls made on all of my lines, plus all calls made with my F(O)ON card appears to be laser-printed on Sprint letterhead, is sent from an out-of-state address and bears no mention of Pacific Bell. In addition, the bill envelope is usually stuffed with slick Sprint promotional stuff -- and again no mention of Pacific Bell. Are you SURE Pac*Bell does the billing for Sprint? I have received a bill directly from Sprint since my account was absorbed from US Telecom, previous to which time I received a bill directly from THEM. The only Sprint calls I am aware of that are billed by Pac*Bell are those made by customers who don't have a Sprint account. 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: Class Action Suit Against Epson Charges Email Spying Date: 25 Aug 90 21:44:21 PDT (Sat) From: John Higdon On Aug 25 at 19:46, TELECOM Moderator writes: > Epson responds that the suit is entirely unfounded, and I agree with > that assessment. The right to privacy in email or on the telephone > means privacy on computers *you own or control* (i.e. lease or rent a > mailbox, etc), and on telephone lines *you pay for*. My initial reaction to all of this was, "Pat, lighten up. People shouldn't have their private mail read." And then I remembered the days of owning a "real" business myself. And then I started to steam. There really is an attitude that saturates the workplace. The assumption is that employees have some god-given right to use the communications facilities of their employer for personal messages. Facing ever escalating telephone bills, we decided to investigate and possibly crack down on personal calls. We started with a memo that re-stated company policy that personal calls were not permitted. Further, any calls so detected would be charged back to the employee and repeated abuse could result in termination. So we fired up the SMDR and set a scan for calls over five minutes in length. A hodge-podge of what we discovered: The sales manager lived in Sacramento and apparently had to call the wife several times a day. A service rep would wyle away the (slow) hours by chatting with a friend in San Francisco. The general manager (!) conducted her Werner Erhard volunteer business off and on all day long. You should have heard the squeals when we put the hard copy in front of these people. Offers to pay were ignored -- my company was not in the telecom reselling business. The point was: we wanted people to stop using the bloody phone for personal business. It blocked REAL calls, distracted the person from doing his job cheating us out of the time we were paying for, and the cost of the calls took the money out of our pockets. Everywhere I have gone, people treat the phone on their desk as their own personal service. It also happens to be handy for use in their work. Oh well, who wouldn't want to save 100% on his long distance calls? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: Thanks for your input on this. The same thing is true of computer terminals and email systems. Most companies overlook a small amount of personal phone calls and a small amount of personal email. But when the employees take the attitude it is their property, and that the employer has no right to see or know what is being done with his phones and his computer, then the time is ripe for a crackdown on personal calls and email, cutting out or restricting this privilege for everyone. I suspect what will happen at Epson once the suit is dismissed or the employees lose is that Epson might will go on the warpath and cut out all personal use of their facilities. So all employees will suffer from the arrogance of a few. And speaking of arrogance, is it true that Los Angeles attorney Noel Shipman, representing the handful of *former* employees of Epson who brought this suit named all present Epson employees as members of the class? Is it true he has received demands from *very angry* current employees demanding to have themselves removed from the class, saying 'you do not represent me in anything'? Just asking. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Aug 90 00:35:21 EDT From: Jack Winslade Subject: Re: Answering Machine as Room Bug? Reply-to: Jack.Winslade@f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537 In a message of <22 Aug 90 07:21:14>, Tom Neff (1:30102/2) writes: >I turned on the shortwave receiver in my apartment this morning and >was flipping past the 5-6 MHz neighborhood when I distinctly a voice >coming from the speaker. It was my friend in the other room! I >couldn't believe it. Throwing on headphones I told her "keep talking" >(nothing surprises her at this point :-) while I fine tuned the messy >signal. Something was broadcasting from my living room! (Nobody was >on the phone, and there's no intentional transmitter in the apartment > - not even a walkie-talkie.) I dunno if this is the answer to your particular problem, but tape machines use what's known as a 'bias oscillator' when in recording. If for some reason the thing were recording, it may have been radiating. I know that some tape machines, when recording, will radiate at harmonics of the bias frequency (125kHz or so) and can sometimes be picked up on general coverage receivers. You'll only see this if the bias signal is 'dirty' and it will most likely appear several places on the dial -- like even in the normal AM radio band. 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: peter da silva Subject: Re: Toll Calls on 800 Service Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Date: Sun, 26 Aug 90 02:53:23 GMT In article <11299@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: > MONEY!!! But it is always in reference to 900/976 (the evil, > wallet-sucking devil prefixes) and never about the mundane, simple, > little-talked-about toll calls. Other than possibly the amount, what's > the difference? Well, the money is significantly higher. But more to the point, kids aren't having advertising directed at them encouraging them to call particular numbers long distance (to talk to Santa or whatever). Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com ------------------------------ From: Robert J Woodhead Subject: Last Laugh! Re: Phone Calls to Kuwait Date: 25 Aug 90 23:19:23 GMT Organization: Biar Games, Inc. In article <11239@accuvax.nwu.edu> cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) writes: >I found that calls to Kuwait (country code 965) are being intercepted >with message "914-1T": "Due to an emergency situation in the country >you are calling, your call cannot be completed at this time. Please >try your call again later." At the risk of an awful joke, the intercept message could have been: "We're sorry, but the country you have called is no longer in service. Please watch CNN, and then dial again..." Robert J Woodhead, Biar Games, Inc. !uunet!biar!trebor trebor@biar.UUCP [Moderator's Note: That is funny ... but it is *not* funny, if you get my drift. Thanks to modern telecommunications, the mid-east crisis will be the first 'war' -- or police action, or whatever -- to be broadcast live to the world on television. In the second war and during the Korean operation we got the newsreels at the Forum Theatre downtown; during Vietnam we had coverage on the television; now we get live press conferences from both sides, and when the big weapons start firing (and don't you think they will soon?), CNN will be there live to show it all, from first shot to final surrender. Maybe someone will start a 900 number you can call to listen for five minutes at a time. Let's hope for a peaceful solution soon. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #598 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01814; 28 Aug 90 3:10 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25571; 28 Aug 90 1:15 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24769; 28 Aug 90 0:12 CDT Date: Mon, 27 Aug 90 23:26:29 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #599 BCC: Message-ID: <9008272326.ab21164@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 27 Aug 90 23:25:57 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 599 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Help Needed With AT&T Portable Phone [Shawn Nunley] Re: San Hose Mercury Strikes Again [Mark Earle] DIY Residential Phone Switch [Alain Fontaine] Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls [Sam Ho] Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls [Steve Lemke] Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls [tanner@ki4pv.compu.com] Re: Answering Phrase [Robert E. Zabloudil] Real Operators? [John Higdon] Interesting Scanner Test Case in Atlanta [John G. DeArmond] Re: Automated Collect Calling [John R. Levine] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Shawn Nunley Subject: Re: Help Needed With AT&T Portable Phone Date: 27 Aug 90 04:54:43 GMT Reply-To: Shawn Nunley Organization: Excelan, Inc., San Jose, Califonia I wrote: >>the Sony has a stand-by battery life of seven days, twelve >>hours of continuous talking. And John Slater wrote: > ... and the hernia is getting better by the day. I'm saving up to buy >the optional Batt-Kart(TM) accessory, which enables me to drag the >battery unit around on wheels rather than lift it. >Seriously, if it can do that then it's an impressive beastie. My >SouthWestern Bell model does 24 hours/1 hour, I think. I kid you not! Since I am at home now, I can add the model number... 8) It is a Sony SPP-120. The nicest thing about it is that it never has to sit in a base. It comes with two batteries. One charges while the other is in the phone. The battery life is as claimed, amazingly enough. I am very impressed with the unit. Whats even *MORE* amazing is that the battery is smaller *AND* lighter that a regular nine-volt. The wonders of modern technology... Internet: shawn@ka.novell.com UUCP: {ames,sun,apple,mtxinu,cae780,sco} !novell!shawn Shawn Nunley Tel: (408) 473-8630 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Aug 90 18:49:08 CDT From: Mark Earle Subject: Re: San Hose Mercury Strikes Again John Higdon writes of his continuing trouble with receiving calls from the newspaper telemarketing effort (I'm a little unclear if it is internal or contracted, but that does not matter). John says the temporary solution is for them to inhibit dialing of a complete exchange, since they do not know how, or cannot, actually not call specific numbers. Here in Corpus Christi, TX, a machine aparently makes the rounds of various organizations (I hear of it as being resold often) with a similiar flaw. On several occasions, my voice and modem lines got calls from this thing. The exchange in question was 850. Fortunately, (yes!) in this case, they messed with the wrong folks. 850-0 to 850-8 are pagers, DID for cellular, etc. Only 850-9 is residential. After a week of getting a pitch on my car phone, and my pager going off very often.. the calls stopped. The pager company tracked down the source of calls and had them stopped. This same sleeze machine would not release your line for two minutes (length of pitch). Quite an annoyance. This was six months ago, and just yesterday this nonsense started happening again. Guess the machine got re-sold to another sucker, who is not in until Monday; even if you call the number in their pitch, you get THEIR answering machine. Arrrrgh! Complaints to the approprieate PUC bodies, and the phoneco, but guess until mid week we're stuck (we being the pager and cell phone users). Oh well. Joys of modern technology! Aparently this machine just starts at the beginning of the exchange and dials up incrementally. Maybe they'll PO some hospital this time, or better yet the Police Department. Well, I can hope, can't I? mearle@pro-party.cts.com (Mark Earle) [WA2MCT/5] CIS 73117,351 MCI Mail to: MEARLE My BBS: (512)-855-7564 Opus 1:160/50.0 Blucher Institute, Corpus Christi State University [Moderator's Note: I think for all you guys who have noted that the machine will not release your line for 'x' minutes the key is in your picking up the receiver every few seconds to see if the line is free or not. Every time you pick up the receiver, hear the message still playing and hang up again, you are resetting something in the CO. Try hanging up *and staying hung up* for 30-45 seconds or more, then lift the receiver. Chances are that will have been long enough for the CO to have found you gone and dumped the caller. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Aug 90 08:57:24 +0200 From: "Alain FONTAINE (Postmaster - NAD)" Subject: DIY Residential Phone Switch A few weeks ago, I told you that the Dutch magazine 'Elektuur' (which also has numerous editions in other languages) had announced the publication of a DIY phone switch project. This is just to tell you that I have just received my copy of the september issue of the dutch edition, and it does *not* contain this project. No need to try to find it... Background note: it has already happened in the past that announced projects have been delayed. They usually appear some day (this magazine has published some very sophisticated projects). /AF ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Aug 90 08:00:37 PDT From: Sam Ho Subject: Re: Leaving Brief Messages with Free Collect Calls Hong Kong Telephone apparently does concern itself with such message- passing tricks. Right up front in the phone book, it says that if you make any operator-assisted call, you will be charged a `report charge' which amounts to about 30 seconds of calling if the call is then abandoned before completion (e.g. collect call refused, person-to-person not found, etc.) I think there's no charge for busy and no answer, though. By the way, Hong Kong is one big local calling area. All domestic (within Hong Kong, Kowloon, and New Territories) calls are free. The phone company claims to have one of the largest number of people in its free calling area of any in the world. So report charges only apply to international calls. Sam Ho ------------------------------ From: Steve Lemke Subject: Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls Date: 27 Aug 90 01:19:01 GMT albert@endor.harvard.edu (David Albert) writes: }v116kznd@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu wrote: }>I used to call home collect, and my parents would refuse the charge, and }>call me right back. }In our family, accepted practice when I was in college was to call }person-to-person for one's self. As Pat pointed out, this is a sort of petty fraud, as you are actually taking an operator's time to relay this message. And, although I suppose that the method my father and I used could also be labeled as petty fraud since we also got a message through, I don't feel as bad about using it. Basically, our arrangement was this: If I wanted my dad to call me, I would call his house and let the phone ring only once (and then hang up). He would therefore wait until a second ring before ever answering the phone. We have done this for almost ten years now, and it works like a champ. Considering the amount of money he has spent on the phone talking to me on these return calls (and the other calls that he made without my prompting), we certainly don't feel bad about using this method of "call request". And, occassionally, he would call me and say "did you 'one-ring' me?" to which I might say "no, actually I didn't". The cause: someone else had called him, probably realized they had a wrong number, and hung up after one ring. Of course, this also didn't work if I wasn't at home, unless he knew in advance that I was somewhere else (like if I was out of town and he knew where I was). I'm guessing that Pat will liken this to the "toll-saver" feature of an answering machine in that a message is being conveyed (long time Telecom readers will remember this other discussion from some time ago). However, I still claim that the hundreds of dollars they made from all of my dad's return calls more than offset whatever it cost them to let me one-ring him, and besides, we weren't using an operator to relay the message. Steve Lemke, Engineering Quality Assurance, Radius Inc., San Jose Reply to: lemke@radius.com (Note: NEW domain-style address!!) [Moderator's Note: Yes, it is similar to the toll-saver technique, and I guess since AT&T now includes that feature on their own answering machines they must have decided if you can't do anything about it, you might as well make some profit from it yourself. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Aug 90 06:32:20 -0400 From: tanner@ki4pv.compu.com Subject: Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls Organization: CompuData Inc., DeLand In article <11345@accuvax.nwu.edu> the Moderator writes: ) [delivering message via "collect" call] is fraud none the less, ) and a kind of cheap, petty fraud at that. Yes, it probably is. It annoys me, too, to hear of people pulling such stunts regularly. In fact, it annoys me ALMOST as much as the fact that, to legitimately deliver that message from that payphone, I must dump in over a dollar -- in change -- to make a call which would normally cost about a quarter at full day-time cross-country rates. ...!{bikini.cis.ufl.edu allegra uunet!cdin-1}!ki4pv!tanner ------------------------------ From: "Robert E. Zabloudil" Subject: Re: Answering Phrase Date: 27 Aug 90 14:31:09 GMT Organization: Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, Columbus In article <11114@accuvax.nwu.edu> motcid!hamilton@uunet.uu.net (Danial Hamilton) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 584, Message 4 of 12 >contact!ndallen@uunet.uu.net (Nigel Allen) writes: >I believe the Japanese have a greeting that is reserved for use on the >telephone. Something like "moshi moshi". When I took Japanese in college (only one or two quarters, unfortunately), my instructor, who had lived there for a while, told use that the calling party would use 'moshi moshi' when they heard the called party pick up the phone. I'm sure we'll hear if this is untrue. I don't know what, if anything, the called party would say. Beware of false cognates. English hello is somewhat similar to German Hallo, but they use it only in one sense of the word, similar to the British hello, and not to answer phones --- again, second-hand information. Bob Zabloudil #include std.disclaimer ------------------------------ Subject: Real Operators? Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 27 Aug 90 00:11:41 PDT (Mon) From: John Higdon Sprint's latest TV spot: "...We have REAL operators..." 1. Collect Call (after dialing 10333+0+AC+7D for Sprint and 10288+0+AC+7D for AT&T): Sprint: "May I help you?" "Collect from John Higdon" "May I have the number you are calling?" "[Number given]" "May I have the number you are calling from?" "[Number given]"--"I have a collect call from John Higdon will you accept?".... AT&T: "May I help you?" "Collect from John Higdon" [number already ringing] "I have a collect call from John Higdon in San Jose, CA, will you pay?"... 2. Rate info request (dialing 10333+0 for Sprint and 10288+0 for AT&T): Sprint: "Thank you for calling Sprint, may I help you?" "Yes, could you give me the rate at this time [10:30PM Sun] for a call to 619/243?" "Sir, our rate information is based on mileage. Do you have any idea how far that is away?" "I think about 300 miles" "Then it would cost $0.14 for the first minute and $0.14 for each additional minute." AT&T: "Thank you for using AT&T." "Could you give me the rate at this time for a call to 619/243?" "That would be $0.15 for the first minute and $0.11 for each additional, plus tax." [Now that I find out the rate difference in AT&T's favor, I ask myself why I went through all that hassle with the Trailblazer's!!!] 3. Place name request (dialing as in -2-): Sprint: "Thank you for calling Sprint, may I help you?" "Could you give me the place name for 213/945?" "I'm sorry, did you wish to be connected to information?" "No I want to know the city name for that area code and prefix." "Could you give it to me again?" "213/945" "Excuse me just a moment. [45 seconds] That is Whittier, CA." AT&T: "Thank you for using AT&T." "Could you give me the place name for 213/945?" "Yes, it is [2 seconds] Whittier, CA." I don't know what definition Sprint is using for the term "real" in their ads, but if that means operator service like that from AT&T then they are misleading potential customers. AT&T operators know the number you are calling from as well as having essential information at their finger tips. That old TSPS still dispatches calls better than any of the Johnny-Come-Latelys. Maybe AT&T had better "lighten up", but Sprint had better "shape up" when it comes to operator service. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: "John G. DeArmond" Subject: Interesting Scanner Test Case in Atlanta Date: 27 Aug 90 03:05:40 GMT Reply-To: "John G. DeArmond" Organization: Radiation Systems, Inc. (a thinktank, motorcycle, car and gun works facility) There is an interesting case developing here in Atlanta (actually Marietta) that could test scanner laws. The case itself is interesting. Seems as if this Marietta cop was hanging out at the house of another cop after his wife kicked him out. Seems as if he had a sweetheart on the side. Seems that the guest cop used his friend's cordless phone to call his sweetie and while this was going on, his friend (the homeowner) used his scanner to "entertain" himself by listening in on the conversation. Further seems that the guest cop found out about the monitoring. The end result has been not a civil suit but the DA filing a case against the homeowner-cop! The charges do not involve any communications act and instead involve invasion of privacy. Those are the generalities I read in the paper. My attorney is handling the defense so I'll find out more when I see him next. This could prove to be very interesting. And with the court forcing the county to release prisoners because of overcrowding and a docket backlog, one has to wonder what kind of politics are involved to get the DA to get involved. John De Armond, WD4OQC Radiation Systems, Inc. Atlanta, Ga {emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Automated Collect Calling Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA Date: 26 Aug 90 12:49:58 EDT (Sun) From: "John R. Levine" In article <11309@accuvax.nwu.edu> Pat writes: >many actual telephone companies have recently experimented with it. PAT] New England Tel is using auto-collect in Massachusetts. You dial 0+number, then at the bong enter 11 for collect or 12 for third party billing, then speak your name and enter the third party's number if needed. The voice prompt only tells you about 11 and 12 on calls from pay phones, but they work everywhere. Experimenting shows that you can hear the callee or third party being asked to accept charges and hear their response, though they cannot hear you, which is nice both to be sure you've got the right number, and for the fraudulently inclined to hear them say that they'll call you back. Besides, it's hard to run up an enormous phone bill making intra-lata calls in Mass. Third party calls from pay phones call the third party to see if they accept, while third party calls from home don't, presumably because they have a number to charge back if the third party refuses payment. If you don't say or dial something at the prompt, it still falls through to a human operator which is important both for non-tone phones and slightly odd calls. When I call the business office in New Jersey to turn on the phone service at the beach house, it answers with a long spiel the end of which says that they accept collect calls. But since the first word isn't "Yes" an automated system can't handle it. Regards, John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!esegue!johnl ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #599 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02790; 28 Aug 90 3:53 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04183; 28 Aug 90 2:19 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab25571; 28 Aug 90 1:16 CDT Date: Tue, 28 Aug 90 0:34:05 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #600 BCC: Message-ID: <9008280034.ab24656@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 28 Aug 90 00:33:45 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 600 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Building a 1A2 Key Service Unit [William Degnan] Re: Building a 1A2 Key Service Unit [John Higdon] Re: Answering Machines as Room Bug? [Chris Petrilli] Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! [Wallace Colyer] Re: Telephone Handset Receiver Elements [Dave Levenson] Re: Bush and Cellular Phones [Thomas Neudecker] Re: Answering Phrase [Paul S. R. Chisholm] Re: Toll Calls on 800 Service [Clayton Cramer] Re: Toll Calls on 800 Service [Roy Smith] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 24 Aug 90 19:09:17 CDT From: William Degnan Subject: Re: Building a 1A2 Key Service Unit In article <11088@accuvax.nwu.edu> atn@cory.berkeley.edu (Alan Nishioka) writes: > I am trying to build a box for my five line key system phone. > I want it to flash the lights and do automatic hold. > The system I was going to time has been dismantled and replaced > with Panasonic phones with LEDs so you can't tell which line is > ringing... I picked up a 1A2 with four line cards for five bucks. A few other folks _gave_ me some key telephone sets. There is little commercial value. You probably would use more than $5 worth of gas picking up the parts. Why not see what you can find gathering dust someplace? Regards, Disclaimer: Contents do not constitute "advice" unless we are on the clock. William Degnan | wdegnan@mcimail.com Communications Network Solutions | !wdegnan@at&tmail.com -Independent Consultants | William.Degnan@telemail.com in Telecommunications | UUCP: ...!natinst!tqc!39!William.Degnan P.O. Drawer 9530 | ARPA: William.Degnan@f39.n382.z1.FidoNet.Org Austin, TX 78766-9530 | Voice +1 512 323 9383 ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Building a 1A2 Key Service Unit Date: 27 Aug 90 12:10:05 PDT (Mon) From: John Higdon Beach@cup.portal.com writes: > $50 would probably get you a complete system with phones if you call > the right place. Since not many businesses WANT 1A2 stuff, and it > gets traded in all the time, the trade in stuff is cheap and easy to > come by. Jeez, anyone who shows up at my doorstep can have, absolutely free, any and all 1A2 stuff they can find in my garage. There is at least one KSU with an assortment of standard and specialized line cards, at least five telephones in pretty good shape, and an assortment of other 1A2-style garbage. > Do some calling in your area. In this case I think it is cheaper > to buy it than build it. With the advent of cheap electronic key equipment (that doesn't require the bulky 25 pair cable), someone's elevator would have to stop short of the top floor to want to mess around with 1A2 anymore. My business associate, the most die-hard of 1A2 enthusiasts, has finally given up the cause. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Chris Petrilli Subject: Re: Answering Machines as Room Bug? Date: 27 Aug 90 01:41:25 GMT Reply-To: Chris Petrilli Organization: The University of Texas at Austin In article <11340@accuvax.nwu.edu> 0003829147@mcimail.com (Sander J. Rabinowitz) writes: >In reference to a TELECOM issue of 24 August 1990, Tom Neff bfmny0.bfm.com> wrote the following: >"I turned on the shortwave receiver in my apartment this morning and >was flipping past the 5-6 MHz neighborhood when I distinctly a voice >coming from the speaker. It was my friend in the other room! I >couldn't believe it. . . > [. . .] When I played the tape back, I did >recognize my voice, but it sounded so muffled as to make the signal >useless for intrusion purposes. [... he continues by noting that when plugged into the AC wall socket, he is able to receive a much stronger signal than when running off batteries...] Being someone interested in radio propagation, and working with alot of radio equipment, it would appear to me that electrical circuits in both the answering machine, and your Sony radio are not too well isolated from AC noise. Apparantly, the Panasonic machine is modulating the AC carrier in some way, and your radio is picking that up ... this means that it would most likely be just as strong at your neighbors house (as long as you are on the same power transformer). I could be wrong, but this would be the most likely cause of something like this happening ... you might try isolating the Panasonic from the wall with some sort of line filter (I like the DEC VAX filters myself, but...) that goes through an isolation transformer ... if it still appears, I'm wrong. + Chris Petrilli "Opinons represented here | University of Texas at Austin do not necessarily | INTERNET: petrilli@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu represent those of a sane | SNAILMAIL: 429 Brady Lane, Austin, Texas, 78746 person. Take them as + PHONE: +1 512 327 0986 simply that." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Aug 90 18:41:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Wallace Colyer Subject: Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! Excerpts from netnews.comp.dcom.telecom: 25-Aug-90 Make Sprint Put it in Writing! Fubar@polyslo.CalPoly.ED (2366) > So, according to the salesman, I can expect it. The "in writing," that is, > in 14 to 21 days. Well it looks like you made an impression. I am a US-Sprint customer and called Customer Support this evening. After a couple minute wait for an available agent I explained what I wanted. The agent, who did not act surprised, asked for my phone number, put me on hold to lookup my account information, then explained that in 14 days I would receive the information. Then she attempted to sell me on an additional US-Sprint service. I guess that leaves them about ten days to figure out what they are going to say and get it aproved since it appears they were not prepared. Wallace ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Telephone Handset Receiver Elements Date: 27 Aug 90 11:37:17 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <11248@accuvax.nwu.edu>, kitty!larry@uunet.uu.net (Larry Lippman) writes: > BTW, when is the last time that anyone saw a 300-type telephone > set in service? About ten minutes ago! Where? At AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany, NJ! They are hung on the wall, next to the house fire alarm boxes, at most of the intersections of the corridors in the older sections of the building. Heavy-looking black rotary-dial wall sets with F-type handsets. I'm not sure who is supposed to use them, or under what circumstances. I think they are part of an old house-phone system that pre-dates Centrex and pre-dates the walkie-talkies that are now carried by the AT&T building maintenance and security forces. Maybe someone who works there can tell us why. Dave Levenson Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers |att}!westmark!dave AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave [The Man in the Mooney] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Aug 90 19:10:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Neudecker Subject: Re: Bush and Cellular Phones From the {Pittsburgh Press}, Sunday 8/26/90 WIRE EXPERTS KEEP VACATIONING BUSH ON SPY-PROOF LINE A extra large contingent of about four dozen WHCA (Wah-cah) staffers are in Kennebunkport so that President Bush can reach out and anyone in the world from his speed boat or golf cart. Presidential phone calls require special lines that encode their signals, beam them to a satellite and recode them to be understood by the receiver. There are probably as many WHCA staffers here as Secret Service agents and a total staff of 700, all specially recruited from the military services. They wired an aircraft carrier in Norfolk (reportedly troublesome because of the sealed hatches), ran secure lines into the middle of no where out side of Jackson Hole, Wyo., and spent a month in Warsaw, Poland piggybacking onto a phone system that was modern in the 1950Us Truth is, even WHCA has its limits - like when the president of the United States uses a cellular from the boat of golf cart. Its just like all cellular phones - annoying because of the static, said a WHCA staffer. But the president usually only uses it to call his grandkids as he is headed into shore. ------------------------------ From: "Paul S. R. Chisholm" Subject: Re: Answering Phrase Date: 25 Aug 90 03:09:59 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories At the office, I always answer with the name of the company and my name. It has just the right effect on wrong number callers; if they're expecting to reach someone at the Labs, they ask if I know how I can reach someone (and I can usually transfer them); if not, they apologize and hang up. My wife treats this as a barometer. If I answer, "Hello," I'm having a rough day. If I answer, "What???," I'm having a *really* bad day! My wife's sister and her family live with us. Her husband (my brother- in-law) runs a small steel fabrication business, and forwards calls to the house when he's out of the office. My six and seven year old nephews had been taught to answer the phone, "Hello, this is Christian [or Shane], how can I help you?" This only lasted a little while; apparently, the contractors couldn't handle calling a steel fabricator and getting an answer, no matter how professional, from a little kid! We grown ups usually answer line two, "Hello, Edison National, how can I help you?" It throws the telemarketers for a loop! It's also confused some of our friends; they *think* they recognize my wife's voice, but they thought they were calling a residence. If we get, "Sorry, I think I have the wrong (click!)," and we're called back a minute later, I answer the phone, "Hello?" My mom's answering machine starts off, "Hello, you've reached three one four one." Nice; it confirms the essential part of her number, but not enough to call it back if you reached it blindly. Paul S. R. Chisholm, att!mtunq!psrc, psrc@mtunq.att.com ------------------------------ From: Clayton Cramer Subject: Re: Toll Calls on 800 Service Date: 27 Aug 90 22:53:34 GMT Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA In article <11299@accuvax.nwu.edu>, john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: >"Sander J. Rabinowitz" <0003829147@mcimail.com> writes: ## 2) We have a five-year old in our house, and hearing of all the ## horror stories regarding 900 and 976 services involving children ## playing with the phone, we now have 900 and 976 service blocking. ## Now, with the advent of NON-tollfree 800 service, I am at a loss ## as to how to deal with it (aside from physically putting locks on ## the phones). Whereas I can generally do without 900 service, I ## don't think I can say the same regarding 800 service. # Excuse, please. Pray tell, what do you do about all of those hundreds # of "pay" prefixes (like 212, 303, 415, etc., etc.) with that # five-year-old in the house? For years I have heard people moan the big # groan about how tough it is with small children in the house who # could accidently pick up the phone and dial things that would # actually COST MONEY!!! But it is always in reference to 900/976 (the # evil, wallet-sucking devil prefixes) and never about the mundane, # simple, little-talked-about toll calls. Other than possibly the # amount, what's the difference? The difference is that no one runs TV ads aimed at children encouraging them to dial prefixes like 212, 303, 415, etc. Further, even if kids did dial such numbers, the odds are remote that they would do so 20 or 30 times in a week. Also, SOME of the 900/976 numbers (NOT the ones aimed at kids), carry material that is utterly inappropriate for a five-year-old. It's unfortunate that the adolescent phone sex services are on the same prefix/area code as some of the other pay-per-call services. If they were kept separate, I would probably arrange for those to be kept unavailable from our phone, and the other pay-per-call services available. As it is, everything is off limits. # Reminds me of an incident at a client's business. The controller was # looking over some phone bills. There was (probably) page after page of # major employee phone abuse -- personal short-haul toll. Many tens of # dollars were involved. Then her eyes zeroed in on one particular call: # Memphis TN. It was for $0.16., made on a Sunday. You would have # thought that she had nailed D. B. Cooper. "I'm going to find out who # made this call and make them pay for it." # Sixteen cents? No the problem was that it was Memphis, TN. Never mind # that office people routinely chat to their wives, girl/boy friends, # etc., and run up bills for individual calls as high as a few dollars. # It's that someone would have the nerve to use a company phone to call # THAT FAR AWAY without copping to it. During the business day a local # call of 11 minutes would cost $0.16. I wonder how many of those are # personal. Doubtless, the call to Memphis wasn't the major cost to the company -- but it was the most obvious. Sorting personal calls from business calls Mon-Fri would be nearly impossible -- but a call on a Sunday isn't just clearly a personal call, it's someone who probably came in to the office just to avoid the charge. (Which says something about what a cheapskate and fool such a person must be, for $0.16.) Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer You must be kidding! No company would hold opinions like mine! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Aug 90 20:36:47 EDT From: Roy Smith Subject: Re: Toll Calls on 800 Service Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City John Higdon writes: > people [with small children moan about] 900/976 (the evil, wallet-sucking > devil prefixes) and never about the mundane, simple, little-talked-about > toll calls. Other than possibly the amount, what's the difference? The difference is that there are very few TV commercials telling kids in California to call some number in 212-land so they can hear Jose Canseco talk about his whatever he was talking about, or True Confessions, or phone sex, or whatever. Also, if your five year-old were to rack up a $20 phone bill chatting with Grandma for an hour cross-country in prime time, would that be so bad? Even if it were $100 because Grandma was still in the Old Country, how mad could you get? It's still cheaper than a plane ticket :-) On a different subject, are long-distance DA calls from pay phones supposed to be free? I called 212-555-1212 from a 516-area pay phone yesterday and had to put in $0.40 (not bad, considering the rate card said it would coast $0.75). Once I got my number, I never did get my call placed because I couldn't figure out how to place a calling card call through AT&T (and this from a phone which claimed to be owned by NYTel!) Does using an AT&T calling card guarantee that your call goes through on AT&T, or do the various long distance companies accept each other's calling cards and cross-bill? 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 only thing which 'guarentees' your call will be placed on AT&T -- and then, only provided the owner of the phone and/or phone switch does not act in a fraudulent manner -- is by dialing 10288 on the front of every call. Other companies often times accept the AT&T card, but bill via your local phone company at outrageous prices. The card itself is no guarentee, but must be used in connection with 10288+1+10D to be almost certain. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #600 ******************************