Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00842; 28 Nov 90 6:02 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07011; 28 Nov 90 4:25 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01859; 28 Nov 90 3:20 CST Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 2:56:49 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #851 BCC: Message-ID: <9011280256.ab11844@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 28 Nov 90 20:55:56 CST Volume 10 : Issue 851 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Half Out-of-Service [Dick Rawson] CLASS in California [John Higdon] AT&T System 85 Routing [Andrew D'Uva] Choice of Where to Put 410 [Carl Moore] Fax/Voice/Mail Switches [Michael H. Riddle] Duplicate Telephone Numbers? [Eduardo Krell] Finland Wants 37!! [Kauto Huopio] The Extent of the Net (was: Telecom Art) [H. Shrikumar] More EC Standardisation [Colum Mylod] Answering Machine and Call Waiting [Eric Tholome] Some Consumer Protection [Jeff Sicherman] Telemarketing of Sleeze 900 [J. Philip Miller] EEC Caller ID Specs [Dan Hepner] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 26 Nov 90 13:14:03 PST From: Dick Rawson Subject: Half Out-of-Service After the October 17, 1989 earthquake, my home telephone lines had no battery (blowing in the mic produced no noise in the ear piece), and did not have dial tone. I could get incoming calls however: the phone rang, and I could answer and talk normally. (That may not have been true for BOTH lines; I got calls on only one of the lines.) It was fixed more than 24 hours later. Someone told me today of the opposite situation: a phone that could call out normally, could not receive calls. (I do not know if it returned 'busy', appeared to ring, or what.) What happens to cause these cases? Both problems were 'solid'; it was not the case that some times you got dial tone, but usually not, etc. Dick Rawson BT Tymnet, Inc. 408-922-6545 ------------------------------ Subject: CLASS in California Date: 26 Nov 90 11:32:03 PST (Mon) From: John Higdon As the day grows nearer that CLASS will be offered by Pac*Bell (just a year away now!), an amusing scenario similar to what took place in the early sixties should begin to unfold. In the mid-fifties, many of the San Francisco suburbs were either getting dial service for the first time or having SXS switches replaced. The equipment that went in was #5 crossbar which came complete with DDD (no '1' required, full ANI). San Francisco proper was mostly panel at the time. In the early sixties, Pacific Telephone started gluing DDD into the #1 crossbar and panel switches in the Bay Area. Now mind you, many of the growth areas had been using DDD for years on their #5 Xbar equipment. But when DDD was finally introduced en masse in SF, the local media picked up on it and did stories about this "remarkable new service". They proclaimed that a telephone user could actually dial his own long distance calls and made the whole thing sound as if it was invented in San Francisco and was some kind of cutting edge technology. At the time, my phone had been able to dial nationwide for about six years, and I lived in lowly San Jose. During the next year, we are going to hear much about CLASS features. While most of the stuff will be on the Caller-ID controversy, there will be much about the usefulness of the other services. The Kens and Barbies of the TV airwaves will no doubt refer to the advanced "Silicon Valley Nature" of the "revolutionary new services". Anyone who visits or moves here will no doubt be highly entertained at the time warp presented by the media during the coming twelve months. And of course, Pac*Bell PR will be assuring customers that their phone service is the most advanced in the world. Gag. John Higdon (hiding out in the desert) ------------------------------ From: aduva@bbs.sbs.com (Andrew D'Uva) Subject: ATT System 85 Routing Date: 26 Nov 90 20:35:19 GMT Organization: Anomaly: Rhode Island's Public Access *NIX: +1 401 455 0347 I have a question regarding call routing on PBX systems for all you PBX gurus out there. The scenario is as follows. PBX A can dial into PBX B by dialing a three digit code, receiving dialtone and then dialing four digits. PBX B can dial into PBX A by prefixing a single digit and then dialing the 4 more digits to reach a station on PBX A. PBX A is an AT&T System 85 PBX B is an AT&T System 75 The problem: BOTH PBXen have DID trunks, and PBX A has t local exchanges reserved for its use. PBX B has fewer than 1000 stations and has numbers in the format 662-9XXX. Callers on PBX A frequently call PBX B by dialing 9 + 662 + XXXX, call is routed out over the local telco's public network, and call is billed, dedicated lines going unused. But the switch software does not SEEM (and herein lies the challenge) to allow automatic selection of the trunk lines to PBX B based on the fact that an "external call" has been initiated by dialing 9. The question: Can the software select the routing for the call based on the first four digits (actually, if call begins with 6629, select trunk if available, else place call on local lines)? Please reply via email, since this newsgroup gets EXPIRed regularly at this site. I'll summarize for the list. Thanks! Andrew D'Uva ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Nov 90 17:23:02 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Choice of Where to Put 410 I haven't seen maps of the 410 area. The 410 area in Maryland is to border: 301, within Maryland; 804 in Va. on the lower eastern shore; 302 in Delaware; 215 and 717 in Pa. Notice that 301 now (before the split) touches Delaware, whose area code is only 1 dial click off from 301, and that 410 is NOT going into western Maryland, which barely touches area 412 in Pa. Post-split 301 will still touch 304 in West Virginia. Also 202 in DC; 703 and 804 in Va.; 412, 814, and 717 in Pa.; and 410. I take it 304 is more distinct from 301 than 302 is distinct from 301. 301 is across from 804 in the lower part of the Potomac River, downstream from U.S. Route 301, which enters Virginia in the 703-663 Dahlgren exchange, just upstream from 804-224[?] in Colonial Beach. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Nov 90 21:52:30 cst From: "Michael H. Riddle" Subject: Fax/Voice/Mail Switches A Frequently Asked Question in the newsgroup is "what kind of neat widget will let me connect a modem and a fax and a voice phone to the same line and automagically connect whatever the other end wants to talk to?" The December 11th issue of PC Magazine contains a good description of at least four types of such a switch and reviews 15 product offerings. I quickly reviewed it at the library tonight and would recommend it to anyone needing such a device. ------------------------------ From: ekrell@ulysses.att.com Date: Mon, 26 Nov 90 13:41:56 EST Subject: Duplicate Telephone Numbers? I receivec a letter from NJ Bell asking me to call them back ASAP "regarding your telephone account". I called them today (Monday) and the following is an approximate transcript of the conversation: SR == Service Representative Me: I'd like to talk to Mrs. C. Greene, please [she was the one who signed the letter I got]. SR: What is this all about? Me: I got a letter from her asking to call this number. SR: Let me have your phone number so I can check whether the letter originated in this office or not. Me: [I give her my name and phone number]. SR: [After a one minute wait] I see what the problem is. Your telephone number has been also assigned to a business. Have you been receiving a lot of business calls? Me: I couldn't tell. I'm not at home during the day and I don't have an answering machine. SR: Well, one of the two numbers needs to be changed. Me: Sure. SR: Sir, we can change your number FREE OF CHARGE [emphasis added] if that's ok with you. Me: No, thanks. I'm happy with my current number and I don't want it changed. SR: Oh. I'll have to tell Mrs. Greene. Where can you be contacted during the day? Me: [I give her my office number]. End of conversation. I hope I don't get a call. How dare they offer me a free phone number change after they screw up and give my number to someone else? Do I have any rights if they decide to change my number without my consent? Eduardo Krell AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ UUCP: {att,decvax,ucbvax}!ulysses!ekrell Internet: ekrell@ulysses.att.com [Moderator's Note: Well, I see they are up to their old tricks again. There is no such person as "Mrs. C. Green". This is just an example of a name attached to letters so that real people can avoid giving out their real names. At some companies, including many telco business offices unfortunatly, the people are absolutly paranoid of writing letters and signing their own name, i.e. possibly having some erroneous thing in writing that they will be required to justify or prove. That's why the rep who took your call needed your number. The part about "C. Greene" told her there was a problem of some kind with your account ... any rep that answered your call would have handled it the same way: looked up your number, glanced through the notes on file on the tube and discussed it with you. For a long time, Illinois Bell used the name "Mrs. Adams" on vague letters asking you to call them if they wanted you to put down a larger security deposit. So a rep would get a "Mrs. Adams call" and know right away what to start telling you. In a way, it is kind of insulting, isn't it, that they play games and humor the subscribers like this. Why not just say in the letter what it is about? They're afraid you might make an end run around them and go to the Chairman's Office then they will get in trouble if the decision was a bad one on their part. Do you have the right to keep your number? No. You have no property rights in your phone number and by the contract you have with them and the tariff, they may change your phone number whenever they deem necessary in the conduct of their business. In actual practice, they rarely will change it if you make a big stink since one thing they hate even worse than having to write a letter *saying something* and signing their real name is a public relations nightmare or an inquiry from the regulators. The telcos are not the only ones ... Columbia House (nee Columbia Record Club) still uses alias names on every piece of mail they send out as did American Express for many years (maybe still?) PAT] ------------------------------ From: Kauto Huopio OH5LFM Subject: Finland Wants 37!! Organization: Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland Date: 27 Nov 90 10:00:28 I've heard that our PTT has made a request to obtain the former country code of the former East Germany (or DDR/GDR, whatever you would like to call it). Finland's country code at present is 358. Does anybody have more information? I've also heard that there are several other countries that want to use 37 as a country code. Kauto Huopio (huopio@kannel.lut.fi) Mail: Kauto Huopio, Punkkerikatu 1 A 10, SF-53850 Lappeenranta,Finland ------------------------------ From: "H.Shrikumar" Subject: The Extent of the Net (was: Telecom Art) Date: 27 Nov 90 09:58:07 GMT Reply-To: "H.Shrikumar " Organization: National Centre for Software Technology, Bombay, INDIA If I could request your indulgence for a brief digression ... I just realised that with India now on the Internet, we are the one site with the largest (absolute) time difference from the nearest edge of the largest chunk of the Internet, the mainland US. Particularly, statements dealing with night-and-day-usgae and Internet-load ftp-access etc. seem very lop-sided from our point of view. Could somebody counter my claim ? shrikumar ( shri@ncst.in ) NCST, Bombay, INDIA. [Moderator's Note: I know your country is the one place I am never able to reach during business hours from my office. There is no window of time early morning or late afternoon when I can get through and anything to do with India I must bring home with me and do at night. Typically I do my UK and German stuff first thing each morning until about 10 AM. I start on my Fiji and New Zealand stuff about 4 PM and catch the 'early shift' in Australia about 5 PM (my time) before leaving for the day. Most Australia and Hong Kong work has to be brought home also. And did anyone ever notice that 'economy rates' on international calls from the USA *always* wind up being at a time when either people in the USA or the other end -- or both -- ought to be in bed asleep? Economy rates never coincide with whatever small common part of daylight hours exist in both countries. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Colum Mylod Subject: More EC Standardisation Date: 27 Nov 90 15:34:50 GMT Organization: Oracle Europe, The Netherlands A quick article in "The Irish Times" Sat. 24 Nov. 1990 made mention of a Friday decision by the European Commission that "regular travellers throughout Europe will in the future have to remember only one emergency number -- 112". This must make 112 the second "standard" for the 12 states, along with 00 for International Access. Quite WHEN is not specified, though it would make a change from remembering whether to use 999, 17, 18, 110, 111, 000, 06-11 or 222222. Colum Mylod cmylod@oracle.nl The Netherlands Above is IMHO ------------------------------ From: Eric THOLOME Subject: Answering Machine and Call Waiting Organization: Stanford University - AIR Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 01:42:27 GMT My answering machine (Panasonic) has a switch which I should set to A if I don't use Call Waiting service, and B otherwise. Does anybody know what the precise difference is ? Eric THOLOME tholome@isl.stanford.edu Stanford University ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Nov 90 21:18:29 PST From: JAJZ801@calstate.bitnet Subject: Some Consumer Protection New California laws scheduled to take effect January 1, 1991 (from the NOLO NEWS): 1. Phone solicitors using recorded messages must announce, with a live voice, the name of caller or organization and obtain consent before playing the recording. 2. Telephone solicitors must maintain a $50,000 bond for the benefit of consumers cheated by the solicitor, in case the consumer sues and obtains a judgment. Jeff Sicherman sichermn@beach.csulb.edu ------------------------------ From: "J. Philip Miller" Subject: Telemarketing of Sleeze 900 Organization: Division of Biostatistics, WUMS, St. Louis, MO Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 03:43:29 GMT We have all seen the ads on TV for the dating services with 900 numbers. Well at least here in St. Louis, they have now started peddling these with computerized dialing/recorded messages. I just got a call with a recording offering me dates - just call a local number 314-992-0000. When calling that number, there was a menu tree activated with a touch tone that allowed me to select whether I wanted men or women, black or white, and age category. It then provided me with a 900 number to call which would give me the recorded messages from prospective dates, in the st. louis area at only $.98/min. Well, at least my teen-ager didn't answer the original call :-) J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067 Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110 phil@wubios.WUstl.edu - Internet (314) 362-3617 uunet!wuarchive!wubios!phil - UUCP (314)362-2693(FAX) C90562JM@WUVMD - bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Nov 90 16:59:50 pst From: Dan Hepner Subject: EEC Caller ID Specs >From: philip@beeblebrox.dle.dg.com (Philip Gladstone) >The EEC (European Community) are investigating the whole area of >1) The caller must be able to supress the transmission of his Caller > ID on a case by case basis or permanently. >2) The called party may eliminate reception of the caller id (case by > case or permanently) [presumably means eliminate reception of > calls with certain selected ids]. Further the called party MUST be able to > limit incoming calls to those which identify the callers number. You gotta wonder what the fuss is. Here is a concise statement as to how CID should work everywhere. Who could complain? Why is it that USA CID schemes all fall so far short of what seems a simple goal? The Chicago scheme described earlier doesn't allow for easy suppression. The proposed Pac Bell scheme doesn't allow for easy limiting of incoming calls to only those which contain CID info. Dan Hepner ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #851 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20670; 29 Nov 90 1:45 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31061; 28 Nov 90 23:37 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19663; 28 Nov 90 22:33 CST Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 22:22:45 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #852 BCC: Message-ID: <9011282222.ab31384@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 28 Nov 90 22:22:27 CST Volume 10 : Issue 852 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Massachusetts May Finally Get E911 [Adam M. Gaffin] Dialing Own Number Brings a Surprise [Brian D. McMahon] Sprint Visa-Phone [John Slater] Nova on Telemarketing ("We Know Where You Live") [Warren Tucker] Nova: We Know Where You Live [Werner Uhrig] The Convenience of AOS [Matt Simpson] Ad Age AT&T Advertising Contest [George Cross] New Archives File: Hayes ISDN PC Adapter [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Adam M Gaffin Subject: Massachusetts May Finally Get E911 Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die Date: Tue, 27 Nov 90 14:52:23 GMT [Preface by Mr. Gaffin -- PAT] Not mentioned in the article is what role this year's election will have played if this measure finally passes. Billy Galvin, chairman of a House telecommunications subcommittee, never hid his distaste for NET and anything he saw as an attempt by the company to raise rates, and he was always successful in scuttling any attempt to link 911 and 411. But then he gave up his house seat this year and ran for state treasurer, only to lose to a Republican (gasp!). Watching the floor debate on this bill, it was obvious nobody cares anymore what he has to say. The house defeated all four of his proposed amendments: to sever the 911 and 411 issues, to raise the number of free calls from 10 to 15, to exempt out-of-area-code information calls from the limit and to open the handicapped-access provisions to competitive bidding. But the house did agree to an amendment from another rep to exempt any information calls in which it turns out the number is non-published. Middlesex News, Framingham, Mass., 11/27/90 By Adam Gaffin NEWS STAFF WRITER People who make more than ten directory-assistance calls a month will pay for a statewide 911 system and help give the handicapped better access to the phone system under a measure approved by the state House of Representatives yesterday. Even if the ``enhanced 911'' measure, strongly supported by statewide police and fire chief associations, becomes law, New England Telephone would still have to win permission from the state Department of Public Utilities before it could begin a levy on excess information calls. One provision in the bill would require that any profits be returned to consumers through rate reductions. Company spokesman Jack Caunter estimated the company would seek to charge 35 cents for each excess call. He added that consumers can order phone books for any part of the state for free. Caunter estimated it would take about three years to create the database and computer system needed for the new service. Once operational, all 911 calls would be routed to a dispatch center where the originating number and address would appear on a computer screen. Dispatchers would then route the calls to the appropriate local emergency service. Still to be decided is whether to build a central 911 dispatch center for the entire state or several regional dispatch centers. Currently, most Massachusetts communities have no 911 service, and none has a system that displays a caller's address. Similar 911 measures have died in the Legislature for the past seven years, victims of disputes between legislators, Gov. Michael Dukakis and New England Telephone over how to pay for the system. New England Telephone estimates the 911 system would cost $40 million to set up and up to $5 million a year to run. Creating a telephone message-relay service for the deaf and re-fitting one out of every four public pay phones with special amplifiers would cost $22 million and about $5 million to maintain. Local police chiefs contacted yesterday support the proposal, citing calls in which people hang up - or have the phone grabbed from them - before they can give their address. Holliston Chief William George said people who dial 911 are sometimes too excited or upset to speak clearly. Others noted that phone exchanges and town lines often overlap, which means that people who dial 911 in many areas get connected to another community's dispatchers. Marlboro Chief Joseph Barry said he cannot believe it has taken the Legislature this long to do something. ``I wonder how many lives could have been saved,'' Barry said. Barry said that now, it can take up to 30 minutes to trace a call into the city's 911 system. He recalled an incident a few years ago in which a woman called to report her ex-boyfriend was breaking into her apartment. Just before she could give the address, however, he grabbed the phone and hung it up. ``Fortunately, a neighbor called'' to report a disturbance, he said. In 1982, a Natick couple being beaten by their mentally disturbed son dialed 911 - which connected them to the Framingham police. But the son hung up the phone and the police were unable to trace the call. The couple was found dead by another son. Local departments reported getting varying numbers of non-emergency calls, which range from two-year-olds playing with phones to people asking when the local July 4 fireworks begin. ------------------------- [Moderator's Note: Adam, again I want to thank you for sharing with us from your column in the paper. We always enjoy your pieces. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Nov 90 10:10:33 cst From: "McMahon,Brian D" Subject: Dialing Own Number Brings a Surprise Recently, I was running through a few tests with my modem at home. Among other things, I wanted to check behavior when the dialled number was busy. No problem, I thought, I'll just dial my own number. Much to my surprise, instead of the expected busy tones, I got a recording approximately like this: "You have dialled a party on your own line. Please hang up to allow the other phone to ring." (This is an inexact quote from memory, but you get the idea.) Interesting. The switch seems to be acting as though I was on a party line. (Remember those?) But I'm not. It's a plain ole single-line residential number. At least, that's what I *thought* it was. I sure don't get calls for other parties. (Except for an occasional telemarketer with an out-of-date listing) Does the switch (Lord knows what kind it is) treat EVERYTHING as if it *might* be a party line? (Note: This is a rural area -- party-line service is alive and well here. The table of residential rates in the front of the phone book lists one- and two-party service for the Urban Service Rate Area, and one- and four-party service for Rural Zones 1, 2, and 3. There's also a propaganda blurb ("Sharing a phone line is no party") in the yellow pages, urging people to switch to a private line. And the phone book is 9" by 6" and maybe 1/4" thick...) (BTW, this is GTE territory, area code 515.) This appears to be true for the 236 exchange only. Here at work, I get a busy signal when I dial my desk number, but the college is in the 269 exchange that got added a couple of years ago, I think to handle PBXs and such. The only 269 numbers I've seen belong to the college's Omni or to GTE's local operations. Can someone explain to this poor telecom-illiterate in the hinterland why the H*ll things are set up this way? Is the switch really incapable of distinguishing between a private and a party line? Gee, I guess ISDN may not get here for a while, eh? ;-) Brian McMahon Grinnell College Computer Services Grinnell, Iowa 50112 USA Voice: +1 515 269 4901 Fax: +1 515 269 4936 [Moderator's Note: Whoever wishes to answer Brian's questions can answer one for me also: How come if I have call-waiting on my line dialing my own number does not produce a call-waiting signal instead of a busy signal? I notice if I go out of my CO to do it, i.e. I use my phone to dial my 800 number which comes back to ring on the same line then I *do* get a call-waiting signal. Likewise a call to 10835-1-700-my number goes out to Telecom*USA, comes back and gives me a call-wwaiting signal. Dialing my own number direct returns busy. Why? PAT] ------------------------------ From: John Slater Subject: Sprint Visa-Phone Date: 27 Nov 90 18:21:43 GMT Reply-To: John Slater Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc. I read today that Sprint has announced a service called VisaPhone. It appears that this is similar to AT&T's Universal Card, in that calls are billed directly to a credit card, but with one big difference: any existing Visa card will do. Furthermore calls can be placed to the US from abroad as well as from within the country. Can anyone shed any more light on this? The preceding paragraph is all the detail I have. I am particularly interested in being able to call the US from the UK, using my British-issued Visa card, at Sprint's rates. This is likely to work out even cheaper than Mercury, despite the latter's recent 15% price cut for calls to the US during economy-rate periods. Can anyone shed any more light on this? Any further info on this scheme would be much appreciated. John Slater Sun Microsystems UK, Gatwick Office ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Nov 90 21:16:29 EST From: Warren Tucker Subject: Nova on Telemarketing ("We Know Where You Live") The NOVA titled "We Know Where You Live" on PBS tonight was a VERY enlightening display of what the telemarketing/information brokering industry has brought to the Information Age. I must admit it has gelled my thoughts on how to handle future unsolicited marketing attempts. Unsolicited telephone marketing attempts have always guaranteed I would boycott the item being sold, but I have usually 1) politely dismissed polite callers 2) hung up on persistent, obnoxious callers 3) after several such calls in one afternoon, suggested to more than one they "get an honest job" I have always regretted being nasty to individuals, who after all we only just trying to make a living. Now I plan to gather as much information as possible as I can on Them and reply by mail to the actual perpetrators, stating my feelings and indicating they are now in my database :-). I was impressed with the gentleman who formed "Private Citizens" and actually won judgments of $0.97 and $38 against telemarketers, with an exclamation from one judge that if he were molested again, he would win a larger sum. I would appreciate hearing from anyone who knows how I may contact Private Citizens or other similar efforts. Warren Tucker, TuckerWare emory!n4hgf!wht or wht@n4hgf.Mt-Park.GA.US ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Nov 1990 21:07:17 CST From: Werner Uhrig Reply-To: Werner Uhrig Subject: NOVA: We Know Where You Live I just finished watching this week's hour-long program in the NOVA-series on the local PBS station, titled: We Know Where You Live The topic dealt with computer databases, junk mail, junk calls, and how some people fight them.... (And just now FRONTLINE starts with "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" where Bill Moyer's retells the story of the Iran-Contra affair - another program which does public broadcasting proud!) You may want to find a friend who taped it. Cheers, Werner [Moderator's Note: Thanks also to Jeff Sicherman for noting this program and suggesting that you watch it when it airs in your community. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 09:16:32 EDT From: Matt Simpson Subject: The 'Convenience' of AOS There was an interesting flyer in my South Central Bell bill. It was touting the SCB calling card as "The Shortcut to Charging Long Distance". It described all the problems with using "one long distance company's charge card with another long distance company's phone". It discussed all the hassles of remembering complicated access codes, and the problems with phones that won't accept the access code on your charge card, etc. But it tells us there is a better way. In boldface type, it says that by using the SCB calling card, "you won't have to think about access codes or which company is carrying the call." Then it goes on to say that, in most cases, South Central Bell will handle all the billing. Isn't that good news for all you folks out there who have been going to great pains to avoid COCOTS, and pasting labels on those that won't connect you to the LD carrier of your choice? Just use your SCB calling card with "virtually any phone" and the calls will be billed on your regular monthly phone bill "regardless of which long distance company actually carries the calls." Equal access at its finest. You know the breakup is complete when AT&T is trying to educate its customers how to make sure they're using AT&T, and the local BOC is telling you how convenient it is to be ripped off by whatever slime-ball AOS a payphone happens to be connected to. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Nov 90 09:36:45 From: George Cross Subject: Ad Age AT&T Advertising Contest This is quoted from {Advertising Age}, November 26, 1990 Subject: New Archives File: Hayes ISDN PC Adapter Toby Nixon has sent a lengthy file to the Digest which discusses a new product from Hayes: an ISDN PC Adapter. If you would like to review this file in detail (it is far too long for an article here), pull it from the Telecom Archives. ftp lcs.mit.edu login anonymous give username@site for password. cd telecom-archives get isdn.pc.adapter-hayes While you are there get 'index.to.archives' for an updated index to the entire archives if you do not already have a copy. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #852 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22450; 29 Nov 90 3:25 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20688; 29 Nov 90 1:40 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28153; 29 Nov 90 0:37 CST Date: Thu, 29 Nov 90 0:02:29 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #853 BCC: Message-ID: <9011290002.ab02680@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 29 Nov 90 00:02:22 CST Volume 10 : Issue 853 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Prodigy Communications Protocol [Robert Halloran] Re: Prodigy Response to E-Mail Criticism [Lou Judice] Re: Prodigy Response to E-Mail Criticism [Mark Hahn] Re: Hackers Break Into DEA Lines [Jeff Sicherman] Re: Hackers Break Into DEA Lines [David Lesher] Re: NZ Phone Numbers [Mark James] Re: A Zero Length Phone Number! [Dave Levenson] Re: Are Cellular Calls Free to Landline Customers, or Not? [David Wilson] Re: Programming Cellular Phones [Pat Barron] Re: French Modem Info Sought [Keith Mitchell] Re: Area Code History Request [David Cornutt] Re: Return*Call Humor [Terry Kennedy] Re: Return*Call Humor [bill@eedsp.gatech.edu] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Halloran Subject: Re: Prodigy Communications Protocol Date: 28 Nov 90 13:57:40 GMT Organization: AT&T BL Middletown/Lincroft NJ USA In article <14869@accuvax.nwu.edu> nelson%odin.corp.sgi.com@sgi.com (Nelson Bolyard) writes: >Videotext in the USA was based on NAPLPS (pronounced nap-lips) the >North American Presentation Language Protocol Syntax. T'wouldn't >surprise me a bit to see that AT&T revived that technology for >Prodigy. Prodigy strikes me as the ultimate resurrection of videotext >in the USA. Are we forgetting that Prodigy is the offspring of Sears & IBM; AT&T has no hand in it ... just FYI. Bob Halloran Internet: rkh@mtune.dptg.att.com UUCP: att!mtune!rkh ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 07:30:49 PST From: Peripheral Visionary 28-Nov-1990 1024 Subject: Re: Prodigy Response to E-Mail Criticism Though I've been critical here of Prodigy response time, I do agree with their stand on messaging charges. In any production data center or information service it's only fair to charge for resources consumed. If the numbers they give are accurate, and I would have no reason to doubt themn, their new chargeback philosophy seems reasonable. Since I know nothing about their costs, I can't really say if the actual CHARGE they've set for messaging is fair, though. In the six months I've had Prodigy, BTW, I've not even sent a TOTAL of thirty messages! I've also never bothered to look at the bulletin boards more than once. What I have used it for is to check stock quotes, company news and weather - and to order stuff. Though the Dow Jones News stories seem to be watered down, and though the service is slow, I'd still say it's a bargain for $9.95. ljj ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 14:19:11 -0500 (EST) From: Mark Hahn Subject: Re: Prodigy Responds to E-Mail Criticism Tthis text was remarkably humble, considering the involvement of big blue. It is pretty sad that Prodigy is intended as a new form of broadcast, more targetable than, say, TV, but still pablum-oriented. I hope no one accepts their poor excuses about email, since their explanation implies simply that they haven't thought about the logistics: email is just not that hard. Has anyone investigated the Prodigy protocols, with an eye to offering competition? Regards, Mark ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 00:39:12 -0800 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: Re: Hackers Break Into DEA Lines Organization: Cal State Long Beach Does ISDN have any security implications/advantages to protect against the techniques used by hackers such as these to barge in and piggy-back calls off of PBX's ? Jeff Sicherman ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Re: Hackers Break Into DEA Lines Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 20:00:13 EST Reply-To: David Lesher Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers {DEA hackers ... used service worth $100,000/months} |$100,000 in a month seems to be a little high. Considering that a |full rate call to anywhere in the 48 states costs at most 25 cents a |minute, ....... Not that this alters John's math much, but ISTM last time I checked, we paid a flat-rate $0.40/minute for FTS anywhere in the US. Note that this was pre-FTS2000 so the new rates may be much lower. In our case, given the $160/line/month FX charge to the switch, and the fact that even ModerAtor Bell wanted a lot less to our primary domestic destination (DC), we went back to POTS. More to the point, why would anyone WANT to steal FTS service? Don't most people want circuits that work? wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (305) 255-RTFM pob 570-335 33257-0335 ------------------------------ From: Mark James Subject: Re: NZ Phone Numbers Date: 28 Nov 90 12:38:49 GMT Organization: Altair/INRIA, France In article <14876@accuvax.nwu.edu> davidb@pacer.uucp (David Barts) writes: >patrick@sideways.gen.nz (Pat Cain) writes: >> * Telecom begin to convert the whole country's telephone numbering system >> Five single digit area codes with all telephone numbers >> being seven digits. >> Patrick Cain )) Voice: +64 4 698330 (GMT+12) >So which it it? Six or seven? Or is Wellington a special case? It's seven. Pat obviously hasn't been converted yet. A good chunk of the metropolitan Auckland area has been on seven digits for some years now. Then again, another chunk is (or was) still on five digits, so you can see the need for the conversion. Mark James or ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: A Zero Length Phone Number! Date: 28 Nov 90 14:06:09 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <14511@accuvax.nwu.edu> fisher@minster.york.ac.uk writes: > A pedant could claim that the Vatican City State has even shorter > telephone numbers - viz. zero digits long. The country code is +39 > 66982, and the "country" has only one telephone number, which is: . Pat adds: > [Moderator's Note: It is not as though there 'is only one phone in the > whole place'. What we have here is a situation where an institution, I visited St. Peter's as a tourist back in 1964. I'm sure a lot has changed since then, but I couldn't help noticing back then that there was a telephone set (a plain black rotary-dial set, in '64) on the altar, looking much like a desk-accessory alongside the other items normally found on altars. As I noticed this, I began to wonder ... does it ever ring while the Pope is at work there? If it does, who is calling? It is a private line to the Almighty? (I couldn't get close enough to read the number on it.) Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 [Moderator's Note: I saw something similar to this in the Chicago Temple Building auditorium here in Chicago several years ago. A five-line, (six buttons with hold) phone was on a shelf next to the console of the huge pipe organ on stage-left. The ringer was apparently not connected and a beehive lamp flashed instead when that extension was called on the building phone system. An interesting part of it was the headset jack on the back of the phone, and the headset the organist wore. One of the five lines coming up there was an extension on the phone system; one button was unused; the other three terminations were 'hot lines' -- lines with continuous battery on them -- labled 'radio booth', 'pipe chambers', and 'stage right'. Apparently the Almighty in this case was the engineer in the radio broadcast booth on the second floor who would talk to the organist through the headphones to tell him when WNIB was offline / online for a broadcast. The hotline to the pipe chambers was used when the instrument was being repaired or tuned; the technicians could talk among themselves as one worked upstairs and the other worked from the console. Both the radio booth and the pipe chambers had a similar six button set with a headset. Oh yeah! There was also a Western Union clock mounted backstage where it could be seen by people entering or exiting from the stage along with one in the radio/sound engineer's booth. PAT] ------------------------------ From: David E A Wilson Subject: Re: Are Cellular Calls Free to Landline Customers, or Not? Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 04:22:04 GMT peter@ficc.ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes: >The folks who want 1+ to mean "toll" are really really going to be >upset over this one, since there's no way to tell by inspection if a >given call is going to be to a cellular phone. This makes the Australian way of doing cellular look good. All cellular phones are in their own prefix (018) and the caller pays (15/26/39c/min if <= 745km and 23/38/57c/min if > 745km) so we know before calling that it is a cell phone and approx how much it will cost. It is not possible to tell if a call is local (but to an adjacent area code) or within an area code but at STD rates (disjoint charging districts) without knowing a little bit of geography and which exchanges are where. David Wilson Dept Comp Sci, Uni of Wollongong david@cs.uow.edu.au ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Nov 1990 11:19:03 -0500 (EST) From: Pat_Barron@transarc.com Subject: Re: Programming Cellular Phones In a similar vein, I'd be interested in seeing programming information for the Uniden CP2000. It has a mini-DB connector on it which I assume is the programming port, but I've no clue how to talk to it. Thanks, Pat ------------------------------ From: Keith Mitchell Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 14:37:56 WET Subject: Re: French Modem Info Sought > I am currently residing in the US, but shortly I will be relocating to > France. Does anyone have any information or insights to offer > regarding modems compatible with the French telephone system? I'm I don't know too much about the score regarding modems in France, but did make an interesting discovery recently. Apparently modems with acoustic couplers (!) approved for use in one EEC country are automatically approved for use in all. Anyway, we needed a modem for our new German office, and it turns out phone jacks are either different or non-existent in Germany, depending on where you are. An acoustic coupler seemed the only solution for our travelling salesman, and funnily enough I'd seen an advert for such an item, "Le Voyager" from a French company called COM1. I haven't tried it yet, but it is real dinky (cigarette packet size with a velcro bendy coupler), and it seems quite good from the specs. Most annoying thing is there are no pin-outs in the manual (what makes manufacturers of RS232 devices think this is even remotely acceptable ?? Grr.). It does V22bis, MNP etc, and auto-dialling is obviously only via DTMF. Seems to me the fact this is made by a French company suggests the phone socket situation in France may be similar to Germany, though I find it all a bit hard to believe. They have both US and French contact addresses which may be of use to you: Eurolink COM1 Carrolton, Bordeaux Texas 75007 France +1 (214) 394 68 72 +33 56 78 84 00 Note that this is just a suggestion to help you - I really cannot say I am endorsing their products. Keith Mitchell (postmaster) Spider Systems Ltd. Spider Systems Inc. Spider Park 12 New England Executive Park Stanwell Street Burlington Edinburgh, Scotland MA 01803 Phone: +44 31-554 9424 +1 (617) 270-3510 Fax: +44 31-554 0649 keith@spider.co.uk keith%spider.co.uk@uunet.uu.net ...!uunet!ukc!spider!keith zspz01%uk.ac.ed.castle@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk [Moderator's Note: Do you know WHY an acoustic-coupled modem accepted by one country is accepted by all? I'll tell you why! :) Because anyone who would even think about using an acoustic-coupled modem is a very sick puppy who needs all the support he can get. The countries of the world have made this concession as a humanitarian gesture to the poor devil who is stuck with such a piece of junk! THAT's why! :) PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 09:47:10 CST From: David Cornutt Subject: Re: Area Code History Request S.C. Bell is putting N0X/N1X prefixes into effect in Alabama next month, in an attempt to avoid a split of area code 205. With this, all toll calls will require ten-digit dialing. (Personally, I think that a split is inevitable about 1992. Rapid growth is occurring in the Birmingham and Huntsville metro areas, and this, combined with a cellular phone and pager explosion, mean that a number of the N0X/N1X prefixes are already spoken for. Plus, S.C.B. is setting up several ISDN CO's here. It wouldn't surprise me to see a split in about two years, with Huntsville and Birmingham going into a new area code, and Montgomery and points south keeping 205. Dave Cornutt (cornutt@freedom.msfc.nasa.gov), Huntsville, AL (205) 461-6457 ------------------------------ From: "Terry Kennedy, Operations Mgr" Subject: Re: Return*Call Humor Date: 28 Nov 90 09:05:39 GMT Organization: St. Peter's College, US In article <14984@accuvax.nwu.edu>, our Moderator writes: > [Moderator's Note: This raises a good point. When a call reaches you > via forwarding through some other number, does 'return call' go to the > forwarded number or the original caller? Likewise for Call Screening > and Caller-ID: *whose* ID gets passed for the purpose of callback > and/or screening, etc? PAT] Here in New Jersey, Caller ID returns the original caller's number on forwarded calls. I have two numbers forwarded to a third number which has Caller ID, and I get the real caller info, not the number of one of my other lines. Of course, this is with consumer (Class) call forwarding. I'm uncertain what would happen with permanent call forwarding (a different, non-Class service offering). I'm also unsure what would happen on a call forwarded through a Centrex to my phone, but I could check that and see. Terry Kennedy Operations Manager, Academic Computing terry@spcvxa.bitnet St. Peter's College, US terry@spcvxa.spc.edu (201) 915-9381 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Return*Call Humor Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 14:03:25 EST Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu From: bill In article <14984@accuvax.nwu.edu> den0@midway.uchicago.edu (funky chicken) writes: >[Moderator's Note: This raises a good point. When a call reaches you >via forwarding through some other number, does 'return call' go to the >forwarded number or the original caller? Likewise for Call Screening >and Caller-ID: *whose* ID gets passed for the purpose of callback >and/or screening, etc? PAT] I have this Return-Call at home and it seems to justify its monthly cost. To get to the point, if you try to 'return call' to a number which is itself being forwarded to a third number, 'return call' will give a fast busy (the same fast busy that you'd get if the return call number was busy at the time - and it will attempt to return call the original caller for thirty minutes). If the original caller turns off call forwarding and/or hangs up for the appropriate length of time, return call will give me a "ring-ring-riiiinnnggg" special ring. After I 'answer' the special ring, the switch will dial the original calling party's number and the connection and call will proceed as usual. This is the case on my phone at home and very likely the situation for the whole of Atlanta. BTW, there used to be a time when one could 'bypass' another party's call-forwarding if they were on the same switch and if you had call-forwarding yourself. All you had to do was to proceed like you were call-forwarding your phone to the person to who you wanted to 'bypass,' and you'd ring right through to them unforwarded. This must have been a 'feature' of either some old software or of the 1(A) switch, because it doesn't work here any longer. Bill bill@eedsp.gatech.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #853 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23935; 29 Nov 90 5:23 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27355; 29 Nov 90 3:46 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22002; 29 Nov 90 2:41 CST Date: Thu, 29 Nov 90 2:10:29 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #854 BCC: Message-ID: <9011290210.ab12290@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 29 Nov 90 02:10:27 CST Volume 10 : Issue 854 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Len Rose Indicted in Illinois [Chicago Tribune, via TELECOM Moderator] Magazine List Update - Request For Submissions [David Leibold] Last Four Digits of Phone is '0000' [Curtis E. Reid] Information Needed on Phone Patches [Emmanuel Disini] Building a Phone Line Simulator [Todd Inch] Caller ID Info Needed - ASAP [Steven Shimatzki] Does *ANY* PBX Supply Loop Interrupt Signal?? [John Boteler] Questions About the GTE Airfone [Dan Veeneman] Forwarded Calls and CallerID [Arnette Baker] Last Laugh! New Service From Taco Bell [Dan "Shag" Birchall] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 29 Nov 90 0:48:44 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Len Rose Indicted in Illinois About a month ago, we noted in the Digest that Len Rose had been arrested again -- this time during the first week of his new job and new home here in the Chicago area; in Naperville, IL to be precise. His indictment occurred earlier this week. The {Chicago Tribune} on Wednesday told the details of Len's latest misunderstanding with the authorities: "Man is Charged in Computer Crime" By Joseph Sjostrom From: Chicago Tribune, 28 November, 1990: Section 2, p. 2 Du Page County prosecutors have indicted a Naperville resident in connection with an investigation into computer tampering. Leonard Rose, 31, of 799 Royal St. George St., Naperville, was charged by the Du Page County grand jury last week with violating the 1988 "computer tampering" law that prohibits unauthorized entry into a computer to copy, delete or damage programs or data contained in it. Rose, who lived in Baltimore until last September or October, is under federal indictment there for allegedly copying and disseminating a valuable computer program owned by AT&T. The Du Page indictment charges him with copying the same program from the computer of a Naperville software firm that employed him for a week in October. His alleged tampering with computers there was noticed by other employees, according to Naperville police. A search warrant was obtained for Rose's apartment last month, and two computers and a quantity of computer data storage discs were confiscated, police said. The Du Page County and federal indictments charge that Rose made unauthorized copies of the AT&T Unix Source Code, a so-called operating system that gives a computer its basic instructions on how to function. The federal indictment says Rose's illegal actions there were commited between May 1988 and January 1990. The Du Page County indictment alleges he tampered with the Naperville firm's computers on Oct. 17. (end article) ---------- Something is very odd here. Either Len Rose is the victim of a strange set of circumstances or he is a very self-destructive person. If he is not guilty, this latest turn of events must have him in quite an emotional turmoil. I know how I would feel if I were in his shoes. Yet if he is guilty then what is wrong with someone who would leave the jurisdiction of the court in Baltimore (he was not officially granted permission to come here until after the fact), come to a new job in a new community with a wife and children to support with little or no money in his pocket, and act out as he did the first week on the job? His wife speaks little English; there are two small children to support with zero resources in a town where they are strangers -- and then he pulls that shit and gets locked up in the Dupage County Jail his first week here. If he is guilty, that is. I feel much sadness for his wife and children. He is, so far as I know, still at the address in the Tribune article above if you wish to contact him and offer your support, your condemnation, your questions or whatever. I'm told most of all he could use some financial assistance to keep putting food in the kids and pay the rent. His attorney, Sheldon Zenner of Chicago also would like to get paid for doing a decent job of representing him. On a related note: Jim Thomas of Computer Underground Digest has forwarded a file to me detailing the laws in Illinois relating to computer crimes. It will be housed in the Telecom Archives in the telecom.security.issues sub-directory. The first time I wrote about Len Rose in the Digest -- back in February -- he contacted the Postmaster here to complain bitterly about me. He was going to sue me, the trustees of Northwestern University and anyone else who 'implied' he was guilty of anything. So for once, I don't care whether you read what I write in this final paragraph or not. In fact, move on to the next article if you like. It is placed here primarily to placate Len, and his attornies: It should be remembered that under the Constitution of the United States, Len Rose must be presumed innocent of the latest charges against him until they are proven to be factual in a court of law. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: woody Subject: Magazine List Update - Request For Submissions Date: Tue, 27 Nov 90 22:58:00 EST Many months ago I did a list of Telecom-related magazines. I'm getting ready to revise this list, so any information about periodicals relating to telcos or telecommunications would be appreciated, especially for those that did not make the last magazines list. The revised list might take a number of weeks to appear, but submissions should be done over the next week or two. Please *NET MAIL* any submissions to: djcl@contact.uucp (you may need to route via uunet, geac.uucp, becker.uucp if you encounter mail path trouble). ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 10:24 EST From: "Curtis E. Reid" Subject: Last Four Digits of Phone is '0000' I recall many, many issues ago that someone was interested in knowing if there is a valid phone number ending with all zeros i.e., xxx-xxx-0000. Well, I found one: Bloomingdale's Sales Order line 800-777-0000 I've used it myself. Curtis E. Reid CER2520@RITVAX.Bitnet (Bitnet) CER2520@RITVAX.isc.rit.edu (Internet) [Moderator's Note: In fact, 312-743-0000 is FX'd to an attorney in Wilmette, IL. It comes from the same CO as myself, Chicago-Rogers Park. 312-787-0000 is the number '911' translates into here for some police districts. And in those instances where it is not a valid ending to a phone number the intercept lady is *so* funny to listen to as she tells us of our error: "The number you have dialed, NXX oh! OH! OH!!! Oh! is not a working number." All those 'oh!' noises could be interpreted in a lewd way by someone with a dirty mind. (Not your Moderator!) :) PAT ------------------------------ Subject: Information Needed on Phone Patches From: "Disini SW, Emmanuel Disini,PRT" Date: 28 Nov 90 15:12 GMT Does anyone know about phone patches? It's something like a portable telephone which can both receive and originate calls miles away (at least 30) from a home base that's hooked up to the phone company's CO. It's not exactly cellular, (you could think of it as a cellular phone that only works within one cell) but at least the rates you pay per call will not be at cellular rates. We are currently looking at Dataradio's RFTel and Alcom's Pegasus 1000. The prices they quote are inordinately high (in Manila). Can anyone shed some light on what models to look into and what prices might be like in the US of A? Any help is very much appreciated! Thanks all, Joel Disini d1749@applelink.apple.com [Moderator's Note: The distance covered by a phone patch is a function of the radio it works with. Phone patches have been around for years. Many ham radio operators use them, and a few civic-minded and helpful CB radio operators (yes, there are some who meet that description) have them also. Some are manually operated by the radio attendant who taps a button as the parties converse, others are totally VOX. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Todd Inch Subject: Building a Phone Line Simulator Organization: Global Tech International Inc. Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 21:10:19 GMT Someone (oops, lost the article) requested a phone-line simulator with some special needs which amounted to one side dropping current when the other side went on-hook. Ringing wasn't a requirement. Here's my favorite, assuming you don't need dialing to do anything in particular, don't need ringing of any sort, and don't need dial tone. (Yes, that limits its application a bit!) To phone, speakerphone, fax, other device | | | | 9 Volt ------- | Battery --- | | | | | To other phone, speakerphone, fax, etc. This works for everything I've ever tried. I've heard it'll even work for a couple of "dumb" FAX machines that don't listen for dial tone. If your speakerphones need lots of voltage, you might put a few 9 Volt batteries in series to increase voltage as necessary. On some (especially older) touch-tone equipment, the polarity has to be correct, so just reverse the wires if it goes "clunk" instead of "beep" when you press the buttons. (Not that the tones will actually DO anything with this circuit.) Turn those old phones you've got laying around into "field sets" for the kids to play with. Sorry, no ringing. Todd Inch, System Manager, Global Technology, Mukilteo WA (206) 742-9111 UUCP: {smart-host}!gtisqr!toddi ARPA: gtisqr!toddi@beaver.cs.washington.edu ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Wednesday, 28 Nov 1990 18:02:11 EST From: SJS132@psuvm.psu.edu Subject: Caller ID Information Needed - ASAP. Hi, I'm Trying to get as much info on Caller ID as I can. I wanted to use it in a research paper, but the Professor doesn't really like the ideal of using NetNews as a reference. (Think about it, net news is the ultimate gossip ring ... even though it may be a lot of facts, but still a lot of word of mouth.) So, if you have any leads to information on Caller ID, please let me know. I will then post a completed list along with 'Thanks' to the group. That way, I can get FAST results through email. The list will be made up and available to anyone for later use ... and you can see you name in eternal thanks. If you can help, please send me information for the following: Journals, magazines, books, etc... Please, no soap box lessons ... like I said, I Need REAL, legit, verifiable sources. Thank you, Steven Shimatzki SJS132@PSUVM.PSU.EDU RD#1 Box 20-A Dunbar, Pa 15431 Disclaimer: "Yea, I said that.." [Moderator's Note: Dear me ... your professor would rather have you quote News Weak or the Pseudo Science Monitor than TELECOM Digest? I was going to forward your letter to telecom-priv, but you said you did not want any Soap Box lessons either. Maybe some folks here can help you with your project. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Does *ANY* PBX Supply Loop Interrupt Signal?? Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 13:17:00 EST From: John Boteler I know a similar, not identical, topic has been thrashed about here recently. Does any currently available PBX transmit the loop interrupt signal through to its POTS (2500-type) stations? Assume, for the sake of sanity, that the telephone company central office does provide a loop interrupt signal to us on POTS subscriber loops when the calling party releases the call. According to our research so far, neither the Vodavi nor the Mitel SX-100/200 line provides this. Is the search futile? John Boteler bote@csense {uunet | ka3ovk}!media!csense!bote SkinnyDipper's Hotline: 703 241 BARE | VOICE only, Touch-Tone(TM) signalling ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Nov 90 12:33:31 CST From: Dan Veeneman Subject: Questions About the GTE Airfone I just got back from a long weekend trip to Baltimore, and during a delay due to "mechanical problems" I got a chance to peek at the GTE Airfones that were built into the headrest of the center seats of each row. Inserting a credit card into a vertical slot released the phone, which was tied to the headrest by a short (two or three foot) cord. Sliding a credit card along the right edge of the handset would, after a short time, give you the opportunity to place your call. (I only got a chance to observe, as the phone in my row was non-functional, much to the disappointment of the guy next to me). Hopefully someone out there will have the answers to these questions: 1. How is the credit card verified ? Are they all stored on board and downloaded after the airplane lands, or is it real-time ? 2. What happens if everyone wanted to place a call at the same time? On the jet I was on, that would be 56 phones in use at the same time. Quite a multiplexer/transceiver, if that's how it's done. 3. How is frequency assignment done for numerous planes in the same local area (i.e. 20 planes backed up, waiting for takeoff at O'Hare)? 4. Has anyone tried a ringback or number announcement from the phone ? I know the phones aren't capable of actually receiving a call or ringing, but it would be interesting to see what happens. 5. Is there a nationwide cellular-like network for these phones, i.e. the ground station hands off the call(s) to the next station when the plane leaves the service area ? Any further information would be appreciated. Dan veeneman@Mot.Com ------------------------------ From: kityss@ihlpf.att.com Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 10:25 CST Subject: Forwarded Calls and CallerID In article <14952@accuvax.nwu.edu> weave@brahms.udel.edu (Ken Weaverling) describes how his girl friend had "Return*called" a crank call, yelling at the caller, only to have that person return the call and act as if she were the crank caller. He concludes: >>We sat around puzzled for a moment, then finally figured out that >>there must be several extensions in their house and the original crank >>call must have originated, perhaps, with a child, and the child's >>Mother answered our Return*Call. Matt Funkchick responds - >Or else the real crank caller was at another number and was forwarding >calls to another one of his/her victims. And our Moderator Notes - >This raises a good point. When a call reaches you >via forwarding through some other number, does 'return call' go to the >forwarded number or the original caller? Likewise for Call Screening >and Caller-ID: *whose* ID gets passed for the purpose of callback >and/or screening, etc? The answer to all the above is that the original calling parties number is what is passed in any chain of call forwarding. Example: A calls B, B is forwarded to C (so A's call rings at C) - for any of the CLASS services C's memory space will contain A's phone number. So CallerID, Return*Call, or any of the screening features will work with A's number. (Need I mention this is only if there is complete SS7 connectivity between all the COs involved - and that all three parties are in the same LATA.) The only time B's memory space will be updated is if they have Call Forwarding Don't Answer - then their memory space will contain A's phone number (as will C's). So the original poster's problem either was caused by the person who answered their Return*Call being in on the "joke", or by the person being unaware that an outgoing call had been made from that location. Arnette Baker kityss@ihlpf.att.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 03:59:57 EST From: Dan "Shag" Birchall Subject: Last Laugh! New Service From Taco Bell >(Overheard) >"No Lulu, 'Taco Bell' is not a Mexican phone company..." Not Mexican, no. Lulu might have heard of the service Taco Bell gave the 'phreaks' a couple towns from me {office of some sort there} by being so kind as to leave its PBX outdial extension set to some easy number sequence. Last time I was at a Taco Bell, I looked at the pay fone outside the 'restaurant' and noticed that although the panel of the enclosure directly above the phone bore the name of our local BOC, the large side panels made it evident that this phone was actually operated by Taco Bell. If I dial 0, will they ask me to place an order? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #854 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15766; 30 Nov 90 4:55 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab18901; 30 Nov 90 3:14 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06061; 30 Nov 90 2:10 CST Date: Fri, 30 Nov 90 1:31:45 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #855 BCC: Message-ID: <9011300131.ab01360@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 30 Nov 90 01:31:09 CST Volume 10 : Issue 855 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: IDG Hackers [Chuck Frosberg] Re: IDG Hackers [John Cowan] Re: Hackers Break Into DEA Lines [Roger Fajman] Re: Dialing Own Number Brings a Surprise [John Higdon] Re: Dialing Own Number Brings a Surprise [Jim Miller] Re: Tymnet Help Needed [Dick Rawson] Re: Keeping a Line "Busy" w/o a Phone Off Hook [Jack Dominey] Re: The "Bell" Logo [Paul M. Dubuc] Re: Answering Machine and Call Waiting [John Higdon] Re: Alternatives to Traditional Multi-Drop 4-Wire Data Lines [Schoffstall] Re: *Long* Phone Calls -- What Does Ma Think? [Charles "Chip" Roberson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chuck Frosberg WA7KGX Subject: Re: IDG Hackers Date: 28 Nov 90 16:55:25 GMT Organization: Omen Technology INC Sounds like an attractive nuisance. If corporations with attractive nuisances were treated the same as homeowners with attractive nuisances, they would pay proper attention to computer security. ------------------------------ From: John Cowan Subject: Re: IDG Hackers Organization: The Logical Language Group, Inc. Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 19:49:43 GMT In article <14983@accuvax.nwu.edu>, John Macdonald writes: >Pat, are you trying to say that it doesn't matter how much damage was >done? The and importance and concerns are the same for $2.4M and $24? >Do you consider the offence to be identical when one person kicks over >a sand castle and another dynamites a ten story building? Our Esteemed Moderator replies: >The monetary value is not nearly as important >as is the nearly forgotten and frequently ignored ethical value called >'respect for the property rights of others'. Ethical values are one thing; bases for legal action, quite another. In law, the amount of the damage makes a great deal of difference. For example, "diversity jurisdiction" suits (ones that are heard in Federal court because the parties are of different states) must involve damages exceeding $10,000, or back to state court they go. Therefore, your smart member of the Federal bar always specifies at least $10,000, however petty the issue. Punishment-by-frivolous lawsuit is indeed a serious problem in this country, exacerbated by the each-pays-for-himself rule of American courts (as opposed to English ones, where the loser bears the winner's costs). Inflating the value of the matter at hand allows the bringing to bear of much larger guns. >I really get sick of >hearing this bologna about how hackers/phreakers are so different, No argument with the sentiment, but the word in that sense is spelled "baloney". Check out Al Smith's speeches. cowan@marob.masa.com (aka ...!hombre!marob!cowan) [Moderator's Note: I get tired of the baloney also! PAT] ------------------------------ From: Roger Fajman Date: Thu, 29 Nov 90 19:38:27 EST Subject: Re: Hackers Break Into DEA Lines > More to the point, why would anyone WANT to steal FTS service? Don't > most people want circuits that work? FTS was lousy, but FTS 2000 works just fine. I have no complaints about it. I believe that the conversion to FTS 2000 for voice service is now complete. By the way, I have an authorization code for making FTS 2000 calls from off the network. There's an 800 number to call, then you enter the number being called (seven digits for an FTS number, ten digits for a commercial number), followed by the eleven digit code number. I had trouble making data calls that way because it seems to be very picky about the timing of entering the numbers. Roger Fajman Telephone: +1 301 402 1246 National Institutes of Health BITNET: RAF@NIHCU Bethesda, Maryland, USA Internet: RAF@CU.NIH.GOV ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Dialing Own Number Brings a Surprise Date: 29 Nov 90 00:58:24 PST (Thu) From: John Higdon On Nov 28 at 22:22, TELECOM Moderator writes: > [Moderator's Note: Whoever wishes to answer Brian's questions can > answer one for me also: How come if I have call-waiting on my line > dialing my own number does not produce a call-waiting signal instead > of a busy signal? Simply put, when you dial your own number, the test for busy is technically performed before you have finished dialing. You have a 1AESS, if memory serves, so you can hear some of the call states quite well. In older generics (and some newer non-Pac*Bell ones), call waiting and three-way will not work until the "ka-chunk" -- the time when you are connected with the interoffice trunk or the other number in your switch. When you dial your own number, your line is tested for busy, and the action is taken based on the instantaneous condition of your line (i.e., off-hook, dialing) which is "send to busy trunk". Call waiting has not yet been enabled. > I notice if I go out of my CO to do it, i.e. I use > my phone to dial my 800 number which comes back to ring on the same > line then I *do* get a call-waiting signal. Likewise a call to > 10835-1-700-my number goes out to Telecom*USA, comes back and gives me > a call-wwaiting signal. Dialing my own number direct returns busy. > Why? PAT] When you do that, your switch is out of the picture. You dial, finish dialing, "ka-chunk" (you are connected to the IEC trunk) and the carrier routes the call back to your number. At that moment the condition is different than the above. You are off-hook, dialing completed, connected to trunk. Action taken: switch you to conference trunk, send tone, send RBT to caller. Pac*Bell Weenie Note: In the Pac*Bell implementations of the 1AESS (W.E. should never have provided them with the source!), you would still get busy, even when dialing through Telecom*USA. PB's generic will not allow CW or 3W until the first call is supervised. Pac*Bell had some lame reason for doing this, but I forgot what it was. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Nov 1990 19:07:05 EST From: Jim Miller Subject: Re: Dialing Own Number Brings a Surprise In issue 852 of the Digest, Brian McMahon writes: > No problem, I thought, I'll just dial my own number. Much >to my surprise, instead of the expected busy tones, I got a recording >approximately like this: "You have dialled a party on your own line. >Please hang up to allow the other phone to ring." (This is an inexact >quote from memory, but you get the idea.) >(BTW, this is GTE territory, area code 515.) >Can someone explain to this poor telecom-illiterate in the hinterland why >the H*ll things are set up this way? Is the switch really incapable of >distinguishing between a private and a party line? I am also located in GTE territory, area code 419. I do not know what model switch I am on, but it provides features such as call waiting and call forwarding. I also have some 'extended' features, like 'busy number redial' and 'saved number redial'. My switch replies in the same way as yours with reference to dialing your own number - just hang up and you get a ringback. Besides the obvious usefulness on a party line, I imagine this is provided as a (free) FEATURE to those with private lines: it is a rudimentary intercom. By being able to ring back your own line, it allows you (in the house) to ring an extension phone (which might be out in the workshop, at the pool deck or in the upstairs dining room). >[Moderator's Note: Whoever wishes to answer Brian's questions can >answer one for me also: How come if I have call-waiting on my line >dialing my own number does not produce a call-waiting signal instead >of a busy signal? I notice if I go out of my CO to do it, i.e. I use >my phone to dial my 800 number which comes back to ring on the same >line then I *do* get a call-waiting signal. Likewise a call to >10835-1-700-my number goes out to Telecom*USA, comes back and gives me >a call-wwaiting signal. Dialing my own number direct returns busy. >Why? PAT] Pat - I cannot answer your question, but something similar seems to happen on my switch: If I dial the local weather number and get a busy signal, then flash and dial the SAME NUMBER AGAIN on the 'three-way' dialtone, I get a fast busy (after a long delay). Maybe the switch notices that the call I just attempted is to the same number as the first (busy) call? Could the behavior we are seeing be due to the fact that the call originates and terminates in the same switch, without ever leaving the CO? Maybe the switch has more 'knowledge' about such an intra-CO call. This brings up two questions I have. First, I tried one time to use the 'busy number redial' on the abovementioned weather number. No luck - I get a fast busy indicating it can't be done. This weather number is in the same town, served by GTE, on a regular exchange (ie not a 'choke' exchange). Upon further investigation, and after talking to a CO technician, I am told that 'busy number redial' is not usable on a 'number with multiple lines'. I assume this means I can't use it when the target number is part of a hunt group? Why? Second, from the features I have described above, does it sound like I am on a switch that is already set up to supply things like Caller-ID, call-trace, return-call, and the related features? Could GTE enable these if they obtained proper tariffs from the PUC? /* Jim Miller jmiller@wendy.bgsu.edu */ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 08:34:35 PST From: Dick Rawson Subject: Re: Tymnet Help Needed Your request said Internet: ddodell@stjhmc.fidonet.org, but mail there bounced with ... User unknown You could get the 9600-bps number from: 1. Customer service at 800-336-0149. 2. Log in to INFORMATION on the 1200/2400 number you do know, and look up the 9600 number. I just tried 800 information, and they provided 800-872-7654. That is Tymnet Telemarketing, but the woman I spoke with knew the 800-336-0149 number, so that route should have worked for you too. (I asked her to look into getting the 800 information listing clarified.) Dick Rawson, Tymnet (development) ------------------------------ From: jdominey@bsga05.attmail.com Date: Wed Nov 28 08:34:26 EST 1990 Subject: Re: Keeping a Line "Busy" w/o a Phone Off Hook Re the current conversation about making a line busy: A customer of mine added an additional line to their 800 group (lines that carry *only* 800 traffic, sometimes [incorrectly] called InWATS). But the customer had no ports remaining open on their PBX. Thus the new line just sat there on the RJ21. It was the fifth line in the group, so if the first four were busy, the fifth caller would get a ring that was never answered. The customer expected to upgrade their PBX in a month or so, so they wanted to "busy out" the extra line. We couldn't do it. A constant busy on an 800 line apparently sounds an alarm in the Central Office, and the Repair Folks cannot rest until this "trouble condition" has been cleared. We wound up disconnecting that fifth line. Conclusion: Making a line busy can be necessary, but be careful about doing it with a dedicated 800 line. Jack Dominey|AT&T Commercial Telemarketing|800 241-4285|AT&T Mail: !dominey ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 13:35:58 EST From: Paul M Dubuc Subject: Re: The "Bell" Logo Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <14977@accuvax.nwu.edu>, (Douglas Scott Reuben) writes: > I'm not sure about Ameritech (Midwest) as a whole, but I THINK the > payphones at O'Hare and Midway said Illinois Bell and had the Bell > logo next to it. (This was six months ago, so maybe it changed.) Ohio Bell (an Ameritech Company) still uses the Bell logo. Paul Dubuc att!cbvox!pmd ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Answering Machine and Call Waiting Date: 28 Nov 90 11:06:51 PST (Wed) From: John Higdon Eric THOLOME writes: > My answering machine (Panasonic) has a switch which I should set to A > if I don't use Call Waiting service, and B otherwise. Does anybody > know what the precise difference is ? This is a loop current timing selector. It determines whether the answering machine will disconnect on a short loop current interruption or whether it requires a longer one. The longer one is used for call-waiting. This will prevent the machine from unceremoniously hanging up on a caller who is leaving a message if someone else happens to call at the same time. The shorter one will allow the machine to hang up at the slightest loop twitch and has the advantage of instantly disconnecting at the moment the caller hangs up. All of the above mainly deals with 1/1AESS switches. Most digital switches have no loop signal (CPC) on call waiting and you may set the switch to the non-call waiting position. John Higdon (hiding out in the desert) ------------------------------ From: Martin Schoffstall Subject: Re: Alternatives to Traditional Multi-Drop 4-Wire Data Lines Reply-To: Martin Schoffstall Organization: Performance Systems International, Inc. Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 23:12:08 GMT In article <14868@accuvax.nwu.edu> BRUCE@ccavax.camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 837, Message 5 of 9 In article <14764@accuvax.nwu.edu>, ac220@cleveland.freenet.edu (Richard Szabo) writes: >> What are the alternatives to the following: My shop runs a data >> network over multi-drop four-wire leased lines to ~80 branch locations >If you have DDS II filed there you should find that you can do the >whole thing with digital ckts. Digital multidrop nets are what the >bank cash machines and lottery agents all use. In the NYC area many of the ATM machines use the local NYTEL X.25 network. Marty [Moderator's Note: This seems to be the case in Chicago also, at least for ATM's run by First National Bank. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Charles "Chip" Roberson Subject: Re: *Long* Phone Calls -- What Does Ma Think? Date: 26 Nov 90 19:36:09 GMT Reply-To: Charles "Chip" Roberson Organization: Alcatel Network Systems, Raleigh NC A friend of mine works from home and also operates a BBS. He recently moved from the Washington, DC area to Raleigh, NC. Apparently it is a common practice for BBSes to take a modem off-hook when the system is down or the sysop is performing maintenance. In DC this wasn't a problem but in Raleigh, every time this happens the phone company disconnects his line and charges him $35 to reconnect his line. He can reconfigure the BBS program to not go off-hook but his mailer can hang the modem in an off-hook state at various times. Needless to say, this has become quite expensive to him. The last time this happened, it wasn't with the BBS it was with his development computer. The power supply started to go on the day before thanksgiving so he turned off the system and replaced the PS the day after Thanksgiving. When he turned it back on, the phone company had cut him off. I think he has had his phone lines re-connected four times over the last month. Is this standard practice for phone companies to react so strongly to off-hook lines? Obviously, he is doing everything he can to avoid leaving his modem off-hook but every now and then he still gets nailed. Is there a more user friendly (cheaper) way to take care/avoid of this? Thanks, chip * Work: 2912 Wake Forest Road, Raleigh, NC 27609 (919) 850-5011 * (...!mcnc!aurgate!roberson) || (roberson%aurgate@mcnc.org) || * (71500.2056@CompuServe.com) || (Chip.Roberson@f112.n151.z1.fidonet.org) #include ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #855 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07465; 1 Dec 90 3:07 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16371; 1 Dec 90 1:23 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06475; 1 Dec 90 0:19 CST Date: Fri, 30 Nov 90 23:41:38 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #856 BCC: Message-ID: <9011302341.ab00911@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 30 Nov 90 23:40:51 CST Volume 10 : Issue 856 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Prodigy Communications Protocol [Amanda Walker] Re: Prodigy Responds to E-Mail Criticism [Robert J. Woodhead] Re: Prodigy Responds to E-Mail Criticism [David Tamkin] Prodigy Reps/Phone Numbers Needed [Bruce Klopfenstein] Re: A Look at Moderator's Phone Bill [David O'Heare] Re: Why Does AT&T Supply ISDN Instead of Local Telco? [Tom Gray] Re: Why Does AT&T Supply ISDN Instead of Local Telco? [David Feustel] Re: Return*Call Humor [Steve Forrette] Re: EED Caller ID Specs [David Tamkin] Re: Polish Payphones Revisited [Wolf Paul] Re: New Area Codes and Intl. Dialling [Mark Brader] Re: New Area Codes and Intl. Dialling [Sergio Gelato] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Amanda Walker Subject: Re: Prodigy Communications Protocol Reply-To: Amanda Walker Organization: Visix Software Inc., Reston, VA Date: Fri, 30 Nov 90 04:49:07 GMT In article <14869@accuvax.nwu.edu>, nelson%odin.corp.sgi.com@sgi.com (Nelson Bolyard) writes: > 'Twouldn't surprise me a bit to see that AT&T revived that technology > [NAPLPS] for Prodigy. Back during my very brief tenure as a Prodigy user, I poked around some in the Macintosh client software (trying to figure out why it was so unfriendly to the rest of the Mac). I ran across several pieces of code that had debugging messages & debugger symbols which referred to NAPLPS. I never peered at the actual data stream, but all of the screen displays are certainly well within the capability of vanilla NAPLPS. The first time I signed on, in fact, my first thought was, "my god, this looks like Telidon back from the grave" :). Amanda Walker ------------------------------ From: trebor@biar.UUCP (Robert J Woodhead) Subject: Re: Prodigy Responds to E-Mail Criticism Date: 28 Nov 90 15:03:45 GMT Organization: Biar Games, Inc. (The PRODIGY response concerning unlimited email) >A small minority of members used the Prodigy Service as a high-volume >"E-mail" network -- something we didn't expect and certainly can't >afford to offer at current rates... >A very small group of members had even created special programs >capable of flooding the network with thousands of messages... >With our launch nationwide on September 6th, we faced a business >decision. We could continue to allow a small group of heavy messagers >to keep pushing up the costs, and pass those costs on to the general >membership in ever-higher fees. Or we could ask those who received >the most value from heavy personal messaging to pay in proportion to >the value they receive. There was only one fair choice. There was another choice; change the software so it cost less! The argument about storage and forwarding is bull, because Prodigy provides the equivalent of moderated newsgroups, a (one) -> (storage, once) -> (many) situation, and you don't hear them getting upset about that. What they seem to be upset about is that one person is sending email to many people, and their software is dutifully filing a copy in each person's mailbox, thus leading to inefficiency. Given that the vast majority of this traffic is in reaction to Prodigy's "editing" of newsgroup traffic, there seem to be two possible solutions: 1) Modify the email system so that it stores each message once, and each user who is a recipient of that message merely gets a pointer to it. This is a *minor* change. 2) Allow user owned/edited forums, accessable only by jumpword, and access restricted. Note that this accomplishes the same as 1) with even fewer software changes. IMHO, as an interested observer and non-Prodigy user, Prodigy is using this "Email costs us too much $" argument as a way to deal with a percieved (by them) loss of control over their product. They are also probably worried about legal issues (are they a common carrier, or an electronic publisher?). Robert J Woodhead, Biar Games, Inc. !uunet!biar!trebor trebor@biar.UUCP ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: Prodigy Responds to E-Mail Criticism Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 18:53:08 CST Prodigy management stated in the letter that Nigel Allen passed along in volume 10, issue 850: | With our launch nationwide on September 6th, we faced a business | decision. We could continue to allow a small group of heavy messagers | to keep pushing up the costs, and pass those costs on to the general | membership in ever-higher fees. Or we could ask those who received | the most value from heavy personal messaging to pay in proportion to | the value they receive. There was only one fair choice. But they chose both, didn't they? They're surcharging for (in their opinion) high volumes of email and also raising membership rates. David Tamkin Box 7002 Des Plaines IL 60018-7002 708 518 6769 312 693 0591 MCI Mail: 426-1818 GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com ------------------------------ From: Bruce Klopfenstein Subject: Prodigy Reps/Phone Numbers Needed Date: 29 Nov 90 06:55:30 GMT Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh. I teach a course in new electronic media at BGSU. I have tried unsuccessfully to contact Prodigy in Ann Arbor, Michigan and Toledo (where service reportedly was to begin in December). A call to a New York office got me voice mail, but no response. Does anyone have a phone number for these guys (perhaps I have been given a bad number for the Detroit area from directory assistance)? Also, with all the criticisms of the email decision, could it be that Prodigy is retrenching? My desire was to get a Prodigy rep to our campus to demonstrate their product for educational purposes. 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: We really must conclude the Prodigy thread at this time. Numerous points of view have been aired and we are beginning to digress from our general theme of telecommunications. Further messages will be limited to *fresh news* if any comes in. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Nov 1990 12:35:26 -0500 From: David O'Heare Subject: Re: A Look at Moderator's Phone Bill Pat: In the look at your phone bill, you say: > I own all my telephones with the exception of one 2-line single turn > button set (lift the left plunger for hold) which belongs to AT&T. So > I get a bill every three months from AT&T Consumer Products, Inc. for > the lease of that phone -- about $20.00. I should go buy a new two > line phone from Radio Shack and give theirs back. Is it possible to buy one of these phones? I assume it's a 500-style set with a turn button -- I would dearly love to have one of those so I could get rid of the poor-quality thing I've got. Any ideas on where a poor Canadian might get one (Ma Bell's reps claim to not know about them)? Dave O'Heare oheare@gandalf.ca +1 613 723 6500 [Moderator's Note: AT&T is selling off quite a bit of their inventory of phones and related stuff. I do not think they are selling the one button, two-line phones. In fact I am almost positive you can only lease them, and that you must be in the USA to do that. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tom Gray Subject: Re: Why Does AT&T Supply ISDN Instead of Local Telco? Date: 28 Nov 90 16:39:38 GMT Reply-To: Tom Gray Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada. In article <14802@accuvax.nwu.edu>, CAPEK%YKTVMT.BITNET (Peter G. Capek) writes: > 1) Why is AT&T, rather than my LEC, supplying ISDN service? ISDN is a set of protocols. Any service provider can use the ISDN protocols for its service. If ATT has a service that it is legally able to provide to an individual site, then it can use ISDN protocols or any other that it sees fit. ISDN is not a service; it is a means of providing services. Both the LEC and AT&T (or any other service provider) will provide their services using ISDN. ISDN is not an end in itself; it is a means of communicating. It will make new serivces possible but will not define or (hopefully) limit them. ------------------------------ From: David Feustel Subject: Re: Why Does AT&T Supply ISDN Instead of Local Telco? Date: 28 Nov 90 23:18:22 GMT Organization: DAFCO - An OS/2 Oasis I've tried to find out about ISDN offerings from GTE of Indiana, but no one there (that I've talked to) knows what ISDN is. David Feustel, 1930 Curdes Ave, Fort Wayne, IN 46805, (219) 482-9631 EMAIL: netcom.uucp ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Nov 90 23:11:17 -0800 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Return*Call Humor Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article <14984@accuvax.nwu.edu> TELECOM Moderator writes: >[Moderator's Note: This raises a good point. When a call reaches you >via forwarding through some other number, does 'return call' go to the >forwarded number or the original caller? Likewise for Call Screening >and Caller-ID: *whose* ID gets passed for the purpose of callback >and/or screening, etc? PAT] I got involved in a conversation with my Pacific Bell friend last week about just this issue. He's working on implementing all the new SS7 stuff on the DMS-100's. Apparently, they consider the person actually placing the call to be the "Caller" with respect to "Caller ID." It doesn't matter if there are several "hops" of forwarding - the original number will display. Also, we talked about how this works with ISDN. There will be display sets which can display both the calling number and the called number. So, a secretary, upon receiving a call, can tell not only the number of the calling party, but the number they called (very useful in the case where the call no-answer transferred to the secretary, and where there are several numbers that no-answer transfer to the same place). Of course, I just had to ask the question: "What if there are several hops of no-answer transfer or call forwarding?" In this case, the original calling number and the original called number will be displayed, regardless of any subsequent transfers. This gives the answerer complete information: who is calling, and who they think they called. ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: EED Caller ID Specs Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 18:49:57 CST Dan Hepner wrote in volume 10, issue 851: | The proposed Pac Bell scheme doesn't allow for easy | limiting of incoming calls to only those which contain CID info. It's easy enough: look at your CID display, and if it says "blocked," "private," or "refused," don't pick up the phone. David Tamkin Box 7002 Des Plaines IL 60018-7002 708 518 6769 312 693 0591 MCI Mail: 426-1818 GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com ------------------------------ From: Wolf PAUL Subject: Re: Polish Payphones Revisited Date: 29 Nov 90 08:53:14 GMT Reply-To: Wolf PAUL Organization: Intl. Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria In article <14999@accuvax.nwu.edu> KLUB@maristb.bitnet (Richard Budd) writes: >While staying in Wroclaw (Breslau), Poland, there was a news item on TV that >the city had installed the nation's first public telephones >activitated through credit cards. I couldn't understand the fine >details because it was in Polish. From what my host explained to me, >the credit cards are issued by the telephone company and you insert >them into a slot in the telephone and then dial the number. No word >yet how successful people have been with their calls. Actually these probably don't accept credit cards, but pre-paid phone cards such as are used in several West European countries as well. Austria, Belgium (I think) and the UK use phone cards where the information is stored magnetically; Germany uses phone cards with a tiny chip on them. Their main attraction is in countries with a low density of private phones, where most people use public phones most of the time. Credit cards would be impractical since there would not be a home phone account to charge them to. I also doubt that credit cards would find much public acceptance in the recently-liberated societies of Eastern Europe. You buy them in stores (different depending on country) and they come in denominations such as 100 units, or 200 units (Austria), or UKL 5 or 10 (UK), etc. The cards even from the same system, such as UK and Austria, are not compatible: it seems they do contain some coding difference, or else have a PTT identifier code readable by the equipment. Thus, a UK card will not work in Austria and vice versa. Of course the German Microchip cards don't work anywhere else either, nor would one expect them to. W.N.Paul, Int. Institute f. Applied Systems Analysis, A-2361 Laxenburg--Austria PHONE: +43-2236-71521-465 INTERNET: wnp%iiasa@relay.eu.net FAX: +43-2236-71313 UUCP: uunet!iiasa!wnp HOME: +43-2236-618514 BITNET: tuvie!iiasa!wnp@awiuni01.BITNET ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Nov 1990 23:13:00 -0500 From: Mark Brader Subject: Re: New Area Codes and Intl. Dialling Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada > Try dialling 19 44 81 603 xxxx, and see if you get a French intercept. > [Moderator's Note: I just now tried it from Chicago, USA. It accepted > the entire number (that is, 011-44-81-603-four more), and the response > to me on each of several attempts was the same recorded announcement > ... Instead of playing the French recording to > me, when AT&T heard something 'go wrong' over there, it yanked the > connection back and played an English language message instead. PAT] Well, it presumably was an AT&T message, or you would have noticed an accent. But, although the quoted sentence refers to France and an earlier part of that message did pertain to France, the country where the above number would be (if it existed) *is* one where English is spoken. Well, a sort of English, anyway... :-) Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 19:21 EST From: Sergio Gelato Subject: Re: New Area Codes and Intl. Dialling In article <14934@accuvax.nwu.edu> U5437880@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au writes: >Try dialling 19 44 81 603 xxxx, and see if you get a French intercept. >[Moderator's Note: I just now tried it from Chicago, USA. It accepted >the entire number (that is, 011-44-81-603-four more), and the response >to me on each of several attempts was the same recorded announcement: >You call cannot be completed by the telephone company in the country >you are calling at this time. Please try your call again later." >Interestingly, my call had left Chicago, gotten out of the USA and was >sitting in limbo somewhere. Instead of playing the French recording to >me, when AT&T heard something 'go wrong' over there, it yanked the >connection back and played an English language message instead. PAT] One good reason why the Moderator didn't get a French language intercept with this number (+44 81 etc.) is that 44 is the country code for the United Kingdom (that of France being 33). A French intercept may have been expected only if he had dialled the number from France, where "+" translates to "19~". This does not invalidate the conclusion about who generated the intercept message. Sergio Gelato [Moderator's Note: The emphasis is on the wrong thing here. It is not so much that it was an English speaking country, i.e. UK instead of a French speaking country, but that AT&T yanked the cord when the network sensed it wasn't getting anywhere on the other end for some reason, and substituted an AT&T recording. The conection to the UK was made, I know I had gotten as far as some switch in the UK, but no ring/no answer/no busy signal. In a few seconds, bing! I am back on the AT&T switch here in Chicago (apparently) being told the foreign telephone company can't handle it right now. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #856 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14639; 1 Dec 90 11:10 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17615; 1 Dec 90 9:30 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12652; 1 Dec 90 8:25 CST Date: Sat, 1 Dec 90 7:47:04 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #857 BCC: Message-ID: <9012010747.ab20086@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 1 Dec 90 07:46:52 CST Volume 10 : Issue 857 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Phone Service in the UK Two Decades Ago [Barry Mitchell] Western Union Clocks in Omaha [Paul Schleck] Using 10732 to Route AT&T Calls [Bill Crane] Distinctive Ring Based Call Distributor [T.R. Rajha] Forwarded Calls and Caller*ID [Nicholas J. Simicich] For Telecom-ers Who Live up North [Peter G. Capek] Running Your Own Long Distance Company [J. Philip Miller] Apocryphal T1 Story? [Sandy Kyrish] General Datacom DTX-2000s [Victor Cericole] Dealing With Phone Tampering [Kenneth H. Lee] Cardphones (was: Polish Payphones Revisited) [Deryck Fay] Re: Last Laugh! What is the Area Code For Outer Space? [John Murray] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 10:36:05 EST From: Barry Mitchell Subject: Phone Service in the UK Two Decades Ago When I lived in England in 1970 the phone systems there were almost the same as those described in the previous messages. A telephone number (area code, etc) was not the same throughout the country. From one city, your home number would be something totally different from what it would be in another city. The result being that if you were out of your home town and wanted to call home, you couldn't just dial it from memory ... you had to find a local telephone book with all the right codes. I don't know if they have updated the system since then but it made me appreciate the convenience and value that we receive here in the US and North America. Where else can you order a pizza from a cellular phone while driving home and have the delivery person be there waiting on you when you arrive home? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 23:45:43 EST From: Paul Schleck Subject: Western Union Clocks in Omaha Reply-to: Paul.Schleck@f27.n285.z1.fidonet.org Thanks for all the replies to my announcement of finding Western Union clocks. Rather than replying the preferred route via a phone call or via my Internet address, most people sent me mail to the Inns of Court BBS, which I don't have reply capability for netmail on. They also gave complicated UUCP "bang" paths, many of which did not work. Both of the brown metal 15" Western Union clocks are spoken for, one by me, another by a quick replier from New York. The dealer DOES have a Bulova model (minus works) plus a "New York Self-Winding Clock Company" model in an oak case. The Bulova is "not for sale" (i.e. bargain for it). The oak model is $250. Those who would like the dealer's name may contact me via my Internet address or via the telephone. Paul W. Schleck pschleck@alf.unomaha.edu (402) 291-6176 --- Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.12 r.5 [1:285/27@fidonet] Neb. Inns of Court 402/593-1192 (1:285/27.0) --- Through FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 Paul.Schleck@f27.n285.z1.fidonet.org ------------------------------ From: bill@daysinns.UUCP (Bill Crane) Subject: Using 10732 To Route AT&T Calls Date: 29 Nov 90 21:29:22 GMT Reply-To: bill@daysinns.UUCP (Bill Crane) Organization: Days Inns of America BRUCE@ccavax.camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) writes: > I have a situation where a customer is an ATT SDN user (all calls > default to 10732 rather than 10288), and 10xxx routing is definitely > [Moderator's Note: Could we please have a little more information > about the use of '10732' for routing of calls? Thanks. PAT] '10732' is the PIC that AT&T has defined for their SDN customers. Using 10732 will allow the caller to complete the call at the (lower) SDN rates. It's my understanding that the number from where the call originates must have authorization to use this PIC or else the call will not go through (this prevents non SDN subscribers from completing a call on the SDN network). Bill Crane ...!gatech!daysinns!bill Days Inns of America Inc bill%daysinns@gatech.edu 2751 Buford Hwy NE Atlanta GA 30324 [Moderator's Note: I'm not locked out or restricted from using it. I just now placed a couple test calls: 10732-1-202-653-1800, 10732-0, and 10732-1-700-555-4141. The first two completed just fine, and on the second one the AT&T operator had my number come up on the tube when she answered me. The last one resulted in a message, "the number you dialed cannot be reached with the carrier access code you have chosen." I wonder if when the bill comes I'll get the additional reduction in price along with the sizeable discounts I get already as an ROA 24-Hour Plan / ROW Plan user? PAT] ------------------------------ From: "T.R. Rajha" Subject: Distinctive Ring Based Call Distributor Date: 29 Nov 90 17:51:43 GMT Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA There was an article posted here some time ago, describing a product called FONE FILTER that routes calls to telephones, fax machine, computer, etc. in response to distinctive rings. It was also mentioned that the device was priced at $ 79.95 and was available from South Tech Instruments, Inc. Any idea where this company is located ? The toll free number that was posted seems to belong to a kitchenware supply company in Illinois. If you have any information on this or similar products that make use of distinctive ringing, please send me email at: rajha@girtab.usc.edu or rajha@cs5.usc.edu Thanks. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Nov 90 13:29:42 EST From: "Nicholas J. Simicich" Reply-To: Nick Simicich Subject: Forwarded Calls and CallerID In article <14952@accuvax.nwu.edu> weave@brahms.udel.edu (Ken Weaverling) describes how his girl friend had "Return*called" a crank call, yelling at the caller, only to have that person return the call and act as if she were the crank caller. Various people come up with various complicated explanations about how the phone system might have been confused by call forwarding, or people where the callback call was answered might have been either without knowledge or confused, or even intentional dupes. The simplest explanation is the one that seems to be ignored by most people: The phone switching system simply misrouted the Return*Call, or garbled the number it remembered. Nick Simicich (NJS at WATSON on bitnet, njs@ibm.com) SSI AOWI #3958, HSA #318 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Nov 90 23:44:28 EST From: "Peter G. Capek" Subject: For Telecom-ers Who Live up North {The New York Times} Travel section this past Sunday mentioned an interesting device called a Telefreeze. It connects to a phone line and makes the line go "off hook" when the ambient temperature goes below a preset limit. The idea is that you would periodically call home (or your ski house..) and if you get a busy, call a neighbor/plumber/heating contractor to investigate before the pipes freeze. Available through dealers and plumbers. The manufacturer is Telefreeze Company at 516-288-4451; contact there is Preston Brown. Usual disclaimers apply. Please, let's not resurrect the discussion about whether this device is transmitting a message and thereby depriving some corporation of revenue. In this vein, I'd mention that there exist similar devices which can be used to turn on a light when the temperature drops. I have one which cost about $25, and an adjustable temperature setting. Peter Capek ------------------------------ From: "J. Philip Miller" Subject: Running Your Own Long Distance Company Organization: Division of Biostatistics, WUMS, St. Louis, MO Date: Fri, 30 Nov 90 11:38:01 GMT The {St. Louis Post Dispatch} this morning carries a story about William Outten, the owner of an answering service in surburban St. Louis who is now offering "free" long distance calls from Jefferson county into St. Louis. Utilizing a scheme often mentioned here, he has been leasing lines which allow unlimited calling into St. Louis and then allowing his customers to connect with them with three-way calling. He originally was charging his customers $.03/min while SWBT charges .30 for the first min and .17 for each additional meeting. According to the Post he was collecting $2,500/mo from his customers and paying Bell $700. The PSC stopped this practice in September and are now seeking a court order to stop the current practice. Outten claims that now he is not offering telephone service and that he should be treated no differently than anyone else who utilizes three-way calling. The PSC accuses him of "blatently skirting" state regulations. It is not clear whether the equipment utilized to make the connections is commercially available equipment or of Outten's own design. He is described as a "telephone nut" and the equipment as a circuit the size of a sheet of paper contained within a toolbox bolted to the wall in his answering service. He describes it as "This is something you don't learn in college." A decison is expected next week. J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067 Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110 phil@wubios.WUstl.edu - Internet (314) 362-3617 uunet!wuarchive!wubios!phil - UUCP (314)362-2693(FAX) C90562JM@WUVMD - bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Nov 90 14:08 GMT From: Sandy Kyrish <0003209613@mcimail.com> Subject: Apocryphal T1 Story? Another "set the record straight" question: did the decision to establish the T1 standard as 24 voice channels have something to do with the distance between New York City manholes, etc.? An informal history about T1 would be of interest to me, as well as an explanation as to why the European T1 std. is different. Also, thanks to all who responded publicly and privately to my Prodigy question. I welcome any future information you would like to pass along about that service, or about RBOCs' planned entry into residential broadband services. ------------------------------ From: Victor Cericole Subject: General Datacom DTX-2000s Date: 30 Nov 90 14:40:19 GMT Organization: University of Delaware We've got some General Datacom DTX-2000 DOV units that require maintenance. If you're using these beasties, I got a couple of questions that need answering. They are: 1) where are you getting them repaired? and 2) how much are you paying to get them fixed? We're shopping around for the best bang for our few bucks. Could you please email me a response? I can be reached at: cericole@brahms.udel.edu Thanks, Victor ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Nov 90 16:19:42 EST From: "Kenneth H. Lee" Subject: Dealing With Phone Tampering I've been having a problem with my roommate tampering with my phone service. We live on the third floor of a three family house in which all the phone services come into his room. I have the wiring from my room running to a bridge near the network interface (NI). I then plug in the modular cable from the bridge into the NI. The problem is that he has on occasion disconnected my phone service at the NI. Both times I found out because I couldn't raise my answering machine while at work and found the line disconnected once I got home. The twit is doing it to annoy me and has admitted that is what he is trying to achieve. I called New York Telephone and the customer service rep says that there is nothing that they can do because the demarcation point falls inside a private home/apartment and there is legally nothing they can do. If it was elsewhere in the building where it would be accessible to other people they would be able to do something about relocating the NI without charge. The rep was trying to help but couldn't think of anything that could be done. He even thought of the Annoyance Bureau, but this isn't a case of annoying phone calls. I even asked if I could have a complaint letter attached to his file and they said that this was not possible. Do I have any recourse? Is there anything I can do at this point? Raise it to higher level management within the phone company? Complain to the Public Utilities Commision? Complain to the FCC? I want to get some sort of official complaint on record somewhere. I don't appreciate people messing around with my phone service and find that I can't have him fined or warned. Thanks, Kenneth H. Lee khl@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu Columbia University rutgers!columbia!cunixf!khl 209 Watson, 612 West 115 Street khlcu@cuvmc.bitnet New York, NY 10025 (212) 854-8027 [Moderator's Note: Neither the FCC, the PUC or NY Tel is going to involve themselves in what is essentially a domestic dispute between yourself and the person you live with. NY Tel cannot really tell someone (your roomate) they can or cannot disconnect wires in their private home. Did you choose this roommate? If so, why not *unchoose* him? The landlord should also be aware of this. If you and the roommate are sharing this area through no choice of your own, i.e. you were assigned by the university, then ask for a different assignment if possible, making it known to the housing officials why you wish to move. Another alternative is have NY Bell move *your* wires off of the demarc in his room to a new one under your control. Even though you have to pay, it might be worth it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dpfay@vax1.tcd.ie Subject: Cardphones (was: Polish Payphones Revisited) Date: 29 Nov 90 17:44:14 GMT Organization: Trinity College Dublin In article <14999@accuvax.nwu.edu>, KLUB@maristb.bitnet (Richard Budd) writes: > While staying in Wroclaw (Breslau), there was a news item on TV that > the city had installed the nation's first public telephones > activitated through credit cards. I couldn't understand the fine > details because it was in Polish. From what my host explained to me, > the credit cards are issued by the telephone company and you insert > them into a slot in the telephone and then dial the number. Similar systems using pre-paid cards for public phones are common in most European countries. You buy a card, normally from a post office or newsagent, which is worth a certain number of units. The units are deducted from the card as you speak. There seem to be three systems in use: * a 'smart card' with an in-built chip, used in France, Germany and Ireland * a holographic system used in Austria and by British Telecom in the U.K. * a magnetic card system used in Italy. I think the Mercury phones in the U.K. also use a magnetic system. The use of card phones is becoming increasingly common: in France coin-operated payphones (without a queue) can be hard to find. I think the reason for their absence in the U.S. is their dependence on meter pulsing for billing. > ... Telephone calls in > Poland are an exercise in patience. Just as a BTW, I had no problems making international calls from payphones in Czechoslovakia this autumn. Line quality to Ireland and West Germany was excellent. Deryck Fay Department of Geography DPFAY@VAX1.TCD.IE Trinity College Dublin 2 ------------------------------ From: John Murray Subject: Re: Last Laugh! What is the Area Code For Outer Space? Date: 28 Nov 90 15:10:21 GMT Organization: SCRI, Florida State University In article <14848@accuvax.nwu.edu> johnp@hpgrla.gr.hp.com (John Parsons) writes: #> Perhaps it would be much simpler for all concerned if the telcos were #> simply to switch to 8-digit numbers for all of Southern California. #> Of course, it could then be given a two-digit "country code" :-). #Given that this is the home of Disneyland, Hollywood, etc., perhaps #"planet code" would be more appropriate! ;-) Hey! Then I would be perfectly correct the next time I say "I'm really not from this planet..!" :-) Disclaimer: Any opinions above (or below) have nothing to do with reality. John R. Murray murray@vsjrm.scri.fsu.edu Supercomputer Research Inst. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #857 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21292; 1 Dec 90 18:29 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26285; 1 Dec 90 16:45 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22213; 1 Dec 90 15:40 CST Date: Sat, 1 Dec 90 15:30:17 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #858 BCC: Message-ID: <9012011530.ab25172@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 1 Dec 90 15:30:13 CST Volume 10 : Issue 858 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: The "Bell" Logo [Michael Graff] Re: Sprint Visa-Phone [Ed Belisle] Re: Return*Call Humor [John Boteler] Re: Establishing a UUCP Site [Alan Millar] Re: Questions About the GTE Airfone [John R. Covert] Re: Hangup Indication [Tad Cook] Re: Answering Machine Beeps But Does Not Take Message [Tom Ohmer] Re: Lower Hotel Charges [Charles "Chip" Roberson] Re: *Long* Phone Calls -- What Does Ma Think? [John Higdon] Re: New 410 Code for MD [Carl Moore] No Call Waiting Until Supervised [Ed Greenberg] Re: Dialing Own Number Brings a Surprise [Andy Jacobson] What Number am I? [Gary D. Archer] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 29 Nov 90 11:21:01 PST From: Michael Graff Subject: Re: The "Bell" Logo Reply-To: graff@mlpvm2.iinus1.ibm.com In issue 848, Douglas Scott Reuben writes: > As to Pac*Bell, well, they kept the word "Bell", but I guess the > like the highly original asterisk symbol a lot better! :-) (They > must have searched REALLY hard for that logo! "Gee ... let's use > one of the buttons on the phone!") You'll appreciate a COCOT I saw last night. In a font that looked pretty close to the one used by PACIFIC*BELL, it said WESTERN#BELL. I guess other companies will have to use one of the digits, or perhaps they can use a word with DEF or TUV or OPER in it. :-) I had very little time to play with it, but at first glance it seemed to be pretty reasonable for a COCOT. Dialing 10288 did not get an immediate intercept message. The label explicitly stated that MCI was the default carrier. I'm not sure whether the name and logo for WESTERN#BELL was meant to be deceptive, or if it was an inside joke. Probably some of both. Michael ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Nov 90 19:23 GMT From: Ed Belisle <0003747957@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Sprint Visa-Phone In TELECOM Digest V10 #852, John Slater asks for more information on Sprint's VisaPhone. I don't know know about Sprint, but MCI VisaPhone has been available since February. There's an 800 access number. You use your Visa card number and a four digit PIN (given to you when you sign up) Rates are $0.18/min Day, $0.13/min Evening, and $0.10/min Night/Weekend. There is a $0.70 surcharge per call. Right now there is a promotion for $5.00 credit/certificate with your second month's bill. To get MCI VisaPhone (and your PIN) you can sign up your Visa Card by calling MCI (1-800-444-4444, Option 4). Ed Belisle MCI Consultant Liaison 703-506-6353 ------------------------------ From: John Boteler Subject: Re: Return*Call Humor Organization: Common Sense Computing, McLean, VA. Date: Thu, 29 Nov 90 13:25:27 GMT PAT writes: > This raises a good point. When a call reaches you > via forwarding through some other number, does 'return call' go to the > forwarded number or the original caller? Likewise for Call Screening > and Caller-ID: *whose* ID gets passed for the purpose of callback > and/or screening, etc? [ Author's Note: As discussed previously, Calling Line ID is what the name says it is: the ID of the line calling you is displayed and used for CLASS treatment. Forwarding Line ID is another spec yet to be offered as far as I know. If you *69 the sucker, it goes back to the caller, not the forwarder. ] John Boteler bote@csense {uunet | ka3ovk}!media!csense!bote SkinnyDipper's Hotline: 703 241 BARE | VOICE only, Touch-Tone(TM) signalling ------------------------------ From: AMillar@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: Establishing a UUCP Site Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 21:18:05 PST >I would like to ask how can one "make" a UUCP site, in particular, I >have a PC and a modem, is it possible to have my home computer as a >UUCP site ? What are the software, OS, tools ... etc that are needed >to do that, What are the costs incurred before and after establishing >the site ? If you can, join the Usenet newgroup called comp.mail.uucp Home uucp sites are a never-ending topic of discussion. Requirements and software availability are common topics. Alan Millar AMillar@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Nov 90 21:11:27 PST From: "John R. Covert 29-Nov-1990 1017" Subject: Re: Questions About the GTE Airfone >1. How is the credit card verified ? Are they all stored on board >and downloaded after the airplane lands, or is it real-time ? I'm 99% sure it's real-time, done during call setup. >2. What happens if everyone wanted to place a call at the same time? >On the jet I was on, that would be 56 phones in use at the same time. >Quite a multiplexer/transceiver, if that's how it's done. Only a small number of phones can be in use at one time. Other callers will get a recording telling them "Please wait for the dial tone." >3. How is frequency assignment done for numerous planes in the same >local area (i.e. 20 planes backed up, waiting for takeoff at O'Hare)? Similar to land-based cellular phones. However, Airfone is not supposed to work on the ground. There may be airports close enough to airfone cell sites that it works at some of them, but it is an "in-flight" service. >4. Has anyone tried a ringback or number announcement from the phone >? I know the phones aren't capable of actually receiving a call or >ringing, but it would be interesting to see what happens. Those sort of numbers are blocked. The phone accepts only NPA-NXX-XXXX or 011+CC+... >5. Is there a nationwide cellular-like network for these phones, i.e. >the ground station hands off the call(s) to the next station when the >plane leaves the service area ? There is a nationwide network, but there is no hand-off. john ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Hangup Indication From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Date: 28 Nov 90 23:49:13 GMT References: <14947@accuvax.nwu.edu> In article <14947@accuvax.nwu.edu>, zweig@cs.uiuc.edu (Johnny Zweig) writes: > I was just listening to the seventeenth message in a row on my > answering machine that says "If you would like to make a call, please > hang up and try it again" and got to thinking: for POTS, what > indicator is there that the party on the other end of a connection has > hung up? Is it just the dialtone(*), or is there some other kind of > signal (line-voltage, say) that lets you know? In most modern electronic offices there is a signal called the CPC Pulse (I don't know what CPC stands for ... Calling Party Control maybe??) that happens when the other party goes on hook. It is a brief interruption in battery on the line. Many answering machines can respond to this, so that they will reset and stop recording when the other party hangs up. My Panasonic machine even has a CPC switch on the bottom for disabling this feature. Unfortunately, there is no signal to tell you when the called party has gone off hook ... which is why COCOTs have problems deciding when to collect your coin. 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 ------------------------------ From: Tom Ohmer Subject: Re: Answering Machine Beeps But Does Not Take Message Date: 30 Nov 90 14:07:41 GMT Organization: Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, Columbus From article <14931@accuvax.nwu.edu>, by john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon): < Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) writes: <> What is the meaning of the aforementioned beep? <> [on a machine that announces that it does not record messages from <> callers] < This beep is your signal that the TV station in question is too cheap < or lazy to obtain an answering device that has an "announce-only" < function. [] Mine (Tandy/Radio Shack) has an "announce" function, and behaves precisely as Carl described. When the OGM tape head senses the foil at the end/beginning of the loop, the beep sounds and the OGM stops, regardless of "answer" or "announce" mode. The *meaning* of the beep, to me, would be that the announcement was completed. Tom Ohmer @ Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, DSAC-AMB, Bldg. 27-6, P.O. Box 1605, Columbus, OH 43216-5002 UUCP: ...osu-cis!dsac!tohmer INTERNET: tohmer@dsac.dla.mil Phone: (614) 238-8059 AutoVoN: 850-8059 #include ------------------------------ From: Charles "Chip" Roberson Subject: Re: Lower Hotel Charges Date: 30 Nov 90 16:20:14 GMT Reply-To: Charles "Chip" Roberson Organization: Alcatel Network Systems, Raleigh NC In article <14880@accuvax.nwu.edu> news@accuvax.nwu.edu (USENET News System) writes: >I recently read a tip on saving multiple charges on outgoing AT&T >credit card calls from hotel rooms. >press the # key on the push button telephone to place your next call. Does MCI or US Sprint offer anything like this? chip * Work: 2912 Wake Forest Road, Raleigh, NC 27609 (919) 850-5011 * (...!mcnc!aurgate!roberson) || (roberson%aurgate@mcnc.org) || * (71500.2056@CompuServe.com) || (Chip.Roberson@f112.n151.z1.fidonet.org) #include [Moderator's Note: The back of my Spint FON card says 'press # for one full second to make another call ...' PAT] ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: *Long* Phone Calls -- What Does Ma Think? Date: 30 Nov 90 10:30:56 PST (Fri) From: John Higdon Charles "Chip" Roberson writes: > but in Raleigh, every time this happens the phone company > disconnects his line and charges him $35 to reconnect his line. > Is this standard practice for phone companies to react so strongly to > off-hook lines? No, it is not. And there is absolutely no reason, given any switch other than SXS to behave in this manner. It is a scam to increase revenue and nothing else. In any common control switch (virtually anything other than SXS, electronic or mechanical), provision has been made for PS (unintentional off-hook lines). After a maximum of 30 seconds, the register that receives incoming dialing is released and the line is connected to a howler trunk and then to a PS holding trunk. Telcos usually have the PS holding trunk set to return the line to service automatically when the fault is cleared. The only facility being used by a PSed line in the end is a position on the PS trunk bank, which should have more than enough capacity for any condition short of cable failure. What if the PS was caused by a cable splicer or lineman? Would you still have to pay $35? How would you prove it? The only thing close to this practice that I am aware of in CA concerns DID trunks on a 1/1AESS. The customer's PBX normally supplies battery back to the CO. If this battery is lost for more than 30 seconds or so, either because of switch failure or momentary disconnection of the pair, the CO switch busys out the trunk "permanently". To restore it, it is necessary to call repair service and have them reset the trunk. This is done at no charge. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Nov 90 18:40:49 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: New 410 Code for MD Do you know of any reasons for: 1. relatively short notice of this change 2. long time for permissive dialing (unless it's just a logical followup to item 1 immediately above) Baltimore, for those of you who don't know, is big enough to make a distinction between city and suburban exchange (and it's getting the new area code). Other such big cities in the mid-Atlantic area are New York City, Philadelphia, and Washington DC. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Nov 90 08:39 PST From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Subject: No Call Waiting Until Supervised >Pac*Bell Weenie Note: In the Pac*Bell implementations of the 1AESS >(W.E. should never have provided them with the source!), you would >still get busy, even when dialing through Telecom*USA. PB's generic >will not allow CW or 3W until the first call is supervised. Pac*Bell >had some lame reason for doing this, but I forgot what it was. I think I like this feature ... It never occurred to me that it should work any differently. If your call hasn't supervised, and you get a call waiting, and answer it, your called party (of the first part :-) stands a good chance of answering and already being on hold. Also, you're already listening to ring or busy tone. Now you have to pick call waiting tones out of the tone jungle. Finally, what about a call that is abandoned half dialed and off-hook, or a line left off hook, or shorted? Surely that should return busy. When do you disable call-waiting? When the line goes to permanent signal? I also think that the CO implementation of traditional PBX features such as three way and call waiting should be a bit more idiot-friendly than their PBX counterparts. (Yes, I know, build an idiot-proof system, and only an idiot will be willing to use it.) Does anybody think that this is an incorrect philosophy? Is anyone REALLY bothered by not being able to get a C.W. while originating a call? edg ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 01 Dec 90 01:41 PST From: Andy Jacobson Subject: Re: Dialing Own Number Brings a Surprise I should note that from the GTD-5 and 2EAX switches here in GTE-land, just dialing your own number is how you get ringback. (See TELECOM Digest Guide to Special Prefixes/Numbers.) In TELECOM Digest, V10 #855, John Higdon writes: >Pac*Bell Weenie Note: In the Pac*Bell implementations of the 1AESS >(W.E. should never have provided them with the source!), you would >still get busy, even when dialing through Telecom*USA. PB's generic >will not allow CW or 3W until the first call is supervised. Pac*Bell >had some lame reason for doing this, but I forgot what it was. With 3W, I assume Pac*Bell does this to prevent you from invoking the second dial tone if you're trying to hang up (with no answer), and dial again . GTE's 1E software thankfully does this too at least within the same CO. (I say thankfully, as it seems you have to go on hook for an eternity of 3 or 4 seconds to get rid of the first call before getting fresh dial tone.) Another reason I can see for Pac*Bell's implementation would be so that you don't switch to the second call before the first called party answers, to dead air. This would also prevent you from crank connecting two calls to each other before they answer. (This sort of "mix and match"ing is probably a major crank caller fantasy.) With CW, dead air also applies. Might there also be some detection problem if you come back from CW (switchhook flash) at the same instant that the first called party answers (DC reversal or voltage drop as supervision begins)? With CW looped outside the local switch, GTE differs. If I call number A (GTD-5 switch) from number B (1AESS) that number A is forwarded to, I get CW beep before I hear distant ringing. I can flash to put the orig segment on hold and answer the loop around, and flash back and forth to my heart's content (always with one segment or the other on hold). Supervision would appear to play no part in it. However, when I hang up on either segment, it does not ring me to tell me that there is a call on hold. Though logically, if I hang up on the loop around segment it should This gets to be rather abstract stuff after a while. Andy Jacobson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Nov 90 13:07:18 PST From: "Gary D. Archer" Subject: What Number am I? In the 408 ac calling 760-xxxx results in an automatic voice readback of the number you're calling from. It goes pretty quickly and you must listen carefully. It also disconnects right after the seven digit number. I don't know if this is available dialing from a GTE area or from outside the 408 area. PS ... you don't have to dial more than 760- and let it time out. It will read your number, disconnect and then return dial tone. Gary ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #858 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09760; 2 Dec 90 18:28 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01226; 2 Dec 90 16:26 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08227; 2 Dec 90 15:20 CST Date: Sun, 2 Dec 90 14:47:02 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #859 BCC: Message-ID: <9012021447.ab06839@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 2 Dec 90 14:46:54 CST Volume 10 : Issue 859 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Tokyo Telephone Numbers Are About to Change [Craig R. Watkins] Canadian Radio-Television and Telecom Commission Annual Report [N. Allen] Long Distance Billing Systems [Mark Oberg] Hello Direct's Conference Phone [Jon Sreekanth] Announcement: The Great Caller*ID Debate [Peter G. Capek] Odd Response When Line is Busy [Joseph Tucker] ACD Headset Vendors Needed [Bill Crane] Re: IDG Hackers [Kurt Baumann] Re: *Long* Phone Calls -- What Does Ma Think? [Ed Greenberg] Re: Finland Wants 37!! [Richard Budd] Re: US Sprint Offers Conference Calling [Mark Steiger] Tymnet Information in Archives [TELECOM Moderator] Administrivia: (non) Delivery of comp.dcom.telecom? [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Craig R. Watkins" Subject: Tokyo Telephone Numbers Are About to Change Date: 1 Dec 90 22:35:03 EST Organization: HRB Systems I got a notice in the mail from NTT (not exactly sure why) stressing that Tokyo telephone numbers are about to change on December 31st at noon EST. They claim: "You'll need to dial a '3' before seven-digit telephone numbers in Tokyo." They show this change as: 81-3-3123-4567 - added three --------- telephone number - area code -- country code "Most telephone numbers in Tokyo are about to undergo a simple but necessary change to make more numbers available for new telephone lines. An extra digit, a '3,' will be added to all seven-digit telephone numbers." Also directly from the notice: Q: There are already some eight-digit telephone numbers in Tokyo. Will these change? A: No. All current eight-digit numbers in the "3" area code will stay the same. Q: Can I dial the new eight-digit numbers now? A: No. The change will not go into effect until noon EST on December 31. If you dial the new eight-digit numbers before that time you'll get a wrong number. Q: What happens if I dial the old number after the change? A: You'll reach a recorded message which will tell you how to dial the right number. And above all ... please remember to reprogram all Tokyo telephone numbers in your fax machine's memory from noon EST on December 31. Also, don't forget telephone numbers in the memory of autodial telephones, computers and other communications equipment. (They also included stickers describing the change to stick on fax machines, etc.) 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: Sat, 1 Dec 90 08:46 EST From: Nigel Allen Subject: Canadian Radio-Television and Telecom Commission Annual Report Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada. If you would like to receive a free copy of the CRTC's annual report, write to: Information Services, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N2, Canada, telephone (819) 997-0313, or fax (819) 994-0218. (No e-mail address, interestingly enough.) The CRTC is Canada's counterpart to the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, regulating both broadcasting and telecommunications. Like most Canadian government agencies, it is more interventionist than its U.S. counterpart, and studying the annual report will give you some insights into what Canadian communications policy is like and how it is made. (Canada also has a Cabinet-level Department of Communications. If you would like to receive *its* annual report, just write to: Information Services, Department of Communications, Government of Canada, 300 Slater Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0C8, Canada.) Here is part of the CRTC news release about its report: CRTC Annual Report Cites Balacing Public, Industry and Policy Objectives as Guiding Principles for Regulation OTTAWA/HULL, November 15, 1990 -- The CRTC today released its 1989-90 Annual Report outlining the Commission's major decisions and initiatives over the past fiscal year, as well as key issues for the future. This year, the CRTC's Annual Report also provides an overview and statistics on public complaints filed with the Commission. "Overall, the focus of the Commission has been on making our broadcasting and telecommunications systems more Canadian, more affordable, and more competitive wherever competition serves the public interest," said newly-appointed CRTC Chairman David Colville. In the area of telecommunications, CRTC actions resulted in lower long-distance rates; a climate more favourable to competition; as well as the extension of basic telephone service, and, the introduction of new telecommunications services. Key telecommunications initiatives included: * assuming jurisdiction over the major Atlantic telephone companies in line with the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada; * new rates for Bell Canada's and the British Columbia Telephone Company's competitive network services; * reducing overseas telephone rates; * substantial decreases in long distance rates for Bell Canada, B.C. Tel, and Northwestel subscribers. Disclaimer: None of the above organizations has me on its payroll. Nigel Allen ndallen@contact.uucp 52 Manchester Avenue telephone (416) 535-8916; fax (416) 978-7552 Toronto, Ontario, Canada M6G 1V3 ------------------------------ From: Mark Oberg Subject: Long Distance Billing Systems Date: 30 Nov 90 17:39:52 GMT Organization: Eric's PC Beltsville MD My company is looking for billing software which is used by a long distance service provider. As this is a fairly specialized type of program, we are having a difficult time finding the right thing. If anyone in this newsgroup works for or knows of a company which sells this type of software, please reply to this request. Mark_Oberg!f506!n109!z1!fidonet.org or: uunet!hadron!lsw!grout!mark or: No Place Like Home BBS - 301/596-6450 Fidonet 1:109/506 Voice phone: NATel, Inc. 301/381-8588 ------------------------------ From: Jon Sreekanth Subject: Hello Direct's Conference Phone Date: 1 Dec 90 10:26:05 In my latest Hello Direct catalog (Winter 90), on the back cover, there's a "conference phone" advertised. It's about the size of a large hardcover, and it looks pretty slick, and attaches to a normal phone jack. "VoicePoint Teleconferencer tunes itself to phone line, room size, and acoustics, handles conference rooms of 2 - 12 people. Virtually eliminates echo and feedback ... digital echo cancellation eliminates echo and feedback - without clipping words like old fashioned simplex speakerphones ... " The process seems straightforward enough, and as a matter of fact, it was something I'd thought of a while ago, so I feel a proprietary interest :-) in it. Hello Direct does not say who makes it, but carefully squinting at the photo, I think I see NEC's logo on the right bottom corner. At any rate, the blurb claims it's a "Conference phone breakthrough!" and sells it for about $1295. Questions: Is such a product really new? Seems obvious. The moment I bought a speaker phone earlier this year, I realized it was simplex, and there could be a need for full duplex. Second, does it cost $1295? Is it harder to do room echo cancellation than what a cheap full duplex modem has to do? Regards, Jon Sreekanth Assabet Valley Microsystems Fax and PC products 346 Lincoln St #722, Marlboro, MA 01752 508-562-0722 jon_sree@world.std.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 01 Dec 90 01:26:38 EST From: "Peter G. Capek" Subject: Announcement: The Great Caller-ID Debate I was visiting MIT recently and noticed a poster announcing: The Great Caller-ID Debate to be held December 6, 1990 from 4pm to 6pm in the Bartos Theater, 20 Ames Street, Cambridge, Mass. The information number is 617-253-3144. (This building is the Media Lab.) Representatives from MIT, Bellcore and CCL Corp will participate. I can't go, so if some reading this does, it would be nice to have a summary posted here. Peter Capek ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Nov 90 12:48 CDT From: JTUCKER@vax2.cstp.umkc.edu Subject: Odd Response When Line is Busy Question: Once in a while when I call a number that is busy several times in a row I get another dial tone. Sometimes someone else picks up the line and tells me to get off. Can someone tell me what is happening here??? Joseph Tucker JTUCKER@UMKCVAX2 [Moderator's Note: Is your service coming from some old, ancient stepper switch or similar? When I was on one of those many years ago it was not unheard of to get conditions like you mention sometimes. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bill Crane Subject: ACD Headset Vendors Needed Date: 28 Nov 90 20:33:14 GMT Reply-To: Bill Crane Organization: Days Inns of America We are looking for another supplier of Headsets for our sales agents. There is not really a problem with our current supplier, only that management wants to explore the current market. Can any readers provide me with contacts for any Headset suppliers? Incidently, we only process incoming calls, so don't blame me for annoying telemarketers. :-) Bill Crane ...!gatech!daysinns!bill Days Inns of America Inc bill%daysinns@gatech.edu 2751 Buford Hwy NE Atlanta GA 30324 ------------------------------ From: kdb@macaw.intercon.com (Kurt Baumann) Subject: Re: IDG Hackers Reply-To: kdb@macaw.intercon.com (Kurt Baumann) Organization: InterCon Systems Corporation, Herndon, VA Date: Thu, 29 Nov 90 20:48:09 GMT In article <14982@accuvax.nwu.edu>, jgd@convex.csd.uwm.edu (John G Dobnick) writes: > >> magazine, prompted two Staten Island, N.Y., teen-age brothers to break > >> into the telephone mail system at International Data Group's > >> Peterborough, N.H., office - where Gamepro is published - and cause > >> $2.4 million worth of damage. > > I wonder how likely that figure is to shrink under the gaze of a > > competent defense lawyer > > [Moderator's Note: Suppose the damage was only $24,000; or $240, or > > $24. Then what? PAT] > I have no sympathy for the "teen-age brothers" who allegedly trashed > the phone mail system -- if they are guilty they must pay the > consequences. And perhaps be made examples of. [Cheee... am I in a > vindictive mood this morning, or what? :-) ] > However, I agree with the poster, Mr. Izenberg, about the "spector of > Bellsouth". It will be interesting to see how much the claimed monetary > damages have been "inflated". [I find the $2.4 million hard to swallow.] I would have to agree here too. In fact I thought about sending IDG a FAX asking what in the world they could have on their voice-mail that would be worth $2.4M? Come on, even if they broke in and physically destroyed the equipment you would be hard pressed to do $2.4M. It is also interesting to see this figure coming out of one of their own periodicals. (So far I haven't seen it anywhere else) My feeling is that they are doing themselves and a lot of other people, who get hurt by people doing the wrong thing, a dis-service by inflating the amount of damage. Especially if this amount comes down, the general public will start getting the opinion that all cases are overly inflated. I too feel that these kids (I don't think that the 17 year old should be viewed as an adult, I know how I was at 17 :-)), should pay the piper. But to say that they did $2.4M worth of damage is a bit hard to swallow. Kurt Baumann InterCon Systems Corporation 703.709.9890 Creators of fine TCP/IP products 703.709.9896 FAX for the Macintosh. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Nov 90 08:43 PST From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Subject: Re: *Long* Phone Calls -- What Does Ma Think? Charles "Chip" Roberson writes: >In DC this wasn't a problem but in Raleigh, every time [the line is >left off hook] the phone company disconnects his line and charges him >$35 to reconnect his line. Your friend should check the tarriffs and see if there's anything that allows the phone company to charge for recovering from a permanent signal, or to disconnect a line when it goes to permanent signal. Also, it would be and interesting (though expensive) exercise to leave a line not associated with a computer (or a sysop) off-hook and see if that line is treated the same. There may be a case of discrimination against BBS operators. edg ------------------------------ From: Richard Budd Subject: Re: Finland Wants 37!! Date: 29 Nov 90 13:44:01 Kauto Huopio writes in TC Digest 851: >I've heard that our PTT has made a request to obtain the former >country code of the former East Germany {Country Code 37} According to an engineer from Chemnitz, country code 37 is still being used by Germany until the area codes of E. German communities are reorganized. The German government hopes to have the new system in place by the beginning of 1991. The reason for this is obvious. Many eastern German communities have the same area codes as cities and towns in the former West Germany, but these communities are not contiguous. And of course there is the problem of two different customers in different cities miles apart having the same telephone number. Germany is going through the same difficulty with postal zip codes. For example, 8000 is the zip code for Muenchen in West Germany and Dresden in East Germany. For the time being, people mailing letters to Germany need to put a "W" in front of the zip code for former West German communities and an "O" for former East German communities. Richard Budd KLUB@MARISTB.BITNET Marist College Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 ------------------------------ From: Mark Steiger Date: Wed Nov 28 90 at 20:24:18 (CST) Subject: Re: US Sprint Offers Conference Calling How can someone access this Alliance Teleconferencing? [Mark Steiger, Sysop, The Igloo 218/262-3142 300/1200/2400/9600 (HST/Dual)] ProLine.:penguin@gnh-igloo America Online: Goalie5 UUCP....:crash!gnh-igloo!penguin MCI Mail......: MSteiger Internet:penguin@gnh-igloo.cts.com ARPA....:crash!gnh-igloo!penguin@nosc.mil [Moderator's Note: Alliance is an AT&T service for setting up conference calls between yourself and several other parties. It has two basic modes of operation: Operator-assisted, 24 hours per day, from rotary or touch-tone phones: Call 1-800-544-6363 and give your request to the operator. The other mode allows for a completely automated conference with no operator intervenion or assistance. This mode is available Monday through Friday from 6 AM to 7 PM ** from touch-tone phones only ** by calling 0-700-456-1000. The automatic mode is fully prompted. Further details and rates available from the first number at any time. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Dec 90 0:25:26 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Tymnet Information in Archives The telecom-priv moderator recently received several files of information regarding Tymnet. Included are files about the outdials, the costs for international service and others. These files were sent to the archives by Bryan Buss , and since they are more relevant to telcom rather than Caller*ID and privacy they were forwarded here. Look in the Telecom Archives for a sub-directory entitled 'tymnet.info'. These articles should be installed in the next day or two. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Dec 90 13:06:45 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Administrivia: (non) Delivery of comp.dcom.telecom? I've had a few complaints recently from readers who say the last issue of TELECOM Digest they've seen in comp.dcom.telecom were the messages from issue 850 ... since then, nothing. As of yet, I do not have an answer to this, but will make up missed copies of the Digest on request, and will add names to the mailing list here if the news has been erratic at your site. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #859 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12874; 2 Dec 90 22:21 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29010; 2 Dec 90 20:36 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21382; 2 Dec 90 19:31 CST Date: Sun, 2 Dec 90 19:04:09 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #860 BCC: Message-ID: <9012021904.ab25401@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 2 Dec 90 19:04:04 CST Volume 10 : Issue 860 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: AT&T Mail Info and Questions [Tony L Hansen] Re: AT&T Mail Info and Questions [Ralph W. Hyre] Re: AT&T Mail Info and Questions [Toby Nixon] Re: Building a Phone Line Simulator [David G. Cantor] Re: Prodigy Communications Protocol [Tim Russell] Re: Forwarded Calls and CallerID [John Higdon] Re: No Call Waiting Until Supervised [John Higdon] Re: New 410 Code for MD [John Kennedy] Re: Lower Hotel Charges [Bill Nickless] Re: Anyone Know of Any Chipsets For Mu-Law Digitation [Brian Crawford] Marketing Madness [Dave McKellar] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 30 Nov 90 11:52:57 EST From: Tony L Hansen Subject: Re: AT&T Mail Info and Questions Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories From: nelson%bolyard.wpd.sgi.com@sgi.com (Nelson Bolyard) < Today, an AT&T Mail Customer Assistance Center techincal representative < dropped this bombshell on me: He is NOT PERMITTED to tell me ANYTHING < about how to use their Internet mail gateway because it's not < "official" yet. He didn't think it was working yet. When confronted < with the news that there are people who use it regularly to communciate < with the internet, his response was that I should reply to a message < from one of those people and ask them how they do it. Astounding! If < you want to know how to use AT&T Mail, you're better off asking their < customers, not their Customer Assistance reps? Nelson, Let me get this straight: You're offended because AT&T Mail has a test connection to the Internet, but won't tell you how to use it? Note that test connections are probably subject to unreasonable amounts of down time or potentially lost or mangled mail. (I'm not saying that the AT&T Mail test connection does or does not have these problems.) They're called "tests" for a reason; tests don't always work perfectly 100% of the time. Obviously some other people are willing to take the risks; does that mean that AT&T Mail should advertise where to take the risks? AT&T Mail has a certain reputation regarding guaranteed delivery or acknowledgement of non-delivery. In light of this reputation, non-disclosure of less-than-perfect services by the Customer Assistance is definitely in line with their goals. Tony Hansen att!pegasus!hansen, attmail!tony hansen@pegasus.att.com [Moderator's Note: Apparently the testing is now finished. I got a note from my contact at att.com saying that a copy of the documentation would be sent to me for publication in the Digest. As of yet that documentation has not arrived (either here or my box at attmail), but assuming it will come eventually, I'm publishing the next two messages to explain the process. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: AT&T Mail Info and Questions Organization: AT&T OSS Development, Cincinnati Date: 30 Nov 90 14:15:53 EST (Fri) From: "Ralph W. Hyre" I believe: internet!!user, ie internet!eecs.nwu.edu!telecom While ONLINE, try 'Help internet' or 'help network', or something like that. ATTMail is busy advertising their X.400 interconnections with other services, I can't imagine why Internet paths would be 'secret.' [It has never been related to me as such, and I am not especially privledged.] Good luck. Ralph W. Hyre, Jr. Internet: rhyre@attmail.com Snail Mail: 45150-0085 [ZIP code] UUCP: att!cinoss1!cinpmx!rhyre Phone: +1 513 629 7288 ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: AT&T Mail Info and Questions Date: 1 Dec 90 16:22:54 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA In article <14874@accuvax.nwu.edu>, nelson%bolyard.wpd.sgi.com@sgi.com (Nelson Bolyard) writes: > So with no alternative left, I ask Pat and any other AT&T Mail users in > telecom land, the following questions: Pat said he's sworn to secrecy because he's an official beta-tester of the gateway. Well, I simply stumbled onto it, am not an official beta tester, am not sworn to secrecy, and hopefully he'll post this message to the group. > 1. How do you, as an AT&T Mail user, address mail to someone on the > Internet. How would you address mail to me, nelson@sgi.com, for > example? I would address AT&T Mail to you as "internet!sgi.com!nelson". Maybe I'll try it and see if it works! Might be necessary to throw a smart mailer in there, like "internet!uunet!sgi.com!nelson". I can send to myself at Hayes as "internet!uunet!hayes!tnixon". > 2. How do I (an Internet mail user) address mail to you, an AT&T > Mail user? I invite you to send me some e-mail from your AT&T Mail > account. I should be able to figure out the reply address from the > mail I receive. You can send mail to me at AT&T Mail as "tnixon@attmail.com" or "uunet!attmail.com!tnixon". Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice +1-404-449-8791 Telex 151243420 Hayes Microcomputer Products Inc. | Fax +1-404-447-0178 CIS 70271,404 P.O. Box 105203 | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon AT&T !tnixon Atlanta, Georgia 30348 USA | Internet hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net [Moderator's Note: Your instructions are correct. Although the gateway was officially closed for some time pending software changes and the making of policy decisions regarding traffic from ATT Mail to our net and vice-versa, TELECOM Digest has been allowed to pass through to ATT Mail subscribers for some time. I was asked to say nothing about it until everything was finalized. I got a note several days ago saying the documentation would be sent to me for publication, but it has not arrived. When it does, I'll publish it. In the meantime, the use of the gateway is very simple: username@attmail.com gets it from here to there; internet!site!username gets it from there to here. For the purpose of this discussion, Bitnet is considered a 'domain' of the Internet, i.e. 'internet!nuacc.bitnet!telecom' would reach me as would 'internet!eecs.nwu.edu!telecom'. Likewise, Fido is a 'domain', meaning you would write to: 'internet!fido.address!username. Always use the bang (!) style of addressing from ATT Mail; never use '@'. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Building a Phone Line Simulator Reply-To: dgc@math.ucla.edu Date: Sat, 01 Dec 90 08:41:15 -0800 From: "David G. Cantor" In Telecom V10, #854, Todd Inch suggests a circuity for a simple phone line simulator: Here is (in my opinion) a minor improvement: | | This differes from the original by the | | addition of the (load) resistor. The | | "battery" can be any DC supply from about | | 6 volts to 50 volts and the resistance | Line 1 | should be chosen so that about 20 ma | | flows when the lines are shorted. That is, | | R = 50 V, where R = restance in ohms and | | V = voltage of supply. Note that the telco | | standard has V=48 and R around 2400. None | | of this is critical. A slightly better --battery-\/\/\/ | simulator is made if the batter is shunted | | by a capacitor, on the order of 10 microfarads. | | | | | | | | | Line 2 | | | | | | | ------------------------------ From: Tim Russell Subject: Re: Prodigy Communications Protocol Date: 1 Dec 90 18:56:27 GMT From article <14869@accuvax.nwu.edu>, by nelson%odin.corp.sgi.c om@sgi.com (Nelson Bolyard): > Maybe TELECOM Digest's readers include someone who still has a copy of > the NAPLPS standard and who could take a peek at a Prodigy data stream > to see if it looks familiar. Prodigy online documentation confirms that the Prodigy software does indeed use the NAPLPS videotext standard. \TR/ Tim Russell \/ Omaha NE russell@spdcc.com ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Forwarded Calls and CallerID Date: 1 Dec 90 11:08:25 PST (Sat) From: John Higdon "Nicholas J. Simicich" writes: > The simplest explanation is the one that seems to be ignored by most > people: The phone switching system simply misrouted the Return*Call, > or garbled the number it remembered. It was probably ignored because of the virtually zero probability that it was the case. SS7 data is error-checked and garbled data would be rejected as invalid. Today's network does not "simply misroute" calls. And parity-checked RAM does not "garble" numbers that it "remembers". When I receive a wrong number, I always assume error on the part of the caller, not in the switching network. To quote a well-known radio doctor, "When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras." 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: No Call Waiting Until Supervised Date: 1 Dec 90 17:24:41 PST (Sat) From: John Higdon Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com writes: > Does anybody think that this is an incorrect philosophy? Is anyone > REALLY bothered by not being able to get a C.W. while originating a > call? Well, yes, actually it is a problem. In PacBellLand, 611 does not supervise (at least, not in my CO), and I spend a lot of time talking to these people. (The urge to launch a cheap shot is overwhelming at this point -- like Pac*Bell customers get to know 611 really well -- but I will be good and keep silent.) What this means is that for the duration of the call to repair, CW is totally inoperative. Once I spent a good portion of a morning chatting with the good people at telephone repair and had many complaints about my busy phone later in the day. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: John Kennedy Subject: Re: New 410 Code for MD Date: 2 Dec 90 14:01:55 GMT Reply-To: John Kennedy Organization: Second Source, Inc., Annapolis, MD You're all well aware that now we dial ten digits in the DC area for local calls across the 703, 301 and 202 area codes. When 410 splits Maryland next year, there will continue to be local calls from those area codes above into the new 410 area. While two of the lines in my home are now long distance to each other (757 and 858, where 858 is actually Bowie/Glendale), these two lines will have different area codes and calls remain toll. A friend in Crofton has two lines that are allowed to call each other locally. He will have two different area codes but these lines will remain local to each other. John Kennedy johnk@opel.COM Second Source, Inc. Annapolis, MD ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Dec 90 13:32:31 CST From: Bill B40417 2-7390 Subject: Re: Lower Hotel Charges Regarding pressing '#' to get a second dial tone from an IXC: If you accidently dial into a modem line, and the modem answers, the octothorpe detector may be disabled along with the echo cancellers. I observed this behavior on AT&T between Montana and Chicago. Two frequently dialed numbers differ only in the transposition of the final two digits. One is the office of a colleague, and the other is a modem pool. I accidently dialed the modem, and was unable to avoid hanging up and re-entering the AT&T Universal Card number while the modem tones were active. nickless@flash.ras.anl.gov ------------------------------ From: Brian Crawford Subject: Re: Anyone Know of Any Chipsets For Mu-Law Digitation. Date: 2 Dec 90 23:03:00 GMT Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ In article <14875@accuvax.nwu.edu>, gt6392b@prism.gatech.edu (FISHER,MARK DAVID) writes: > I am thinking about designing/building a seven second delay for our > campus radio station. > I've been told that several manufacturers make chip sets to do mu-law > conversion. I would be appreciative for any leads as to > manufacturer/chip numbers and any companies that would sell them in > single unit quantitys. The IC Master lists A LOT of mu-law chips of various kinds. Don't suppose a simple digital delay line would much good once you had the signal in digital, would it? NEC makes several kinds of neat delays for various applications. Brian Crawford enuxha.eas.asu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Dec 90 10:55:56 EST From: "Dave McKellar @ Digital Media Networks" Subject: Marketing Madness From the "Toronto Star", Dec 1, 1990. Customer puzzled by Bell survey `results'. By Jack Lakey Toronto Star Paul Bergman wants to know how Bell Canada can get the answers to a customer survey before it was ever mailed out. Bergman received a letter from Bell about 10 days ago outlining "results" from a questionare he and other customers of Bell's new computer communications system had supposedly received. He thought this was odd for two reasons: He never got a question- naire in the first place, and the letter was dated Dec. 12 - nearly three weeks later than the Nov. 21 postmark on the enevelope it came in. On Wednesday he got a second letter from Bell, saying that the "questionare mentioned in the (Dec. 12) letter was unfortunately omitted." He was asked to fill out the enclosed survey and mail it back. "I feel that they just made the answers up," said Bergman, 28, a project manager who lives in Thornhill. "How can they have results from a questionare that hasn't been mailed out yet?" "It seems like a scam, a cheap sales pitch aimed at people like me, who arn't using their system. It's misrepresentation. They are fabricating responses. "Bell is supposed to be motherhood and apple pie," [:=>] Bergman said. "I feel like I've been taken for a ride." Bell spokesperson Marilyn Koen said Bergman and as many as 200 other customers mahy have mistakenly been mailed copies of a draft letter of what a marketing firm hired to conduct the survey thought the answers would be. "We are very embarrasssed," Koen admitted, stressing the letter should never have been mailed. Bergman subscribes to Bell's "ALEX" videotex communications system, which provides electronic information and allows users to bank, shop, book airline tickets, read news and communicate with other suscribers. Customers use a personal identification number and a computer connected to a home or office telephone to access the system. About 14,000 Metro-area subscribers pay up to 45 cents per minute to use the service. Bergman said he applied for a number when Bell first started the service in Toronto, about seven months ago. Though he has computers at home and in his office, he said he never uses the system "because I haven't heard a single good thing about it." But the Dec. 12 letter with the alleged results of the question- naire tells subscribers that Bell believes they are delighted with the system. "People who are regular ALEX users most of all love the conven- ience of ALEX," the letter said. "They also greatly appreciate the way ALEX saves them time." It says people who are subscribers but don't use the system re- sponded that "they've just been too busy to get around to it. And isn't this a riddle ... Trying to find enough time to get around to a terrific time-saving tool." Bill Kerr, president of KTP Direct, the agency hired by Bell to handle the marketing campaign, insisted the alleged findings of the survey "weren't made up," but were the results of asking 60 people the same questions by telephone. Kerr said about 2,000 ALEX subscribers who weren't using the service were to first be mailed a questionnaire, then send the results a month later, to stimulate their interest in the system. The draft letter was based on the 60-member telephone survey, he said. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #860 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13803; 2 Dec 90 23:27 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25776; 2 Dec 90 21:41 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab29010; 2 Dec 90 20:36 CST Date: Sun, 2 Dec 90 19:37:52 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs Subject: Comp.dcom.fax Vote Passes! New Group to be Established BCC: Message-ID: <9012021937.ab09422@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To readers of TELECOM Digest and comp.dcom.telecom: The special announcement which follows notes that comp.dcom.fax will most likely be established as a Usenet newsgroup over the next two weeks or so. In keeping with the spirit of this announcement, I suggest that henceforth the majority of messages relating to Fax products and services should be posted to the new comp.dcom.fax group rather than in telecom as in the past. Obviously there will be exceptions to the rule, and instances where a news item or commentary applies equally to telecom and fax. Naturally, those items should be cross-posted, bearing in mind that moderator's approval is still required where comp.dcom.telecom is concerned. Please keep in mind also that some readers of telecom -- mainly those who read TELECOM Digest because they do not receive net news -- may not see messages posted only to comp.dcom.fax. My best wishes for the success of the new newsgroup! Patrick Townson TELECOM Moderator / TELECOM Digest / comp.dcom.telecom ----------------- From: Evan Leibovitch Subject: comp.dcom.fax vote passes Organization: Somewhere just far enough out of Toronto Date: Sun, 2 Dec 1990 19:00:17 -0500 Followup-To: news.groups Thankfully, the minor controversy which accompanied the call for votes dissipated quickly. In its place, a clean, uneventful vote... The final tally: Yes: 207 (86.6%) No : 32 (13.3%) Thank you all for voting. A complete list of voters appears below. I now ask for a one-week waiting period, during which time anyone may voice any concerns about lost votes, etc. After that period, I would call upon Eliot to issue the newgroup message since the vote has passed relatively decisively (and uneventfully, at least recently). NOTES: ====== One voter withdrew his NO vote as he objected to the voter list being publicly posted (standard procedure, I believe); One voter said he'd vote YES, but only if it was close and his vote would make a difference. I have not included his vote in the above figures. "NO" VOTES (32): ================ Andy Jacobson Bill Ashmanskas Bob Clair Bob Sloane Dan Schlitt Ed McGuire JMS@mis.Arizona.EDU (Programmin' up a storm.) Jeff Beadles Roger Fajman ado@elsie.nci.nih.gov (Arthur David Olson) bond!pawan@cmcl2.NYU.EDU (Pawan Misra) charleen@ads.com (Charleen Bunjiovianna Stoner) craig@com2serv.c2s.mn.org (Craig S. Wilson) david@elroy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (David Robinson) dittman@skbat.csc.ti.com (Eric Dittman) dlr@daver.bungi.com (Dave Rand) heiby@chg.mcd.mot.com (Ron Heiby) igloo.Scum.com!wmf@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (Bill Fischer) kenney@hsi86.hsi.com (Brian Kenney) kguinn@diana.cair.du.edu (Kip J. Guinn) laird@slum.mv.com (Laird Heal) mingo@cup.portal.com peirce@gumby.cc.wmich.edu (Leonard Peirce) raymond@math.berkeley.edu (Raymond Chen) rick@PAVLOV.SSCTR.BCM.TMC.EDU (Richard H. Miller) tims@sunsrvr2.cci.com (Tim Sullivan) uunet!aspect!kevinc uunet!intrbas!gollum.LOCAL!schuldy (Mark) uunet!motcid!marble!ibbotson (Craig Ibbotson) uunet!motcid!void!marocchi (Jim Marocchi) wmf@chinet.chi.il.us (Bill Fischer) zawada@ecn.purdue.edu (Paul J Zawada) "YES" VOTES (207): ================== tmp/rma00958%tmpmbx.in-berlin.de@tub.BITNET AMillar@cup.portal.com Adri Verhoef Allan D. Griefer Amir Plivatsky Andy Malis Andy Rabagliati Andy.Linton@comp.vuw.ac.nz Atro Tossavainen Barton F.Bruce Bengt Larsson Bill Campbell Bob Yasi Brain in Neutral Bruce.Hoult@bbs.actrix.gen.nz Bryon Johnson Chip Hill Chris Sowden Christopher Bryden Cliff Stanford Craig_Everhart@transarc.com David Herron David Yoon DeadHead@cup.portal.com Dion Johnson Dmitry V. Volodin Douglas F. DeJulio Ed Basart Ed Braaten Ed Hall Ed Vielmetti Evan Leibovitch Farhad Afrahi Frank D. Cringle Fred E.J. Linton Geoff Twibell HAVANAMOON@cup.portal.com HZNX@VAX5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU Harald Boegeholz Hardy Pottinger Havard Eidnes Ittai Hershman James H. Thompson - HNL Jim Battan Jim Knowles Joel B Levin John Mann John.Pettitt@specialix.co.uk Ken Dykes Kevin Purcell Larry Masinter Lars H}kedal Lauren Leibovitch Mark Alexander Davis Matthew Farwell Monte Bateman Ofer Inbar Olaf Brandt Peter Quirk Petri Helenius Philip Gladstone Purcell ROEBER@cithe2.cithep.caltech.edu (Frederick G. M. Roeber) Robin Schaufler Samuel Lam Scott Barman Scott Kay Sergio Fogel Stan Barber Stefan Karlsson Steve Elias Steve Hayman Steve Huff, U. of Kansas, Lawrence Steven P. Donegan Toby Nixon Tom Dubinski U5434122@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au Walter Doerr Wingnut@cup.portal.com af114@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Rene Stolarczyk) af747@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Stacie Simerson) ag767@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Amanda Corie) amc@cup.portal.com asv@hsi.hsi.com (Stan Voket) atrc!mofh!alvant@alberta.uucp (alvan tom) auspex!bae@uunet.uucp (Brian Ehrmantraut) balden@wimsey.bc.ca (Bruce Balden) bandw!craig@uunet.uucp (Craig Goss) bbc@rice.edu (Benjamin Chase) bgoldberg@cdp.uucp blackbox!cbradley@uunet.uucp (Chris Bradley) blair@obdient.chi.il.us (Doug Blair) bmug@garnet.berkeley.edu (BMUG) bruce%balilly%blilly@Broadcast.Sony.COM (Bruce Lilly) cdr@AMD.COM (Carl Rigney) chaz@chinet.chi.il.us (Charlie Kestner) christopher williams clements@BBN.COM coplex!johnv@uunet.uucp (John Vaccaro) curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca (Curt Sampson) cxr5@po.CWRU.Edu (Cyndee Richards) davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com dayger@oswego.Oswego.EDU (Tim Dayger) dciem!gandalf!alayne (Alayne McGregor) dciem!jsitcom!brett ddodell@stjhmc.fidonet.org (David Dodell) decwrl!teda!attain!jxh@uunet.UU.NET (Jim Hickstein) dez@asr1.att.com (Daniel E Zuccarelli) dias@muztag.eecs.ucdavis.edu (Gihan Dias) djcl@contact.uucp (woody) dplatt@coherent.com dscatl!daysinns!bill@gatech.uucp dsrekrg@prism.gatech.edu (Rob Gibson) edhew@xenitec.on.ca (Ed Hew) edu@Eng.Sun.COM (Edward Un, Multimedia Platform Products) esf00@uts.amdahl.com (Elliott S Frank) fjs@cobalt.cco.caltech.edu (Fernando J. Selman) fmsystm!macy@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu (Macy Hallock) foxtail!kravitz@ucsd.edu fr@icdi10.COMPU.COM (Fred Rump from home) friedl@mtndew.Tustin.CA.US (Stephen Friedl) geertj@ica.philips.nl (Geert Jan de Groot) gsm@PWS.BULL.COM halcyon!ralphs@sumax.seattleu.edu hankm@gammalink.com (H. S. Magnuski) hansen@pegasus.att.com (Tony L Hansen) heiko@methan.chemie.fu-berlin.de (Heiko Schlichting) heinau@methan.chemie.fu-berlin.de (Vera Heinau) icsg8003@cs.montana.edu iexist!dem (David E. Martin) inesc!jmc%eagle@relay.EU.net (Miguel Casteleiro) irv@happym.wa.com (Irving Wolfe) jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods) jimmy@denwa.info.com (Jim Gottlieb) jiro@trumpet.CIT.CORNELL.EDU (Jiro Nakamura NeXT Developer) jjwcmp@ultb.isc.rit.edu (Jeff Wasilko) johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) jon_sree@world.std.com (Jon Sreekanth) jonathan@comp.vuw.ac.nz jsaker@alf.unomaha.edu (Jamie Saker) keegan@sungod.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) klaus u schallhorn km@mathcs.emory.edu (Ken Mandelberg) kusumoto@chsun1.uchicago.edu (Bob Kusumoto) lark@cat.tivoli.com (Lar Kaufman) lark@tivoli.com (Lar Kaufman) llj@kps.se (Leif Ljung /DP) mac900@yaouk.anu.edu.au ("Mark Corbould") mca@medicus.com (Mark Adams) mcb@presto.ig.com (Michael C. Berch) mehl@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu (Mark M Mehl) meilchen@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Melchior A. Meilchen) merce@iguana.uucp (Jim Mercer) merk!cogsys!cam@uunet.UU.NET merlin@pony.cis.smu.edu (David Hayes) mje99!mje@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (Mark J Elkins) mrm@Sceard.COM (M.R.Murphy) muir@CSI.COM (David Muir Sharnoff) ndallen@contact.uucp (Nigel Allen) news@camco.Celestial.COM (Bill Campbell) olsa99!tabbs!aris@ddsw1.mcs.com (Aris Stathakis) paolo@sixcom.it (Paolo Crini) parsley@PWS.BULL.COM patrick@sideways.gen.nz (Pat Cain) paul@moore.com (Paul Maclauchlan) per@erix.ericsson.se (Per Hedeland) phil@sjc.mcd.mot.com (Phil Weinberg SPS) phile@libby.UK (Phillip Everson) poirot@aio.jsc.nasa.gov (Daniel Poirot) polari!dwennick@sumax.seattleu.edu (Don Wennick) preuss@sutro.SFSU.EDU (Peter Preuss) rcsmith@anagld.analytics.com (Ray Smith) resumix!sparcport!stevans@decwrl.dec.com (Mark Stevans) rhb3@cbnewsi.att.com rhb@mstr.hgc.edu (Roger H. Brown) richard@panchax.gryphon.COM (Richard J. Sexton) rk@theep.uucp (Robert A. Kukura) root%heurikon.UUCP@cs.wisc.edu (0000-Admin(0000)) rtc%westford.ccur.com@RELAY.CS.NET russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) rvk@twitch.att.com scs@ATHENA.MIT.EDU sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) sjl@world.std.com (Scott J Loftesness) sl@wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne) swan@PWS.BULL.COM (Joel Swan) tombre@loria.crin.fr (Karl Tombre) troby@diana.cair.du.edu (Thorn Roby) uunet!blackbox!cbradley (Chris Bradley) uunet!bywater!scifi!njs (Nicholas J. Simicich) uunet!cdl!pajari uunet!consult!bob uunet!domain.com!mdv (Mike Verstegen) uunet!gammalink.com!mikes (mike spann) uunet!kksys.KKSYS.MN.ORG!gk (Greg Kemnitz) uunet!paralogics!compsm!rlg uunet!pnet51.orb.mn.org!elec (Doug Renner) uunet!wubios.wustl.edu!phil (J. Philip Miller) uunet!yale!bronson!tan (Tan Bronson) vances@xenitec.on.ca (Vance Shipley) virtech!cpcahil@uunet.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) vu0425@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu wcs@erebus.att.com (William Clare Stewart) well!wjwhite@apple.com (Bill White) wex@PWS.BULL.COM wolves.uucp!ggw@mcnc.org (Gregory G. Woodbury) yost@DPW.COM Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software, located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!attcan!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504 Keep an open mind -- you'll never know what might fall in.   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11769; 4 Dec 90 0:24 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23165; 3 Dec 90 22:09 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27922; 3 Dec 90 21:02 CST Date: Mon, 3 Dec 90 20:57:20 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #861 BCC: Message-ID: <9012032057.ab10771@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 3 Dec 90 20:57:09 CST Volume 10 : Issue 861 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Alliance Teleconferencing [Randy Borow] Re: Alliance Teleconferencing [Bill Berbenich] Re: Quick-Conference from US Sprint [Roger Clark Swann] Re: AT&T Mail Info and Questions [Wolfgang S. Rupprecht] Re: Odd Response When Line is Busy [John Higdon] Re: Hello Direct's Conference Phone [Sandy Kyrish] Re: Prodigy Responds to E-Mail Criticism [Marvin Sirbu] Re: What Number am I? [Andy Jacobson] Re: New 410 Code for MD [Carl Moore] Re: Lower Hotel Charges [John Higdon] Re: The "Bell" Logo [Subodh Bapat] Two Line Turnbutton Phones [Ed Greenberg] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: rborow@bcm1a09.attmail.com Date: Mon Dec 3 10:45:24 CST 1990 Subject: Re: Alliance Teleconferencing For those who have asked, here's a bit more on ALLIANCE teleconferencing: *While traditionally a conference system for several users, it can be used for from two callers to 58, although it's more cost-effective to utilize three-way calling if your local service allows such. *ALLIANCE can even be used for local conferencing. Seems many local telcos no longer provide such conferencing abilities. When I inquired about it from my LEC (Illinois Bell), they suggested using ALLIANCE. *Charges are 25c per minute per location (the bridge charge as it's called), as well as the regular LD charge for each location (based on the bridge location used: Chicago, White Plains, Dallas, and Reno), charged as calls from those locales. *Local conference calls are billed at the usual 25c/min. bridge charge, but because they are not truly LD calls, they're billed at rates dependent on time of day, at a minimum rate. The rates vary, but the operator quoted me a ballpark figure of c. 18c first min., 8c each additional (lower for evenings and night/weekends). *When calling after the automated access can no longer be used, the operator will assist you in setting up and passing control to you without being charged operator-assisted rates. *The originator can hang up early and pass control to another conferee; however, originator's billing will continue (of course). *ALLIANCE's "Meet Me" service (which can also be done automatically) allows callers to set up conference calls individually by calling a special # at a predetermined time and punching a few keys, etc. All in all, ALLIANCE is a convenient, and easy service to use. If anyone desires more {printed} information regarding ALLIANCE, I have a limited number of brochures and/or wallet cards available. Randy Borow (Rolling Meadows, IL.) attmail!internet!bcm1a09!rborow (800) 323-9292, ext. 7614 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Alliance Teleconferencing Date: Mon, 3 Dec 90 10:04:55 EST Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu From: bill > [Moderator's Note: ... > The other mode allows for a completely > automated conference with no operator intervention or assistance. This > mode is available Monday through Friday from 6 AM to 7 PM ** from > touch-tone phones only ** by calling 0-700-456-1000. The automatic > mode is fully prompted. PAT] Patrick, an important note here. 0-700-456-1000 will only work, as dialed, if AT&T is your default carrier. To be sure: dial 10288-0-700-456-1000. Most of us here realize this, but I thought I'd make it more precise for those who didn't know about the '10288' LD carrier access code being necessary if their default carrier is not AT&T. Bill Berbenich Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu [Moderator's Note: Of course you are correct ... I guess I sometimes ignore the need for 10288 since I have never given serious thought to the idea of *not* having AT&T as my default carrier. :) PAT ------------------------------ From: Roger Clark Swann Subject: Re: Quick-Conference From US Sprint Date: 1 Dec 90 05:55:37 GMT Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics I just spotted a news item from Sprint in {Telephony} / November 26, 1990 regarding the introduction of Quick-Conference. Foncard user's can now set up a three-way conference call from a push button phone without operator assistance. To access Quick-Conference, a user calls the first party, then enters *12 to put the call on hold. The user then dials the second party and enters *13, the bridge code, to bring all three parties into the conference call. The cost of the service is the regular long distance charges plus a $0.75 bridge charge. --------- OK, sounds neat and I might even use it. However, I do have a couple of questions: The first is technical, do they dedicate a tone decoder to each circuit for the duration of the call? Remember there is no *flash* used here ... Or do they time out the tone decoders after say a minute? The second, can this be used from a line with Sprint as the primary LDC, using 1+ dialing??? Roger Swann uucp: uw-beaver!ssc-vax!clark @ The Boeing Company ------------------------------ From: "Wolfgang S. Rupprecht" Subject: Re: AT&T Mail Info and Questions Organization: Wolfgang S Rupprecht Computer Consulting, Washington DC. Date: Mon, 3 Dec 90 17:06:47 GMT nelson%bolyard.wpd.sgi.com@sgi.com (Nelson Bolyard) writes: >So with no alternative left, I ask Pat and any other AT&T Mail users in >Telecom-land, the following questions: >2. How do I (an Internet mail user) address mail to you, an AT&T Mail user? > I invite you to send me some e-mail from your AT&T Mail account. > I should be able to figure out the reply address from the mail I receive. psuvax1.psu.edu!cbis3!attmail! >1. How do you, as an AT&T Mail user, address mail to someone on the Internet. > How would you address mail to me, nelson@sgi.com, for example? attmail!cbis3!psuvax1.psu.edu!! This assumes attmail can send to uucp addresses. I have no idea about this silly mail service. Why wouldn't one just run UUPC on their own pc and get uucp mail connectivity for free? UUPC is a PD uucp clone by Rick Lamb. It's avalable on uunet and other PD sources archives. Wolfgang Rupprecht wolfgang@wsrcc.com (or) uunet!wsrcc!wolfgang Snail Mail Address: Box 6524, Alexandria, VA 22306-0524 [Moderator's Note: I think the preferred addressing for outbound from ATT Mail is: internet!wherever.domain!username. And it is really a moot point as to whether or not ATT Mail can reach uucp addresses, since all they do (I believe) is hand off everything to the Internet for routing, including Bitnet and Fido, and I assume uucp as well. Regarding your comment about running a uucp clone and 'getting it for free', I'd be interested in hearing about the deal you cut with C&P to give you a no-charge phone line for your site. PAT] ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Odd Response When Line is Busy Date: 2 Dec 90 16:52:50 PST (Sun) From: John Higdon JTUCKER@vax2.cstp.umkc.edu writes: > Question: Once in a while when I call a number that is busy several > times in a row I get another dial tone. Sometimes someone else picks > up the line and tells me to get off. > [Moderator's Note: Is your service coming from some old, ancient > stepper switch or similar? Crossbar is particularly vulnerable to this type of problem. It is known as "double connection" and is briefly mentioned in the service manuals and in some Bellcore publications. If you compare a crossbar system to mechanical computer, it is easy to see how this can happen. The "CPU" is the marker, whose job it is to allocate resources and connect them at the proper time. Being a mechanical device (a bunch of relays) and working with registers, trunk units, etc. that are also mechanical, it can become confused regarding the availability of a particular line or trunk unit and seize two at once. Dialing a number can simultaneously produce a busy signal and dial tone, or more likely, a busy and RBT which may eventually be answered and may or may not be the party you were calling, etc., etc. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Dec 90 02:05 GMT From: Sandy Kyrish <0003209613@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Hello Direct's Conference Phone Jon Sreekanth described an NEC VoicePoint speakerphone unit and asks: > Questions: Is such a product really new? Seems obvious. The moment I > bought a speaker phone earlier this year, I realized it was simplex, > and there could be a need for full duplex. Second, does it cost $1295? > Is it harder to do room echo cancellation than what a cheap full > duplex modem has to do? No, the concept is not new. Shure Teleconferencing Systems (among others) has been selling an extremely high performance unit for years, but at twice to thrice the cost. Yes, the price is real. Yes, it is quite hard to do full-duplex with echo cancellation, especially for calls carried by satellite. And, the product "really, really works." The International Teleconferencing Association awards committee (for whom I am a judge) was so impressed with the price-performance of the VoicePoint that we tabbed it the Outstanding Audioconferencing Product of 1989-90. This is not an endorsement; instead it is an exhortation to anyone who has not used full-duplex speakerphone equipment. The difference is similar to going from 300 baud to 2400 baud, from SXS to ESS. It will permanently change the way you think about audioconferencing, and it will enable you to achieve real hands-free talking without that devastating barrel effect. Your listeners will not mind that you are on a speakerphone ... if they can tell, that is. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Dec 90 00:34:19 -0500 (EST) From: Marvin Sirbu Subject: Re: Prodigy Responds to E-Mail Criticism The Prodigy system is designed like a multi-level memory hierarchy. Information is stored initially at some nationwide location. As it is demanded in a particular city, it is copied to the city node and cached there. Thus subsequent reads do not require a transfer from the national headquarters to the regional node. (Cacheing is also done in the PC, but that is irrelevant to the point of this message) A bboard post, if widely read, will be copied from the national host to each regional, and then read from the regional many times. Thus, every transfer from the national to the regional is "amortized" over multiple reads. I infer from the information supplied by Prodigy that all individually addressed mail goes up to the national host and then down to the regional for delivery to the recipient. I also suspect for efficiency, the regionals are designed only to do object cacheing, independently of the type of object. If so, it would be a fairly radical change to reimplement mail so that mail objects with multiple destinations are not replicated at the national host, but in a two step process that would send one replica to each region where there are addressees, and the region would then replicate the object for each addressee. This would require the regionals to do more than object cacheing: they would have to examine the content of the object. If replication does happen at the national level, then, indeed, a multi-addressed message is much less efficient than a bboard post. Marvin Sirbu Carnegie Mellon ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Dec 90 06:25 PST From: Andy Jacobson Subject: Re: What Number am I? "Gary D. Archer" writes: >In the 408 ac calling 760-xxxx results in an automatic voice readback >of the number you're calling from. It goes pretty quickly and you This also works as far as I can tell from many places (but not everywhere) in 415 as well. Andy Jacobson ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Dec 90 9:55:40 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: New 410 Code for MD (I can't send to johnk@opel.com ! This replies to a note from him.) Huh? What local calls will there be going into 410 from 202 and from 703? I have already written in the Digest about local calls from Laurel and Silver Spring going across what will become the 301/410 boundary. How will those local calls (now seven digit because they're within 301 area) be dialed after the 301/410 split? Am I correct in the assumptions I have sent to the Digest? <-- Laurel, except for Baltimore-metro prefixes, stays in 301; Columbia, except for prefixes which are local to Washington, will go into 410. ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Lower Hotel Charges Date: 3 Dec 90 10:54:58 PST (Mon) From: John Higdon Bill B40417 2-7390 writes: > Two frequently dialed numbers differ only in the transposition of the > final two digits. One is the office of a colleague, and the other is > a modem pool. I accidently dialed the modem, and was unable to avoid > hanging up and re-entering the AT&T Universal Card number while the > modem tones were active. As far as AT&T is concerned: The real reason for this is that the '#' "recall" function is diaabled during supervision. It wouldn't matter if it was a modem on the other end or your Aunt Sophie -- as long as the call is supervised (distant end off hook), you cannot use the '#' to make another call. To make another call, you MUST wait for the called party to hang up or use the '#' before they answer. This has been an inconvenience at times, since I occasionally use a DISA. If I call into the DISA and make a mistake, the only way to recover is to physically hang up and dial again; since the DISA will not disconnect until the caller hangs up, the '#' is useless. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Subodh Bapat Subject: Re: The "Bell" Logo Date: 3 Dec 90 16:46:28 GMT Organization: (I don't speak for) Racal-Milgo, Ft Lauderdale, FL Talking about the Bell logo, is there any truth to the rumor that, once long ago, AT&T lost its right to use the Bell logo, as the copyright expired and they forgot to renew it? The story I heard was that they had to pay a lot of money to get it back from some smart entrepreneur who, in the meantime, sneaked in and got the copyright for himself. Anyone have any facts to substantiate/dispel this rumor? Subodh Bapat bapat@rm1.uu.net OR ...uunet!rm1!bapat MS E-204, PO Box 407044, Racal-Milgo, Ft Lauderdale, FL 33340 (305) 846-6068 [Moderator's Note: I've never heard that story before. Readers? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Dec 90 08:51 PST From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Subject: Two Line Turnbutton Phones The Moderator (or anybody else) should be able to buy one of these from any telecom vendor. (I don't mean Hello Direct but rather a supplier like North.) It might also be interesting to contact AT&T and ask if you can buy out the lease and what it would cost. One question, Patrick, weren't you offered the option to buy this set during divestature? -edg [Moderator's Note: No. I wish I was ... but the two-line, one-button phones were specifically *not* for sale during divestiture. They were then categorized as PBX equipment even though they were frequently used in homes instead of business places. And to this day, they are one type of phone the AT&T Phone Stores cannot help you with, other than to act as a depot to turn in broken sets or take them off lease. If I want to replace the one I have, I must call AT&T Consumer Products, and they ship out a new one by United Parcel Service the same day. I give the one going back to the UPS driver at the time the new one arrives in a carton the driver has for that purpose. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #861 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27907; 4 Dec 90 14:16 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id dn01625; 4 Dec 90 11:59 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26752; 4 Dec 90 1:56 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa32234; 4 Dec 90 0:10 CST Date: Mon, 3 Dec 90 23:28:05 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #862 BCC: Message-ID: <9012032328.ab21245@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 3 Dec 90 23:27:52 CST Volume 10 : Issue 862 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson MCI Personal 800 - General Information [Bill Huttig] UK City Codes to Change [Ken Jongsma] Modem Development Equipment [Jeff Wilkinson] Public Access to CCITT Bulletin Board [Herman R. Silbiger] Tone That Prompts You For Calling Card Number [Jon Sreekanth] What are 700 and 555 Numbers? [Peter Anvin] Parity Checking in Memory [Nicholas J. Simicich] Future Projections of Area Code Growth [Subodh Bapat] Need Help Finding AT&T Proto Magazine [Roger Clark Swann] Do You Need an Answering Service? [Jeff Scheer] Re: Pizza Pizza Toll-Free Cellular Number [Charles "Chip" Roberson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 3 Dec 90 06:47:57 EST From: Bill Huttig Subject: MCI Personal 800 - General Information Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, CS Dept., Melbourne, FL I delayed posting this waiting for my info packet from MCI but decided to post it now. I called MCI/Telecom*USA (800-933-4040) which is the customer service number for the 800/800 Primetime Services. They found an account for me. It seems that they only have two of the PrimeTime services available with the 800 service. The $7.50 first hour National Plan and the one with the state option ($8.25 in FL) both include the $1 for a 10% daytime discount. 800 calls are priced at 10.83 cents per minute and (along with your 1+ calls ) count towards the first hour. Daytime calls are 25 cents per minute but receive a 10% discount + $2/mo per 800 number. None of the other calling plans are available ... ie. Call Canada, etc. All billing will be done via the Telecom*USA billing centers. I guess that means the old SoutherNet (including SouthLand) and the old Teleconnect parts. The plan for current MCI customers is called 800 companion plan and is billed at $2/mo and the 10.83 cents per minute during Primetime hours and 25 cents/min with 10% discount. All 800 calls will come on a separate bill from the Telecom*USA Billing Center. Your MCI calls will appear on the bill they are now using. (Your local telco bill or one directly from MCI.) Depending on which account you have you have to dial the proper PIC if not 1+. If you have the 800 Prime Time you need to dial over the Telecom*USA network via 10835 if you live in an old Teleconnect area or 10852 if you live in a old SouthernNet area. (They may have other PIC's). If you have the account from MCI you need to use 10222. I had them transfer my old Telecom*USA account into the new 800 Prime Time account. They even transfered my * Card and SoutherNet card (originally signed up at SouthLand which was bought by SoutherNet which merged into Telecom*USA) to the new account. When I get my packet in the mail I will update this posting with calling card information and anything else they include. ------------------------------ Subject: UK City Codes to Change Date: Mon, 3 Dec 90 5:58:27 EST From: Ken Jongsma Coming right on the heels of the London City Code change, the {London Financial Times} reports that British Telecom is requesting approval to add one digit to all city codes in the UK. BT expresses the usual argument that with the explosion of FAX, modem and other users, the country is running out of numbers. Initially, the change would be made by adding the number 1 after the trunk access code 0. Hence, 071 in London would become 0171. No date was given for th change, except the BT wants to wait until most mechanical exchanges have been converted to digital, to make the change easier. (From the same edition of the {Financial Times}: AT&T wants to purchase NCR.) Ken Jongsma ken@wybbs.mi.org Smiths Industries ken%wybbs@sharkey.umich.edu Grand Rapids, Michigan ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken ------------------------------ From: Jeff Wilkinson Subject: Modem Development Equipment Organization: Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis MN Date: Mon, 3 Dec 90 20:27:55 GMT I am looking for a DSP engine to plug into a PC or other workstation and interface to the telephone network with a minimum of external hardware. It would be used as a modem prototyping system. Anyone know of any companies which sell this sort of hardware? (I know the DSP part is not a problem, its the _approved_ phone interface which connects to it that seems hard to find.) Thanks in advance. Jeff Wilkinson wilk@medtronic.com Medtronic, Inc. 7000 Central Ave NE Voice +1-612-574-3770 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Dec 90 14:31:29 EST From: Herman R Silbiger Subject: Public Access to CCITT Bulletin Board Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories The ITU (International Telecommunications Union), parent body to the CCITT, now has a public bulletin board for information retrieval. The service is called TIES, Telecom Information Exchange Services. Access is either by the telephone network and modem, or by packet networks. The login procedure from the PSTN (Public Switched Telephone Network) is by calling +41 22 733 7575, which provides access through a multistandard modem interface. CCITT V.21, V.22, V.22bis, V.32, and Bell 212A modems are supporteds. Terminal emulation is ANSI/VTXXX. From the PSPDN (Public Switched Packet Data Network) access is via the Swiss TELEPAC using the DTE number #228468111112, where # is your local access. The Username INFO, with no password, can be used by any person for the access to the Public Information available on the ITU Info service. Participants in CCITT Study Groups can obtain a login and make use of the e-mail and electronic conference facilities, as well as uploading drafts etc. Herman Silbiger hsilbiger@attmail.com ------------------------------ From: Jon Sreekanth Subject: The Tone That Prompts For Calling Card Number Date: 3 Dec 90 21:06:37 I know the subject line sounds obscure; I couldn't describe it any better in one line. From a public phone, for example, to make an operator assisted call, or to make a calling card, one might dial 0 - area code - number. Then there's a pause, and a sound best described as a 'boiiiing', or a 'pinnng', and after that, one enters the calling card number (or after time out, operator comes on line.) What are the specs on that tone? Frequency (single, or mixture of frequencies), envelope, duration, etc. (We're thinking of using that as a prompt on one of our products.) Thanks, Jon Sreekanth Assabet Valley Microsystems Fax and PC products 346 Lincoln St #722, Marlboro, MA 01752 508-562-0722 jon_sree@world.std.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Dec 90 03:59:33 CST From: Peter Anvin Subject: What are 700 and 555 Numbers? Reply-To: Peter Anvin Organization: Academic Computing and Network Services, Evanston, Il. Could anyone please explain what that mystical area code 700 is, and what is so special with the exchange number 555? I know 555-1212 is the information number, but there must be something else that is special with it, or no? Is there a reason for it being used as a "foo" for phone numbers (no one takes number 555-1234 seriously, no?) Finally, does the customer pay for calls to area code 700? [Moderator's Note: 555-1212 was simply adopted as a universal number for directory assistance, and to the best of my knowledge very little else has been assigned on 555. I think one AT&T business office uses something like 555-8111, but that is about all. Other examples? Whether or not you are charged for calls to 700 numbers depends on what carriers and services are involved. 700 is sort of like 900, with various services and offerings on a carrier by carrier basis. Unlike 900 numbers which are either national or local/statewide, 700 numbers are by carrier, meaning an AT&T customer usually cannot directly access the services of other carriers on 700 numbers, etc. Telecom*USA has their Voice News Network there for *their* customers; AT&T has their Alliance Teleconferencing Service there as we discussed a couple issues ago. Does anyone have a complete (more or less) list of everything in the 700 range, listed by carrier? If so, please send it along. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Dec 90 12:40:58 EST From: "Nicholas J. Simicich" Reply-To: Nick Simicich Subject: Parity Checking in Memory All parity checking does is reduces the chance of an undetected error. It does not eliminate it. I've worked with digital and modem communications for some years now. Although rare, I've been shown garbled data which passed crc-16 checks three times now in my career. (This data was collected during traces, or in other cases where people were looking for garbled data because of a prior occurence.) The answer was, "It happens, and you should have a second end-to-end check on correct transmission, and not rely on link level reliability." The point is that something like TELECOM Digest acts as a lightning rod for unusual events. For any particular Return*Call, it is almost a certainty that, yes, the system will function correctly, and so forth. For any particular occurence unusual enough to report to TELECOM Digest, I'd put the odds at no better than 50%. :-) As for your comment about parity checked memory: All parity does is to raise the bar. Some number of failures will be single bit, and will be detected by [parity, ecc, etc.]. Some much smaller number of errors will be multi-bit, and with the pattern of affected bits such that they will not be detected (any two bit error for parity memory, for example). And you might remember the report a while back, I think in Telecom, but it might have bee in one of the TCP/IP lists, about this particular high speed (rf or something) modem that frequently constructed bytes that were in error but which produced the same incremental CRC change as the original bytes that were not in error. I'm sure there are other fun examples. To finalize, by putting a little twist on your analogy: TELECOM Digest is a zoo of the unusual. In a zoo, zebras are just as likely as horses. Nick Simicich (NJS at WATSON, njs@ibm.com) ---SSI AOWI #3958, HSA #318 [Zookeeper's Note: Thank you very much for an unusual and different response. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Subodh Bapat Subject: Future Projections of Area Code Growth Date: 3 Dec 90 16:22:55 GMT Organization: (I don't speak for) Racal-Milgo, Ft Lauderdale, FL Thanks to cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) for posting a very informative and entertaining history of area code changes! Now, does anyone have any projections as to the rate at which area code changes will be required in future? Seems to me from recent history that the frequency with which new area codes are required has been increasing in recent years - a trend which, I suspect, will only accelerate with the proliferation of cellular, fax, and related technologies. If anybody has Bellcore's (or anybody else's) projections for new area codes beyond 1992 and/or planned changes to basic NANP syntax/structure, I'd appreciate their sending it to the Digest. Subodh Bapat bapat@rm1.uu.net OR ...uunet!rm1!bapat MS E-204, PO Box 407044, Racal-Milgo, Ft Lauderdale, FL 33340 (305) 846-6068 ------------------------------ From: Roger Clark Swann Subject: Need Help Finding AT&T Proto Magazine Date: 3 Dec 90 21:27:39 GMT Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics I just received a copy of {Proto Magazine} from AT&T that I did not request. This is the first and only copy and I want it to be the last! I want the thing turned off as it is just more junk mail to me. My problem is that I can't find a phone number to call and get removed from the mailing list. There is no info regarding circulation, etc. in the publication itself except for the address of Bell Labs in N.J. that publishes Proto and this address looks rather general and not related to circulation. I looked in the AT&T business edition 800 directory, nothing there. I would call 800 DA but what AT&T group do I ask for? Bell Labs, Network Systems? (It says the magazine is published for them.) If anyone knows how to stop this thing, please let me know too. Roger Swann | uucp: uw-beaver!ssc-vax!clark @ | The Boeing Company | [Moderator's Note: Why don't you try calling AT&T Labs in New Jersey and asking for the Public Relations Department? I'm sure they could help you. At the same time, take the label from the cover of the magazine and return it to the address given to the attention of the Public Relations Department and ask them to remove it from the mailing. I'm sure they don't feel like wasting copies of their magazine where they are not wanted. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 02 Dec 90 11:17:06 EST From: Jeff Scheer Subject: Do You Need an Answering Service? [Moderator's Note: I am making *this one exception* to the usual rule of no commercial advertising on the net. This fellow could probably use the support of netters, and telecom readers in particular. Respond direct to him, not to the Digest. Please do not send other commercial messages here unless your circumstances are like those described. PAT] ------------ If anyone is interested in a low cost telephone answering service, please don't hesitate to call GRAND CENTRAL TELEPHONE ANSWERING SERVICE IN COUNCIL BLUFFS IOWA. I am a disabled man in a wheelchair, that is tired of living ( HAHAHA) off of social security and own my own home. With no employees, with the exception of a roommate, that I have answer on the night shift, we can provide TELECOM users with answering service/ wake up service/ and Word Processing using Word Perfect 5.1. If you are interested in such a service, please give me a call at 712-325-0443 voice/modem. After January, I will list the number that the telco gives me as a primary pilot hunt group number. For rates and services, please call. Thanks! Jeff Scheer, GRAND CENTRAL TELEPHONE ANSWERING SERVICE. The .COMmand Center (Opus 1:5010/23) --- Through FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 Jeff.Scheer@f23.n285.z1.fidonet.org ------------------------------ From: Charles "Chip" Roberson Subject: Re: Pizza Pizza Toll-Free Cellular Number Date: 4 Dec 90 03:25:01 GMT Reply-To: Charles "Chip" Roberson Organization: Alcatel Network Systems, Raleigh NC In article <15006@accuvax.nwu.edu> ndallen@contact.uucp (Nigel Allen) writes: > (I think someone said that *NC will get you the North Carolina > Highway Patrol). It might be *HP. It at least belongs to one of the following: NC, VA, MD, WV, or PA. Cheers, chip * Work: 2912 Wake Forest Road, Raleigh, NC 27609 (919) 850-5011 * (...!mcnc!aurgate!roberson) || (roberson%aurgate@mcnc.org) || * (71500.2056@CompuServe.com) || (Chip.Roberson@f112.n151.z1.fidonet.org) #include ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #862 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13667; 5 Dec 90 5:58 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04824; 5 Dec 90 4:15 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22146; 5 Dec 90 3:10 CST Date: Wed, 5 Dec 90 2:19:58 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #863 BCC: Message-ID: <9012050219.ab14056@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 5 Dec 90 02:19:36 CST Volume 10 : Issue 863 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson New York Automated Credit System [Douglas Scott Reuben] New GTE Mobilnet / SF "Feature" [Douglas Scott Reuben] Theft of Phone Service [Van Gale] AT&T Calling Card Blocking [Jack Dominey] NXX's per NPA [Dave Esan] Unanswered Trunk Enhancement (was: Dialing Own Number...) [Steve Rhoades] Stupid AT&T Ad [Erik Naggum] California SXS Touchtone Refund [Ed Hopper] Use of 10732 For LD Calls [Carl Moore] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: New York Automated Credit System Date: Mon, 3 Dec 90 05:19 EST I just noticed that if you dial NY Tel's credit office for the New York Metro area, you get a recording that says: "You have reached New York Telephone's automated credit system. To receive credit for calls on which you experienced service difficulties, simply hang up after you hear the tone. For other credit, please stay on the line, and a representative will help you. " So when you dial 211 (credit office), you no longer have to hear: "Number called, pleasemmmm ... Credit has beennnnn arAYenGEDD ... Thank you". Sort of miss it, in a way ... but you can still talk to a live person if you made a Calling Card call and need credit, etc. Also, if your call was out of state, or just any INTER-LATA call, after you call 211 and tell them the number, they connect you with AT&T. I wonder if they do this for Sprint, MCI, et. al.?? (Probably not -- they would quickly run out of lines if they had customers holding for Sprint credit for the usual hour or so! :-) ) This sort of reminds me of GTE Mobilnet SF's system: If your call gets cut off and you call back in less than a minute (?), you automatically get credit for the cut off call. Your initial / "cut off" call may also have some time limit on it (ie, not longer than one minute), but I'm not sure about this. Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet (and just plain old "dreuben" to locals...!! :-) ) ------------------------------ Date: 3-DEC-1990 22:56:52.20 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: New GTE Mobilnet / SF "Feature" Although many non-GTE/San Francisco Customers who have Cellular service in California and Reno, NV may allready have this, GTE/SF now claims that the newer version of "Follow Me Roaming" is now working for its customers. Information and rate schedules for this feature are to be sent to customers in their January bills. Since Follow Me Roaming has many activation delays, and due to the fact that frequently after 9PM, Pacific Time, (12AM Eastern, when the previous day's activations are erased) one can not use the system for a good part of the evening, the California "B" systems have had, for some time, a system that automatically follows you around. GTE/SF has NOT been allowing its customers to use this system (because of testing?) until now. I don't think it is in the nature of a DMX (like the "A" systems tend to have between, let's say, Boston and Rhode Island), and thus I am told one can not use call-forwarding, etc., while in the roam/foreign market, as roamers in many of the DMXed areas can. BUT, on the positive side, it doesn't cut-out at 9PM, and there is NO activation delay! All you need to do is press *28 to activate and *29 to deactivate. (I THINK those are the right numbers ... haven't tried it yet, but a friend of mine in Sac told me it worked for Pac*Tel customers.) An added bonus is that unlike FMR, if you have your calls *72/Forward to voicemail, you can press *28/*29 as often as you need to, and whenever the system is in a *29 ("don't follow me") mode, all callers will get your voicemail. FMR didn't work this way, and after you hit *18 there was no way to get back to your voicemail until you got back to the GTE/SF area. (You could, however, use *71 to your voicemail, which seems to stay active after a FMR deactivition, ie, *19.) Also, since I mentioned a DMX, do any Cell One or LA Cell. customers know if there is a DMX between "A" carriers in CA? Can, for example, a Cell One/Sacramento customer forward calls and/or get call-waiting while roaming in, let's say, Santa Barbara? San Francisco? etc? Guess that's it. Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ From: Van Gale Subject: Theft of Phone Service Date: 4 Dec 90 21:54:40 GMT Reply-To: Van Gale Organization: Online Computer Systems, Inc. I've just had a horrifying experience and need some advice. Around September 21 my wife and I moved into our new house. Since I didn't want call waiting on the modem line, etc., I told her I would take care of contacting C&P for the new service. She then assumed I would contact Contel to disconnect our previous service from the home we were renting. I assumed she would since she was disconnecting the other services. Well, last weekend we received a bill from Contel for several thousand dollars!!!!! Is this horrifying or what? Apparently, someone knew the house was empty, entered the home with their own phone and spent MANY hours calling some 900 date service. My god. What makes this (especially) surprising is that the house was on a (very) remote farm where all the neighbors know each other. In fact, the entire year we lived there we never locked the door. Anyway (aaargh), anybody have a good recommendation? I've already started talking to Contel and they are "investigating." Has this kind of thing happened before? Should I uncross my fingers and head for the lawyers office? Van Gale van@ocsmd.ocs.com ------------------------------ From: jdominey@bsga05.attmail.com Date: Tue Dec 4 14:49:26 EST 1990 Subject: AT&T Calling Card Blocking Most readers have seen multiple articles here, from our Moderator and others, about international calling card calls being blocked by AT&T from certain pay phones. Pat, especially, has repeatedly said that this blocking may constitute an illegal denial of credit. No one has been able to get a definite answer from AT&T about the matter. Being a conscientious AT&T employee, I made some inquiries, and here is the response I received: ------------- Begin Attached Message ------------- To: bsga05!jdominey From: attmail!walkerp (Paul A Walker ) Date: Mon Nov 26 04:52:57 GMT 1990 Subject: Card Blocking Mr. Dominey, I hope the following will clear up any confusion on calling card blocking from payphones. 1. AT&T does, from time to time, block collect, calling card and third number calls in an effort to control fraud. 2. The blocking of calls is a legal practice in that AT&T has an existing tariff (TARIFF F.C.C. No. 1, 8th Revision of page 43, section 2.9.4) which states: In order to control fraud, the Company may refuse to accept Collect Calling, Calling Card and/or Third Number Calling which it determines to be invalid and/or may limit the use of these billing options to or from certain countries or areas including all or part of the United States, Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands. Paul Walker Int'l Card Product Mngt ---------- My own opinion: Blocking of this kind should be legal as long as the LD company can demonstrate that blocking is the only means available to stop a documented pattern of fraud. Jack Dominey|AT&T Commercial Marketing|800 241-4285|AT&T Mail: !dominey standard disclaimers apply [Moderator's Note: Thank you very much for going to the trouble to get this response for us. AT&T has not yet responded to my inquiries on this however I had not made any recently. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Dave Esan Subject: NXX's per NPA Date: 4 Dec 90 20:37:22 GMT Organization: Moscom Corp., E. Rochester, NY It is time for my quarterly posting of the total number of exchanges in each NPA. It will give you some idea of why NPA's are getting split, and which NPA's are likely to be split soon. The count is based on the BellCore V&H tape of 10/15/90, and does not include Mexican codes (52x) or other place codes (88x). I have include as known or potential NPAs. The top ten are: 213: 709 212: 653 919: 611 214: 705 404: 642 416: 609 201: 682 415: 629 512: 608 301: 679 Of these: 213 is scheduled for a split (to 310). 214 has split but still has permissive dialling of calls to 903. Its count should drop substantially when this ends. 201 has split but still has permissive dialling of calls to 908. Its count should drop substantially when this ends. 301 is scheduled for a split (to 410). 212 is scheduled for a split (to 417). 404 is, to the best of my knowledge, not scheduled for a split. 415 is scheduled for a split (to 510). 919, 416, and 512 are not scheduled for a split at this time. Interestingly, 714 is number 18 on this list. While its growth may be more explosive than save 215 (#14), I can't imagine that it is more that much faster than 416 in Toronto, 404 in Georgia, or 919 in North Carolina. Perhaps being a right coast person has me prejudiced. The entire list is as follows: 213: 709 405: 525 816: 436 204: 341 908: 301 309: 253 906: 109 214: 705 713: 515 913: 428 818: 339 819: 301 709: 252 302: 106 201: 682 615: 511 412: 412 219: 338 505: 294 806: 251 807: 105 301: 679 314: 505 317: 404 519: 336 905: 293 315: 251 917: 0 212: 653 503: 500 312: 399 502: 332 915: 290 808: 248 404: 642 612: 499 402: 398 406: 331 815: 282 518: 242 910: 0 415: 629 303: 486 907: 396 207: 330 408: 282 608: 236 909: 0 919: 611 809: 481 916: 395 605: 328 702: 278 509: 229 416: 609 803: 480 515: 395 419: 326 218: 275 603: 227 810: 0 512: 608 708: 480 614: 388 318: 325 409: 273 901: 216 313: 605 813: 476 601: 385 704: 324 208: 269 417: 192 710: 0 205: 604 904: 470 718: 382 914: 321 613: 267 308: 191 403: 585 817: 470 407: 364 319: 321 812: 266 802: 174 610: 0 215: 580 619: 468 617: 362 304: 321 712: 265 707: 171 602: 579 203: 467 616: 362 618: 316 805: 263 506: 171 510: 0 202: 576 514: 466 508: 359 504: 316 609: 261 706: 169 501: 559 717: 464 418: 356 801: 315 705: 260 607: 159 410: 0 714: 551 804: 455 716: 354 209: 314 606: 259 719: 153 206: 542 305: 443 516: 354 912: 312 903: 258 307: 146 310: 0 604: 540 414: 442 316: 353 517: 311 902: 257 413: 129 216: 532 306: 441 217: 344 715: 306 814: 254 401: 128 210: 0 703: 531 513: 438 701: 343 918: 302 507: 253 David Esan de@moscom.com ------------------------------ From: Steve Rhoades Subject: Unanswered Trunk Enhancement (was: Dialing Own Number...) Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena Date: Tue, 4 Dec 90 05:57:35 GMT In article <15088@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: >Pac*Bell Weenie Note: In the Pac*Bell implementations of the 1AESS >(W.E. should never have provided them with the source!), you would >still get busy, even when dialing through Telecom*USA. PB's generic >will not allow CW or 3W until the first call is supervised. Pac*Bell >had some lame reason for doing this, but I forgot what it was. I believe it's called Unanswered Trunk Enhancement. As you know, it was phased into all of Pac*Bell's generics a few years ago. Their logic for doing this: When a person with three-way calling dialed a number which was busy, the calling person would flash momentarily, then retry the call. The problem was the person wouldn't get a "new" dialtone but a three-way dialtone. No problem if the number being called was still busy - both connections would disconnect when the calling party hangs up. But, if the call attempt made with the three-way dialtone was successful (person being called answered and a long conversation ensued) the busy signal would still be on hold tying up Pac*Bell's precious resources. We know what THAT can lead to :-). Internet: slr@caltech.edu | Voice-mail: (818) 794-6004 UUCP: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!tybalt!slr | USmail: Box 1000, Mt. Wilson, Ca. 91023 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Dec 1990 10:29:12 +0100 From: Erik Naggum Subject: Stupid AT&T Ad I don't know if this is of interest to the readers of TELECOM Digest, since they may have read it elsewhere, already. Nonetheless, I found this to be utterly bogus and in clear contradiction to the high quality I have experienced with AT&T products and services. The text of the ad goes like this: I'm sitting in a corner office on a round planet and I'm thinking about my son and how last night he looked at the crescent moon above our house and said, "Daddy, broken moon, broken moon." And I told him that the moon would be fixed soon by a silent and unseen hand; however; the PBX that I bought for the corporation from some unknown company might not be fixed any time soon at all, and my little boy who is only five said, "Dad, AT&T has a REMOTE MAINTENANCE lab in Denver set up to detect any problems that might come up with their DEFINITY System and fix them before they actually happen. You see, Dad, a full 1/3 of the memory of a DEFINITY switch is devoted entirely to self- maintenance." And I told him thanks for the tip and he looked up at me said, "Straighten up and fly right, Dad, because no silent and unseen hand is going to pay for me going to college." I found this ad in the November-December 1990 issue of {Harvard Business Review}, inside back cover, two pages, with a somewhat vertically stretched picture of a young kid sans clothes, from waist up, text running across the two pages. Yes, I did notice it and read it. However, does AT&T think their customers are complete idiots? I mean, a five year old kid having the vocabulary and knowledge to say that, or have a clear grasp of the cost of going to college. Gimme a BREAK! And "I bought from ... some unknown company" -- sound decision-making. No, I didn't find this charming, even though that all too clearly was the intent. [Erik Naggum] Naggum Software, Oslo, Norway ------------------------------ Subject: California SXS Touchtone Refund From: Ed Hopper Date: Mon, 03 Dec 90 21:54:50 CST Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Texas 713-997-7575 I spent a week recently in the San Jose area. I noticed an ad by PAC*BELL in one of the local papers (the Chronicle or the much-loved San Jose Mercury News :-)) offering refunds to customers of SXS offices who paid for Touch Tone(tm) during a particular period. What is the history of this matter? Why should SXS subscribers receive a refund and ESS or XB subscribers be denied? Ed Hopper Ed Hopper's BBS 713-997-7575 - Houston - Free Access to AT&T Employees USENET - ILink - Smartnet PC Board - Markmail Offline Reader System ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Dec 90 11:53:46 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Use of 10732 for LD Calls I called from an AT&T pay phone on 301-272, and made credit card call to time and weather service in Delaware by punching in 10732-0-302-633-1212 and after I punched in my credit card number, it went thru as if I had punched in 10288 instead of 10732. (i.e., via AT&T) [Moderator's Note: I did almost the very same thing from a payphone on the 312-743 exchange. I dialed 10732-0 and asked the operator how much change I would need to get for the coin box to place a call to Kalamazoo and Timbuck, too. She had never heard of Timbuck, so it took her awhile to find the rate for that one. I mentioned to her that my five year old grandson down in Timbuck had recommended routing all my DDD traffic over 10732 in the future and escrowing the savings into his college fund since it was unlikely the salary I'm paid as a mild-mannered reporter for that great metropolitan daily TELECOM Digest would ever be enough to buy a pot to cook in, let alone pay for his tuition. The operator said she had never heard of 10732 and was that one of those new alternate carrier services ... Really, the only thing I've found different between 10288 and 10732 is the latter won't complete a call to 700-555-4141.Other than that, they are identical in how they operate, it seems. But are the rates lower on 10732? Do the Reach Out Plans do their thing? My next bill will tell the answer. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #863 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02297; 5 Dec 90 23:06 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08687; 5 Dec 90 21:25 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21352; 5 Dec 90 20:21 CST Date: Wed, 5 Dec 90 20:15:15 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #864 BCC: Message-ID: <9012052015.ab13254@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 5 Dec 90 20:14:58 CST Volume 10 : Issue 864 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: The "Bell" Logo [Glenn R. Stone] Re: The "Bell" Logo [Tad Cook] Re: The "Bell" Logo [Dave Levenson] Re: The "Bell" Logo [Larry Jones] It's a Trademark not a Copyright [Ed Hopper] Re: Two Line Turnbutton Phones [Mike Berger] Re: Two Line Turnbutton Phones [David Brightbill] Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers? [Spyros C. Bartsocas] Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers? [Bob Clements] Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers? [Joel B. Levin] Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers? [Tom Lowe] Re: The Tone That Prompts For Calling Card Number [Dave Levenson] Re: The Tone That Prompts For Calling Card Number [Toby Nixon] Re: Why Does AT&T Supply ISDN Instead of Local Telco? [John Ellson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Glenn R. Stone" Subject: Re: The "Bell" Logo Date: 4 Dec 90 21:48:03 GMT Organization: Dead Poets Society In <15171@accuvax.nwu.edu> mailrus!uflorida!rm1!bapat@uunet.uu.net (Subodh Bapat) writes: >Talking about the Bell logo, is there any truth to the rumor that, >once long ago, AT&T lost its right to use the Bell logo, as the >copyright expired and they forgot to renew it? The story I heard was >that they had to pay a lot of money to get it back from some smart >entrepreneur who, in the meantime, sneaked in and got the copyright >for himself. ^^^^^^^^^ The use of the word "copyright" itself renders the entire rumor at least partially bogus ... A logo or word is subject to *trademark*, not copyright; once either is lost (trademarks are good so long as the company chooses to enforce it; copyrights have a definite lifetime) the mark or work is Public Domain and no one can acquire exclusive rights to it anymore. (Trademarks don't "expire"; they lose their exclusivity when a company chooses not to enforce them. Once this occurs, the company cannot then chose to again start enforcing it, however.) Moreover, the "Bell" logo would qualify as a "famous" trademark (like the Golden Arches of McDonalds or the Checkerboard Square of Ralston Purina) and the Patents and Trademarks Office would disallow registry in the first place, even for something totally unrelated. So on a purely legal argument, I'd say you've got yourself an urban legend. Glenn R. Stone (gs26@prism.gatech.edu) ------------------------------ Subject: Re: The "Bell" Logo From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Date: 2 Dec 90 17:40:00 GMT In article <14977@accuvax.nwu.edu>, DREUBEN@eagle.wesleyan.edu (Douglas Scott Reuben) writes: > US West (at least the ex-Pacific Northwest Bell BOC) USED to use it, > until maybe about January, 1990. I have a Bend, Oregon directory from > 1989, and it has the logo, but the newer 1990-1991 book does not. If I > remember correctly, there was a small passage in the newer book > stating that PNB was changing its name to "US West", or something to > that effect. My latest bill from US West has the old Bell logo on it. I guess they still like to be identified as a "real" phone company. It is also on the Seattle 1990/91 directory covers. 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 ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: The "Bell" Logo Date: 5 Dec 90 02:55:35 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <15171@accuvax.nwu.edu>, mailrus!uflorida!rm1!bapat (Subodh Bapat) writes: > Talking about the Bell logo, is there any truth to the rumor that, > once long ago, AT&T lost its right to use the Bell logo, as the ... I have heard this story, but I regarded it as urban legend. In the version I heard, somebody in Texas opened an answering service bureau called 'Blue Bell Answering Service' using the familiar Bell-in-a-Circle logo. The story goes on to say that he sold the rights to his logo to AT&T, and with the proceeds, shut down his service bureau and retired -- at age 25 or so. Anybody else heard this one? Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Dec 90 14:15:56 EST From: Larry Jones Subject: Re: The "Bell" Logo Doug Reuben asks: > Anyone know what Cincinnati Bell (not a "real" BOC, and certainly not > an RBOC) uses? Maybe they borrowed SNET's! (or more likely, SNET > borrowed Cincinnati Bell's! :-) ) Well, they may not be a "real" BOC (AT&T never owned more than a minority interest and was not forced to divest it), they are still using the Bell logo as befits their name. So no, they didn't lend their logo to SNET (although they have sold their billing system to a LOT of other phone companies!). ------------------------------ Subject: It's a Trademark not a Copyright From: Ed Hopper Date: Tue, 04 Dec 90 19:04:43 CST Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Texas 713-997-7575 mailrus!uflorida!rm1!bapat@uunet.uu.net (Subodh Bapat) writes: > Talking about the Bell logo, is there any truth to the rumor that, > once long ago, AT&T lost its right to use the Bell logo, as the > copyright expired and they forgot to renew it? The story I heard was > that they had to pay a lot of money to get it back from some smart > entrepreneur who, in the meantime, sneaked in and got the copyright > for himself. > Anyone have any facts to substantiate/dispel this rumor? > [Moderator's Note: I've never heard that story before. Readers? PAT] I don't believe this is the case. The Bell logo is not protected by copyright but rather by trademark law. It is held (at the direction of Judge Green) by Bellcore. A trademark doesn't, to my knowledge, expire unless it is no longer used by the holder. A copyright, on the other hand, will eventually expire. Some movies, for example, are in the public domain as their copyrights have expired. Ed Hopper Ed Hopper's BBS 713-997-7575 - Houston - Free Access to AT&T Employees USENET - ILink - Smartnet PC Board - Markmail Offline Reader System ------------------------------ From: Mike Berger Subject: Re: Two Line Turnbutton Phones Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Wed, 5 Dec 90 22:29:20 GMT >[Moderator's Note: No. I wish I was ... but the two-line, one-button >phones were specifically *not* for sale during divestiture. They were >then categorized as PBX equipment even though they were frequently Illinois Bell was willing to sell me mine - a wall model - for $ 55. Mike Berger Department of Statistics, University of Illinois AT&TNET 217-244-6067 Internet berger@atropa.stat.uiuc.edu [Moderator's Note: At the time of divestiture, although Illinois Bell was selling some phones, they told me the two-line turnbutton phones were being 'taken over' by AT&T for some reason. AT&T has been sending me the bill ever since. The funny thing is, about three months into divestiture, I had to have it repaired. We were still being told to call 'repair service' at the time for phone repairs. A guy came over from the IBT stockroom at 1212 Carmen St. (the Edgewater CO) and brought me a reconditioned phone. I asked him how come, since it was supposedly AT&T now ... he said they had not yet completed the transfer of inventory ... and that he worked for AT&T but was still physically located in an IBT building. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Dec 90 11:21:48 -0500 From: David Brightbill Subject: re: Two Line Turnbutton Phones Two line turnbutton phones are available from Graybar. The part number is 2575**-MBA-60M. A color code goes in the ** space. The phones are made by ITT. The catalog description is: "The 2-line model (2575) includes manual hold and a turn-and-push key for line selection and signaling." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Dec 90 10:51:06 -0500 From: "Spyros C. Bartsocas" Subject: Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers? Our Moderator notes: >[Moderator's Note: 555-1212 was simply adopted as a universal number >for directory assistance, and to the best of my knowledge very little >else has been assigned on 555. I think one AT&T business office uses >something like 555-8111, but that is about all. Other examples? NET uses the 555-1611 and 555-1515 (actually 1-555-1611 and 1-555-1515) for repair service as follows: Residence 1-555-1611 Business 1-555-1515 Public (coin)1-555-1611 555-1611 is the same as 611 in other places. Also from the telephone directory 1-555-1717 is the "Public Service Center", where "business customers who have or would like to apply for public or semi-public coin telephone service", should call. "There is no charge for these calls". Spyros Bartsocas scb@cs.brown.edu ------------------------------ Subject: Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers? Date: Wed, 05 Dec 90 10:26:28 -0500 From: clements@bbn.com The Moderator asks: >Moderator's Note: 555-1212 was simply adopted as a universal number >for directory assistance, and to the best of my knowledge very little >else has been assigned on 555. I think one AT&T business office uses >something like 555-8111, but that is about all. Other examples? From the New England Tel (Boston suburbs) phone book: Repair service Residence: 1-555-1611 Business: 1-555-1515 Public(coin)1-555-1611 and If you are a business customer who has or would like to apply for public or semi-public coin telephone service, call the Public Service Center at no charge, 1-555-1717. Bob Clements, K1BC, clements@bbn.com ------------------------------ From: "Joel B. Levin" Subject: Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers? Date: Wed, 5 Dec 90 08:34:47 EST >From: Peter Anvin >[Moderator's Note: 555-1212 was simply adopted as a universal number... >I think one AT&T business office uses >something like 555-8111, but that is about all. Other examples? This varies by local telco. We have repair service on 1-555-1611 for residence and coin and 1-555-1515 for business; the "Public Service Center" (for dealing with public and semi-public coin phones -- not COCOTS I think) is at 1-555-1717. I don't know how out of area 555 is handled; 700-555 is a per carrier option, except that +700-555-4141 seems to have become the standard "carrier ID" number. >... 700 numbers >are by carrier, meaning an AT&T customer usually cannot directly >access the services of other carriers on 700 numbers, etc. Not strictly correct; an AT&T customer may access other carriers' 700 services by prefixing the appropriate 10XXX prefix, just as customers of other carriers may access the AT&T services by using 10288. (And obviously this only applies to locations with equal access and service available from the desired carrier.) JBL nets: levin@bbn.com | BBN Communications or: ...!bbn!levin | M/S 20/7A POTS: +1 617 873 3463 | 150 Cambridge Park Drive or: +1 603 880 1611 | Cambridge, MA 02140 ------------------------------ From: telpc!tel@cdsdb1.att.com Date: Tue, 4 Dec 90 20:12 EST Subject: Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers? AT&T uses 700 numbers for their ISDN service. Apparently, if you get a PRI ISDN line from AT&T for switched data (64 or 384 Kbit), you can get one or more 700 numbers assigned. I doubt you can call these 700 numbers from a regular phone, but I have never tried it. Next time I get a look at the patch panel in one of the labs, I will try calling and see what I get. When we were trying some data calls, we had to "dial" the 700 number to place the call. When I say dial, I mean the dial string that goes over then D channel has the 700 number as the destination. That's all I really know right now. I will soon be learning more about this stuff! I'll pass on anything that I learn. Tom Lowe AT&T tel@hound.ATT.COM ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: The Tone That Prompts For Calling Card Number Date: 5 Dec 90 03:27:24 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <15178@accuvax.nwu.edu>, jon_sree@world.std.com (Jon Sreekanth) writes: > What are the specs on that tone? Frequency (single, or mixture of > frequencies), envelope, duration, etc. From "Notes on the BOC Intra-LATA Networks" Bellcore, 1983: Calling Card Service-Prompt Tone: 941 Hz + 1477 Hz for 60 milliseconds, at -10 dBm0/frequency at -3 TLP (-7 dBm0) followed by 440 Hz + 350 Hz for 940 milliseconds (exponentially decayed from -10 dBm per frequency at -3 TLP at time constant of 200 milliseconds). Note that the initial 60 milliseconds of 941 + 1477 is the equivalent of the touch tone # symbol. This is done because the # will disable the tone-to-pulse translators used on some older central office and PBX equipment. A caller using a tone-dial phone behind a tone-to- pulse converter will thereby be allowed to send the calling-card number using tones. The rest of the tone (after the # symbol) is a decaying dial-tone. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: The Tone That Prompts For Calling Card Number Date: 5 Dec 90 00:37:11 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA In article <15178@accuvax.nwu.edu>, jon_sree@world.std.com (Jon Sreekanth) writes: > From a public phone, for example, to make an operator assisted call, > or to make a calling card, one might dial 0 - area code - number. Then > there's a pause, and a sound best described as a 'boiiiing', or a > 'pinnng', and after that, one enters the calling card number (or after > time out, operator comes on line.) > What are the specs on that tone? Frequency (single, or mixture of > frequencies), envelope, duration, etc. I can't quote all the specs to you (and can't look them up, because I'm in a hotel room in Florida rather than in my office), but I CAN tell you where to find the info: Notes on the BOC Intra-LATA Networks-1986 TR-NPL-000275 Issue 1, April 1986 Page 6-180 Table AQ, Item 24 Calling Card Service Prompt Tone If you don't have this TR, you can order it from Bellcore. Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice +1-404-449-8791 Telex 151243420 Hayes Microcomputer Products Inc. | Fax +1-404-447-0178 CIS 70271,404 P.O. Box 105203 | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon AT&T !tnixon Atlanta, Georgia 30348 USA | Internet hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Dec 90 15:02:47 EST From: John Ellson Subject: Re: Why Does AT&T Supply ISDN Instead of Local Telco? Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories From article <15102@accuvax.nwu.edu>, by amdcad!netcom!feustel@ ames.arc.nasa.gov (David Feustel): > I've tried to find out about ISDN offerings from GTE of Indiana, but > no one there (that I've talked to) knows what ISDN is. That's funny. I just tried the same thing with US West in Phoenix and they hadn't heard about it either. Now I was serious in my request - I need extra services so that I can telecommute effectively (155 Mbits would be nice :-) ), but my office mate thought that was so funny that he tried New Jersey Bell. Guess what: "What's ISDN?"!. So ISDN really does stand for: "I Still Don't Know." To be fair to US West, it was the residential service office that hadn't heard of ISDN and they have passed me on to their small business office, who passed me on to their Engineering Department, who had heard of ISDN. Still waiting to find out what they can provide me at what price. John Ellson j.ellson@att.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #864 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03149; 6 Dec 90 0:01 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab10127; 5 Dec 90 22:30 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab08687; 5 Dec 90 21:26 CST Date: Wed, 5 Dec 90 20:47:13 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #865 BCC: Message-ID: <9012052047.ab24606@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 5 Dec 90 20:47:04 CST Volume 10 : Issue 865 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Phone Service in the UK Two Decades Ago [John Slater] Re: Note: UK City Codes to Change [Richard Jennings] Re: Prodigy Communications Protocol [snowgoose!dave@uunet.uu.net] Re: Does *ANY* PBX Supply Loop Interrupt Signal?? [Dave Levenson] Re: Answering Machine and Call Waiting [Dave Levenson] Re: EED Caller ID Specs [John McHarry] Re: Finland Wants 37!! [Bob Goudreau] Re: New Area Codes and Intl. Dialling [Erik Naggum] Re: Public Access to CCITT Bulletin Board [Jim Breen] Re: Why Are They Called 'Generics'? [Kevin W. Williams] Re: Questions About the GTE Airfone [Mark D. Fisher] Re: Questions About the GTE Airfone [Sean Petty] Re: AT&T Mail Info and Questions [Herman R. Silbiger] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Slater Subject: Re: Phone Service in the UK Two Decades Ago Date: 5 Dec 90 14:57:30 GMT Reply-To: John Slater Organization: sundc.East.Sun.COM In article <15108@accuvax.nwu.edu>, BMITCHEL@gtri01.gatech.edu (Barry Mitchell) writes: |> When I lived in England in 1970 ... a telephone |> number (area code, etc) was not the same throughout the country. From |> one city, your home number would be something totally different from |> what it would be in another city. Not true. The 6D or 7D number is constant. Only the code varied (and not much - see below). |> The result being that if you were |> out of your home town and wanted to call home, you couldn't just dial |> it from memory ... you had to find a local telephone book with all the |> right codes. You exaggerate. The dialling code (STD code) was the same for the whole country except in the area local to the number (where no dialling code was required) and immediately adjacent areas (where a short one or two-digit code was used). These short codes served two purposes: they saved time and finger-ache when dialling, and they bypassed the trunk network. Today most local codes have been abandoned, and STD codes work to anywhere from anywhere, including within the local dialling area. Much simpler. |> I don't know if they have updated the system since then Of course they have! Do you think we've stood still for twenty years? |> but it made |> me appreciate the convenience and value that we receive here in the US |> and North America. Where else can you order a pizza from a cellular |> phone while driving home and have the delivery person be there waiting |> on you when you arrive home? I don't know what prompts you to make this insular assumption. Of course we can do this: we have pizza delivery services, and we have one of the best and most successful cellular setups in the world. John Slater Sun Microsystems UK, Gatwick Office ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Dec 90 11:55:36 gmt From: Richard Jennings Subject: Re: Note: UK City Codes to Change The report on Channel 4 news last night implied that this isn't likely to happen until 1994. Richard Jennings, Software Development Engineer Pinewood Information Systems Division, Hewlett-Packard Nine Mile Ride Voice: (+44)/(0)344 763738 Wokingham Fax: (+44)/(0)344 763526 Berkshire RG11 3LL E-mail: richi@hpopd.HP.COM England or ...!hplabs!hpopd!richi ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Dec 90 04:10:24 -0500 From: snowgoose!dave@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Prodigy Communications Protocol The user's manual asserts that NAPLPS, North American Presentation Level Protocol Standard, is the communications protocol. But, it seems the tech support people at PRODIGY don't know this. They assert, wrongly, that the downstream communications is compressed bit-maps. Dave uunet!snowgoose!dave dave%snowgoose@uunet.uu.net ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Does *ANY* PBX Supply Loop Interrupt Signal?? Date: 4 Dec 90 13:25:46 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <15081@accuvax.nwu.edu>, csense!bote@uunet.uu.net (John Boteler) writes: > Does any currently available PBX transmit the loop interrupt signal > through to its POTS (2500-type) stations? Assume, for the sake of AT&T's System 25 does propagate the loop current interrupt signal toward its tip/ring stations when a trunk releases the PBX. The propagation is delayed by a few seconds. Systems 75 and 85 also propagate the loop interrupt, but it is delayed by up to 60 seconds. Can anybody answer John's questions for Merlin, Spirit, and Partner? Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Answering Machine and Call Waiting Date: 4 Dec 90 13:40:40 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <15093@accuvax.nwu.edu>, john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: [ regarding the loop-disconnect-interval switch on a Panasonic answering machine.] > This is a loop current timing selector. It determines whether the > answering machine will disconnect on a short loop current interruption > or whether it requires a longer one. The longer one is used for > call-waiting. This will prevent the machine from unceremoniously ... On the 1AESS's here in NJ, a short ( < 100 msec) open-loop interval is caused by call-waiting, and also by various call-state-changes that occur during outbound call setup. We get a 500 msec open-loop interval only when the far end disconnects. We strap our key telephone and PBX systems to recognize the long open as a disconnect, and to ignore the shorter ones, when we use loop-start trunks. In the areas where we still have 5-Xbar, we strap the same devices to recognize the short open loop (100 - 200 msec) as the disconnect signal. These switches don't generate the long interval. (They also don't offer call-waiting.) Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ From: John McHarry Subject: Re: EED Caller ID Specs Date: 4 Dec 90 13:34:05 GMT David Tamkin notes that one can get around the defect in CLASS that it will not block the class of callers blocking transmission of their number by simply not answering when the display so indicates. This sounds to me like an opportunity to add a feature to the clid box: If the caller is blocking, don't even ring, or better yet, answer with an announcement that you don't take such calls. In the latter case, the caller has to pay for the announcement, if the call was toll or message unit. Note that one must distinguish between blocked and out-of-area calls, unless one wants to block all inter-lata calls. Unfortunately, most boiler room calls are probably in the latter class. I would like a feature that would route most calls to an answering machine, but ring for certain known numbers. If this worked (when it works?) inter-lata, I could leave my answering machine on and not irritate my mother, who does NOT want to leave a message if I am not home. I would guess such boxes are not too far in the future since they would not be at all hard to build. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Dec 90 13:05:11 est From: Bob Goudreau Subject: Re: Finland Wants 37!! Kauto Huopio writes in a submission which I haven't seen, but which had a follow-up I have seen: > I've heard that our [Finnish] PTT has made a request to obtain the > former country code of the former East Germany [+37] I understand that the three Baltic states have asked the CCITT for their own separate country codes. Given the possibility that new codes will be needed for these countries, and for any other parts of the USSR that break free, wouldn't it make more sense to give them three-digit country codes of the form "37X" once Germany retires 37? And anyway, why should Finland be unhappy with 358? Is it merely envious of the high-falutin' two-digit country codes owned by Norway, Sweden and Denmark? :-) Bob Goudreau +1 919 248 6231 Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!goudreau Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Dec 1990 21:13:10 +0100 From: Erik Naggum Subject: Re: New Area Codes and Intl. Dialling > Try dialling 19 44 81 603 xxxx, and see if you get a French intercept. As has been pointed out, this is probably only valid from France. SS#7 has language bits, but they seem to be used mainly to indicate to the called country's operators in which language they should reply to calling operators. I don't know whether this is used in any other part of SS#7, but it's the only place I've seen a reference to languages in SS#7 proper. There is a pointer to Q.104, which I don't have access to, titled "Language digits or discriminating digits", to which the 001001 code below refers. For curiosity, the following bit patterns and languages are supported with the calling party category field of the initial address message: 000000 unknown source 000001 operator, language French 000010 operator, language English 000011 operator, language German 000100 operator, language Russian 000101 operator, language Spanish 000110 \ Available to administrations for 000111 > selecting a particular language 001000 / provided by mutual agreement 001001 reserved (may be used to indicate national operator) 001010 ordinary calling subscriber 001011 calling subscrier with priority 001100 data call 001101 test call 001110 spare 001111 payphone 010000 \ thru > spare 111111 / (This is CCITT recommendation Q.723 (1988) section 3.3.1 d).) Ah, the wonders of reading specs from start to end... :-) [Erik Naggum] Naggum Software, Oslo, Norway ------------------------------ From: Jim Breen Subject: Re: Public Access to CCITT Bulletin Board Organization: Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Date: Tue, 4 Dec 90 22:09:59 GMT In article <15177@accuvax.nwu.edu>, hrs1@cbnewsi.att.com (Herman R Silbiger) writes: * The ITU (International Telecommunications Union), parent body to the * CCITT, now has a public bulletin board for information retrieval. The * service is called TIES, Telecom Information Exchange Services. * The Username INFO, with no password, can be used by any person for the * access to the Public Information available on the ITU Info service. Any chance of this service being attached to the Internet? I have world-wide telnet/ftp capability without additional fee (above the $70k my university pays to belong to AARNet). Unfortunately accessing TIES by PSTN or PSDN cost real extra money. Jim Breen ARNet: jwb@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au Department of Robotics & Digital Technology. Monash University. PO Box 197 Caulfield East VIC 3145 Australia (ph) +61 3 573 2552 (fax) +61 3 573 2745 JIS:$B%8%`!!%V%j!<%s(J ------------------------------ From: "Kevin W. Williams" Subject: Re: Why Are They Called 'Generics'? Date: 1 Dec 90 22:20:08 GMT Organization: gte In article <14693@accuvax.nwu.edu>, foz@ihlpf.att.com (William F Thompson) writes: > From article <14643@accuvax.nwu.edu>, by Jeff Wasilko ultb.isc.rit.edu>: > > As I was catching up on my Digest-reading, a thought occured to me -- > > why are switch programs called 'generics'? > I always wondered that too (and I even develop software for them). > But wonder no more - they're now called Software Releases. > Bill Thompson AT&T Network Systems att!ihlpf!foz Well, I also develop software for them, and still call them generics. The "generic" portion of the load is that part which is identical in all machines, i.e. it is generic. This contrasts with the "Office Dependent" sections of the load, i.e. the database, and the "dynamic" sections of the load, i.e stacks and other unprotected data. In common usage, the new release of the program became a new generic. Kevin Wayne Williams UUCP : ...!ames!ncar!noao!asuvax!gtephx!williamsk ------------------------------ From: Fish Dude Subject: Re: Questions About the GTE Airfone Date: 4 Dec 90 13:38:12 GMT Organization: Georgia Tech: Home of the Ubiquitious Bricks In article <15124@accuvax.nwu.edu> covert@covert.enet.dec.com (John R. Covert 29-Nov-1990 1017) writes: >>4. Has anyone tried a ringback or number announcement from the phone >>? I know the phones aren't capable of actually receiving a call or >>ringing, but it would be interesting to see what happens. >Those sort of numbers are blocked. The phone accepts only >NPA-NXX-XXXX or 011+CC+... What about 1-800 numbers? What will an ANI display show as the orgin of the call? As Always, Mark D. Fisher (404) 352 1452 GT Box 36392, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 gt6392b@prism.gatech.edu ------------------------------ From: Sean Subject: Re: Questions About the GTE Airfone Date: 4 Dec 90 23:48:34 GMT Organization: A civilization beneath the Earth, The Underground Empire. > 1. How is the credit card verified ? Are they all stored on board > and downloaded after the airplane lands, or is it real-time ? Dan- When you insert your credit card, the information (number, exp. date, etc. ) is sent via 300 baud signal to a ground station. (REAL TIME). The ground station then confirms or denys usage, and proceeds from there. Actually, the handset is not released until then card is approved. > 2. What happens if everyone wanted to place a call at the same time? > On the jet I was on, that would be 56 phones in use at the same time. > Quite a multiplexer/transceiver, if that's how it's done. The transmitter section of the setup is IMPRESSIVE. Everyone could concievably use thier phone at the same time, as there are 400 channels available for use. This concept applies only, however, to one ground station. There are 80 ground stations in the U.S., though. > 3. How is frequency assignment done for numerous planes in the same > local area (i.e. 20 planes backed up, waiting for takeoff at O'Hare)? Frequency assignment goes something like this: 894 - 896 MHz (5 KHz spacing). Assignment is done in the same manner as cellular. It picks an available frequency from what the ground station tells it. AM mode is used for modulation. > 4. Has anyone tried a ringback or number announcement from the phone > ? I know the phones aren't capable of actually receiving a call or > ringing, but it would be interesting to see what happens. This would give the same result as doing it from any other phone, as in the end, you are connected with the P.S.T.N. > 5. Is there a nationwide cellular-like network for these phones, i.e. > the ground station hands off the call(s) to the next station when the > plane leaves the service area ? You are absolutley correct. Handing off and signal comparison is done in much the same way. Really, however, you would have to talk for quite a while in order to leave a service area. Consider transmitting with high power, at 35,000 feet. Most planes out of Philadelphia can hit Atlanta radio right after takeoff, with good/excellent quality. Hope this helps. Sean Petty INTERNET: seanp%undrground@amix.commodore.com UUCP: ...{rutgers|uunet|etc..}!cbmvax!amix!undrground!seanp ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Dec 90 22:28:37 EST From: Herman R Silbiger Subject: Re: AT&T Mail Info and Questions Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories > you would write to: 'internet!fido.address!username. Always use the > bang (!) style of addressing from ATT Mail; never use '@'. PAT] Not so! I regularly use @ in my mailings from attmail, however, attmail always shows the From: in !style. Herman Silbiger hsilbiger@attmail.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #865 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05313; 6 Dec 90 2:05 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27077; 6 Dec 90 0:35 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12288; 5 Dec 90 23:31 CST Date: Wed, 5 Dec 90 22:30:37 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #866 BCC: Message-ID: <9012052230.ab09848@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 5 Dec 90 22:30:05 CST Volume 10 : Issue 866 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Forwarded Calls and CallerID [Erik Naggum] Re: Return*Call Humor [Bob Yasi] Re: Alliance Teleconferencing [Herman R Silbiger] Re: For Telecom-ers Who Live up North [Barton F. Bruce] Re: AT&T Mail Info and Questions [Paul S. R. Chisholm] Re: Does *ANY* PBX Supply Loop Interrupt Signal?? [Barton F. Bruce] Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers? [Douglas Scott Reuben] Re: Stupid AT&T Ads [Lou Judice] Re: Forwarded Calls and CallerID [Erik Naggum] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 4 Dec 1990 22:39:16 +0100 From: Erik Naggum Subject: Re: Forwarded Calls and CallerID John Higdon writes: > When I receive a wrong number, I always assume error on the part of > the caller, not in the switching network. To quote a well-known radio > doctor, "When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras." Well, I can relate a weird story. A girlfriend of mine, Deb, lives on Long Island, NY, local number 798-xyxx. In May this year, something happened which I have not been able to find a good explanation for, and it annoyed one poor man a lot. Well, I call Deb, get some person whose voice I don't recognize, ask for Deb, and get a very polite "I'm sorry, there is no Deb, here. You must have dialled the wrong number." Sorry to bother the man, I apologize and hang up. Then I very carefully dial the same number, again. Same result. He is a little less polite this time, but I explain that I was careful this time, and that I'm as annoyed as he is. I try a third time. Same result. I apologize profusely and he understands that I'm not trying to bug him. This is clearly a case for Operator Assistance, expensive as it is in this country. She, of course, doesn't have any problems at all. Being called by the operator from Norway, specifically asking for her, made her parents very nervous (they have family here). Not being home the situation wasn't resolved. Next day, I call again, this time from my office. Same result. Dave, as I learn the poor man's name is, is willing to call Deb's number to see if something is wrong there. Three-way calling is nice. No problems. I give up that day. The third day, I try calling from a payphone, only to annoy Dave even more, but this time he tells me what his phone number is, provided that I don't call again. I say that's OK, and I'll go hunt for the problem. His number is 798-qrqq. There's a pattern to this. I call maintenance, and raise a veritable hell, having wasted more than $15 on failed calls, which I know are not my fault. I imagine that in the U.S. it would be relatively easy to get this refunded; not so in Norway. Two days later, a service engineer calls me to confirm that the problem has gone away, and asks me if I had called the wrong number many times. They had apparently had to call Dave both direct and indirect to trace the call, several times, and he was extremely pissed, according to the service rep. The problem was local to parts of Oslo, and the operator I called was not in Oslo. What exactly the problem was, I never learned. Subscribers don't know anything about internal things in the phone system by definition, and no exceptions to this rule are allowed to exist. The service rep didn't want to even try to tell me what was going on. Sigh. When things worked again, it took some effort to clear the problems caused by the operator calling, as well. I don't know what the problem was, but it wasn't the caller (me), it wasn't some fancy run-away special function invoked at the callee side, and it wasn't anything the telco people would admit to be their fault. I don't see what it could be if not some switching network problem. [Erik Naggum] Naggum Software, Oslo, Norway ------------------------------ From: Bob Yasi Subject: Re: Return*Call Humor Date: 5 Dec 90 01:41:39 GMT Organization: Locus Computing Corp, Los Angeles I believe there remains a point to be made in the call-back-the- annoyance-caller-but-he-used-call-forwarding-so-now-what-happens saga. If A is the annoyer he can 1) fwd to B, then 2) call up and annoy C. If C returns the call with call*return, is the annoyer's call forwarding ignored, ringing A's phone? If not, and the return*call to A is forwarded to B, the spleen-venting victims could *69 each other all day! This could be what happened to the original poster of this dilemma. Bob Yazz -- yazz@lccsd.sd.Locus.com [Moderator's Note: They'll need to fix it so that *69 overrides call forwarding. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Dec 90 22:37:39 EST From: Herman R Silbiger Subject: Re: Alliance Teleconferencing Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <15161@accuvax.nwu.edu>, rborow@bcm1a09.attmail.com writes: > All in all, ALLIANCE is a convenient, and easy service to use. If > anyone desires more {printed} information regarding ALLIANCE, I have a > limited number of brochures and/or wallet cards available. ALLIANCE is actually about ten years old, but it is still technologically quite advanced. It has echo cancellation on the ports, and uses level equalization, so there will not be level differences between talkers. It also allows two or three talkers to be active simultaneously. The ALLIANCE bridges are located at some 4ESS toll switches, but I don't know how many have been installed. Herman Silbiger hsilbiger@att.com ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: For Telecom-ers Who Live up North Date: 4 Dec 90 04:00:31 EDT Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article <15113@accuvax.nwu.edu>, CAPEK@YKTVMT.BITNET (Peter G. Capek) writes: > interesting device called a Telefreeze. It connects to a phone line > and makes the line go "off hook" when the ambient temperature goes > below a preset limit. The idea is that you would periodically call That is an OLD trick, but a slight modification may make sense. You may prefer to NOT have your summer home line be busied out, but instead let it answer the phone and hang up very fast, probably faster than answer supervision can propagate back. Even if it does cost you for the call, when it happens, you will be glad to know there is a problem. Instead of having the low temp thermostat simply short the line, have it connect a pair of back to back zeners across the line. 68 volt ones normally work well when the CO battery is 48v. If you are on a DLL ckt with 72 or 96 volts, pick diodes a bit higher. Ringing superimposed on battery will trip when a zener fires, but the line will then go on hook instantly. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Dec 90 01:03:52 EST From: Paul S R Chisholm Subject: Re: AT&T Mail Info and Questions Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <15164@accuvax.nwu.edu>, wsrcc!wolfgang@uunet.uu.net (Wolfgang S. Rupprecht), in response to a question about how to get form the Internet from AT&T Mail, replies: > psuvax1.psu.edu!WOLFSYS!attmail! Well, no; it's not WOLFSYS. But please *don't* follow Mr. Repprecht's suggestion. (I'm sure his suggestions was made helpfully, and I don't mean to criticize; but it does have problems.) Yes, some systems are registered with AT&T Mail and reachable via the Internet. It's possible to send e-mail through those systems, thus causing them to be billed by AT&T for your e-mail messages. That makes our customers unhappy. When our customers are unhappy, I'm unhappy. You wouldn't want to make me unhappy, would you? (There are ways for administrators to limit pass-through traffic.) This is the kind of problem that could be solved by someone funding an AT&T Mail/Internet gateway. I have discussed this with AT&T Mail management at length. At, in fact, great length. However, AT&T has not announced any such gateway. I won't discuss any unannounced AT&T products or services. Is the suspense killing you, or what? Paul S. R. Chisholm, AT&T Bell Laboratories att!mtunq!psrc, psrc@mtunq.att.com, AT&T Mail !psrchisholm I'm not speaking for the company, I'm just speaking my mind. Pat (an open note): Yes, I did ask product management to send you an announcement for a new feature of AT&T Mail. That is, to send the announcement to you after it had been announced, or with an embargo date and a request not to say anything until just after we make an official announcement. Sorry for the confusion. --Paul [Moderator's Note: Mr. Chisholm is the person who arranged for the Digest to be delivered to ATT Mail readers, and the person who asked that I not discuss it further until an official announcement came out. I assumed (from the note he alludes to above) that the memo I was to receive (but still have not received) was regarding the gateway. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: Does *ANY* PBX Supply Loop Interrupt Signal?? Date: 4 Dec 90 03:28:39 EDT Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. > Does any currently available PBX transmit the loop interrupt signal > through to its POTS (2500-type) stations? Assume, for the sake of > sanity, that the telephone company central office does provide a loop > interrupt signal to us on POTS subscriber loops when the calling party > releases the call. PBX trunks should be ground start. Your switch WILL notice when the CO hangs up their end of a G/S tk. > According to our research so far, neither the Vodavi nor the Mitel > SX-100/200 line provides this. I have been told, but have never verified, that an SX-200D with Generic 1003 can give the interrupt signal to the extension. It may be possible with earlier generics, too, but the situation this came up in had 1003 as an existing assumption. The person saying this was a Mitel internal tech support type. ------------------------------ Date: 5-DEC-1990 02:19:07.75 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers? Hi- re: 555-1212 and what other services "555" goes to other than Directory Assistance: In New England Tel territory, 1-555-6611 (or is it -1611?) gets repair service. I've tried "611", which is more standard, and it doesn't work. 800-555-5000 was the old Bell System "Let's Talk" number, which was basically an information service set up just before divestiture so that people wouldn't get "scared" about the breakup, etc. (Although in retrospect maybe they should have! :) ). Now it seems to go to the local Bell that is serving you, ie, in New York it goes to NY Tel, and in CT it goes to SNET, or just dies at their recording, etc. This seems to change from time to time, or rather, from place to place. I California (San Jose) I gave it a try last summer, and got the AT&T Phonecenter Info line, but I tried it a few months later and got Pac*Bell. Maybe it just cut over in the interim? Some other Bells have 1-555-xxxx for coin-telephone repair, etc. I think Pacific Northwest Bell had something like this (now USWEST), although I can't be sure about this either. A good place to look is on the instruction card at a Bell payphone, or in the front of the White Pages. Note that 1-617-555-6611 will get you NE Tel repair if you dial it Long Distance. I always thought that 1-Area Code-555-xxxx will ALWAYS get DA, but I guess not. Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet (and just plain old "dreuben" to locals...!! :-) ) [Moderator's Note: 555-anything here cuts to DA. At least I have not seen any exceptions. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Dec 90 07:57:57 PST From: Peripheral Visionary 05-Dec-1990 1030 Subject: Re: Stupid AT&T Ads Although I use AT&T and I'm totally happy with the choice, I must say that a lot of their advertising (on US television) is pretty stupid. * A current campaign targets small business. Small business people are asked repeatedly why they chose to use another long distance carrier. After they say "lower rates" a "bong" sounds, sort of indicating that anyone who doesn't choose AT&T is an idiot who isn't getting the point that their rates are competitive. * Shaky cameras shot at stange angles showing people having difficulty making telephone calls on MCI, Sprint and non-AT&T PBXes. * Massively overproduced commercials, like the TV reporter who uses fax to find the resturant where his parents were married, and then flies them over to France as a surprise (all apparently taking place within a matter of days). This was especially stupid, since the entire premise of the commercial would be lost if he had just remembered to take a print of that photograph with him. I seem to remember the good old days of the Bell System when AT&T advertising was at it's height, and you just got the feeling of an organization that exuded technical and marketing competence. The new ads trade content for visual impact -- something you don't HAVE to do, since I'm sure there is a lot of potential for great visuals and great stories based on real stuff at AT&T! ljj [Moderator's Note: Do you remember when AT&T sponsored "The Bell Telephone Hour" on radio? Their ads on that program were very elegant and low-key. Techincal excellence was the whole idea. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Dec 1990 16:20:28 +0100 From: Erik Naggum Subject: Re: Forwarded Calls and CallerID Recently there has been much discussion about a prank with forwarded calls, and several very complex theories of why it works have been forwarded. I may be missing something, but isn't the point as simple as this: - Prankster, A, forwards his calls to random third party, C - Prankster calls someone, B - B return*call prankster, A, _which_forwards_to_C_ Seems so obvious to me. Also reminds me of a couple nice stories from when "new services" came to Oslo. Norway uses the CEPT standard for function invocation, and therein lies part of the fun. To order waking or some other ringing at some later time, dial *55*HHMM#. Interestingly, a lot of people dialled *55*0700#, but all the ads for the new services didn't say anything about where this was available, except that you needed touch-tone phones, that * should break the dial tone, etc, so a huge number of people actually called 550700, a grocery store at the ground floor of a compartment building. The owner was hard of hearing, and had the phone ring out LOUD! Hundreds of users called this number after people went to bed in this building, every night. I have no idea how it all ended, but this made it to the newspapers, who were very anti-new-technology, as expected. Another fun thing was to use this with call forwarding, which is enabled with *21*number#. Here's how to do it: Order waking with *55* for some very inconvenient time, and forward your calls to someone you don't like very much. Be sure to enable the forwarding at a time no one will call you. No more than two months went by before the waking service was redefined to override call forward. Now, the third fun thing with call forwarding was related to me. Call forwarding is free in Norway, and thus is limited to certain local areas, the pager service, and stuff like that. (Forwarding your call to the time of day service is a nice hint to people who call you too late at night...) Bugs in the software happen every now and then, so at a place outside Oslo, call forwarding outside your local calling area was enabled, but the forwarder payed for the non-local call. This was also true for payphones. So, the bright young telephone users discovered that they could forward calls from payphones to BBS'es all over the world, and then go home and call the payphone. Voila. (Although it took me almost two hours on the phone, this incident was confirmed by a telco rep, who insisted on calling me back before telling me anything. He said it was one of the more serious blunders they had made, but declined to give any indication of the extent of lost revenue. They would not attempt to find out who did it, since they couldn't prove who had called.) [Erik Naggum] Naggum Software, Oslo, Norway ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #866 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06716; 6 Dec 90 3:09 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17859; 6 Dec 90 1:40 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27077; 6 Dec 90 0:36 CST Date: Thu, 6 Dec 90 0:08:29 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #867 BCC: Message-ID: <9012060008.ab05554@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 6 Dec 90 00:08:00 CST Volume 10 : Issue 867 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Stupid AT&T Ad [Adam V. Reed] Re: ACD Headset Vendors Needed [Barton F. Bruce] Re: It's a Trademark not a Copyright [Syd Weinstein] Re: Does *ANY* PBX Supply Loop Interrupt Signal?? [Jim Gottlieb] Re: California SXS Touchtone Refund [John Higdon] Re: US Sprint Offers Conference Calling [Barton F. Bruce] Re: New Area Codes and Intl. Dialing [Robert J. Woodhead] Re: Prodigy Communications Protocol [Bernie Roehl] Re: Two-Line Turnbutton Phones [Sean Goggin] Re: Phone Service in the UK Two Decades Ago [Tim Oldham] Re: Alliance Teleconferencing [Ken Jongsma] Re: NXX's per NPA [Carl Moore] Re: What is MFJ a TLA For? [Eric Black] 10xxx in Twin Cities; Lists Anyone? [Arun Baheti] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 5 Dec 90 19:05:39 EST From: Adam V Reed Subject: Re: Stupid AT&T Ad Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <15194@accuvax.nwu.edu>, erik@naggum.uu.no (Erik Naggum) writes: > However, does AT&T think their customers are complete idiots? I mean, > a five year old kid having the vocabulary and knowledge to say that, > or have a clear grasp of the cost of going to college. Gimme a BREAK! > And "I bought from ... some unknown company" -- sound decision-making. > No, I didn't find this charming, even though that all too clearly was > the intent. Congratulations, pardner, you have just been introduced to that distinctive genre of North American humor known as "pulling your leg". And, while I don't speak for the company, I'd bet some flunkey is going to catch flak for not realizing that not all readers of the {Harvard Business Review} are familiar with such nuances of our perhaps unique local culture. So lighten up, will ya? I bet even you Norwegians have some things a lot of us foreigners would find bewildering. Adam_V_Reed@ATT.com ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: ACD Headset Vendors Needed Date: 4 Dec 90 04:33:52 EDT Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article <15140@accuvax.nwu.edu>, daysinns!bill@gatech.edu (Bill Crane) writes: > We are looking for another supplier of Headsets for our sales agents. You didn't say who your current supplier is. I just grabbed an Alltel Supply catalog off the shelf, but North, Anixter, Graybar, etc would have been just as good. They show units by ACS,Audiosears, Automation Electronics, Plantronics, Unex, etc. They don't show Roanwell, but they do carry their Confidencers(tm). I would assume Days Inns must have a supply division that gets good discounts for your hotels. I certainly now other chains that do, and generally they have deals with SEVERAL large scale communication suppliers. Check your own internal channels. There are plenty of options to look at, and you may find it quite wise to not impose one model on everyone. Some may LIKE a custom moulded ear insert type, and others may prefer a big binaural earmuff style. In general, you want to get mike booms that cancel as much of the background noise as possible so the caller doesn't think he has called a sweat-shop. One lost reservation would often pay for that special custom headset that kept an agent just a tad more efficient/friendlier. ------------------------------ From: Syd Weinstein Subject: Re: It's a Trademark not a Copyright Reply-To: syd@dsi.com Organization: Datacomp Systems, Inc. Huntingdon Valley, PA Date: Thu, 6 Dec 90 03:56:55 GMT ehopper@ehpcb.wlk.com (Ed Hopper) writes: >A trademark doesn't, to my knowledge, expire unless it is no longer >used by the holder. A trademark expires every ten years, but can be renewed indefinetly. (Of the 1.1M trademarks registered in the US< about 700K are still renewed.) Of course, you can lose a trademark by it becoming the generic name for an item. Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP Elm Coordinator Datacomp Systems, Inc. Voice: (215) 947-9900 syd@DSI.COM or dsinc!syd FAX: (215) 938-0235 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Dec 90 10:08:35 PST From: Jim Gottlieb Subject: Re: Does *ANY* PBX Supply Loop Interrupt Signal?? Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles In article <15081@accuvax.nwu.edu> is written: >Does any currently available PBX transmit the loop interrupt signal >through to its POTS (2500-type) stations? Assume, for the sake of >sanity, that the telephone company central office does provide a loop >interrupt signal to us on POTS subscriber loops when the calling party >releases the call. >According to our research so far, neither the Vodavi nor the Mitel >SX-100/200 line provides this. Ahh, the subject over which I would love to hit some PBX designers over the head. In my searches, I came up with a few. The NEC NEAX2400 has an optional analog line card that does provide CPC. Their normal one doesn't, so you have to be sure to get the cards that do. But I hate the feature implementation and the sets that the switch uses along with the fact that it will not let you send long touch-tones. The AT&T switches all provide CPC. They also allow long touch-tones. Something that AT&T got right. But their switches tend to be a bit on the expensive side. Prices in the used market aren't that bad though. I am told that the ITT 3100 series also provides it. And that's all I know. Now wouldn't you think that a CO switch manufacturer like Northern Telecom would know enough to have this feature? But then they screw it up in their CO switches too. ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: California SXS Touchtone Refund Date: 5 Dec 90 11:03:16 PST (Wed) From: John Higdon Ed Hopper writes: > What is the history of this matter? Why should SXS subscribers > receive a refund and ESS or XB subscribers be denied? Maybe because there haven't been any SXS offices in the metro area for years and Pac*Bell can look charitable without actually putting out. :-) Seriously, I can't believe I missed this one. Unfortunately my copies of both the Comical and the Murky News go to the Recycler each week (not the classified ad newspaper, but the environmentally-correct garbage man). Did the ad give any exchanges? Were there any other pertinent details? When was the ad printed? I'm dying to check this out. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: US Sprint Offers Conference Calling Date: 4 Dec 90 04:42:01 EDT Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. News-Moderator: Approval required for posting to comp.dcom.telecom In article <15144@accuvax.nwu.edu>, penguin@gnh-igloo.cts.com (Mark Steiger) writes: > How can someone access this Alliance Teleconferencing? > [Moderator's Note: Alliance is an AT&T service for setting up > 0-700-456-1000. N.B. That 700 number MUST be dialed on ATT. If your default carrier is someone else, you MUST use 10288 up front. Each carrier has its own ENTIRE areacode 700 (unlike 800). What may be free dial-a- prayer on one carrier could be costly dial-a-porn on another -- same 700 number. ------------------------------ From: Robert J Woodhead Subject: Re: New Area Codes and Intl. Dialling Date: 4 Dec 90 12:42:59 GMT Organization: Biar Games, Inc. msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) writes: >But, although the quoted sentence refers to France and an >earlier part of that message did pertain to France, the country where >the above number would be (if it existed) *is* one where English is >spoken. Well, a sort of English, anyway... :-) Ahem! Not to get pedantic (much though I love it), but you, sir, are hardly in a position to make such cracks. You are not a native speaker of English. You are a native speaker of Canadian, a, if I may be permitted the liberty of a cheap crack at your expense, degenerate creole of the language. You may think you are speaking English, but rest assured, you are not. Similarly, it is most probable that our esteemed Moderator is also laboring under the delusion that he is an english speaker, whereas in reality, he speaks American. American and English have diverged just enough so they are barely mutually unintelligible. This explains why Monty Python is so popular in the US -- Americans think it is funny, whereas Britons know that the whole point was that it isn't! In point of fact, true English is only spoken in a small area in Cambridge, England. This is sort of the Zero Meridian for English. I myself speak a mildly (0.56%) degenerate form of the language, as I was born (alas!) about 50 miles from there. You may take some solace, however, in the realization that however degenerate _your_ native tongue is, you are way ahead of the Australians. Nobody understands Australian -- even other Australians! Oral member still firmly emplaced in cheek, I remain your faithful correspondent, Robert J Woodhead, Biar Games, Inc. !uunet!biar!trebor trebor@biar.UUCP [Moderator's Whine: Well, ex-cuuuuuuuuuuse me! I believe we here in the colonies speak English with one of about fifty American accents. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bernie Roehl Subject: Re: Prodigy Communications Protocol Date: Tue, 4 Dec 90 18:41:27 GMT In article <14775@accuvax.nwu.edu> rsm@math.arizona.edu (Robert S. Maier) writes: >There have been a good many articles in TELECOM Digest complaining >about Prodigy. Besides Prodigy's policies, many posters are irritated >by their inability to capture Prodigy output to a file. >Has anyone done anything about this? I gather Prodigy uses a >proprietary communications protocol, but is it possible to >reverse-engineer it? That would open the door to custom-designed >Prodigy clients, running on any architecture. And it would facilitate >the addition of new features, such as capturing text and graphics >output. Hmm. Isn't Prodigy using NAPLPS? If so, it should be easy enough; in fact, the software that Bell Canada is distributing for users of its Alex system should do the job quite well. Bernie Roehl, University of Waterloo Electrical Engineering Dept Mail: broehl@watserv1.waterloo.edu OR broehl@watserv1.UWaterloo.ca BangPath: {allegra,decvax,utzoo,clyde}!watmath!watserv1!broehl Voice: (519) 885-1211 x 2607 [work] [Moderator's Note: Because the gateway to comp.dcom.telecom was off line for a couple of days, we have a lot of late replies coming in. But again I must ask that we conclude the Prodigy thread at this time. There is little more to add to the discussion. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Sean Goggin Subject: Re: Two-Line Turnbutton Phones Organization: Computer Science Club, University of Waterloo Date: Wed, 5 Dec 90 09:18:57 GMT >Is it possible to buy one of these phones? I assume it's a >500-style... >[Moderator's Note: ... I do not think they are selling the one >button, two-line phones. In fact I am almost positive you can only >lease them, and that you must be in the USA to do that. PAT] Bell Phonecentre (Canadian MaBell retail phone shop) has leased phones and not leased phones. You can not buy phones they lease so they can know if a phone is theirs. All the leased and most of the sold phones are Nortern Telecom and you can buy very similar NT phones as the leased versions. Sean sean@watcsc.uwaterloo.ca ------------------------------ From: tjo@its.bt.co.uk (Tim Oldham) Subject: Re: Phone Service in the UK Two Decades Ago Organization: BT Applied Systems, Birmingham, UK Date: Wed, 5 Dec 90 16:45:40 GMT In article <15108@accuvax.nwu.edu> BMITCHEL@gtri01.gatech.edu (Barry Mitchell) writes: >Where else can you order a pizza from a cellular >phone while driving home and have the delivery person be there waiting >on you when you arrive home? Well, the only things that might stop you doing that in the UK are either living in a pizza wilderness or the pizza people having a toll-free number. My phone number is always the same whether I'm calling from next door, from the other end of the country, or from a cellphone. So is everybody else's. I can optionally leave off the area code from within the area, and sometimes there are local (shorter) codes from one area to adjoining areas, but you can *always* use the Standard Trunk Dialling area code. Yes, and International Direct Dialling to 140-odd countries is available from every phone. The only limitation I can think of, offhand, is that you can't phone 0800 (toll-free) numbers from a cellphone. Our local pizza emporia don't have 0800 numbers. Tim Oldham, BT Applied Systems. tjo@its.bt.co.uk or ...uunet!ukc!its!tjo ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Alliance Teleconferencing Date: Wed, 5 Dec 90 14:20:37 EST From: Ken Jongsma Something has always bugged me about AT&T's Alliance Teleconferencing service. Why is it that automated access is only available during business hours, yet operators are available 24 hours a day? Seems backwards! Ken Jongsma ken@wybbs.mi.org Smiths Industries ken%wybbs@sharkey.umich.edu Grand Rapids, Michigan ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken [Moderator's Note: I've always wondered that myself. Does anyone know of some technical or tariff reason for it? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Dec 90 11:04:58 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: NXX's per NPA Dave Esan or writes: >212 is scheduled for a split (to 417). No, you mean area 917 instead of 417. 417 is in Missouri. [Moderator's Note: Yes, that is what he meant, and the fault is mine for not catching it when proof-reading that issue as carefully as usual before releasing it. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Dec 90 10:59:29 PST From: Eric Black Subject: Re: What is MFJ a TLA For? >> OK, I give up. What's MFJ a TLA (Three Letter Acronym) for? >[Moderator's Note: MFJ = Modified Final Judgment ...] I always thought it was "Mother F****** Judge" :-) Eric Black Not a big fan of the breakup. Atherton Technology, 1333 Bordeaux Dr., Sunnyvale, CA, 94089 Email: ericb@Atherton.COM Voice: +1 408 734 9822 [Moderator's Guffaw: Whew! I hope you don't mind the asterisks in your message, but this is a family Digest -- I have to keep it clean. One of the rules around here for a long time during my predecessor's tenure in the middle eighties was 'Thou Shalt Not Take the Name of Judge Greene in Vain'. Jon Solomon did not set that rule, but he tended to observe it rather than answer to the high-priests of telecom for publishing heresy in the Digest. I get a lot of mail like yours -- far more than I print -- from people angry at what is finally beginning to become quite obvious: the telephone network in the USA is going to (bleep) in a handbasket. What took a century to build and refine, a judge killed with the stroke of a pen. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Dec 90 21:51 CDT From: "Arun Baheti " Subject: 10xxx in Twin Cities; Lists Anyone? Does anyone have a comprehensive list of the 10xxx's for the Twin Cities area (US West)? US West (business office and/or various residential offices) says that they can NOT provide me with the actual codes. I have, however, received no fewer than three (yes THREE) hand-written (yes, HAND-WRITTEN on notebook paper) lists of the companies that are available with nice notes saying that the companies themselves may provide the codes. When I was/am back in Pacific Bell land (SoCal), the business office is always willing to send me a small half-page size pamphlet with a current listing of the available companies, so this strikes me as odd. To their credit, all three or four US West service reps who have spoken to me have sent out those hand-written lists the same day; usually in my mail box the next morning. Too bad they don't have the information I want! :-) Arun ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #867 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08062; 6 Dec 90 4:14 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30968; 6 Dec 90 2:45 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab17859; 6 Dec 90 1:40 CST Date: Thu, 6 Dec 90 0:53:03 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #868 BCC: Message-ID: <9012060053.ab05158@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 6 Dec 90 00:52:47 CST Volume 10 : Issue 868 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson LD vs Voice Mail / Lower Hotel Phone Charges [snowgoose!dave@uunet.uu.net] Caller*ID and Unanswered Phones [Dan Hepner] Switching Office Open House [Jim Rees] Automated AOS, or What-is-it? [Barton F. Bruce] "Copyright" of the Bell Symbol [Jerry Leichter] Norway: Automatic Car Liabilities Info via Phone [Erik Naggum] V&H / Area Code Table Needed [Chuck Huffington] Information Needed About Reseller Using SDN [Bill Huttig] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 4 Dec 90 04:14:11 -0500 From: snowgoose!dave@uunet.uu.net Subject: LD vs Voice Mail / Lower Hotel Phone Charges I know that both AT&T and Sprint offer the "feature" of dialing another LD number without disconnecting from the LD carrier via the "#". I often wish to call my Bell Atlantic voice mailbox from a hotel with my LD calling card. The voice mail system wants me to enter "#" to be prompted for my password. Guess what happens? That's right, the LD carrier disconnects that call and prompts me to make another. Both AT&T and Sprint suggested, they really did, that I tell Bell Atlantic they should pick a different key! I suppose a DLE key is beyond the computer communications protocol sophistication of the LD carriers. Dave uunet!snowgoose!dave dave%snowgoose@uunet.uu.net [Moderator's Note: But don't you have to hold the # key for at least a couple seconds to get a carrier disconnect? Most voice mail systems require far less. That is, you could probably just give a half-second of # and access voice mail without it being long enough to trigger the network disconnect. Sprint and ATT both indicate in their literature to hold down the # key for a couple seconds to make it work right. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Dec 90 11:54:56 pst From: Dan Hepner Subject: Caller*ID and Unanswered Phones >From: dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com (David Tamkin) >| The proposed Pac Bell scheme doesn't allow for easy >| limiting of incoming calls to only those which contain CID info. >It's easy enough: look at your CID display, and if it says "blocked," >"private," or "refused," don't pick up the phone. Case 1: You're awakened by a call at night, turn on the light, see the "blocked" indication, and decide not to answer the phone. Contrast that to having slept through the entire event because the phone never rang. Case 2: It's now near morning, and case 1 has now just occurred for the 18th time. Contrast that to having missed the entire event because the phone never rang. Dan Hepner ------------------------------ From: rees@pisa.ifs.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Subject: Switching Office Open House Reply-To: rees@citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project Date: Tue Dec 4 20:56:35 1990 GMT I just went to an open house at the Ann Arbor office of Michigan Bell. If you ever get a chance to do this, I highly recommend it! This office has a 1ESS serving five exchanges, a 1A serving four, and a 5ESS serving eight. The 1A is four times the size of the 5 and serves half as many lines. The 1 is already considered obsolete (it's 17 years old, same as my Buick) and is slated to be replaced by the 5 in six months. I won't go over the mundane details. The things that surprised me were the small size of the battery backup, the large size of the cable vault (one city block long, filled with 300 pair cables), the extreme small size of the dry air supply for the pressurised cables, and how much space is devoted to distribution bays. I expected the switches to be small compared to all the cables and wires, and they certainly were! The 5ESS has a capacity of 160,000 subscriber lines (not all on local loops, most come in on SLC-96) and would almost fit in my living room. Well, maybe my basement. I was disappointed that the people we got to talk to didn't know much about the equipment, they were mostly business office types. But I had a nice long talk with an outside plant guy who was full of stories about cable breaks and how to splice a 1200 pair cable. I knew that offices were being consolidated but was a little surprised to learn that this one office covers almost the entire county except for an island of GTE. They seem to be tearing out individual 5xbar switches and replacing them with muxes to the 5ESS. There is still one SxS in S.E. Michigan, in the New Boston office. In spite of the concentration of switching equipment in Ann Arbor, there is no one on duty here at night. As a computer guy, one thing intrigued me. Can anyone tell me about the "1ESS memory card" that is just a piece of aluminum the size of a sheet of notebook paper? It doesn't seem to have any electrical contacts, but you can see little squares on it that might be individual bits of magnetic memory. After nearly ten years of reading TELECOM Digest I finally got to see what some of this stuff looks like. ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Automated AOS, or What-is-it? Date: 4 Dec 90 05:59:15 EDT Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. A customer (a hotel) got a call from someone selling a service that I am curious about. My first opinion is that it is an automated AOS, but maybe it has some merit, and maybe we should look at it. They provide 'free' hardware that sits on each outgoing trunk. I loath the idea of 'advertising' for an AOS, but here goes. I am basically copying from the blurb they faxed to me. "Product Summary The Automatic Call Processor (APC) is designed to operate with any telephone system. Initially the unit is totally passive while it monitors local and long distance calling. It then intercepts only those calls which are dialed as 'operator assisted calls', such as 'calling card and collect calls'. The APC then stores billing information, which is forwarded to a billing agent. The hotel receives a monthly commission. Product Features - Routes operator assisted calls to 'local telephone company'/AT&T, or the operator service of choice. - Site owner or manager can determine rates. - Produces detailed reports for all calls processed. - Provides for validation of calling card and phone numbers. - Automated operator voice prompts the user through the steps to complete collect or credit card calls. Product Benefits - Significant increase in 'bottom-line' revenue. - No change in present equipment. - No change in present service. - No cost or charge to install and use. - Service may be canceled at any time with no obligation." Well there it is. Apparently the 'machine' asks you to enter you credit card or whatever, and then just dials the call on the trunk as a plain 1+ ddd call. The captured billing info is later polled for and used to bill the customer. Obviously I need to find out a lot more details about their billing algorithm, and what the machine's options are, and how current customers like/dislike it. They claim it is nice for the customer to be able to put the calls on whatever credit card they want, rather than just AT&T's (this hotel is on AT&T SDN and all 10xxx access has to be blocked simply cuz there is NO SAFE WAY to do otherwise. 950 works, and 800 calls are free). But most customers use a credit card to pay for the room and getting the charges posted to the guest's account is quite automatic for DDD calls now, and definitely at lower rates than AT&T CC service. Sure this would let them use a different credit card, but they won't see the bill for a month, and if there is some dispute (NO ans supervision is available) it is a hassle to deal with it that much later. It is better to have them squawk the next morning. They claim to be collecting what the LD carrier (e.g. AT&T) would have been getting for handling CC service, and spliting it with the property. If the property wants to ream the customers, fine, or the property can take almost nothing other than the cost of the call. They will bill and send commission checks accordingly. Could they be getting billing done on an AT&T card while the call went DDD, or are they letting those calls go straight through to ATT as 0+ calls? The sales person spoke of a 'window of opportunity' of 12 to 18 months. Does this just mean there will be many competitors offering this by then, or that AT&T and others will be charging less and kicking back equivalent amounts by then for operator services? She was new, and couldn't answer all my questions. By now she probably has learned more answers. The equipment was "Teltronics". There was a company by that name in Lakeland Florida years ago the made toll restrictors and coin phone add in gagetry for the independant market ( this is pre COCOT era knowledge of them). Is that who it is? Anyone know more? Anyone curious could call the company offering the service and see what you think. I assume you should 'be' in hotels (or other similar resale situations) or a consultant... (I have NO connection with these folks at all.) Try: Liz Bourikas Atlantic Phone 200 Walnut Street; Suite D Saugus, MA 01906 phone 1.800.225.3912 phone 1.800.370.8000 fax 1.617.233.0063 If anyone has any knowledge of the company or their product I would love to hear it. Send me mail, and I will summarise what is found out. I will not quote anyone directly without their permission. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Dec 90 09:53:37 EDT From: Jerry Leichter Subject: "Copyright" of the Bell Symbol Subodh Bapat writes: >Talking about the Bell logo, [it's rumored that] AT&T lost its right >to use the Bell logo, as the copyright expired and they forgot to >renew it? ... [T]hey had to pay a lot of money to get it back from >some smart entrepreneur who ... sneaked in and got the copyright. This rumor is nonsense just on the basis of the legal issues involved; you don't even need to check any details of the facts: 1. It's very unlikely that a logo could be copyrighted. It could be trademarked, and you could get a design patent on it (though design patents are way too recent an innovation to be relevant to the Bell logo). 2. Trademarks never expire. Generally, you lose a trademark only if you let it become generic - i.e., if it is in common usage refering to a class of things, not just the thing YOU sell, you will eventually lose the ability to claim that it refers only to your product. 3. Once a trademark is generic, no one can use it AS a trademark, at least for the same kind of thing it previously described. ("Kleenex" might become a generic for facial tissues. You couldn't reclaim it to describe YOUR brand of facial tissues - if it's not generic, Scott still owns it! - but you MIGHT be able to use it to describe your brand of carburator cleaner.) I suppose a trademark could become "free for the picking" if the company owning it went out of business or just decided to stop using it. The latter is unlikely, and in the former case a valuable trademark will be sold to satisfy the company's debts. 4. Copyright protection lasts for 50 years beyond the life of an individual author, or the last surviving author of multiple authors; or for the earlier of 75 years from the date of publication or 100 years from the date of crea- tion in the case of a variety of works where there is no identified author. Copyrights cannot be renewed. 5. You are generally required to include a copyright notice with each copy of a copyrighted work. Anyone ever see a "Copyright" next to the Bell logo? 6. Copyright prevents others from making COPIES. If the Bell logo were pro- tected only by copyright, I could cut my copy out of a phone book I owned and paste it to the "green pages" I sell. Hardly useful protection! 7. Patents do expire, and can be renewed (once); but once a patent expires, it's gone forever - there's no way for the inventor, much less a third party, to re-create the patent. Actually, I'm not sure how this works for design patents, but then again there's little precedent so far for anyone enforcing a design patent in any useful way. A design patent on the shape of a tele- phone handset might make a lot of sense; a design patent on a logo, hardly. Jerry ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Dec 1990 14:38:07 +0100 From: Erik Naggum Subject: Norway: Automatic Car Liabilities Info via Phone New in Norway! You can now find out whether the car you're looking at buying has any economic liabilities tied to it, such as fines, is mortgaged, and other relevant things, by phoning the central registry for motor vehicles. Previously, you had to call a person, or write, to get this information, which cost the registry a lot of money. It was, as far as I know, still a free service. However, you could spend hours on the phone waiting to get through to the limited number of personell devoted to this task. What's new is that you call a special number (086-21777 to those who understand Norwegian :-), and using your DTMF dialer (phone), get the information you need. Registration numbers in Norway consist of two letters and five digits (four for motor cycles). The letters are encoded as the positional number they have in in the alphabet, 1 through 29 (we have three "national characters"), preceded by an asterisk. E.g. BL 56789, is encoded as "*02*1256789". The procedure is simple: You dial the number. A pleasant electronic voice tells you to type in the registration number, followed by #, or press # for assistance. The number is read back to you and you are asked to confirm with # or enter the correct number, followed by #. The system searches for information, and reports it (very fast) You can repeat the information by dialling 9, ask for a new number by dialling 1, and terminate the session by dialling *. Of course, I tried 0, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and #, but all give "wrong choice", but the fourth attempt just throws you out, as if you had dialled * (darn, cost me three tries to find that all were like this). The system has type-ahead features, and does syntax checking on the registration number. You can get the information you need in a matter of twenty seconds if you dial fast or have an autodialer. According to a representative of the Norwegian Telecom, automated telephone services like this (available for bank account information and a few other services like the above) produces enormous amounts of traffic, and since the interaction lasts for only a few seconds, while the minimum charging time is three minutes (at NOK 1.03 -= $.17), the Telecom revenue is huge for even small capacity systems. Patrick, do you think more information on what goes on in Norway, telecommunicationally speaking, would be interesting? The whole country is less populated than Minnesota and 44% larger, but we still have quite interesting telecommunications facilities, and a very technologically advanced state-owned (monopoly) telephone company. There are several readers of Telecom DIGEST in Norway, who may also have the time and knowledge to contribute. [Erik Naggum] Naggum Software, Oslo, Norway [Moderator's Note: Certainly, Erik. I'm sure many people would be interested in hearing specific details of telecom service there. Please send along more articles. PAT] ------------------------------ From: chuckh@apex.UUCP (Chuck Huffington) Subject: V&H / Area Code Table Needed Date: 5 Dec 90 20:51:34 GMT Organization: Apex Computer Co., Redmond WA I need to locate a table to translate area code and prefix to a city name. A V&H table would also be helpful. Does anyone know where to get/buy such a beast? A subscription service with updates would even be better. Chuck Huffington Apex Computer uunet!apex!chuckh ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: Information Needed About Reseller Using SDN Date: 5 Dec 90 21:02:04 GMT Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL A few weeks ago some wrote about resellers of SDN's where AT&T does the billing. I was curious if anyone out there is a reseller using SDN's and what the legal and financial requirements are. Bill ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #868 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12418; 7 Dec 90 8:16 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21953; 7 Dec 90 4:01 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ae06694; 7 Dec 90 2:55 CST Date: Fri, 7 Dec 90 2:32:18 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #869 BCC: Message-ID: <9012070232.ab17778@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 7 Dec 90 02:31:41 CST Volume 10 : Issue 869 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson "Hackers" Steal $12 Million in Free Phone Calls From NASA [E. Krell] Sprint Giving Credit For Calls [David Dodell] Telephone Conferencing in Norway [Erik Naggum] MCI Personal 800 - Why the Four Digit PIN [Bill Huttig] Phone System Recommendation Needed [Gary Long] Cordless Headset Telephone [Mark J. Bailey] PSC Considers Fines in Southern Bell Scam [Dr. Tanner Andrews] Telecom Lewdness [David Barts] Permanently "Broken" Numbers [Laird P. Broadfield] PSC Approves Caller ID Trial Period for Southern Bell [Glenn F. Leavell] Houston Cellular Trunk Charge Pass Through [Ed Hopper] Return*Call and Forwarding [Arnette P. Baker] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ekrell@ulysses.att.com Date: Wed, 5 Dec 90 15:31:48 EST Subject: "Hackers" Steal $12 Million in Free Phone Calls From NASA The {Houston Chronicle} reported that computer hackers have stolen some $12 million in free telephone service from NASA's Johnson Space Center. This is said to be one of the biggest thefts of telephone service ever, with hundreds of people using the system for at least two years. NASA couldn't determine precise loss figures. The $12 million figure was calculated by law enforcement agents specializing in computer crime. The service was stolen through the use of a stolen calling card number and direct use of NASA's phone lines. The credit card fraud was discovered by AT&T when the use of that number exceeded typical patterns. Four lines in NASA's phone system were involved in this scheme and they have been deactivated. This comes after in was reported on November 17 that hackers have stolen phone service worth millions through the Houston office of the Drug Enforcement Aadministration. In both cases, the intruders gained access to the Federal Telephone System, where there's no per-call billing. This accounts for such abuses to go undetected for so long. Eduardo Krell AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ UUCP: {att,decvax,ucbvax}!ulysses!ekrell Internet: ekrell@ulysses.att.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Dec 90 07:11:04 mst From: David Dodell Subject: Sprint Giving Credit for Calls From: Douglas Scott Reuben >Also, if your call was out of state, or just any INTER-LATA call, >after you call 211 and tell them the number, they connect you with >AT&T. I wonder if they do this for Sprint, MCI, et. al.?? (Probably >not -- they would quickly run out of lines if they had customers >holding for Sprint credit for the usual hour or so! :-) ) Actually I have had very good luck getting credit from Sprint lately, ever since the Sprint Operators are the ones giving the credit. Just dialing 0-0 reaches the Sprint operator fairly instantly, and asking for credit on a misdialed, bad connection, etc. call has just taken a couple of seconds. And the credits have been showing up on my bills. On another note, I asked the Sprint operator if they could see my number on their console and they claimed they could only tell what area code I was calling from, and if I was a 1+ customer, but that they did not get the telephone call that I was calling from displayed. I know AT&T has that capabilities, even if I'm dialing them with 10288+, is Sprint telling me the truth, or did they not implement the caller number display? David St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona uucp: {gatech, ames, rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!ddodell Bitnet: ATW1H @ ASUACAD FidoNet=> 1:114/15 Internet: ddodell@stjhmc.fidonet.org FAX: +1 (602) 451-1165 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Dec 1990 17:51:55 +0100 From: Erik Naggum Subject: Telephone Conferencing in Norway With all the discussion on telephone conferences lately, I thought the CEPT way of initiating telephone conferences, at least in Norway, would be of interest to Telecom readers: Given that you need to have a direct line to your CO (no PBX's), a touch-tone phone with flash button, and your CO needs to be all digital, only 10% of those who could use this feature can use it. I guess the procedure eliminates 90% of these, as well. There is a maximum of four people in the "meeting". The initiator pays for all connections, which are at the same rates as if they were individual connections. To initiate a telephone meeting, dial *70#, get a new dial tone, dial the first participant, ask him to wait, flash, dial *70#, get a new dial tone, dial the second participant, request his participation; if OK, flash, dial *70#, you have a three-way call; if not, flash, dial *71#, you're back in the meeting. For the third and fourth participant, flash, dial *70#, get dial tone, dial participant, talk, flash, *70#. So, let's say I want to talk to three friends of mine to arrange a dinner, and they have numbers 112233, 445566, and 778899, I have to dial this sequence, where R is flash, : is wait, --- is talk to one, and === talk to all: *70#:112233---R:*70#:445566---R:*70#===R:*70#:778899---R:*70#=== The most annoying thing is that I can't initiate a meeting unless I start off with *70#, and we don't have three-way calling. The meeting is over when the initiator screw up the dialling sequence or hangs up of his own choice. Recovery from misdialling is absent, i.e. you lose the entire meeting if you don't follow the rules. Someday, I'm going to call and ask them to send me the SDL spec with state transition diagrams for this thing. [Erik Naggum] Naggum Software, Oslo, Norway ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: MCI Personal 800 - Why the Four Digit PIN Date: 5 Dec 90 20:59:18 GMT Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL I talked to a representative at MCI/Telecom*USA (800-726-7000) and he said that they will be having about 3000 PIN's per 800 number. He also said that all Personal 800 service is on the 484 exchange (used to belong to Teleconnect). I still did not receive my packet of information. Also they still don't have my second 800 number working (I set it up to ring into my aunt's house). I think it is strange that the number I have that rings into my home 407-952-xxxx is 800-484-2037 and was issued on 11/28 and the number that rings on 813-952-xxxx issued on 11/30 is 800-484-2012. I wonder if they are assigning the by area's? The operator center for the 800 numbers when dialed from FL is in SC. I wonder if they center you reach is based on the 800 number dialed or on the area dialed from? [Moderator's Note: You'd have been better off simply getting the 800 service offered by Telecom*USA itself. $2.75 per month is not a bad deal and you get a personal, individual 800 number. None of this nonsense about PINS to be dialed. I certainly hope MCI does not start tampering with the existing Telecom*USA system and ruin it for all of us who like it as it is. PAT] ------------------------------ From: =Lil King= Subject: Phone System Recommendations Needed Date: 6 Dec 90 00:34:34 GMT Organization: College of Engg., Univ. of Cincinnati I was wondering if anybody out there could recommend a reasonably priced phone system for the fraternity that I am in. What we would like to do is have one phone in all rooms of the chapter house. Two lines coming into the house. The main thing is that we would like to have long distance turned off, so as not to have to worry about running around trying to find out who made what call. Is there a phone system that will allow people to enter a code before they dial long distance, that way we would be able to tell who made what call and who should pay for the long distance calls. Or does anybody have any suggestions? We would really like to get a system that would put one phone in all rooms, instead of each room having to get there own line. We could just have long distance coded through AT&T, but the complaint that everybody has is that they do not want to have to find the President or Treasurer when they want to call home. They would much rather pick up the phone in there room and dial. Thanks in advance. Gary Long glong@uceng.uc.edu Phi Gamma Delta ------------------------------ From: "Mark J. Bailey" Subject: Cordless Headset Telephone Date: 5 Dec 90 21:41:12 GMT Organization: JobSoft Design & Development Co, Murfreesboro, TN Can someone please email me and tell me where I can find a cordless headset telephone? I recall seeing one that "Plantronics" made that was sold by DAK for a while. I think Service Merchandise had it too. Was that one a real lemon? But there *has* to be some others around as well. What I am looking for is a brand name and model number (if possible), and maybe even some phone numbers of places that carry them. Our receptionist has been bugging me for six months now, so I finally turned to you people. Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance, Mark J. Bailey, N4XHX USMAIL: 511 Memorial Blvd., Murfreesboro, TN 37129 | JobSoft VOICE: +1 615 893 0098 | Design & Development Co. UUCP: ...!uunet!mjbtn!mjb, ...!raider!mjbtn!mjb | Murfreesboro, TN USA DOMAIN: mjb@mjbtn.JOBSOFT.COM CIS: 76314,160 ------------------------------ Subject: PSC Considers Fines in Southern Bell Scam Date: Wed, 5 Dec 90 20:29:58 EST From: "Dr. Tanner Andrews" Organization: CompuData Inc., DeLand [From the DeLand _Sun-News_ 05-Dec-90; dateline Tallahassee(AP)] The State Public Service Commission will investigate the unauthorized switching of customers' long-distance service and plans to fine US Sprint $50,000 for the practice. That fine would be the largest ever levied by the PSC. Widespread consumer complaints prompted the commission on Tuesday to order a probe into the practice of ``slamming'', in which long-distance carriers sign up customers without their consent, and regulation of marketing practicees used by carriers. [ 5 PP omitted ] US Sprint decided to fight the PSC's proposed $50,000 fine after company representatives initially indicated they would accept it in order to end the dispute. The company had proposed paying $10,000, but the PSC on Tuesday said that was inadequate. ...!{bikini.cis.ufl.edu allegra uunet!cdin-1}!ki4pv!tanner ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Dec 90 14:44:21 pst From: David Barts Subject: Telecom Lewdness The Moderator writes: > And in those instances where it is not a valid ending to a > phone number the intercept lady is *so* funny to listen to as she > tells us of our error: "The number you have dialed, NXX oh! OH! OH!!! Oh! > is not a working number." All those 'oh!' noises could be interpreted > in a lewd way by someone with a dirty mind. (Not your Moderator!) :) PAT Well, the lady on the 206-880 exchange in Redmond, WA ends up sounding more like she stubbed her toe :-( . On a related note, a few weeks ago I discovered with amusement that the Sea-Tac strip (a section oh Highway 99 near Sea-Tac airport that is also a red-light district) is served by none other than the CHerry central office! PAT has already pointed out thet the Chicago Police Department is in the PIG exchange; I wonder what other examples of amusingly-named CO's and prefixes are out there. David Barts Pacer Corporation, Bothell, WA davidb@pacer.uucp ...!uunet!pilchuck!pacer!davidb ------------------------------ From: "Laird P. Broadfield" Subject: Permanently "Broken" Numbers (was: What are 700 and 555 Numbers?) Date: 5 Dec 90 03:15:19 GMT In <15179@accuvax.nwu.edu> hpa@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Peter Anvin) writes: >I know 555-1212 is the information number, but there must be something >else that is special with it, or no? Is there a reason for it being >used as a "foo" for phone numbers (no one takes number 555-1234 >seriously, no?) >[Moderator's Note: 555-1212 was simply adopted as a universal number >for directory assistance, and to the best of my knowledge very little >else has been assigned on 555. I think one AT&T business office uses >something like 555-8111, but that is about all. Other examples? Does the NANP have a "guaranteed" broken number? I used to use 555-1212 sometimes to spoof equipment (e.g. strange gadgets that have no reasonable way to disable outcalling) but it has come to mean DA in some parts (maybe it always was, but I didn't used to get out of PacBellLand much.) I have a nice "out of order" number in West Berlin (I think) but sometimes the equipment doesn't like 19 digits either. (P.S. Pat, re your recent mention of getting "bounced back" to an AT&T out-of-order message on an international call: this number has given the usual three-tone code, and a German-language message from every place I've tried it in the last ten years. The recording has changed a few times, but it's always been German. ("Kine-uh swa bindoonk un de dezuh swuhbal!" it says. Actually, until recently it said "Kine und schloos un de dezuh-noomber" in a much more polite voice; something to do with the unification maybe? (Sorry folks, I don't speak German.))) Laird P. Broadfield UUCP: {akgua, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!lairdb INET: lairdb@crash.cts.com ------------------------------ From: "Glenn F. Leavell" Subject: PSC Approves Caller ID Trial Period for Southern Bell Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department Date: Thu, 6 Dec 90 15:13:52 GMT A cover story in yesterday's (December 5) {Atlanta Journal} reported that the PSC has approved with a 5-0 vote Southern Bell's Caller-ID for a one year trial period. A spokesperson for Southern Bell said that the service will be available in Atlanta by February, and it should be abvailable to the rest of Georgia by April. The cost will be $6.00 per month. Does anyone know the average cost of buying or leasing the device that allows me to use Caller-ID on my current phone? Are there already phones available for residential use that can be used with this service so that no extra device is required? Thanks, Glenn F. Leavell Systems Administrator glenn@rigel.econ.uga.edu 404-542-3488 University of Georgia Economics Department. 147 Brooks Hall. Athens, GA 30602 ------------------------------ Subject: Houston Cellular Trunk Charge Pass Through From: Ed Hopper Date: Thu, 06 Dec 90 06:25:58 CST Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Texas 713-997-7575 A letter in my latest phone bill from Houston Cellular states that "in order to continue to provide you with high quality service" (are these guys looking out for me or what?), they will begin passing through their trunk charges from Southwestern Bell at the rate of 1.3 cents per minute. Do other cellular companies have such separately identified trunk access charges? BBS: 713-997-7575 ehopper@attmail.com ehopper@ehpcb.wlk.com coming soon:ehopper@ncr.att.com ????!!!!! :-) ------------------------------ From: Arnette P Baker +1 708 510 6437 Subject: Return*Call and Forwarding Date: Thu, 6 Dec 90 10:33:00 GMT Bob Yazz (yazz@lccsd.sd.Locus.com) writes: >If A is the annoyer he can 1) fwd to B, then 2) call up and annoy C. >If C returns the call with call*return, is the annoyer's call >forwarding ignored, ringing A's phone? If not, and the return*call to >A is forwarded to B, the spleen-venting victims could *69 each other >all day! This could be what happened to the original poster of this >dilemma. Well according to Bellcore requirements this should never happen. Because, when you Return*Call (*69 or *66) to any number a status check of that far end line is made for busy/idle status and for other information on the line. If the line you are trying to Return*Call has Call Forwarding (this includes the Selective Call Forwarding option but not Call Forward on Busy or Call Forward No Answer) active then the Return*Call will be denied with a short term denial message. Something telling you to try the call again later. This may not be implemented this way by all switch vendors, but these are Bellcore's requirements. Arnette Baker kityss@ihlpf.att.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #869 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04467; 8 Dec 90 4:56 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22450; 8 Dec 90 3:23 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00288; 8 Dec 90 2:16 CST Date: Sat, 8 Dec 90 1:35:25 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #870 BCC: Message-ID: <9012080135.ab30743@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 8 Dec 90 01:35:08 CST Volume 10 : Issue 870 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Conversation With MCI Telemarketer [Joel B. Levin] Wroclaw Cardphone System [Richard Budd] POP Server Advice Needed [Tom DeBoni] Calls to and Within Australia [Carl Moore] Long-Distance From Canada to U.S. [David Rabson] Is a $12 Million Ripoff Credible? [Jim Thomas] Voice Mail Hackers [David Hoisve] East German Telephony (Two Tin Cans and a String?) [Richard Budd] Modem Recognizes Boing? [J. Philip Miller] Telephone Wanted [Robert M. Hamer] Fourth Inmarsat Code [Greg Monti, via John R. Covert] AT&T Service Cut, Then Restored [Wash. Post / John Keator, via J. Covert] Worldwide Toll Free Code [Network World / Greg Monti, via John R. Covert] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Joel B. Levin" Subject: Conversation With MCI Telemarketer Date: Fri, 7 Dec 90 08:38:58 EST I actually had an informative conversation with an MCI salesperson last week. Some background: they had earlier called to push their Reach Out America clone. My wife, who hates solicitation calls, got them off the phone by agreeing to receive some information by mail and a return call later. I got the mail (out of the blue, I thought it was an ordinary promotional mailing) and also answered the return call. I am a Sprint customer, though I usually use AT&T for credit card calls. When I told the salesperson that I didn't want their ROA clone, she asked why. When queried she said she really wanted to know. I explained that my Sprint Plus plan is a discount on actual calls (subject to a monthly minimum) while their plan, like ROA, is a distance independent flat-rate-per-minute plan (subject to a monthly minimum). Further, most of our calls are 40 miles or less over a single state line (southern NH to Boston area). She not only took my point right away, but told me that in response to a similar comment from another prospect she had analyzed his calls and the tariffs. She had determined that the breakeven was around 900 miles; in other words, only for calls greater than 900 miles is their per-minute rate cheaper than the Sprint Plus discounted rate. She then agreed that sticking to Sprint Plus was my best option and we terminated the call pleasantly. I don't remember asking, but it seems clear to me I was probably talking to an actual MCI person and not an employee of one of those third party telemarketers. JBL nets: levin@bbn.com BBN Communications or: ...!bbn!levin M/S 20/7A POTS: +1 617 873 3463 150 Cambridge Park Drive or: +1 603 880 1611 Cambridge, MA 02140 ------------------------------ Date: THU, 06 DEC 90 16.16.43 EDT From: Richard Budd Subject: Wroclaw Cardphone System Organization: Marist College, Poughkeepsie, NY tuvie!!iiasa.local!wnp@relay.eu.net (Wolf Paul) writes: >Actually those {payphones in Wroclaw} probably don't accept credit >cards, but pre-paid phone cards.... DPFAY@VAX1.TCD.IE (Deryck Fay) writes: >there seems to be three systems in use:... >* a magnetic card system used in Italy. I think the Mercury phones >in the U.K. also use a magnetic system I believe the cardphones in Wroclaw are also using the same system. I recall seeing a magnetic strip on the back of the cards that were to be used with the Wroclaw telephones. Because it resembled the back of my VISA credit card, I assumed they were credit cards. Now having read Wolf and Deryck's messages, I can understand they probably were pre-paid cards using a magnetic system. Richard Budd KLUB@MARISTB.BITNET Marist College Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 ------------------------------ From: Tom DeBoni Subject: POP Server Advice Needed Date: 7 Dec 90 16:34:16 GMT Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory I need advice from the cognoscenti. What's the best/cheapest/easiest-to-deal-with POP server software for a Sun fileserver (3/280) ? I've got one; I need a POP server; and I don't know what to do about it. Replies by postings will be appreciated. Replies by email will be summazrized in the future. Thanks in advance! Tom DeBoni (deboni@diego.llnl.gov) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Dec 90 14:38:55 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Calls to and Within Australia David Wilson writes (w/r to Australia): >All cellular phones are in their own prefix (018). The understanding is that the leading zero is stripped off when calling from outside of Australia. (This is also the case in Italy, UK, West Germany, and elsewhere -- but NOT in the USSR.) >It is not possible to tell if a call is local (but to an adjacent area >code) or within an area code but at STD rates (disjoint charging >districts) without knowing a little bit of geography and which >exchanges are where. How are local and long distance calls made within Australia? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Dec 90 17:34:37 EST From: David Rabson Subject: Long-Distance From Canada to U.S. In preparation for moving to Vancouver in a month, I called all the big U.S. long-distance companies to price calls placed on their cards from Canada to the United States. I assume Bell Canada is still the monopoly AT&T was down here until a few years ago. Several US long-distance carriers, however, have set up their calling cards to work from Canada for calls to the United States. AT&T and Sprint quoted me US33c/min plus a surcharge of 75c-89c for a call from Vancouver to New York, but MCI quoted me US12c/min. I suspect that MCI was really quoting me the rate in the other direction, NY -> Vancouver. What does the monopoly charge? Are there any other possible carriers? David Rabson davidra@helios.tn.cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Dec 90 16:19 CST From: jt Subject: Is a $12 Million Ripoff Credible? There was a post on The Well, citing a wire story, that indicated that the yearly *total* phone bill for the Johnson Space Center is only about $3 million. According to the story, NASA went public to deny that hackers could have possibly run up such a sum over two years: "It's simply not so," said NASA spokesman Brian Welch. "There is no universe you can find in which this set of math will hold up." If there were four lines being abused (as the {Houston Chronicle} indicated), and if those lines were used *only* be hackers every second of every day, it means that charges were calculated at over $2.80 a minute. Disputing exaggerated claims of losses isn't simply a technical quibble. We have seen consistent distortion by law enforcement, and the result is creating a pseudo-reality that inflames public images, leads to erroneous claims in indictments, and, in the case of the three Atlanta Hackers, contributes to the writing of a sentencing document filled with hyperbole, over-statement, and false reasons for imposing incarceration. Law enforcement, as documents from various legal proceedings indicate, insist on holding people (whether suspected of wrong-doing or not) accountable for every nuance of comments made on BBSs and elsewhere. When will law enforcement agents become accountable for their cavalier disregard of reality? Or, perhaps they expect the rest of us to share the rich fantasy life that they accuse hackers of. (Sorry -- I know a preposition is a bad thing to end a sentence with). The credibility of any agency that, despite netinfo and other sources, can still confuse a $79,000 "program" with a $13.95 public document, diminishes. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Dec 1990 19:08 MDT From: David Hoisve Subject: Voice Mail Hackers I am in the process of tracking down what might be a voice mail hacker. The situation is long and twisted, involving stolen equipment, a local computer company, and the only lead is a voice mail box. According to the voice mail company, the box is not in use. Hmmm. I've heard several stories of folks hacking voice mail systems (including changing greetings and, in one case, resale of services) but I don't have any solid information. Does anyone out there know more about this problem? If you'll EMAIL responses, I'll post a summary to the list. Thanks! David Hoisve University of Utah Computer Center (801) 581-6025 NSFNet: HOISVE@XANADU.CC.UTAH.EDU or... HOISVE@CC.UTAH.EDU BitNet: HOISVE@UTAHCCA.BITNET ------------------------------ From: Richard Budd Date: THU, 06 DEC 90 15.03.10 EDT Subject: East German Telephony (Two Tin Cans and a String?) Organization: Marist College, Poughkeepsie, NY While staying in Potsdam on what is turning out to be an incredibly educational bicycle trip in the former Soviet bloc, I learned that there were in September, 1990 only two telephone lines available between Potsdam and West Berlin. According to a fellow traveler, it was easier for a West Berliner to reach New York City, over 4,000 miles away, and get a clear conversation, than to call Potsdam, on Berlin's southwest border, and even get through to the other party. I would be interested in hearing about improvements in this situation. Also, the telephone books in the booths in Potsdam and at the youth hostel in East Berlin were dated 1986. Two weeks earlier (August 24, 1990), my travelling companion tried from a youth hostel in Konigstein, Saxony to make a collect call to upstate New York. He used his AT&T account number as identification. I managed with the help of the hostel warden to reach an AT&T operator, but he refused to complete the connection when he discovered we were in East Germany. My friend later was able to telephone (not collect and cash, not credit card) from the Hotel Newa, an Inter-Hotel where Western tourists were forced to spend the night in the bad old days. I saw his receipt for the call. It cost him DM210 for five minutes. Richard Budd KLUB@MARISTB.BITNET Marist College, Poughkeepsie, NY ------------------------------ From: "J. Philip Miller" Subject: Modem Recognizes Boing? Date: Thu, 6 Dec 90 5:31:28 CST In TELECOM Digest Toby Nixon writes about the credit card boing: > I can't quote all the specs to you (and can't look them up, because > I'm in a hotel room in Florida rather than in my office), but I CAN > tell you where to find the info: Hey Toby, when is Hayes going to introduce an AT command to "wait for boing" -- it sure would make it easier to write scripts for signing onto my computer system from hotel rooms around the country (including Florida :-) J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067 Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110 phil@wubios.WUstl.edu - Internet (314) 362-3617 uunet!wuarchive!wubios!phil - UUCP (314)362-2693(FAX) C90562JM@WUVMD - bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Dec 90 14:48 EDT From: "Robert M. Hamer" Subject: Telephone Wanted A friend of mine would like to find what he calls an "Agency Unit" telephone. Upon questioning he says that is a plain old black Western Electric pre-divestiture Bell dial desk phone. (I never heard the term "Agency Unit." Preferably with a modular plug, he says. Anyone know where he can get one? Thanks. [Moderator's Note: I've never heard that term either, but every Bell Phone Center store in the USA has a huge stock of black rotary dial phones hey'll be happy to sell him. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Dec 90 07:36:04 PST From: "John R. Covert 06-Dec-1990 1035" Subject: Fourth Inmarsat Code From: BETTY::GMONTI Subj: Fourth Inmarsat Code Inmarsat, which provides telephone and Telex service to ships at sea and to land-based portable ground stations in remote areas, has altered the positions of its satellites. Formerly, there were three "regions" in which Inmarsat provided service: The Atlantic Ocean Region (AOR), The Pacific Ocean Region (POR), and the Indian Ocean Region (IOR). Each has a country code. The three are 871, 872 and 873, I don't remember which order. Now, the AOR has been divided into two regions, East and West, served by two separate satellites. This eliminates a gap in land coverage in the middle of North America where instant-gratification satellite services like transportable telecom stations, are in demand. The country code for AOR West is 874. Its Telex country code is 584. No change in the other three. Note that you must now know which AOR satellite a particular ship is pointed at before you can dial it. Greg Monti, Arlington, Virginia; work +1 202 822-2633 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Dec 90 08:05:27 PST From: "John R. Covert 06-Dec-1990 1105" Subject: AT&T Service Cut, Then Restored From: John Keator, NPR Subject: AT&T USA Direct Cut/Restored Organization: National Public Radio 202-822-2800 From the {Washington Post}, 4 Dec 90 AT&T Service Cut, Restored BRUSSELS, 3 Dec -- The international talks here are supposed to be about opening up international trade and making it more competitive, but somebody forgot to tell the state-run Belgian phone company. As U.S. officials and business executives arrived here for the talks this weekend, they found that a special program by American Telephone & Telegraph Co. that allows cheaper calls to the United States had disappeared from their hotel rooms. An angry Randolph Lund, AT&T's vice president for government relations who is here for the talks, called it blatant protectionism on the part of the Belgian telephone monopoly. He said that AT&T service representatives found that the telephone company had shut of the service, called AT&T USA Direct, in the two hotels in which the American delegation was housed in order to collect higher service rates. The service was restored early this morning, after complaints to the Belgian phone company and an official protest to Belgian authorities by the U.S. embassy. --------- I have also has this experience, but the blockage ocurred in the hotel. In several London hotels, they now bill a call to the USA direct number a flat charge of 2.50 pounds (@$4.85). Other hotels in London, including one in which I often stay, encourage the use of USA direct and charge nothing for its use. In many countries the call to the USA direct number is billed at local call rates, which can also be fairly excessive from hotel rooms expecially where the call is timed. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Dec 90 07:36:45 PST From: "John R. Covert 06-Dec-1990 1036" Subject: Worldwide Toll Free Code From: BETTY::GMONTI Subj: Worldwide Toll Free Code According to an article in _Network World_, there's a move afoot in Western Europe to implement a worldwide toll free numbering plan. The need for such a plan was raised by Hans Fraasen of an ad-hoc carrier committee examining international toll free calling. Apparently, the problem in the European Economic Community is that continent-wide television ads must list a toll-free number for each country from which the advertiser accepts calls. The confusing list of numbers must be displayed on the screen so viewers can write down the correct one. Fraasen proposes that the concept of a toll free area code in each country be expanded one level to a toll free "country code." There wouldn't actually be a "toll free country" just like there is no specific land area in the US where "area code" 800 resides. Fraasen proposes that the toll-free country code be 800, followed by 7 digits. That should hold the planet until more than 10,000,000 numbers are needed. From the UK, it would be dialed as 010-800-XXX-XXXX. From the US, it would be 011-800-XXX-XXXX. From France, 19-800-XXX-XXXX. The only thing a consumer would have to add to the number would be his country's international access code. Using 800 has two advantages: it's not currently used as a country code and it's familiar to dialers in some countries as "the toll free area code." After studying the matter, Fraasen's group will make a recomendation to the CCITT. They expect approval in two years and implementation about one year after that. Not mentioned in the story: whether individual international 800 users could restrict their +800 number to being dialed only from certain countries or only from certain area codes within those countries. Greg Monti, Arlington, Virginia; work +1 202 822-2633 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #870 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17493; 8 Dec 90 20:16 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00315; 8 Dec 90 17:50 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30517; 8 Dec 90 16:25 CST Date: Sat, 8 Dec 90 15:55:17 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #871 BCC: Message-ID: <9012081555.ab01557@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 8 Dec 90 15:54:57 CST Volume 10 : Issue 871 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Alliance Teleconferencing [Mark W. Wheatley] Re: Use of 10732 for LD Calls [Bill Crane] Re: Use of 10732 for LD Calls [Eduardo Krell] Re: What is MFJ a TLA For? [John Higdon] Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers? [Tony L. Hansen] Re: Theft of Phone Service [Mark Van Buskirk] Re: Stupid AT&T Ads [David Gast] Re: Stupid AT&T Ads [Lou Judice] Re: Questions About the GTE Airfone [Jim Rees] Re: Alliance Teleconferencing [Randy Borow] Re: Alliance Teleconferencing [Doug Reuben] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 8 Dec 90 00:56:32 -0600 From: Mark W Wheatley Subject: Re: Alliance Teleconferencing This may have been already metioned, but you dan dial into any of the four switches you want. When you call 456-1000, you are routed through Dallas. 2000, 3000 and 4000 each route through one of the other centers -- at least that's how it was explained to me and it worked when I had occasion to use the service about three years ago. Mark Wheatley mwwheatl@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu [Moderator's Note: Are you sure it is 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 or is it 1000, 1001, 1002, 1003, etc. ? PAT] ------------------------------ From: bill@daysinns.UUCP (Bill Crane) Subject: Re: Use of 10732 for LD Calls Date: 6 Dec 90 20:51:00 GMT Reply-To: bill@daysinns.UUCP (Bill Crane) Organization: Days Inns of America In article <15196@accuvax.nwu.edu> cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) writes: >I called from an AT&T pay phone on 301-272, and made credit card call >to time and weather service in Delaware by punching in >10732-0-302-633-1212 and after I punched in my credit card number, it >went thru as if I had punched in 10288 instead of 10732. (i.e., via >AT&T) >[Moderator's Note: I did almost the very same thing from a payphone on >the 312-743 exchange. ... I questioned our AT&T SDN rep, who initially responded that 10732 would block non-subscriber traffic. I was able to stage a demonstration to the contrary, and he looked deeper into the matter for me. Currently, almost anyone can complete a call using 10732 (except perhaps in high fraud areas where the service is turned on for each specific user). At the end of each billing period, the SDNCC verifies that each call carried by 10732 is a valid SDN call. Those calls that were not placed by SDN subscribers are then billed at regular rates (no savings). Due to the processing time for this verification, the call may not appear on your bill for up to 60 days. Eventually, only SDN subscribers will be able to complete calls on 10732. Bill Crane ...!gatech!daysinns!bill Days Inns of America Inc bill%daysinns@gatech.edu 2751 Buford Hwy NE Atlanta GA 30324 ------------------------------ From: ekrell@ulysses.att.com Subject: Re: Use of 10732 for LD Calls Organization: AT&T Bell Labs Date: Thu, 06 Dec 90 10:38:42 EST Patrick, I think the original poster said the rates were lower if you had SDN (Software Defined Network). I doubt you'll get lower rates without SDN. Eduardo Krell AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ UUCP: {att,decvax,ucbvax}!ulysses!ekrell Internet: ekrell@ulysses.att.com ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: What is MFJ a TLA For? Date: 6 Dec 90 09:18:57 PST (Thu) From: John Higdon On Dec 6 at 0:08, TELECOM Moderator writes: > the telephone network in the USA is > going to (bleep) in a handbasket. What took a century to build and > refine, a judge killed with the stroke of a pen. PAT] There are obvious examples confirming your point of view, but there are (IMHO) many more examples of benefits that most certainly would never have seen the light of day if stodgy old AT&T was still the head of the church. I know my bank account is a little fatter as a result of the MFJ. When "The Phone Company" did EVERYTHING, non-telco designers, manufacturers, and consultants were unheard of. So how have we benefitted? Well, I'd like to compare your two-line "twist knob" phone to my Panasonic KX-T1232. Or maybe a "Dataphone" 300bps modem to one of my Trailblazers (which would have been forbidden for me to hook up in the old days). My long distance calls go through faster, more reliably, and sound better then in the pre-MFJ era. Is this the stuff of which handbaskets are made? Pac*Bell, as bad as it is, is MUCH more responsive to my wishes and needs than it ever was as Pacific Telephone. (Repair is faster, needed less often, and the people are much more open about how it all works.) AT&T now BEGS for my business. In the pre-MFJ their arrogance knew no bounds. In fact, I use several long distance companies--each providing certain benefits. Does all of this require more public education to reap the benefits? You bet. What doesn't these days? But with the exception of COCOTs, I find telephone service now to be superior by a quantum leap to that which existed before the gospel of the famous Judge. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Dec 90 22:44:00 EST From: Tony L Hansen Subject: Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers? Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories < [Moderator's Note: 555-1212 was simply adopted as a universal number < for directory assistance, and to the best of my knowledge very little < else has been assigned on 555. I think one AT&T business office uses < something like 555-8111, but that is about all. Other examples? I've been told that whenever the film studios out in Hollywood want a phone number for use in a movie, TV show or commercial, they go through a special liason office with the phone company. (I think AT&T used to run this, but it's probably done through BellCore now.) The numbers which the studio receives are always 555-****, taken from a special pool set aside for this purpose. I think that the liason office even tries to recycle the number slowly enough so that they won't seem to be the same too often. The next time that you see a phone number given in a commercial or movie, it will almost certainly be a 555 number. Tony Hansen att!pegasus!hansen, attmail!tony hansen@pegasus.att.com ------------------------------ From: mvanbusk@bcm1a05.attmail.com Date: Thu Dec 6 13:30:31 CST 1990 Subject: Re: Theft of Phone Service Organization: AT&T As a billing representative who has investigated many fraud cases my advice to Mr/Ms Van Gale would be: 1) Ask Contel for a one time goodwill adjustment (assuming they have no previous claim history). 2) Check with your insurance agent to see if this type of loss is covered under your homeowners policy. 3) If the first two fail cross your fingers and head for the lawyers office. Good Luck! Mark Van Buskirk Rolling Meadows Il 708-228-7075 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Dec 90 23:16:26 -0800 From: David Gast Subject: Re: Stupid AT&T Ads Stupid ads is certainly one category that AT&T does not and never did monopolize. In fact, I can't think of any ad I don't think is manipulative, but that is a topic of discussion for another newsgroup. > * A current campaign targets small business ... their rates are competitive. ----------- In adver-speak competitive always means ``more expensive, but not so much more that YOU the consumer should mind.'' As another example, consider ``a competive rate'' versus ``the lowest/highest rate''. (It depends whether you are paying or receiving interest). David Gast gast@cs.ucla.edu {uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!{ucla-cs,cs.ucla.edu}!gast ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Dec 90 07:36:57 PST From: Peripheral Visionary Subject: Re: Stupid AT&T Ads I'm a bit too young to remember the Bell Telephone Hour on radio, but I do remember what I think was the ultimate OLD AT&T ad ... After the 2nd Av fire in NYC, they ran a VERY impressive series of ads with the ending message "the system works" (or something like that). The ad itself was titled, I believe, "Miracle on Second Avenue". Anyone else remember it? ljj ------------------------------ From: rees@pisa.ifs.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Subject: Re: Questions About the GTE Airfone Reply-To: rees@citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project Date: Thu, 6 Dec 90 16:56:11 GMT In article <15223@accuvax.nwu.edu>, seanp%undrground@amix. commodore.com (Sean) writes: >The transmitter section of the setup is IMPRESSIVE. Everyone could >concievably use thier phone at the same time, as there are 400 >channels available for use. I doubt very much that the airplane is able to transmit on 400 channels, or even 56 channels, at once. >894 - 896 MHz (5 KHz spacing). Assignment is done in the same >manner as cellular. It picks an available frequency from what the >ground station tells it. AM mode is used for modulation. AM on 5KHz spacing? Are you sure? I would guess companded SSB, just based on the age of the system, but I don't know. We have now had one person claim that there is no hand-off, and another claim that there is. What's the real story? Airfone pre-dates cellular, right? ------------------------------ From: rborow@bcm1a09.attmail.com Date: Thu Dec 6 11:03:08 CST 1990 Subject: Re: Alliance Teleconferencing K. Jongsma and our esteemed moderator both wondered why ALLIANCE's automated capabilities "shut off" for the weekend, while their operators are there all the time. Got me to thinking, too, so I chatted with a few of Ma Bell's (oh, am I allowed to say that, Judge Greene?) operators and found out -- nothing. I haven't found a thing in any tariffs, guides, etc., and the response from the operators I talked to was a simple "I don't know." All the operators do not seem too bothered by this, however -- probably because it gives them work to do in an increasingly automated business where these workers are being replaced by some diabolical machines. (Has anyone been the victim of those obnoxious automated, personless payphones which supposedly help you to place collect, third party and calling card calls? Illinois Bell here has plenty of them, and I hate 'em! They also don't work well, anyway. Wait till you get your bill in and look at those "collect calls" you supposedly told the talking computer you would NOT accept.) Randy Borow attmail!internet!bcm1a09!rborow ------------------------------ Date: 6-DEC-1990 13:36:31.47 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Re: Alliance Teleconferencing Re: Alliance being available 24 hours a day only via the 800 number... From what I gather from use and conversations with AT&T, Alliance 700 access *used* to be available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. This was around 1984 or 1985, when AT&T was just started to promote the service. A number of things happened when 700 access was started: The first, and easier to correct, was that many payphones actually allowed you to dial 700 Alliance, and place conference calls around the world for free!. Many people at my school had figured this out pretty quickly (or heard about it on some BBS), and I can recall that ALL of the payphones on my hall were perpetually in use because people were calling and conferencing all of their friends. After I figured out what was going on (I had never heard of Alliance before), I found out that you could transfer calls, by hitting "#6", to another location, and that location could then control the conference, without being billed for it. This explained why many of the payphones were always left off the hook, with signs saying "DO NOT *EVER* HANG UP". If someone came to the payphone and needed to use it, there was a code you could enter (can't recall, maybe #9?) that would let you break away from the main conference and go back to being a controller. You could then make a call to another location, let the person who needed to use the payphone complete his/her call, and then rejoin the conference or transfer control back to someone else. Needless to say, AT&T didn't like this too much, and they quickly disabled Alliance 700 access from payphones. They also killed the "#6" transfer feature from 700 access around the same time. (Interestingly, right after they killed 700 Allaince access from payphones, a number of Charge-A-Calls suddenly got three-way calling! Maybe that was supposed to be some sort of consolation? :) ) Anyhow, after all this died down, AT&T's second problem was that people were using Alliance from PBX's. IE, you dial into a PBX, enter "1234" which was all too often the access code, and then dial out Alliance 700, and presto! -- more toll-free conferencing. And since Alliance had such good connections (this was before AT&T was fiber), people would call into the PBX, get a hold of Alliance, and then call to their SECOND line. They would leave this in place until they needed to make a call (usually a modem call which was affected by noisy lines), at which time they enter a third number to Alliance, thus connecting their SECOND line to the new number. In other words, callers would call Alliance via PBX, and then call themselves back, and "park" the call. When they needed a clean line to some LD number: get out of "park" mode, call your desired number, and you have now set up an ultra-clean connection between your (non-controller) SECOND line and whatever number you want to add to the conference via Alliance. (Got that? :) ) So the PBX owners and AT&T didn't like this too much either, and some time in 1986 if I recall correctly, AT&T dropped 700 access on weekends. Their reasoning for this was that there was very little *legitimate* business use on weekends, and that customers who needed to use Alliance at such times could afford the slight annoyance of having to go through the 800 number and then get called back. This *did* substantially cut down on fraud. So that's basically why (as I am told) there is no 700 access during weekends. Also, I'm not sure if this was mentioned, but if you are planning a conference call via Alliance, and know that all your conferees will be in, let's say, New York, but you are in LA, it MAY be cheaper for you to SPECIFY that you want to use the New York (White Plains) center rather than the default of LA. Dialing 0-700-456-1000 gives you the nearest center, yet as the above example demonstrates, this may not be the most economical way to do things. So, you can dial 0-700-456-100x, where x=1,2,3 or 4, each of which forces a call to a different center, regardless of where you are. (It's been a while since I've used Alliance, but I think -1001 is LA, -1003 is White Plains, and I don't remember the other two.) This system of specifying which system you want should also work for Alliance 2000 (audio-graphic?), ie, 0-700-456-200x, X=0, 1,2,3,4. There used to be a "test" or non-published Alliance 3000 service, ie, 0-700-456-3000, which was for mixed audio/video services, but I've never bothered finding out about that. Back in 1988 when I was using it, they were having a lot of billing problems. Most of them seemed to be problems with detecting when the controller hung up. So if I called Alliance 1000 and didn't add anyone and hung up after one minute, I would frequently get a bill that said I was on for fifteen minutes! I called AT&T each time this happened, and they were glad to take these charges off my bill, and apologized for any problems it may have caused me. Towards the end of 1988 they appeared to have corrected the problem, but I haven't really used it much since, so I can't really tell. Finally, has the "LA" center been moved to Reno, NV? Dialing 0-700-456-1001 would always result in the message "This is Alliance Teleconferencing in Los Angeles"... However, from the postings, it seems that the center is in Reno now...is it new, or are they just being more exact with their announcements? Guess that's it. Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet (and just plain old "dreuben" to locals...!! :-) ) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #871 ******************************  DUE TO TRANSMISSION DELAY ISSUE 875 APPEARS NEXT. THEN FOLLOWS ISSUES 872, 873, AND 874, FOLLOWED BY 876.  Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11867; 9 Dec 90 21:06 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31701; 9 Dec 90 18:36 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab20302; 9 Dec 90 17:21 CST Date: Sun, 9 Dec 90 16:42:04 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #875 BCC: Message-ID: <9012091642.ab26104@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 9 Dec 90 16:42:01 CST Volume 10 : Issue 875 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Cellular Accessories Catalog [TELECOM Moderator] 10xxx Codes Detective Work [Ed Hopper] Len Rose Seeking Expert Unix Witnesses [Jim Thomas] How Does One Access a Hearing Impaired TTY? [Phil Molloy] Cellular Telephone Comparisons Wanted [Dan Veeneman] Photonic Switching Information Wanted [Mohamed Zaki] Re: Stupid AT&T Advertisements [Steve Thornton] Re: Cardphones (was: Polish Payphones) [Richard Budd] Re: LD vs. Voice Mail / Lower Hotel Phone Charges [Dick Rawson] Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers? [Arun Baheti] Re: Return*Call Humor [Dana Paxson] Re: Return*Call Humor [Paul Gauthier] Re: Prodigy Communications Protocol [Herman R. Silbiger] MCI Starts 900 Service; Limits Charges to $4.00 [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 9 Dec 90 15:17:56 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Cellular Accessories Catalog It had to happen, I suppose. As cellular telephones become more and more commmon, the need for accessories, alternate antennas, batteries and other gimmicks has followed close at hand. A company is now operating, via mail order, with a small catalog of accessories for your cellular phone. Cellular Products Distributors of Los Angeles sent me their catalog of items. Included are a variety of antenna connectors, SMA < --> TMC adapters, mobile mounting devices, extra batteries, battery eliminators, NAM programmers, and more. They offer several types of antennas to replace existing ones as desired. They claim to stock the above accessories for several manufacturers of cellular phones, including but not limited to Panasonic, Audiovox, Oki, Mitsubishi, NovAtel, Motorola, Uniden, NEC, Technophone and Nokia-Mobira / Radio Shack. Their prices seem to be reasonable, and their delivery service is good. I ordered two items: Item ULPAO 1/8 Wave Ultra Low Profile Antenna $17.88 Item NMCG Battery Eliminator for Radio Shack CT-301 $28.88 The first item is a little *tiny* antenna, all of one-inch long, intended to replace the "standard" antenna on my CT-301. Now I know a little about antennas, and I know that the antenna is probably 75 percent of what makes *any* radio good or bad. I was skeptical of this item, which appears to be too good to be true (my original antenna was frequently abused and getting bent under my jacket), since only certain fractions of a wave are the most receptive to a good signal. In many (most?) radio serviuces, 1/8 wave does not do very well. But I've found the Chicago area is so well covered that the slight degradation of signal (I've measured it) using the little stub-like thing is minor. It also works nicely with my Technophone MC-915-A that I have operating on Cellular One/Chicago. The second item is a 'dummy battery' which attaches to the CT-301 just like a regular battery, but has a cigarette lighter adapter plug on the end of a five foot coiled cord such as on the receiver of a telephone. This allows the CT-301 to be used in the car without the bulky 'mobile adapter' recommended by Radio Shack. The cigarette-lighter plug can be easily removed by a technically inclined person and any adapter of choice installed instead, such as to a 12-volt power supply you plug into an AC line, etc, meaning you could plug the phone into an electrical outlet anywhere there is electricity and you want to use the phone. Caution: the 'dummy battery' is NOT the AC/DC adapter ... it is just a way to connect the wires to the phone. The little catalog I received has dozens of little charms like this, and I would recommend you at least order the catalog itself and look it over. They take VISA/MC of course, as well as COD orders. Open account may be possible with established credit; I can't say for sure. They ship next-day air for a few dollars more. I put my order in by phone on Thursday, December 6 and had my purchase Friday morning at the office. Cellular Products Distributors 1616 Cotner Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90025 Orders: 1-800-654-3050 Nationwide except CA 1-800-443-9889 CA orders only 1-213-312-0778 Technical inquiries / calls from outside USA 1-213-473-7782 Fax line for orders, inquiries, etc. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Subject: 10xxx Codes Detective Work From: Ed Hopper Date: Thu, 06 Dec 90 22:21:34 CST Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Texas 713-997-7575 SABAHE@macalstr.edu (Arun Baheti ) writes: > Does anyone have a comprehensive list of the 10xxx's for the Twin > Cities area (US West)? One time, when I was *very* bored, I compiled a list of 10xxx codes the hard way -- I sat and dialed 1-700-555-4141 preceded by EVERY three digit number from 100 to 999. It really doesn't take that long if you have the 700-555-4141 number in speed calling. Now, those numbers that do not have toll billing agreements with the RBOC are probably not reachable, but if you can't use them, who cares what their number was? It was very useful on Black Monday trying to find out what the hell happened. Ed Hopper BBS: 713-997-7575 ehopper@attmail.com ehopper@ehpcb.wlk.com coming soon:ehopper@ncr.att.com ????!!!!! :-) [Moderator's Note: 'ncr.att.com' you say? The hell you say! Not everyone at NCR would agree with your assessment, nor your smiley notation. To some at NCR, the situation looks quite grim. I'll reserve judgment for now -- such a merger might be a good deal. Who knows? But more to the point: if you 'tried every number from 100 through 999' then you overlooked the ones from 001 through 099 didn't you? There are carrier access codes down there also I believe. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Dec 90 00:44 CST From: Jim Thomas Subject: Len Rose Seeking Expert Unix Witnesses Len Rose is beginning to prepare for his defense in Baltimore in February. He is looking for Unix experts/gurus who would be willing to provide general technical testimony about Unix. If anybody is willing to consider it, or can provide the names of others who might be willing, call Len at: (708) 527-1293. Jim Thomas Computer Underground Digest [Moderator's Note: Poor Len. He's a great subject-candidate for the old negro spiritual song, "Nobody Knows the Trouble I've Seen". PAT] ------------------------------ From: Phil Molloy Subject: How Does One Access a Hearing Impaired TTY Date: 8 Dec 90 00:48:14 GMT Organization: Teradyne Inc. A friend of mine would like to be able to contact her brother who has a TTY connected to his phone line. She has access to various modems and computers to dial her bother's phone, but doesn't know if it is possible to communicate with this piece of equipment. I don't know what kind of modulation/demodulation scheme is used by the TTY. Does anyone out there know if what she wants to do is possible or should she simply by another TTY and do it that way? The ability to do it from a modem would broaden here access to him, allowing her to call from home via a PC or work via her workstation. E-mail of any help would be greatly appreciated. (BTW I don't know if TTY is a brand name, reference to Teletype, or what. It's all she gave me for info). Thanks, Philip E. Molloy H71 | Internet: teradyne!molloy@ism780c.isc.com Teradyne Inc. | difrel!molloy@mit-eddie.edu.com 321 Harrison Ave. | UUCP: {csun, ism780c}!teradyne!molloy Boston, Ma. 02118 | Phone: (617) 482-2700 x 3678 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Dec 90 15:01:20 CST From: Dan Veeneman Subject: Cellular Telephone Comparisons Wanted I know this subject comes up repeatedly, but does someone out there have a relatively recent comparison of both transportable and pocket cellular telephones? Price, features, battery life, horror stories, etc, would all be welcome. Please e-mail so as not to take up any additional bandwidth. Thanks, Dan veeneman@mot.com [Moderator's Note: Don't be mislead by the extremely low prices some dealers are offering. You can spend whatever you like, but good quality phones are available in the $100-200 price range. Stay away from places offering almost free phones, ie. Fretters; the strings attached are pretty expensive. A local advertisement here is offering cell phones for *twelve cents* -- yep, $ .12 -- provided you pay the obligatory $149.88 'installation charge' and agree to put a thousand bucks up front with Ameritech as advance payment for services during the lifetime of the contract. Fretters had a really nice looking portable on sale a year ago for around a hundred dollars; it was only when you were in the store, expressed interest and were in the middle of choosing a 'service agreement' that the sales people would spring the good news on you: Ameritech was 'making this special deal available' to persons who committed to $1000 worth of service by paying for it in advance, of course! PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 90 13:21 IDS From: MZAKI@egidscvm.bitnet Subject: Photonic Switching I am interested in the subject of photonic switching on academic level. Could any one tell where to get more info about the subject? (papers, periodicals, books, etc.) Any help would be most appreciated. Mohamed Zaki ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Dec 90 17:52:34 EST From: Steve Thornton Subject: Re: Stupid AT&T Advertisements I specifically changed service *from* AT&T because of their stupid, insulting ads. I also change the channel whenever they come on. I don't know exactly what it is about them, but I have a strong visceral reaction against them. Steve ------------------------------ Date: THU, 06 DEC 90 15.55.09 EDT From: Richard Budd Subject: Re: Cardphones (was: Polish Payphones) Organization: Marist College, Poughkeepsie, NY Deryck Fay in Telecom Digest #857 writes: >I had no problems making international calls from payphones in >Czechoslovakia this autumn. Neither did I in late August from Praha. International calls to the USA could be made either from the hotel switchboard direct dial or from a payphone and it was relatively inexpensive (about Kcs100 for three minutes, about $4.00). However international service was difficult to obtain or unavailable in the provinces, where payphones themselves were scarce! Richard Budd KLUB@MARISTB.BITNET Marist College Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Dec 90 09:47:21 PST From: Dick Rawson Subject: Re: LD vs Voice Mail / Lower Hotel Phone Charges Aspen (by Octel) lets me type * instead of # initially when dialing in, for just this reason. Dick Rawson ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Dec 90 19:29 CDT From: Arun Baheti Subject: Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers? I'm glad that they at least use 555- numbers now. I remember about ten years ago when a muscial group (the B-52s?) did a song about someone's phone number. All over the country, the poor owners of xxx-xxxx were driven batty by fans just trying out the number to see if anything would happen. I'm not sure how they phone company (at that time it was just Ma Bell) dealt with it. ab ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Dec 90 13:59:16 EST From: Dana Paxson Subject: Re: Return*Call Humor Organization: Computer Consoles Inc. an STC Company, Rochester, NY One of the first things I do when I see an array of features supplied in a system is ask myself: What collisions or 'cross- products' of features yield newly emergent effects? It seems to me in the rush to tantalize with new services and collect new revenues, the telephone companies are rushing some not-well- thought-out combinations to market. The call-forwarding plus call-return combination should have been better analyzed before setting them out for the already-dazed subscriber. A nuisance caller who has unsupervised access to a telephone providing call forwarding can set call forward on that phone to target someone, then dial through the forwarded phone with a nuisance call. This example is a kind of inverse of the one discussed earlier. Disabling of call-forward when executing a call-return in this situation simply leaves the unsuspecting owner of the forwarded phone with an irate victim confronting him/her. It is a complicated situation to resolve in any case unless the call forwarding is somehow 'visible' to the recipient of the call. Dana Paxson Computer Consoles, Inc. 97 Humboldt Street Rochester, NY 14609 716 654-2588 dwp@cci632.com ------------------------------ From: Paul Gauthier Subject: Re: Return*Call Humor Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada Date: Sat, 8 Dec 1990 13:52:13 -0400 People keep mentioning *69 as the code which invokes return call. Has anyone noticed the possible sick humor this number could cause. You would be 'reciprocating' a call, so to speak. :-) From the warped mind of, PG gauthier@ug.cs.dal.ca tyrant@dalac.bitnet tyrant@ac.dal.ca [Moderator's Note: I agree that was a very warped thing to say. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Dec 90 08:12:41 EST From: Herman R Silbiger Subject: Re: Prodigy Communications Protocol Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <15214@accuvax.nwu.edu>, snowgoose!dave@uunet.uu.net writes: > The user's manual asserts that NAPLPS, North American Presentation > Level Protocol Standard, is the communications protocol. > But, it seems the tech support people at PRODIGY don't know this. > They assert, wrongly, that the downstream communications is compressed > bit-maps. NAPLPS is the North American Presentation Layer Protocol Syntax. It is not a protocol, but a syntax for the image coding. NAPLPS is resolution independent, and controls a variety of methods to actually produce the image. There are two other standardized videotex coding syntaxes, the European CEPT, and the Japanese CAPTAIN. All are standardized in CCITT Rec. T.101. A method for Videotex systems to interwork has been standardized and uses ODA (Open Document Architecture) as an interchange method. ODA uses ASN.1 (Abstract Syntax Notation One) as a syntax. I have no idea what the actual communications protocol is that Prodigy uses to communicate with the PC. Herman Silbiger hsilbiger@attmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Dec 90 15:30:10 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: MCI Starts 900 Service; Limits Charges to $4.00 MCI announced recently they will be starting to offer 900 service after the first of the year. A variety of programs will be available from a variety of information providers, making their 900 service similar to all the others. There is one exception: MCI has said they will arrange to limit charges to $4.00 on services pertaining to children, in an effort to anticipate and limit losses to parents whose children call without permission, i.e. Santa Claus messages, etc. MCI is to be congratulated for making this responsible effort to mitigate the expense otherwise incurred by unwitting users of 900 services. It was not clear to me if they intend to place the $4.00 limit on each *call*, or on total calls per billing period, or what. If one of our MCI readers has more information, they might like to pass it along. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #875 ******************************  NEXT COMES 872, 873 AND 874, THEN 876.  Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15904; 10 Dec 90 1:37 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09479; 9 Dec 90 13:18 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25232; 9 Dec 90 11:54 CST Date: Sun, 9 Dec 90 11:31:10 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #872 BCC: Message-ID: <9012091131.ab00316@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 9 Dec 90 11:30:37 CST Volume 10 : Issue 872 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Switching Office Open House [Raymond C. Jender] Re: Switching Office Open House [Ken Abrams] Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers? [Norman Yarvin] Re: For Telecom-ers Who Live up North [Wolfgang S. Rupprecht] Re: For Telecom-ers Who Live up North [Brian Kantor] Re: LD vs Voice Mail / Lower Hotel Phone Charges [John Higdon] Re: Phone Service in the UK Two Decades Ago [Patrick Tufts] Re: The "Bell" Logo [John Macdonald] Re: The "Bell" Logo [Nigel Allen] Re: Information Needed About Reseller Using SDN [Mark Oberg] Re: Does *ANY* PBX Supply Loop Interrupt Signal?? [Dave Levenson] Re: "Copyright" of the Bell Symbol [Andrew Hastings] Re: Last Four Digits of Phone is '0000' [Nathan Glasser] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 7 Dec 90 12:09:22 EST From: Raymond C Jender Subject: Re: Switching Office Open House Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <15250@accuvax.nwu.edu>, rees@pisa.ifs.umich.edu (Jim Rees) writes: > As a computer guy, one thing intrigued me. Can anyone tell me about > the "1ESS memory card" that is just a piece of aluminum the size of a > sheet of notebook paper? It doesn't seem to have any electrical > contacts, but you can see little squares on it that might be > individual bits of magnetic memory. > After nearly ten years of reading TELECOM Digest I finally got to see > what some of this stuff looks like. The 1E Memory Card is 6 5/8 x 11 1/4 inches. Each card stores 64 words of 44 Bits. A 45th bit in each word is not used for data storage. When a memory card is placed in the module, there are 64 solenoid loops associated with it, one for each row of 45 bar magnets. A pulse in a solenoid loop interrogates simultaneously the corresponding row of 45 magnets on the card. Clear thing up a little? ------------------------------ From: Ken Abrams Subject: Re: Switching Office Open House Date: 8 Dec 90 23:55:35 GMT Reply-To: Ken Abrams Organization: Athenanet, Inc., Springfield, Illinois In article <15250@accuvax.nwu.edu> rees@citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) writes: >As a computer guy, one thing intrigued me. Can anyone tell me about >the "1ESS memory card" that is just a piece of aluminum the size of a >sheet of notebook paper? It doesn't seem to have any electrical >contacts, but you can see little squares on it that might be >individual bits of magnetic memory. Those are indeed very small magnets on the aluminum cards. This is something like EPROM on a huge scale. It is really quite a feat of precision mechanical engineering. To change the memory, the cards are put on a tray and "written" with a 44 head card writer mechanism. The whole process is a mechanical nightmare but it has proven to be very reliable over the years. The little magnets slide in against a mylar strip with very fine "read wires". On the other side of the mylar strip is a device that produces a weak magnetic pulse across a row of 44 bits. The ones where the adjacent magnet on the card is "off" will send the pluse through and produce a "1". If the little magnet is "on", then the pulse is blocked and a "0" is the result. The "words" come out 44 bits at a time. Ken Abrams uunet!pallas!kabra437 Illinois Bell kabra437@athenanet.com Springfield (voice) 217-753-7965 ------------------------------ From: Norman Yarvin Subject: Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers? Date: 6 Dec 90 20:24:23 GMT 555 numbers are also used in movies, in scenes where a phone number is spoken. The assumption is that 555 numbers will either be unassigned or will be assigned to a telephone company number (such as directory assistance) which can handle large amounts of calls. [Moderator's Note: None of this would be needed of course if it were not for the nuts who go to the movies then try to actually call one of the numbers to 'see who they get' when they dial. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Wolfgang S. Rupprecht" Subject: Re: For Telecom-ers Who Live up North Organization: Wolfgang S Rupprecht Computer Consulting, Washington DC. Date: Fri, 7 Dec 90 17:02:50 GMT BRUCE@ccavax.camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) writes: >That is an OLD trick, but a slight modification may make sense. >[...] Instead of having the low temp thermostat simply short the >line, have it connect a pair of back to back zeners across the line. >68 volt ones normally work well when the CO battery is 48v. If you >are on a DLL ckt with 72 or 96 volts, pick diodes a bit higher. >Ringing superimposed on battery will trip when a zener fires, but the >line will then go on hook instantly. Ahem. Old trick is right. Didn't TAP recomend an NE-2 bulb? Isn't this blatently illegal, just because is does interfere with call progress detection in old exchanges? I thought there were tight specs on how fast you were allowed to go off-hook after the ring. Wolfgang Rupprecht wolfgang@wsrcc.com (or) uunet!wsrcc!wolfgang Snail Mail Address: Box 6524, Alexandria, VA 22306-0524 ------------------------------ From: Brian Kantor Subject: Re: For Telecom-ers Who Live up North Date: 6 Dec 90 20:33:53 GMT Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd. Hook one of those $99 radio shack alarm dialers to a thermostat and water sensor. If a pipe breaks or the heat fails, you'll get called. Brian ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: LD vs Voice Mail / Lower Hotel Phone Charges Date: 6 Dec 90 12:35:24 PST (Thu) From: John Higdon snowgoose!dave@uunet.uu.net writes: > I often wish to call my Bell Atlantic voice mailbox from a hotel > with my LD calling card. The voice mail system wants me to enter "#" > to be prompted for my password. Guess what happens? That's right, > the LD carrier disconnects that call and prompts me to make another. Did you actually try this with AT&T, or are you just theorizing? This is exactly why the '#' will not work for "recall" while the call in progress is supervised (distant end off-hook). I check my voice mail regularly with an AT&T calling card. My VM system requires the entering of the '#' key up the wazoo and I have yet to be disconnected by AT&T. BTW, I just tried accessing my VM using the Sprint 800 access. Even with the copious entering of '*' and '#' to put the VM through its paces, I was not disconnected. Methinks you are making big noise about no problem. If you are actually having difficulty, have your 'right coast' people call the 'left coast' to find out how it's done. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Patrick Tufts Subject: Re: Phone Service in the UK Two Decades Ago Date: 6 Dec 90 21:00:56 GMT Organization: Brandeis University John Slater writes: [in reply to the assertion that, in the US (but not the UK) you can order a pizza via cellular from your car and get it just as you arrive home.] I don't know what prompts you to make this insular assumption. Of course we can do this: we have pizza delivery services, and we have one of the best and most successful cellular setups in the world. Not to nitpick, but :-) :-) Few pizza places in England have heard of delivery service. When I was at the University of Essex, the local pizza place said `of course, we deliver' ... to the central loading dock of the school, that is. Not a one of my flatmates (20 of them, all Brits) had ever heard of having a pizza delivered. ObPhone question: Why is it that a UK -> US phone call is much more expensive than a US -> UK call? Pat ------------------------------ From: John Macdonald Subject: Re: The "Bell" Logo Reply-To: John Macdonald Organization: Elegant Communications Inc. Date: Thu, 6 Dec 1990 16:27:23 -0500 In article <15171@accuvax.nwu.edu> mailrus!uflorida!rm1!bapat (Subodh Bapat) writes: |Talking about the Bell logo, is there any truth to the rumor that, |once long ago, AT&T lost its right to use the Bell logo, as the |copyright expired and they forgot to renew it? The story I heard was |that they had to pay a lot of money to get it back from some smart |entrepreneur who, in the meantime, sneaked in and got the copyright |for himself. |Anyone have any facts to substantiate/dispel this rumor? I don't know about the Bell Logo, but before it gets dismissed as an urban legend, I can cite a somewhat similar case that definitely did happen. In the late 1970's (and possibly still today) there was some difference about registering copyrights in the province of British Columbia compared to the rest of Canada. There was at least one person in BC who made use of this fact to pre-register trademarks of companies that seemed likely to eventually want to start operating in BC. For that reason, at that time, Perkin-Elmer Data Systems used a different company name within BC than they used in the rest of Canada and the USA. This was just after they changed their name from being Interdata (and there was a different operating name for Interdata in BC too). John Macdonald jmm@eci386 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Dec 90 20:19 EST From: Nigel Allen Subject: Re: The "Bell" Logo Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada. Before the former Bell System adopted the stylized bell logo that Bellcore and some operating companies still use, AT&T and its associated companies used a more natural-looking bell-in-a-circle. You may notice this on some older manhole covers. Bell Canada used the older bell-in-a-circle logo for a long time (with the accompanying text "local and long distance service", I believe). It never adopted the stylized bell of the former Bell System. Rather, it replaced its old logo with a wordmark, the word "Bell" in a bold sans-serif face, normally reproduced in blue. A year or two after divesture, I was shopping in one of the grungier areas of Toronto, where merchants use the cheapest possible shopping bags, which often are ones bearing the name of a store that went out of business (and so the store's liquidators sold the bags for relatively little). One of the plastic bags bore the American variant of the Bell logo and the name "Bell Phone Center", or whatever the storefront outlets of the Bell System were called divesture. I assume the bags were sold for very little (and made their way to Toronto) after AT&T was forced to stop using the Bell logo and replaced it with its present "Death Star". Bell Canada's parent company, BCE Inc. (formerly Bell Canada Enterprises) uses a stylized BCE in brown, to avoid any confusion with Bell Canada. Bell Canada and its affiliates avoid using the word "Bell" as part of the name of their U.S. operations. Bell-Northern Research is the research arm of Northern Telecom (with a minority shareholding by Bell Canada); the company's U.S. subsidiary is simply BNR Inc. Similarly, Bell Canada International's U.S. unit is just BCI Inc. (although I think some BCI installation activities may have been transferred to a company called Protocol, which may or may not be a Bell Canada affiliate set up a few years ago to franchise telephone answering services). Nigel Allen ndallen@contact.uucp 52 Manchester Avenue telephone (416) 535-8916; fax (416) 978-7736 Toronto, Ontario, Canada M6G 1V3 ------------------------------ From: Mark Oberg Subject: Re: Information Needed About Reseller Using SDN Date: 7 Dec 90 04:47:32 GMT Reply-To: Mark Oberg Organization: Erics PC, Beltsville MD In article <15255@accuvax.nwu.edu> Bill Huttig writes: >A few weeks ago some wrote about resellers of SDN's where AT&T does >the billing. I was curious if anyone out there is a reseller using >SDN's and what the legal and financial requirements are. There are still a few companies left who have reseller contracts with AT&T for SDN service, but as I understand it AT&T is not providing any new contracts of that type and is not renewing any of the old ones. The company that I work for is a reseller of Long Distance services and was originally trying to get that sort of contract, where we sell the service and AT&T does the billing. MCI and US Sprint also do not have that type of contract available. What you *can* do is to become a reseller that does their own billing. I can tell you from personal aggravation that it is not an easy thing to do. AT&T and MCI do not have reseller programs. You may find that other carriers offer you the ability to resell their services but that the minimums and deposits required may be excessive depending on the scope of your venture. Then, you have to come up with a billing system ... not exactly off-the-shelf. Still, it can be done and if you are persistant and resolute you may find it to be an interesting business. Good luck! Disclaimer: I suppose there ought to be one, so here one is! Mark Oberg uunet!hadron!lsw!grout!mark ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Does *ANY* PBX Supply Loop Interrupt Signal?? Date: 7 Dec 90 13:03:24 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <15237@accuvax.nwu.edu>, jimmy@denwa.info.com (Jim Gottlieb) writes: [Regarding PBX switches that pass the open-loop disconnect signal from the CO through to their analog station ports.] > The AT&T switches all provide CPC. They also allow long touch-tones. > Something that AT&T got right. Early-vintage Merlin and System 25 do not allow arbitrarily long touch-tones from their 'ATL' proprietary multi-button sets. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ From: Andrew.Hastings@pogo.camelot.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: "Copyright" of the Bell Symbol Date: 6 Dec 90 18:32:50 GMT Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI In article <15252@accuvax.nwu.edu> leichter@lrw.com (Jerry Leichter) writes: >least for the same kind of thing it previously described. ("Kleenex" >might become a generic for facial tissues. You couldn't reclaim it to >describe YOUR brand of facial tissues - if it's not generic, Scott >still owns it! - but you MIGHT be able to use it to describe your >brand of carburator cleaner.) Kleenex is NOT a trademark of Scott (maker of "Scotties" brand facial tissues. It is a trademark of Kimberly-Clark Corporation of Neenah, WI. Andy Hastings abh@cs.cmu.edu 412/268-8734 ------------------------------ From: Nathan Glasser Subject: Re: Last Four Digits of Phone is '0000' Reply-To: Nathan Glasser Organization: MIT EE/CS Computer Facilities, Cambridge, MA Date: Fri, 7 Dec 90 04:56:15 GMT In article <15077@accuvax.nwu.edu> "Curtis E. Reid" I recall many, many issues ago that someone was interested in knowing >if there is a valid phone number ending with all zeros i.e., >xxx-xxx-0000. Obviously it's not such an uncommon thing to have four 0's at the end of a phone number. In addition to the numbers listed in the above article, across the street from me is Zero's Pizza, with phone number on their sign, (617) 625-0000. Is there some particular reason why such numbers are perceived as being rare? Nathan Glasser nathan@{mit-eddie.uucp, brokaw.lcs.mit.edu} Nate on IRC, Forum, and Bitnet Relay Pulsar on Abermud ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #872 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20000; 10 Dec 90 5:31 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac00285; 10 Dec 90 3:58 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03103; 9 Dec 90 14:52 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab09479; 9 Dec 90 13:18 CST Date: Sun, 9 Dec 90 12:47:17 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #873 BCC: Message-ID: <9012091247.ab24366@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 9 Dec 90 12:47:03 CST Volume 10 : Issue 873 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: LD vs Voice Mail / Lower Hotel Phone Charges [Dave Levenson] Re: LD vs Voice Mail / Lower Hotel Phone Charges [Sander J. Rabinowitz] Re: LD vs Voice Mail / Lower Hotel Phone Charges [Laird P. Broadfield] Re: Permanently Broken Numbers [John R. Covert] Re: *Long* Phone Calls -- What Does Ma Think? [Jack Winslade] Re: Information Needed About Reseller Using SDN [Macy Hallock] Re: Cardphones (was: Polish Payphones Revisited) [Andy Rabagliati] Re: Questions About the GTE Airfone [Kevin A. Mitchell] Re: For Telecom-ers Who Live up North [Fritz Whittington] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: LD vs Voice Mail / Lower Hotel Phone Charges Date: 7 Dec 90 13:13:54 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <15248@accuvax.nwu.edu>, snowgoose!dave@uunet.uu.net writes: > I know that both AT&T and Sprint offer the "feature" of dialing > another LD number without disconnecting from the LD carrier via the "#". > I often wish to call my Bell Atlantic voice mailbox from a hotel > with my LD calling card. The voice mail system wants me to enter "#" > to be prompted for my password. Guess what happens? That's right, > the LD carrier disconnects... The AT&T network is only sensitive to the # when the far end is on hook. You may # out of the current call before it has been answered (of if it is busy) or after the far end had hung up. If you voice mail system is still off-hook when you enter the # to terminate your password, it should not disconnect you. The MCI network, on the other hand, does disconnect on # on calls in the talking state (i.e. both ends off hook). I don't know about Sprint. Most voice mail systems demand a longer-than-standard # or any other touch tone used when they're listening to speech, as a way of avoiding the occasional momentary similarity between the # and random speech sounds. If they shorten the minimum # duration, some voices will sound like # and cause unintended feature activation. This is commonly called 'talk-off' in that industry. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Dec 90 14:54 GMT From: "Sander J. Rabinowitz" <0003829147@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: LD vs Voice Mail / Lower Hotel Charges In an article dated , (Dave) writes: >I know that both AT&T and Sprint offer the "feature" of dialing >another LD number without disconnecting from the LD carrier via the >"#". >I often wish to call my Bell Atlantic voice mailbox from a hotel >with my LD calling card. The voice mail system wants me to enter "#" >to be prompted for my password. Guess what happens? That's right, >the LD carrier disconnects that call and prompts me to make another. Now the Moderator responds with the following: >But don't you have to hold the # key for at least a >couple seconds to get a carrier disconnect? With my local Telco (Michigan Bell) and AT&T calls, just a touch of the '#' button (not even a quarter of a second) is enough to disconnect, but my experience has been that '#' only works before a call is answered (i.e. you hear ringing but you just realized you dialed a wrong number), during a telco or LDC recording, or after a call when the other party has hung up. >Most voice mail systems require far less [than 2 seconds -SJR]. That >is, you could probably just give a half-second of # and access voice >mail without it being long enough to trigger the network disconnect. Where I am, I don't have to worry about that. Once the other party answers (assuming the call is through AT&T or MichBell, you can lean on the '#' symbol indefinitely and it won't disconnect. You have to wait for the other party to disconnect before you can use '#' to disconnect yourself. (I just tried this with my credit union bank-by-phone system just a moment ago -- which uses # -- and it works as described.) Either there's a computer glitch where you are, Dave, or the call isn't going through AT&T. Try 102880 + the number (assuming the hotel phones don't block 10xxx calls -- I understand many do). Sander J. Rabinowitz | !sander@attmail.com | +1 313 478 6358 Farmington Hills, Mich. | -OR- sjr@mcimail.com | 8-) ------------------------------ From: "Laird P. Broadfield" Subject: Re: LD vs Voice Mail / Lower Hotel Phone Charges Date: 7 Dec 90 20:50:47 GMT n In <15248@accuvax.nwu.edu> snowgoose!dave@uunet.uu.net writes: [stuff about pressing # to enter voicemail....] >[Moderator's Note: But don't you have to hold the # key for at least a >couple seconds to get a carrier disconnect? Most voice mail systems >require far less. That is, you could probably just give a half-second >of # and access voice mail without it being long enough to trigger the >network disconnect. Sprint and ATT both indicate in their literature >to hold down the # key for a couple seconds to make it work right. PAT] Nope. From _numerous_ locations throughout the ConUS I have made the mistake of hitting the # key to sign on to our voicemail system too soon and had AT&T dump the connection. The "key" here is to _wait_ about three or four seconds into the answer message, at which point AT&T is apparently no longer listening. I haven't tried a LONG # at all; only short ones. Perhaps the call-progress is significant to the tone-recognizer; before it has "realized" the connection, or after it has recognized a hangup, maybe any # works, but during a connection only a _long_ #? Just guessing.... Laird P. Broadfield UUCP: {akgua, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!lairdb INET: lairdb@crash.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Dec 90 12:50:30 PST From: "John R. Covert 07-Dec-1990 1538" Subject: Re: Permanently Broken Numbers >The recording has changed a few times, but it's always been German. >("Kine-uh swabindoonk un de dezuh swuhbal!" it says. That's "Keine Verbindung unter dieser Vorwahl" and it means "No connection under this (long distance) prefix." It is, indeed, a new recording, possibly unique to Berlin. >Actually, until recently it said "Kine und schloos un de dezuh-noomber" in >a much more polite voice; something to do with the unification maybe? That's the standard recording, "Kein Anschluss under dieser Nummer" which means "No connection under this number." It is still in use, and I haven't had a chance yet to determine the conditions under which you get one and not the other. My guess is that you get the "No connection under this prefix" recording in Berlin when you have dialled a valid East Berlin exchange using the West Berlin prefix. john ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Dec 90 23:13:20 EST From: Jack Winslade Subject: Re: *Long* Phone Calls -- What Does Ma Think? Reply-to: jack.winslade@f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537 In a message of <30 Nov 90 18:30:56>, John Higdon writes: >Charles "Chip" Roberson writes: >> but in Raleigh, every time this happens the phone company >> disconnects his line and charges him $35 to reconnect his line. >> Is this standard practice for phone companies to react so strongly to >> off-hook lines? >No, it is not. And there is absolutely no reason, given any switch >other than SXS to behave in this manner. It is a scam to increase >revenue and nothing else. AAAAAArrrrgh! I'm certainly glad they do not do that here. Not only do I have the BBS set to 'busy out' during the daily maintenance 'batch' processes, our cats have been known to knoch the receiver of the voice phone off the hook and onto the floor. Sometimes we'll hear the 'clanking' and hang it up, but it's been off hook overnight. I wonder if the telco in Raleigh would tromp on that ?? Also, one time when we had a temporary line at our just-finished house, we found that the former user of that number received all kinds of calls (long distance, from the sounds) at all hours. The first night we had that, we had to take the phone off hook to get some sleep. I wonder if that telco has the [fill in an anatomic part, 'guts' will suffice] to charge $35 for that ?? Good Day! JSW --- Through FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 Jack.Winslade@f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Dec 90 09:42 EST From: Macy Hallock Subject: Re: Information Needed About Reseller Using SDN Organization: F M Systems, Inc. Medina, Ohio USA +1 216 723-3000 In article <15255@accuvax.nwu.edu>: >A few weeks ago some wrote about resellers of SDN's where AT&T does >the billing. I was curious if anyone out there is a reseller using >SDN's and what the legal and financial requirements are. AT&T SDN (and their Tariff 1 services, too) can be resold. In fact AT&T offers the billing services required to bill users of aggregated or resold services directly. There are several companies in this program at this time. This has been a controversial offering from AT&T. Even AT&T's own employees don't much care for it. I'm told it was intended to allow AT&T to capture the lower end of the market where their own marketing might not overcome the price competition. I'm also told that a minimum commitment of $ 3,000,000.00 per month must observed, along with a subatantial cash deposit, unless you are able to show very strong creditworthiness. Many of these resellers are called aggregators. They then contract with agents to sell their services around the country. There are specific tariff and contract requirements that they must observe to comply with the program ... which some of the agents, in their zeal to make a buck, sometimes forget about. If you call your AT&T business office or service rep, you will be told that resale does not exist, or is, at best, done by dubious organizations. AT&T major account reps greatly fear aggregators because they will lose sales credit if a client signs with at aggregator. You will sometimes hear account reps utter half truths about the service. Since AT&T has trained almost noone inside AT&T about the resale and aggregation programs, factual information is hard to find...kinda like AT&T Mail, but this threatens the account reps, so you get a negative response. AT&T also had considerable difficulties with the billing system in the early stages of the program, which gave it a bad reputation both inside and outside AT&T. Those problems are now solved. (Sounds a little bit like Sprint, eh?) If the aggregator uses AT&T billing services, and most do, AT&T billing reps work directly with the end users in resolving problems. No sweat here. I have worked with one aggregator recently. I still do not understand all the tariffs, politics and legal issues involved. My personal opinion thus far is cautious optimism. The single largest problem has been the continuing reluctance of AT&T staff to cooperate with us on service, configuration and support issues. AT&T staff members do not receive any credit, strokes or support from management when dealing with an aggregator. The message is something like: "Well, its AT&T, but its not real AT&T, so we won't help you.", as if a stigma is attached to resale aggregation. My impression that the fundemental financial and marketing concepts upon which the resale/aggregation program is built are quite sound. AT&T could litterally be selling on both sides of the street if they manage this program well. So far, they've done about as good a job on this program as they have done with AT&T Mail, though. Poor aggregator performance and AT&T's undermining of the program have contibuted to the low visibility of the program. This may eventually change. I would tell someone who is approached by an AT&T reseller/ aggregator to deal with them like any other long distance vendor: Listen to the pitch, but get the rates, tariffs and promises in contract form. If the aggregator shuts down, or fails, AT&T will not interrupt service. In fact AT&T will happily return the customer to one of the standard plans handled directly my them ... usually at higher rates. So the risk is neligible. The fact is there are real savings for the end user under the program. And AT&T's SDN and tariff 1 services work very well. I will update the Digest on this topic as I become more knowledgable. Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@fmsystm.UUCP macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy ------------------------------ From: Andy Rabagliati Subject: Re: Cardphones (was: Polish Payphones Revisited) Organization: INMOS Corporation, Colorado Springs Date: Sun, 9 Dec 90 05:41:48 GMT In article <15118@accuvax.nwu.edu> dpfay@vax1.tcd.ie writes: >The use of card phones is becoming increasingly common: in France >coin-operated payphones (without a queue) can be hard to find. I >think the reason for their absence in the U.S. is their dependence on >meter pulsing for billing. Remember that the UK (and possibly the continent) has only recently moved over to tone dialling. I think the introduction of cardphones was because credit card calling is a non-starter without tone. Cheers, Andy. ------------------------------ From: kam@dlogics.COM (Kevin Mitchell) Subject: Re: Questions About the GTE Airfone Date: 7 Dec 90 16:30:48 GMT Organization: Datalogics Inc., Chicago In article <15223@accuvax.nwu.edu>, seanp%undrground@amix.commodore. com (Sean) writes: > When you insert your credit card, the information (number, exp. > date, etc. ) is sent via 300 baud signal to a ground station. (REAL > TIME). The ground station then confirms or denys usage, and proceeds > from there. Actually, the handset is not released until then card is > approved. Is the data encrypted? It sounds like a massive security leak, broadcasting sensitive information about a card like that. I know all the arguments about privacy, not listening to certain frequencies, etc., but a credit card pirate with an all-band receiver isn't going to be "nice" about it. > 894 - 896 MHz (5 KHz spacing). Assignment is done in the same > manner as cellular. It picks an available frequency from what the > ground station tells it. AM mode is used for modulation. This is different from what I've heard. Popular Electronics has a scanner column, and reported several 470 MHz band frequencies where you can pick up air phone calls. I've found some there. 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 ------------------------------ From: Fritz Whittington Subject: Re: For Telecom-ers Who Live up North Organization: TI Computer Science Center, Dallas Date: Thu, 6 Dec 90 17:54:24 GMT In article <15113@accuvax.nwu.edu> CAPEK@YKTVMT.BITNET (Peter G. Capek) writes: >interesting device called a Telefreeze. It connects to a phone line >and makes the line go "off hook" when the ambient temperature goes >below a preset limit. The idea is that you would periodically call >home (or your ski house..) and if you get a busy, call a >neighbor/plumber/heating contractor to investigate before the pipes >freeze. Available through dealers and plumbers. The manufacturer is Could someone explain to a life-long Southerner why this terribly complicated system which depends on human intervention on both ends is better than simply having the thermal device in the 'Telefreeze' simply turn the heater on? Fritz Whittington [Moderator's Note: Even if for some reason the device was not able to turn the heater on, if it can go off hook it could surely dial your number and recite some sort of pre-recorded spiel. At least you would think so. What does merely going off-hook solve? What if you forget to call it for a couple days? And why should you waste several calls on it for nothing when it (or a similar device) should be able to make ONE important call to you? You are correct; this device sounds like a total piece of junk. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #873 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27265; 10 Dec 90 12:07 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad17472; 10 Dec 90 10:46 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20302; 9 Dec 90 17:21 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20959; 9 Dec 90 15:52 CST Date: Sun, 9 Dec 90 14:25:42 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #874 BCC: Message-ID: <9012091425.ab06870@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 9 Dec 90 14:25:31 CST Volume 10 : Issue 874 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson JSC $12 Million Phone Ripoff: Fact or Fiction? [Bob Izenberg] 900-Number Support For IBM/4.3 Unix Being Considered [Eric Brunner] Harrassing Phone Calls [Murray S. Kucherawy] My Phone Bill - A Subtle AT&T Error [Steve Kass] CLID, CLASS, and One Way Trunks [Andy Jacobson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bob Izenberg Subject: JSC $12 Million Phone Ripoff: Fact or Fiction? Date: 8 Dec 90 22:43:11 GMT Organization: Bob Izenberg's PC From the 12-6-90 {Austin American-Statesman}: NASA Bilked of $12 Million in Phone Calls, Paper Says HOUSTON (AP) -- Computer hackers have pilfered $12 million in telephone charges from the Johnson Space Center over the past two years in what at least one expert said was the biggest such theft in the nation. The {Houston Chronicle} reported in a copyright story on Wednesday that possibly hundreds of people made illicit use of the system over at least two years. "It's the biggest one I've heard of, and certainly the longest-running one I've ever heard of," said Detective Jim Black, computer crime unit coordinator of the Los Angeles Police Department and a leading authority on telecommunications theft. NASA issued a statement late Wednesday calling the Chronicle story "an extraordinary exageration of federal telephone misuse." Spokesman John Garman said that the entire annual charges for its Federal Telephone Service, a dedicated service like a WATS line, amounts to about $3 million. "There has been no apparent changes to FTS call statistics from JSC, nor indication of significant abuse of the FTS system over the last several years," Garman's statement said. It added that the FTS system cited in the article was discontinued Nov. 16, when JSC officials discovered that the service had been published in computerized "hacker's bulletin board." "Any abuse of the FTS system at a level anywhere near the size asserted in the {Chronicle} article would have been impossible to miss and would have been immediately investigated," the statement said. The figure of $12 million is extracted from costs of similar break-ins around the nation described by law enforcement agents specializing in computer crime. Hackers frequently try to gain access to free phone service to charge off regular conversations and computer contact with popular electronic bulletin boards. Because these boards may be located in homes throughout the world, the cost of calling them can quickly become prohibitive. The phone line pilferers typically find PBX numbers by trial and error. PBX numbers, or private branch exchanges, are telephone switching systems commonly used in medium to large companies. NASA's system is one form of PBX. At NASA, spokesman Steve Nesbitt told the Chronicle said the service was stolen in two ways: by using a long-distance credit card number and by direct use of NASA's phone lines. The credit card fraud was discovered by AT&T when use of the credit card number exceeded typical patterns. Black and Gail Thackeray, an assistant Arizona attorney general and an expert in telecommunications, said such penetrations typically cost from $100,000 a month for a small company to $500,000 per month at a large firm. The heavy losses at NASA were sustained through four lines in the space center's regular phone system. [ end of article ] When I was shown this article last night, I experienced a mix of dismay and pleasant surprise. Here was somebody digging a little deeper into a story that had been given a cursory examination on the first try. After I'd had a few hours to think about it, I became a bit less happy with the way the story was put together. The first and third paragraphs contradict NASA's statement first mentioned in the fourth paragraph. Either NASA is right, or the Chronicle is. Apparently some money was taken. The NASA spokesman says that the figure of $12 million is incorrect. Okay, what's the right number? I read a particular quoted source's name with interest. Sun Devil axe-grinder Gail Thackeray (and the LAPD detective) give figures for what small and large businesses lose per month to phone fraud. In the context of the AP story, the figures sound like a bill that Phreaks R Us sends every business in the country. We're in headline territory here, so we shouldn't expect figures to mean anything. I hassled a friend in the news business about this last night (a poor repayment for his letting me hang out for a newscast.) Why do some reporters let officials write their stories for them? My friend put it down to deadline pressure, which I can surely believe. But, having been on both sides of the good-natured (?) ribbing broadcast journalists take for doing superficial treatment of news stories, I don't have much sympathy for a print reporter (even in a daily) who doesn't ask a few more questions than were asked here. To Joe Abernathy (the Chronicle reporter) and to the AP reporter, I would say that I'm still waiting for the facts. Bob Izenberg (512) 346 7019 [ ] cs.utexas.edu!{kvue,balkan}!dogface!bei [Moderator's Note: Thanks for presenting this excellent rebuttal. If you wait on Joe Abernathy to come up with the facts, you are going to be waiting a long time. As an example, look at the hatchet job he did in the Internet story. Have any corrections been offered? I agree that any amount of theft of services (from computer site, telco, etc) is too much theft. But as others have pointed out, the figures flying around these days in the incidents brought to our attention have been total fabrications -- like much of Abernathy's 'reporting'. PAT] ------------------------------ From: brunner@bullhead.uucp Subject: 900-Number Support For IBM/4.3 Unix Being Considered Reply-To: brunner@ibmsupt.UUCP Organization: IBM AWD Palo Alto Date: Fri, 7 Dec 90 23:04:01 GMT I'm considering a change in how IBM's version of Berkeley Unix for the PC/RT is supported and some of the questions I need to answer have to do with phone support and billing. Before describing what we are discussing let me describe what it is that I do. IBM/4.3 (aka "AOS" and "ACIS") began as a port of 4.2bsd to the RT, done by programmers at IBM's Page Mill Road, Palo Alto facility, then part of the ACIS organization (now generally known as the IBM part of the NSFNET group). Broadly speaking, IBM/4.3 is a faithfull port of 4.3bsd to the RT, with two significant non-IBM added features, CMU's Andrew File System (AFS) and X11. It runs on the RT and the PS/2 model 60, which also runs DOS, with what is referred to as the "cross bow" (RISC) processor card. It is _only_ available in source form to Academic sites (over 100). Bottom line, this is Berkeley Unix with the best of CMU and MIT (as of 1988), on IBM gear. When I began what was a six month contract to support this release and to aid the user community prior to and during their transition to IBM's strategic product -- AIX 3.1 on the RS/6000, the customers were supposed to maintain a uucp link to a machine at Palo Alto, and bug reports (APARS) and their fixes were propogated via notes (see User Contributed Software for details on notes and notesfiles). Updates of third party compiler binaries were also propogated via uucp. For several reasons I decided to utilize the comp.sys.ibm.pc.rt newgroup for bug reporting and for distribution of forward context difference patches and complete minor source trees (shar files). This was well recieved by the IBM/4.3 users. In June of this year IBM announced the withdrawal of support for this product, effective 22 December. Since the introduction of AIX 3.1 and the RS/6000, and in particular during the past two weeks, the case has been made that some or all of the existing IBM/4.3 RT sites have not yet fully transitioned to AIX 3.1 on the RS/6000, and some limited support may be offered. It is accidental that I seem to be the key person in this activity, my contract began in May 1989, and was extended twice. The other contractors who had "corporate knowedge" have since gone on to other work, and the original Palo Alto developers have since taken up other work and cannot be allocated to this task. I could be replaced, but it wouldn't make a lot of sense one way or the other. We are agreed that some sites may be willing to pay a flat fee for a year's further support, $1,000 is the figure under consideration. Getting X11.r4 is the sweetener for these sites, as is the possibility that IBM may allow me to distribute some new work (e.g., 4.3 RENO networking, device driver improvements, etc.) to be distributed, somewhat to the detriment of the RS/6000 transition plan. For sites which do not choose to pay a flat fee, a 900 number has been proposed. For those that do choose the flat fee, an 800 number will be available. Several questions associated with 900 number service arise, which is my reason for making this posting. If we set up a 900 number for non-flat-rate-payers, incoming support calls are easy, but what about email and phone calls from me to the college which originated the email? Can I generate a sort of reverse 900 billing? How can I set up a system that will both satisfy IBM's requirements and best meet my user's needs, while opperating what is in a sense, a mini-version of mt. Xinu? What telecom gear will I need to obtain to support this -- for the functional portion of support, modems and a uucp/internet addressable host, my present knowledge is sufficient -- but not for the proposed billing system . As a pre-post-script, it is not obvious that a large number of customer sites will be willing to allocate money for support of a machine so broadly depricated (I like the RT, and there is a growing "home market" for RT's displaced by RS/6000's and other boxes, but that is irrelevant), and it is rather unfortunate in my mind at least, that it presently seems unlikely that I will be able to offer 4.4bsd next summer in binary form to the RT owners who are not source licensed by AT&T and the Regents of UC Berkeley, so I'm not asking a "big business" question. Nevertheless, I suppose the same set of concerns and questions would arise for anyone considering setting up a smallish support business. I've been sitting on a series of APAR closures (bug fixes) and enhancements, the absence of which may have lowered my user's expectations, for almost two months, mostly because personal family matters have been something of a distraction. I wish I could let the IBM/4.3 users know, but I'll make these distibutions via the news group comp.sys.ibm.pc.rt prior to 22 January, which is the final cut-off date for fixes and quiet enhancements (e.g., current AFS and X11 release levels). I'm located either in Palo Alto, internal to IBM and behind their ROLM gear, or in some sunny small office leased in Mountain View, within a few hundred yards for an 1ESS equiped CO (PacBell is the IEC), and less than a mile from Alternet's "point of presence". If external, I'll use Telebit's T2500's for data at 19.2kbs for running AFS over slip to several local sites and uucp for the obvious links, perhaps a "Net Blazer" which my friends and former fellow IBM/4.3-contractors Charlie Slater and Mark Lewis have worked on, as well as seeking decent connectivity (56Kb) to either Alternet or the local NSFNET regional, BARRNET. While this isn't terrifically relevant, IBM/4.3 with some modifications (Tahoe networking and a better token-ring driver) is what runs on the present generation of NSFNET Nodal Switching Systems, which are clusters of RT's. NSS13 is at Stanford. Thanks in advance all telecom readers! Your answers to my obvious questions and to questions not obvious to me are appreciated. Please help keep IBM's most user-appreciated (academic) Unix product alive in 1991! It is not strategic, simply appreciated. #include Eric Brunner, Consultant, IBM AWD Palo Alto (415) 855-4486 inet: brunner@monet.berkeley.edu uucp: uunet!ibmsupt!brunner ------------------------------ From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Date: Sat, 8 Dec 1990 18:10:26 EST Reply-To: mskucherawy@watmath.waterloo.edu Organization: University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada Subject: Harrassing Phone Calls Many of you may recall a posting from me earlier this year about a friend who was receiving harrassing phone calls, and asking for advice. Perhaps the editor has copies of my original posting and could re-post it? Well, anyway... A quick recap for those who missed the discussion: My friend and a friend of hers were receiving harrassing (and frankly, terrifying) phone calls from someone for a long period of time. They tried to nail the caller using taps and so forth, but he always seemed to know when the taps were on the line, because the calls would stop. Users around the continent sent in recommendations - answering machines, freon horns, changing the number, getting one of those phones that shows the caller's number, etc., but for one reason or another, they either didn't work or were not possible to implement in my friend's situation. Well, I just saw her last weekend, and she tells me that just a couple of weeks ago, a tap was implented again, but this time they managed to get successful traces on nearly 30 calls, all from the same number. The police are investigating, and will release the number and name of the caller when they lay a charge. The calls were originating from an exchange in her own neighbourhood. Many thanks to members of the Usenet community who offered their valuable advice. Best wishes. Murray S. Kucherawy University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada 2A Mathematics/Computer Science Internet: mskucherawy@.UWaterloo.ca UUCP: uunet!watmath!mskucherawy [Moderator's Note: Readers will recall that when this matter was first discussed here, there was some speculation that the reason the taps were not successful was because perhaps the calls were being made by someone at telco or the local police department; someone who would be in a position to know when the taps were put on / taken off the line. I hope we will get a follow-up on this when the culprit has been identified and prosecuted. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Dec 90 20:48 EDT From: Subject: My Phone Bill - a Subtle AT&T Error Check out this weirdness on my latest AT&T bill: DATE TIME PLACE AREA-NUMBER RATE MIN AMOUNT NOV 11 6:40PM SAN DIEGO, CA 619-NXX-XXXX D 48 # 7.28 NOV 11 8:45PM PASADENA, CA 818-NXX-XXXX D 54 # 8.17 Get this. Rate code D means DAY (see the time). The amounts are correct for rate code E, evening, which is when the calls were placed, anyway. BUT, the # means that my Reach Out America discount applies, and that discount is 10% for day calls and 25% for evening calls. Looking at the summary page, these two calls were discounted at 10%, since the rate code field in the record is D (even though the amount doesn't match that). So I should get another 15% off of each of these calls, or a credit of $2.31. Try explaining that to an AT&T representative. An occasional two bucks here and there could amount to big money for the telecommunications giant. Or maybe a programmer is getting very rich somewhere. I still like AT&T, but I have to wonder how often I miss things like this. Steve Kass-Math & CS Dept-Drew U-Madison NJ 07940-(201)4083614-skass@drew.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Dec 90 23:38 PST From: Andy Jacobson Subject: CLID, CLASS, and One Way Trunks All this talk of CLID has raised a number of questions I have not seen addressed in these sundry bytes. What sort of CLID will an outgoing WATS line generate? If it is out only, what would happen if you tried the CLASS auto call-back with it? As "boiler room operations" would be likely to operate by out-WATS, would CLID really benefit the recipient of the call? There are a number of other one-way type lines that would also render the CLID useless, such as pay phones that don't accept incoming calls, cellular outgoing trunks, Airfone trunks, (and many PBX's). What about special services like the marine operator, or the LD or local operator for that matter? Anyone have experience with these, or any design folks care to comment? Andy Jacobson or ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #874 ******************************  ISSUE 875 APPEARS THREEE ISSUES BACK, AFTER 871 AND BEFORE 872. NEXT IN THIS ARCHIVES IS 876.  Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12325; 11 Dec 90 5:19 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19844; 11 Dec 90 2:57 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04505; 11 Dec 90 1:48 CST Date: Tue, 11 Dec 90 1:22:36 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #876 BCC: Message-ID: <9012110122.ab01017@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 11 Dec 90 01:22:20 CST Volume 10 : Issue 876 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Payphones in Australia [Brendan Jones] Small TAS IN Iowa [Jeff Scheer] Eastern Bloc Phone Hookups [Peter Trei] Florida Coinslots and Equal Access [David Lesher] Re: Phone Service in the UK Two Decades Ago [John Slater] Re: Phone Service in the UK Two Decades Ago [Adam Gorman] Re: Calls to and Within Australia [Jim Breen] Southwestern Bell Buys Telefonos de Mexico [TELECOM Moderator] Southwestern Bell Tidbits [Eric Dittman] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Payphones in Australia Date: Tue, 11 Dec 90 13:16:20 +1000 From: brendan@munnari.oz.au With the current discussion on various payphone systems around the world, perhaps the system in Australia may be of interest. Australia still has a fairly regulated telecommunications environment with the main carriers owned by the government, although there are plans to introduce privately owned competing carriers. However, this 'monopoly' enivronment has led to a high degree of network uniformity, integrity, and standard service provision throughout Australia, including both primary and basic rate ISDN, EFTPOS provision, itemised billing, and provision of advanced digital exchanges. There are three main types of payphones in Australia with a fourth (using pre-paid cards) to come. COIN PAYPHONE (PUBLIC) ====================== The first type is the public coin operated type, familiar to all of us, in boxes in the street. Telecom Australia (the domestic carrier) installs and maintains these creatures, which are really quite advanced. After a few years of increasing vandalism levels (especially in Sydney) around 1986, the coin payphones were completely redesigned to make them vandal proof. The public payphones in Syndey are now made of 243 Stainless Steel, with the coin box door milled out of a solid plate, and is 30 mm thick. The locking mechanism has an industrial drill proof guard around it and has a failsafe chamber mechanism such that any mechanism tampering results in an irreversible mechanical lockout. Since this redesign, sucessful coinbox theft in Sydney has decreased from around 2000 per year to two per year. Although the redesigned units cost around A$3000 to make, the coinbox holds around A$300 and hence the payback period through preventing theft is quite fast. The first successful break in was achieved by a gang cutting out the entire payphone unit from the phone box and taking it away on a truck. The whole unit weighs around 80kg and so would require at least two people to take it away. The unit was dumped in a park and later discovered (after break-in), and post analysis indicated it would have taken at least two days for the gang to cut into the coin box using diamond drills and industrial angle grinders. Besides mechanical integrity, these coin payphones have operational integrity. Coin recognition is based on a three stage electronic measurement of coin weight, size and appearance using advanced processors. Introduction of new coins (such as the A$2 coin) are no problem as it simply requires a ROM change in the unit. Advanced signalling between the payphone and the local exchange at all times ensures that line misuse does not occur. The line cannot be tapped into and free calls made as the local exchange expects the payphone to signal with its unique ID at all times. If this signalling is absent, calls are not able to proceed. This signalling is also used to provide fault reporting and operational and maintenance information. COIN PAYPHONES (PRIVATE) ======================== Coin payphones may also be purchased by small businesses (shops etc) for their premises and provide extra revenue for the shop owner by customers making calls. CREDIT PHONE ============ Introduced three years ago, this phone can accept a variety of standard credit and debit cards for making telephone calls. Cards accepted include American Express, Mastercard, and cards from local national banks (such as the Commonwealth, Westpac, NAB etc) plus state banks and credit unions. Due to Australia's advanced EFTPOS network (Australia has the highest EFTPOS penetration in the world) these cards can be accepted by the Credit Phone anywhere in Australia. EFTPOS is currently accessed through the X.25 packet switched network, with plans to use ISDN in some areas. Unlike the United States, savings accounts with electronic access can usually be accessed anywhere in Australia through the bank's dedicated Automatic Teller Machines or through machines that the institution has a access agreement with. Hence standardisation of card access for the Credit Phone was no problem. [ Australia's two major banks (Westpac and Commonwealth) each have 2500 Automatic Teller Machines throughout Australia. The other major banks, building societies and credit unions have thousands of ATMs between them. Also, most supermarkets, shops, petrol stations and other institutions accept purchase payments via EFTPOS terminals at the store, with funds directly transferred from your savings account to theirs. ] The Credit Phone is usually installed side by side with public payphones in areas with high payphone usage, such as shopping malls, post offices, airports, or other major sites. The right hand side of the phone has the card reader plus keypad for PIN entry (if required) and is directly connected to the X.25 network. This unit is actually separate internally from the rest of the phone (the phone has a separate keypad) to ensure integrity and security of the card information. Once the card is accepted, a call can be made, with funds directly debited (for Debit Cards) or provided by credit on Credit Cards. The minimum charge for a call is A$1.20 (to offset the X.25 transaction cost) but it is *not* a surcharge, ie if the call would normally cost $2.50 then that's all you pay. CARD PHONE ========== Telecom Australia plans to introduce pre-paid card phones, similar to those used in Europe and the UK. You would buy a card from a newsagent or shop with a pre-paid amount of call credit on it, then as you make calls, this credit is deducted until there are no credits left. Due to the widespread use of EFTPOS, this type of phone has not been seen as particularly urgent to introduce as people can use their ordinary credit cards and debit cards with the Credit Phone, however it is expected to fill a niche market. Brendan Jones ACSnet: brendan@otc.otca.oz.au R&D Contractor UUCP: {uunet,mcvax}!otc.otca.oz.au!brendan Services R&D Phone: (02)2873128 Fax: (02)2873299 |||| OTC || Snail: GPO Box 7000, Sydney 2001, AUSTRALIA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Dec 90 23:09:17 PDT From: Jeff Scheer Subject: Small TAS IN Iowa Reply-to: Jeff.Scheer@iugate.unomaha.edu Organization: Command Center, Omaha As most of you know, I own a small Telephone Answering Service in Council Bluffs, IA and was wondering if anyone knew if an Inbound Secretarial DID Trunk could be "re-routed" to a voice mail card in my PC? I am not available to answer client calls during doctor's appointments and playing the organ for church, (usually one hour or so), so I thought I could re-route my DID to my PC for voice mail messaging, then retrieve all client calls, and do the old paper messaging system. I can't afford to hire another person even part time for the time being, so I can get away. I don't expect alot of calls during my "down" times as most people in Iowa go to church on Sunday. (Unless of course you're a doctor). Also, can TAS's (Telephone Answering Services) "come up with" separate names with different pilot numbers ? ie: Grand Central TAS/ Physican's Exchange/ with both names actually being the same place? Will AT&T "READY WATS" work behind my inbound business lines, or do I need to call my service rep (Des Moines) and order nationwide inbound wats line? Certain details I have to work out . Anyone have any ideas? Please respond ASAP as it is costing me money either way I go. To those of you who helped me the last time ... THANK YOU!!! I got the spec's for the 555 cord board. It's up and working as I key in now. Where would one pick up a 1A2 key system? Have been looking around the metro area, but no one seems to want to put those in anymore. I enjoy the new, but stick with the old, as this area is prone to power outages during the summer (tornado alley). Thanks again! Jeff Scheer: Grand Central TAS Council Bluffs IA . The .COMmand Center (Opus 1:285/23) ------------------------------ From: Peter Trei Subject: Eastern Bloc Phone Hookups Date: 10 Dec 90 19:38:17 GMT What is required to hook US phone equipment (eg, answering machines, modems) to phone lines in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union? Do you just need to change the plugs and/or sockets, or are there electrical differences too (aside from the 110/220 VAC supply)? Does anyone know of a source for Soviet-compatible hardware in NYC? Thanks, Peter ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Florida Coinslots and Equal Access Date: Sun, 9 Dec 90 20:53:10 EST Reply-To: David Lesher Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers Sometime in the last month or so, Southern Bell's one_arm_bandits in this area have stopped accepting 950-1022 as a free call, and demand $.35 (?!) for the call. They DO, however, take 10222-0-NPA-card# just fine. This is on SBT phones listing ITI as the default carrier. But "People's Telephone Service" COTCOTs do take 950, and block 10222. Me thinks confusion shall prevail. wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (305) 255-RTFM pob 570-335 33257-0335 ------------------------------ From: John Slater Subject: Re: Phone Service in the UK Two Decades Ago Date: 10 Dec 90 11:58:43 GMT Reply-To: John Slater Organization: sundc.East.Sun.COM |> Few pizza places in England have heard of delivery service. When I |> was at the University of Essex, the local pizza place said `of course, |> we deliver' ... to the central loading dock of the school, that is. |> Not a one of my flatmates (20 of them, all Brits) had ever heard of |> having a pizza delivered. How long ago was this? Two large chains (Perfect Pizza and Domino) have offered delivery services for, oh, three years at least. It *is* a relatively new phenomenon, though. |> ObPhone question: Why is it that a UK -> US phone call is much more |> expensive than a US -> UK call? I would dearly like to know the answer to this. From 1 December Mercury cut their economy rate to the US by 15%, so it now costs 40p per minute (plus tax, which makes it 44.5p). Reach Out World comes in at 59c per minute to the UK, with an additional 5% discount afetr the first ten minutes of each call. Despite the rate cut it's still more than 50% more expensive westbound than eastbound. John Slater Sun Microsystems UK, Gatwick Office ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Dec 90 10:16:31 CST From: adg@sage.UK.ATE.SLB.COM Subject: Re: Phone Service in the UK Two Decades Ago In article <15243@accuvax.nwu.edu> tjo@its.bt.co.uk (Tim Oldham) writes: >The only limitation I can think of, offhand, is that you can't phone >0800 (toll-free) numbers from a cellphone. Our local pizza emporia >don't have 0800 numbers. On the Racal Vodaphone Cellular Network you can now dial toll-free numbers and pay for the privilage by dialing *0800-xxxxxx. I note Tim works for British Telecom who own most of Cellnet the other cellular network. Vodaphone have always been technically superior to Cellnet in these terms and in mobile data transmission so maybe Cellnet haven't cottoned on yet :-). Before the *0800 feature was implemented I was able to dial BT's billing enquiries 0800 number but most other numbers gave the message "You may not call this 0800 number from a cellular phone", or something similar. Adam Gorman, Solstice Systems Ltd on contract to Schlumberger Technologies ATE Division Ferndown Dorset UK ------------------------------ From: Jim Breen Subject: Re: Calls to and Within Australia Organization: Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Date: Mon, 10 Dec 90 02:42:54 GMT In article <15282@accuvax.nwu.edu>, cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) writes: > David Wilson writes (w/r to Australia): > >It is not possible to tell if a call is local (but to an adjacent area > >code) or within an area code but at STD rates (disjoint charging > >districts) without knowing a little bit of geography and which > >exchanges are where. > How are local and long distance calls made within Australia? The same as in most other countries, i.e. you have an area code (invariably beginning with a 0) and a local number. The area code is only necessary when dialing from another area. David Wilson is referring to the fact that you cannot rely on the presence/absence of an area code to tell you whether a call is "local", i.e. flat rate (22c) or "trunk" i.e. timed. We have some areas about the size of US states or European countries. You do get a "pip-pip-pip" sound at a start of a call to warn you that it is time-charged. Jim Breen AARNet:jwb@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au Department of Robotics & Digital Technology. Monash University. PO Box 197 Caulfield East VIC 3145 Australia (ph) +61 3 573 2552 (fax) +61 3 573 2745 JIS:$B%8%`!!%V%j!<%s(J ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Dec 90 0:54:15 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Southwestern Bell Buys Telefonos de Mexico An international consortium whose principal investor is Southwestern Bell Telephone Company has paid $1.76 billion for controlling interest in the Mexico Telephone Company (Telefonos de Mexico) under a privatization program started by the Mexican government, the present owner of the phone network in our neighboring country to the south. This $1.76 billion turns out to be $2.03 per share, and gives Southwestern Bell and associates a 20.4 percent stake in the Mexican telco. The Mexican phone system, which has about 4.1 million subscribers has long been plagued with all sorts of trouble, not the least of which has been creditors looking for payment. The equipment is old and worn out, the billing practices are obsolete and in general, Telefonos de Mexico is a mess. Southwestern Bell's partners are Cable & Radio, a French company; and Grupo Carso, a Mexican firm. All I can say is if they paid $1.76 billion for a mere 20.4 percent of the company, they got ripped-off good. I don't think the entire Mexican phone network is worth a billion dollars, let alone a 'controlling interest' through 20.4 percent ownership. But that's life and big business, I guess. SWB Tel and associates have not yet announced any major changes. Maybe they are still shaking their collective heads and wondering if it is too late to back out of the deal. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: Eric Dittman Subject: Southwestern Bell Tidbits Date: 8 Dec 90 15:30:18 CDT Organization: Texas Instruments Component Test Facility Yesterday I called Southwestern Bell to add Call Waiting. While I was on the line I asked when we would get CLASS. According to the representative, SWB is hoping to expand CLASS availability to Dallas sometime around the middle of '91. Currently CLASS is available in Austin and two other places as a test market (required by the state reg. agency). The rep. did say that selective call forwarding and selective call busy would be offered in Dallas (I didn't ask about the rest of SWB land) before the end of the year (barring any complications). The rep will call me when the two new features are available. I also asked about SWB's intention towards Caller ID. The rep said SWB was waiting to see what happens with some legal actions pending in other states before requesting permission to provide Caller ID. Eric Dittman Texas Instruments - Component Test Facility dittman@skitzo.csc.ti.com dittman@skbat.csc.ti.com Disclaimer: I don't speak for Texas Instruments or the Component Test Facility. I don't even speak for myself. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #876 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13897; 11 Dec 90 6:26 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08956; 11 Dec 90 4:02 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab19844; 11 Dec 90 2:58 CST Date: Tue, 11 Dec 90 2:14:17 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #877 BCC: Message-ID: <9012110214.ab13330@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 11 Dec 90 02:13:54 CST Volume 10 : Issue 877 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: For Telecom-ers Who Live Up North [John Stanley] Re: Last Four Digits of Phone is '0000' [David Albert] Re: Last Four Digits of Phone is '0000' [John Higdon] Re: Modem Recognizes Boing? [Toby Nixon] Re: Modem Recognizes Boing? [Robert J. Woodhead] Re: LD vs Voice Mail / Lower Hotel Phone Charges [Steve Kass] Re: LD vs Voice Mail / Lower Hotel Phone Charges [Mike Richichi] Re: LD vs Voice Mail / Lower Hotel Phone Charges [David Lesher] Re: Stupid AT&T Advertisements [David Link] Re: Stupid AT&T Advertisements [John Higdon] Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers? [Bob Goudreau] LMOS -- Obscure CuD Reference [A. J. Annala] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Stanley Subject: Re: For Telecom-ers Who Live Up North Date: Sun, 09 Dec 90 17:18:13 EST Organization: One Man Brand fritz@m2.ti.com (Fritz Whittington) writes: > In article <15113@accuvax.nwu.edu> CAPEK@YKTVMT.BITNET (Peter G. > Capek) writes: > >interesting device called a Telefreeze. It connects to a phone line > >and makes the line go "off hook" when the ambient temperature goes > >below a preset limit. The idea is that you would periodically call > Could someone explain to a life-long Southerner why this terribly > complicated system which depends on human intervention on both ends is > better than simply having the thermal device in the 'Telefreeze' > simply turn the heater on? If the gas pipes freeze, or break, or the electricity goes off, turning the heater on will do absolutely no good. If the cold is because someone has broken in your front door, turning the heater on will do absolutely no good. And, finally, if the reason it is cold is because the heater is broken, there is nothing to turn on. > [Moderator's Note: Even if for some reason the device was not able to > turn the heater on, if it can go off hook it could surely dial your > number and recite some sort of pre-recorded spiel. At least you would > think so. What does merely going off-hook solve? What if you forget to > call it for a couple days? And why should you waste several calls on > it for nothing when it (or a similar device) should be able to make > ONE important call to you? You are correct; this device sounds like a > total piece of junk. PAT] Obviously, Pat, you have never travelled to a distant city and stayed in a hotel. Do you really know the number for the hotel before you get there? If you do, do you really trust them to give you a message from what will sound to them like a crank phone call? ("Hey, listen to this, someone's THERMOSTAT is calling them here. What was that name ... Roderick Thompson?") How about when you travel to multiple places? Now we are talking about a relatively expensive piece of hardware -- remote programming of both called number and message. As long as there is no answer, there is no cost to any of the calls to it. It simply takes some time. A simple device to go off hook would cost about $0.10 to produce, in quantity, if that much. Just a bimetallic strip. An autodialler, remotely programmable costs, what, $100? $50? Still a far cry from what this dohickey could sell for. There are still some simple solutions to problems, and some problems that don't require computer solutions. It would be better to have something that answers and hangs up right away. Like a good old NE-2 neon bulb across the line. Busy could be because someone else is calling you. Immediate answer and hangup would be a unique signal. [Moderator's Note: No, I don't always know the number where I am going to be, but if I were using such a device I'd have it call my pager, or leave a message in my voicemail which would in turn call my pager, etc. It still makes better sense than calling it every couple hours in the winter months. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Dec 90 16:57:05 EST From: David Albert Subject: Re: Last Four Digits of Phone is '0000' Organization: Aiken Computation Lab, Harvard University mailrus!gatech!mit-eddie!nathan writes: >Obviously it's not such an uncommon thing to have four 0's at the end >of a phone number.... >Is there some particular reason why such numbers are perceived as >being rare? Sure! Only about one number in 10,000 has four 0's at the end. That's pretty rare, isn't it? David Albert UUCP: ...!harvard!albert INTERNET: albert@harvard.edu ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Last Four Digits of Phone is '0000' Date: 10 Dec 90 12:29:09 PST (Mon) From: John Higdon Nathan Glasser writes: > Is there some particular reason why such numbers are perceived as > being rare? Well, for one thing, there can only be one per prefix :-) But another thing is that some telcos, including Pnac*Bell, use the 00XX series for CO test numbers. If you try to get a '0000' assignment, every excuse in the book will be trotted out to keep from giving it to you. "This is a special-case number and cannot be assigned." "This is a test number and you will receive many wrong numbers from telco personel." "We are not assigning numbers in the oh-thousands." "This is part of a DID assignment." "Blah, Blah, Blah." The truth of the matter is that if you rattle enough cages, and yank enough chains, you can get one of these. A local "celebrity" has always had '0000' assignments for his home number. Someone at Pac*Bell described the noises he made, all the way to the PUC, before his first one was issued. In addition, someone I know at Pac*Bell has one at home. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: Modem Recognizes Boing? Date: 10 Dec 90 00:56:24 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA In article <15287@accuvax.nwu.edu>, phil@wubios.wustl.edu (J. Philip Miller) writes: > Hey Toby, when is Hayes going to introduce an AT command to "wait for > boing" -- it sure would make it easier to write scripts for signing > onto my computer system from hotel rooms around the country (including > Florida :-) Company policy forbids me to comment on unannounced features. However, in my role as chairman of TIA TR-30.4 (the USA standards committee on DTE-DCE Protocols), I will say that the current draft of SP-2120 (the US national AT command set, still under development) includes a proposal for a "$" dial modifier, defined as "Wait for Credit Card Prompt Tone". I wouldn't be at all surprised if one or more modem manufacturers took this cue and included such a feature in their modems. In the meantime, I've found that the "@" dial modifier (Wait for Quiet Answer) often works well, particularly with AT&T (if you can get into a hotel that actually lets you use AT&T without speaking to a voice operator -- an increasingly rare occurrence these days, it seems! [I'm now in New Jersey for ANOTHER meeting, and in my second hotel in two weeks that has a god-awful AOS with 10288 blocked]). "@" will usually trigger on the boing, but the key to it working is if the operator stays off the line for the five seconds it takes for "@" to time out. Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice +1-404-449-8791 Telex 151243420 Hayes Microcomputer Products Inc. | Fax +1-404-447-0178 CIS 70271,404 P.O. Box 105203 | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon AT&T !tnixon Atlanta, Georgia 30348 USA | Internet hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net ------------------------------ From: Robert J Woodhead Subject: Re: Modem Recognizes Boing? Date: 9 Dec 90 22:18:52 GMT Organization: Biar Games, Inc. phil@wubios.wustl.edu (J. Philip Miller) writes: >Hey Toby, when is Hayes going to introduce an AT command to "wait for >boing" -- it sure would make it easier to write scripts for signing >onto my computer system from hotel rooms around the country (including >Florida :-) I have the same problem from time to time, but find that 5 or 6 commas between the phone number and credit card number do the trick. For any particular hotel PBX and carrier, the time between the last touchtone of the called number and the "boing" is quite consistant, and you have a window of about 10 seconds before it gets sent to the human operator. So: ATDT 1XXXYYYZZZZ,,,,,,AAABBBCCCDDDDEEEE works fine. The trick is to start with, say, four commas, and listen. If the modem blurts out the card number before the boing, add commas until the timing is right. You shouldn't be charged for the failed attempts anyway. BTW, this reminds me to give kudos to Motel 6. Free local calls, and all long-distance via calling card with no surcharges. All that and a good room cheap? What more can any travelling telecommunicator ask for? Robert J Woodhead, Biar Games, Inc. !uunet!biar!trebor trebor@biar.UUCP | ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Dec 90 21:28 EDT From: Subject: Re: LD vs Voice Mail / Lower Hotel Phone Charges Laird Broadfield writes: > In <15248@accuvax.nwu.edu> snowgoose!dave@uunet.uu.net writes: > [stuff about pressing # to enter voicemail....] >>[Moderator's Note: But don't you have to hold the # key for at least a >>couple seconds to get a carrier disconnect? [...] > Nope. From _numerous_ locations throughout the ConUS I have made the > mistake of hitting the # key to sign on to our voicemail system too > soon and had AT&T dump the connection. The "key" here is to _wait_ [...] This is my experience with AT&T. The literature that came with ASPEN, our voicemail system, warns users to wait until the welcome message has finished before pressing #. Short vs. long doesn't matter. Soon vs. late is the key. I get disconnected every time I'm too hasty, never when I wait. On the same subject, does anyone else find that ASPEN or other systems have particular trouble hearing the number 3? I often have to hold the 3 key down for longer than the others for it to be recognized, and from some phones, I can't enter my mailbox number at all because the 3 isn't heard. Steve Kass-Math&CS Dept-Drew U-Madison NJ 07940-(201)4083614-skass@drew.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Dec 90 00:38 EDT From: Mike Richichi Subject: Re: LD vs Voice Mail / Lower Hotel Charges > I often wish to call my Bell Atlantic voice mailbox from a hotel > with my LD calling card. The voice mail system wants me to enter "#" > to be prompted for my password. Guess what happens? That's right, > the LD carrier disconnects... A quote from the "Aspen Voice Processing System User's Guide" (the system, I believe, Bell Atlantic uses): "Credit Card Calls: Don't hit # too quickly when entering the system using an AT&T credit card. The phone company stays on the line, and will think that you want to place another credit card call. You should wait until Aspen's initial entry prompt has finished. You can also press * to enter as a subscriber." There you have it. I came across the same problem when trying to use Drew's Aspen system from a friend's house over break with my Universal Card. I just pressed * and all was well. Mike Richichi, Drew Univ. ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Re: LD vs Voice Mail / Lower Hotel Phone Charges Date: Mon, 10 Dec 90 19:03:25 EST Reply-To: David Lesher Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers >[stuff about pressing # to enter voicemail....] Re: # for call drop not working with answer supervision Users have described different behaviour from different parts of the country. This sound to me as if not everyone has the same grade of answer supervision. That's nothing new, as we've talked about that in years past. We may THINK we have 100% FCD or the equivalent, but do we? ------------------------------ From: "David Link - Lenoir-Rhyne College" Subject: Re: Stupid AT&T Advertisements Date: 10 Dec 90 10:37:22 GMT Organization: Lenoir-Rhyne College, Hickory, NC > I specifically changed service *from* AT&T because of their stupid, > insulting ads. I also change the channel whenever they come on. I > don't know exactly what it is about them, but I have a strong visceral > reaction against them. AMEN. I don't like the AT&T ads. One would think they have something better to do. I asked AT&T to put it in writing and they did not! They said they would, but never did. I asked SPRINT to put it in writing and they gave me a list of the rates the next week. I have NEVER gotten a call from ANY other telephone company asking be to switch. I have AT&T and like the service, but HATE their ads. I am thinking about switching to another company in hopes AT&T will stop the ads. David J. Link UUCP: lrc!david@mcnc.org Lenoir-Rhyne College I make no claims. Hickory, NC 28603 (USA) ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Stupid AT&T Advertisements Date: 10 Dec 90 22:51:50 PST (Mon) From: John Higdon Steve Thornton writes: > I specifically changed service *from* AT&T because of their stupid, > insulting ads. I agree that some of AT&T's advertisements (as well as many others, including other LD companies) are stupid and somewhat insulting. But never lose sight of the purpose of advertising: the sale of products. AT&T's agency could probably produce much evidence that these commercials are effective in increasing count and volume for its client. If you allow your emotions over advertisements to override your logical and practical decision-making process, you may deprive yourself of real benefits. As a person who is perhaps closer than most to the world of advertising, I would exhort all and sundry to never allow commercial messages to be the basis for any action concerning contracting or purchasing. This goes for both commercials you may enjoy and those you hate. > I also change the channel whenever they come on. I > don't know exactly what it is about them, but I have a strong visceral > reaction against them. I can accept that. But you don't really believe that your reaction to these spots make AT&T's service bad and wrong do you? Also it is discovered in a good many cases that people hold prejudices for or against a particular company's goods or services. When they see advertisements for those goods or services, the reaction that ensues becomes justification for those preconceived notions. Someone please tell me that readers of the Digest base purchasing decisions on price, service, quality, suitability for intended use, and value and not on what some ad agency produces to brainwash the public. Someone please tell me that. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Dec 90 13:21:15 est From: Bob Goudreau Subject: Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers? In article <15341@accuvax.nwu.edu>, SABAHE@macalstr.edu (Arun Baheti) writes: > I remember about ten years ago when a muscial group (the B-52s?) did > a song about someone's phone number. All over the country, the poor > owners of xxx-xxxx were driven batty by fans just trying out the > number to see if anything would happen. Ah, yes, the song "Jenny" by Tommy Two-tone (sp?). The refrain was Jenny's number as listed on a bathroom wall: "eight six seven five three oh nine". No, *don't* go ahead and call it :-). Bob Goudreau +1 919 248 6231 Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!goudreau Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ From: A J Annala Subject: LMOS -- Obscure CuD Reference Date: 9 Dec 90 23:27:02 GMT Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA The most recent issue of CuD mentioned something called the LMOS used to monitor voice telephone conversations. What is this system -- and why wasn't it adequately secured against routine hacker intrusions? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #877 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11257; 12 Dec 90 4:10 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17983; 12 Dec 90 2:37 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28765; 12 Dec 90 1:32 CST Date: Wed, 12 Dec 90 0:58:28 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #878 BCC: Message-ID: <9012120058.ab11304@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 12 Dec 90 00:58:00 CST Volume 10 : Issue 878 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Questions About the GTE Airfone [Patrick Tufts] Re: Questions About the GTE Airfone [seanp%undrground@amix.commodore.com] Re: Caller*ID and Unanswered Phones [John Macdonald] Re: My Phone Bill - a Subtle AT&T Error [Jack Dominey] Re: Worldwide Toll Free Code [Bob Goudreau] Re: Alliance Teleconferencing [Randy Borow] Re: Alliance Teleconferencing [Bryan M. Richardson] Re: Phone Service in the UK Two Decades Ago [Adam J. Ashby] Re: Phone Service in the UK Two Decades Ago [Clayton Cramer] Re: Phone Service in the UK Two Decades Ago [Peter da Silva] Re: The "Bell" Logo [Julian Macassey] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Patrick Tufts Subject: Re: Questions About the GTE Airfone Date: 10 Dec 90 16:05:00 GMT Organization: Brandeis University Additional Musings on the GTE Airfone. According to the original post, it sends your credit card info at 300 baud somewhere for verification. Additionally, it transmits calls between 894MHz and 896 MHz (5kHz spacing). Does this mean that anyone with a scanner and a modem can grab hundreds of credit card numbers, expiration dates, ... Or is the card info encoded before transmission? Pat ------------------------------ From: Sean Subject: Re: Questions About the GTE Airfone Date: 11 Dec 90 00:26:48 GMT Organization: A civilization beneath the Earth, The Underground Empire. > >The transmitter section of the setup is IMPRESSIVE. Everyone could > >concievably use thier phone at the same time, as there are 400 > >channels available for use. > I doubt very much that the airplane is able to transmit on 400 > channels, or even 56 channels, at once. If they weren't able to do it, then they would limit the number of phones that were placed aboard the plane. If, however, four planes on the same runway all tried to use all of thier phones, a SERVICE UNAVAILABLE message would be generated, much like cellular. > >894 - 896 MHz (5 KHz spacing). Assignment is done in the same > >manner as cellular. It picks an available frequency from what the > >ground station tells it. AM mode is used for modulation. > AM on 5KHz spacing? Are you sure? I would guess companded SSB, just > based on the age of the system, but I don't know. Yes, AM is used on the following ranges (Newer AIRFONES use 6 KHz space) 849 to 851 894 to 896 899 to 901 and 944 to 946 And, for future reference, it is COMPANDORED. As in, AMPLITUDE COMPANDORED SINGLE SIDEBAND. Really, this technology would be unrealistic for air use. With the ever changing conditions, ACSSB would be extremely difficult to maintain a tuned carrier. This was the case when United Parcel Service considered implementing ACSSB. The company selling them the radios concluded that that technology would require too much operator control and tuning, thus requiring more in-depth training about the radios. And this was for GROUND use, AIR is even worse. > > When you insert your credit card, the information (number, exp. > > date, etc. ) is sent via 300 baud signal to a ground station. (REAL > > TIME). The ground station then confirms or denys usage, and proceeds > > from there. Actually, the handset is not released until then card is > > approved. > Is the data encrypted? It sounds like a massive security leak, > broadcasting sensitive information about a card like that. I know all > > 894 - 896 MHz (5 KHz spacing). Assignment is done in the same > > manner as cellular. It picks an available frequency from what the > > ground station tells it. AM mode is used for modulation. I never attempted to decipher it. I would imagine it should be, but stranger things have happened! > scanner column, and reported several 470 MHz band frequencies where > you can pick up air phone calls. I've found some there. I have yet to hear of AIRFONE signals in that band. Perhaps you are thinking of the 415.7 MHz frequency for government VIPS? If not, tell me what frequencies and modes, please. Sean ------------------------------ From: John Macdonald Subject: Re: Caller*ID and Unanswered Phones Reply-To: John Macdonald Organization: Elegant Communications Inc. Date: Mon, 10 Dec 1990 10:56:32 -0500 In article <15249@accuvax.nwu.edu> dhepner@hpcuhc.cup.hp.com (Dan Hepner) writes: |>It's easy enough: look at your CID display, and if it says "blocked," |>"private," or "refused," don't pick up the phone. |Case 1: You're awakened by a call at night, turn on the light, see the |"blocked" indication, and decide not to answer the phone. Contrast |that to having slept through the entire event because the phone never |rang. |Case 2: It's now near morning, and case 1 has now just occurred for the |18th time. Contrast that to having missed the entire event because the |phone never rang. In case anyone thinks that case 2 is stretching the imagination somewhat, consider that it just might be the *same* caller every time -- and that caller is wondering "Just when is he going to get home?". There is a big difference to the caller (and to the amount of telco resources and to the number of calls that must be ignored) between an intercept explaining the choice of not accepting anonymous charges and an unanswered phone. John Macdonald jmm@eci386 ------------------------------ From: jdominey@bsga05.attmail.com Date: Mon Dec 10 11:58:00 EST 1990 Subject: Re: My Phone Bill - a Subtle AT&T Error In Digest #874, Steve Kass writes about an error on the billing for some AT&T calls under Reach Out America. >Try explaining that to an AT&T representative. An occasional two >bucks here and there could amount to big money for the >telecommunications giant. Or maybe a programmer is getting very rich >somewhere. >I still like AT&T, but I have to wonder how often I miss things like >this. Much as I hate to defend something as inexcuseable as a billing error ... most AT&T residential billing is still done through the local company (NJ Bell, in this case). It would be darn hard for AT&T to make an illegal buck off this sort of thing. Jack Dominey|AT&T Commercial Marketing| 800 241-4285 | AT&T Mail: !dominey ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Dec 90 14:04:27 est From: Bob Goudreau Subject: Re: Worldwide Toll Free Code > Fraasen proposes that the concept of a toll free area code in each > country be expanded one level to a toll free "country code." There > wouldn't actually be a "toll free country" just like there is no > specific land area in the US where "area code" 800 resides. Fraasen > proposes that the toll-free country code be 800, followed by seven > digits. That should hold the planet until more than 10,000,000 > numbers are needed. It's a good idea, but I hope they don't limit themselves to just seven digits. I believe that the CCITT's recommended maximum number length (including country code) is twelve digits, so why not leave room for expansion by permitting up to nine digits after the +800? Another interesting issue is the allocation of numbers. Unless CCITT wants to get into a situation analagous to Bellcore's role in the US as the official registrar of 800 prefixes among the various LD carriers, it might want to just use country codes as the next level after the +800. I.e., toll-free calls to France would all be dialled to +800 33 . Each country could then decide for itself how it wanted to allocate and handle its portion of the +800 number-space. This also makes it easier for each local or national telco to route +800 traffic; they need merely look at the destination country code (33) and ship the call off to that country (France) for final routing. The only routing that, say, Ireland would need to worry about would be for its own incoming (+800 353) calls. The above scheme actually handles the number length problem as well: the more populous a country is, the shorter its country code is, thus leaving more digits available for the +800 numbers it owns. The smaller countries have 3-digit country codes, so +800-CCC-XXXXXX leaves one million possible +800 numbers for *each* such country. In contrast, the bigger countries have two-digit codes, and therefore could have ten million +800 numbers apiece. And the NANP and the USSR would each get one hundred million possible +800 numbers. Bob Goudreau +1 919 248 6231 Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!goudreau Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ From: rborow@bcm1a09.attmail.com Date: Mon Dec 10 11:08:28 CST 1990 Subject: Re: Alliance Teleconferencing ALLIANCE's conference centers are as follows: Reno, NV (Los Angeles is history, and no, we're not talking earthquake here [yet]) at 0-700-456-1001; Chicago at 0-700-456-1002; White Plains, NY at 0-700-456-1003; and Dallas at 0-700-456-1004. Dialing 0-700-456-1000 does indeed get you to the nearest center (default location). By the way, passing control via #6 is still possible whether you use the automated service or the operator's help. I leave you with one simple thought: remember our new motto here at AT&T (particularly in light of the NCR takeover): "Reach Out and Grab Someone." Randy Borow Rolling Meadows, IL. attmail!internet!bcm1a09!rborow ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Dec 90 17:07:07 EST From: Bryan M Richardson Subject: Re: Alliance Teleconferencing Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <15292@accuvax.nwu.edu>, mwwheatl@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mark W Wheatley) writes: > This may have been already metioned, but you dan dial into any of the > four switches you want. When you call 456-1000, you are routed through > Dallas. 2000, 3000 and 4000 each route through one of the other > centers > [Moderator's Note: Are you sure it is 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 or is > it 1000, 1001, 1002, 1003, etc. ? PAT] Here's what I found with a little legwork. I'm also trying to determine an answer (internally) to the question about why automated dialing is a business day-only capability. The fraud posting explained a plausible solution -- I'll post an answer if there is more to add. 0-700-456-1000 Reaches the nearest T/C bridge. 1001 Reno, Nevada 1002 Chicago, Illinois 1003 White Plains, New York 1004 Dallas, Texas The reason for this is if you are dialing from Chicago, but most of your conferees are in New York, it is cheaper (because you pay leg charges from the bridge location) to specify through your dialing that you want the White Plains bridge instead of the Chicago default bridge. Bryan Richardson AT&T Bell Laboratories ------------------------------ From: "Adam J. Ashby" Subject: Re: Phone Service in the UK Two Decades Ago Date: 11 Dec 90 16:36:41 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL In <15309@accuvax.nwu.edu> zippy@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Patrick Tufts) writes: ->John Slater writes: ->[in reply to the assertion that, in the US (but not the UK) you can ->order a pizza via cellular from your car and get it just as you arrive ->home.] ->I don't know what prompts you to make this insular assumption. Of ->course we can do this: we have pizza delivery services, and we have ->one of the best and most successful cellular setups in the world. >Not to nitpick, but :-) :-) >Few pizza places in England have heard of delivery service. When I >was at the University of Essex, the local pizza place said `of course, >we deliver' ... to the central loading dock of the school, that is. >Not a one of my flatmates (20 of them, all Brits) had ever heard of >having a pizza delivered. I think that perhaps you (and your 20 Brit flatmates) led a very sheltered life. All over England a small pizza delivery chain is springing up, you may recognise the name: Dominos. They are the latest competition that Pizza Express is experiencing, having had it pretty much their own way for at least the last four years. Of course, I may be presenting a very distorted view, as I am basing my experiences on where I lived over the last four years, which were major metropoli such as Gloucester, Maidenhead and Wokingham. >ObPhone question: Why is it that a UK -> US phone call is much more >expensive than a US -> UK call? Very basic economics should provide the answer to that one, but if you can't work it out I'll give you a few pointers.... The two markets involved: U.K. approximately 50 million people U.S. approximately 250 million people The market suppliers: U.K. British Telecom plus a very small %ge by Mercury U.S. AT&T, MCI, Sprint et al. desperately vying for customers. Of course, one could always argue that price difference reflects the need for the service, the U.K. can learn very little from calling the U.S. thus the service is doesn't need to be cheap. Adam Ashby ...!uunet!motcid!ashbya +1 708 632 3876 ------------------------------ From: Clayton Cramer Subject: Re: Phone Service in the UK Two Decades Ago Date: 12 Dec 90 00:20:37 GMT Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA In article <15309@accuvax.nwu.edu>, zippy@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Patrick Tufts) writes: > John Slater writes: > ObPhone question: Why is it that a UK -> US phone call is much more > expensive than a US -> UK call? Simple. Rotation of the Earth. They have to pump more electrons into the line going to the U.S., and each electron costs MONEY! :-) Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer You must be kidding! No company would hold opinions like mine! ------------------------------ From: peter da silva Subject: Re: Phone Service in the UK Two Decades Ago Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Date: Tue, 11 Dec 90 23:22:30 GMT Oh FGS, they even have Pizza delivery in Moscow now. Peter da Silva +1 713 274 5180 peter@ferranti.com ------------------------------ From: Julian Macassey Subject: Re: The "Bell" Logo Date: 12 Dec 90 05:50:05 GMT Reply-To: Julian Macassey Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood California U.S.A. In article <15200@accuvax.nwu.edu> dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 864, Message 3 of 14 >In article <15171@accuvax.nwu.edu>, mailrus!uflorida!rm1!bapat >(Subodh Bapat) writes: >> Talking about the Bell logo, is there any truth to the rumor that, >> once long ago, AT&T lost its right to use the Bell logo, as the >I have heard this story, but I regarded it as urban legend. In the >version I heard, somebody in Texas opened an answering service >bureau called 'Blue Bell Answering Service' using the familiar >Bell-in-a-Circle logo. The story goes on to say that he sold the >rights to his logo to AT&T, and with the proceeds, shut down his >service bureau and retired -- at age 25 or so. >Anybody else heard this one? All I can add to this is that the twenty-five year old Texan must have had lotsa cash and savvy to go to Bass & Yeager on Sunset Boulevard, Hollywood and pay them several thousand - possibly a G or so to do him a logo. Bass & Yeager do corporate logos (Exxon, AT&T Death star etc) and movie titles. So the old Bell bought a logo from a Texas kid rather than a company that makes 'em to order? As far as I know, Bass & Yeager did the Bell in a circle logo. I am not sure who did the old black silouette "Bell System" logo. That is my favourite. Maybe we should have a telecom archive of "telco urban legends". We could include the psychic dog that knew when the phone was ringing. The lifetime credit-card number that Paul Newman was tired of having. And the one the telcos perpetuated, how you can "Damage the network with foreign equipment". Julian Macassey, n6are julian@bongo.info.com ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian N6ARE@N6YN (Packet Radio) n6are.ampr.org [44.16.0.81] voice (213) 653-4495 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #878 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12260; 12 Dec 90 5:08 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28625; 12 Dec 90 3:40 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab17983; 12 Dec 90 2:37 CST Date: Wed, 12 Dec 90 1:48:36 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #879 BCC: Message-ID: <9012120148.ab11022@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 12 Dec 90 01:48:26 CST Volume 10 : Issue 879 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: For Telecom-ers Who Live up North [William Degnan] Re: For Telecom-ers Who Live up North [Steven King] Re: Last Four Digits of Phone is '0000' [Tad Cook] Re: Last Four Digits of Phone is '0000' [Lance Ellinghouse] Re: Modem Recognizes Boing? [Roger Fajman] Re: Modem Recognizes Boing? [John S. DeVere] Re: Southwestern Bell Tidbits [David Lemson] Re: MCI Starts 900 Service; Limits Charges to $4.00 [Bill Cerny] Re: EED Caller ID Specs [H. Shrikumar] Re: Switching Office Open House [H. Shrikumar] Re: What is MFJ a TLA For? [Eric Black] Colonial Data Technologies [Bill Berbenich] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 10 Dec 90 09:42:27 CDT From: William Degnan Subject: Re: For Telecom-ers Who Live up North On fritz@m2.ti.com writes: U> Could someone explain to a life-long Southerner why this terribly U> complicated system which depends on human intervention on both U> ends is better than simply having the thermal device in the U> 'Telefreeze' simply turn the heater on? You are missing some important information, no doubt due to the fact that you don't have a second home in, say ... Vermont. The heat is left "on", likely set around 50 degrees (f). The predominant fuel is "oil" (similar to #2 Kero and I suppose JET-A). Normally the fuel supplier refills the tank (often 250 gal.) based on projections involving degree/day calculations and the history of the house. If the heating plant should fail for whatever reason, it might not be noticed until: a) Spring, b) when the fuel tank won't take the estimated delivery amount or c) when the ice from the frozen pipes pushes the walls out a little. The heat can "go out" while commercial power is lost, if water condenses and settles in the fuel line, if the nozzle plugs, if the blower shaft shears, if a leak develops in the fuel system, if the electrodes burn out, if ... There are _lots_ of things to go wrong. Most of them have happened to me but _I_ was around to fix them. If you are absent, you can have your fuel dealer call your house to make sure everything is fine, on a regular basis. One dealer told me that a product similar to the telefreeze was yanked from the market since it went off-hook when the temperature was below the preset limit. This was viewed as harmful to the network and, the unit was not FCC registered as it did not meet requirements (as I recall) for isolation and since "make busy" is a "no no". There were many SxS offices in Vermont and sometimes not enough dialtone to go around. One of the toys with which I have played is the Sensaphone. When I worked for an interconnect company, we sold some for vacation homes. The homeowner could select four (I believe) telephone numbers, which are called in sequence until somebody calls the unit back to acknowledge the voice message. We also had one hooked up to the alarm contacts on a PBX. It would call and report the alarm condition of the switch and the switch room environment. It alerts based on dry-contact input, variance from temperature preset limits, high sound-level, loss of power, and with external sensors a variety of conditions. Paraphrasing the synthisized voice: "Attention. Atttention. This is telephone number 8 0 2 5 5 5 8 1 1 1. Alert condition two exists. The electricity is off. Sound level OK. The temperature is 92. Listen to the sound level for fifteen seconds ... indicate you have heard this message within two minutes by dialing 8 0 2 5 5 5 8 1 1 1. Have a nice day. " It has been a while so I don't remember exactly. You get the idea. I had also been know to program one in the office with four extension numbers and set the temperature limit around 60 degrees. Around 03:00, when the temperature in the office was at it's lowest, it would start calling around looking for help. Call-forward no answer would make it ring at other stations and finally the boss, who lived upstairs would come downstairs and rip it out by the wires. Some people just don't appreciate technology. 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 ------------------------------ From: Steven King Subject: Re: For Telecom-ers Who Live up North Date: 11 Dec 90 20:02:13 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL >[Moderator's Note: Even if for some reason the device was not able to >turn the heater on, if it can go off hook it could surely dial your >number and recite some sort of pre-recorded spiel. At least you would >think so. What does merely going off-hook solve? What if you forget to >call it for a couple days? And why should you waste several calls on >it for nothing when it (or a similar device) should be able to make >ONE important call to you? You are correct; this device sounds like a >total piece of junk. PAT] I think I understand the rationale behind the Telefreeze device and why *IT* doesn't call *YOU* if something's wrong. Say you lived in the Northlands, anyplace where it regularly gets cold enough for your pipes to freeze if your heater craps out. And say you travel a lot in the winter. If you move around (not at any one location very long, you're a travelling salesman maybe) you can't really give it a number to call you at. And it can't just turn on the furnace either; the only reason for the ambient temperature to drop below the preset level is because the furnace is broken! I don't know if I'd spend my money on one of these devices, but I can see where it could be useful. (No, I don't have anything to do with this company, disclaim disclaim.) Steven King, Motorola Cellular (...uunet!motcid!king) ------------------------------ From: hpubvwa!ssc!Tad.Cook@cs.washington.edu Subject: Re: Last Four Digits of Phone is '0000' Date: Sun, 9 Dec 90 18:53:10 PST In article <15077@accuvax.nwu.edu>, CER2520@ritvax.isc.rit.edu (Curtis E. Reid) writes: > I recall many, many issues ago that someone was interested in knowing > if there is a valid phone number ending with all zeros i.e., > xxx-xxx-0000. Well, I found one: In Seattle, you reach Al-Anon (support groups for family members of alcoholics) at 206-625-0000. 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 ------------------------------ From: Lance Ellinghouse Subject: Re: Last Four Digits of Phone is '0000' Date: Tue, 11 Dec 90 8:23:16 PST Well I always thought it was kinda strange we have the number we do. And now with all this talk it is even stranger. Our number is 'X00-0000'. Lance Ellinghouse E-mail: lance@unigold.uucp lance@unigold.sr.com hermix!unigold!lance@anes.ucla.edu ------------------------------ From: Roger Fajman Date: Tue, 11 Dec 90 20:10:54 EST Subject: Re: Modem Recognizes Boing? As long as we are asking for new modem commands, how about one to restore the saved settings without resetting the modem? The problem with the Z command is that it cannot be followed by other command letters. Thus it is not possible to say things like "restore saved settings and dial xxx-xxxx." ATZ also requires a delay before further AT commands may be issued. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Dec 90 22:19 EST From: "John S. DeVere" Subject: Re: Modem Recognizes Boing? Re: Modem wait for Boing, Toby Nixon writes: > I will say that the current draft of SP-2120 [...] > includes a proposal for a "$" dial modifier, defined as "Wait for > Credit Card Prompt Tone". I wouldn't be at all surprised if one or > more modem manufacturers took this cue and included such a feature in > their modems. Good idea, except maybe another character would be more compatible ... US Robotics uses the $ for help screens on all (as far as I know) its modems ... other "Made-in-Taiwan" modems use this symbol as well. John DeVere - Research Triangle Park, NC <@relay.cs.net.deverejs%RTP@DUPONT.COM> ------------------------------ From: David Lemson Subject: Re: Southwestern Bell Tidbits Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Tue, 11 Dec 90 14:34:32 GMT dittman@skbat.csc.ti.com (Eric Dittman) writes: >I also asked about SWB's intention towards Caller ID. The rep said >SWB was waiting to see what happens with some legal actions pending in >other states before requesting permission to provide Caller ID. SWBT does provide caller ID on their tens of thousands of ISDN lines that they provide to corporate clients. Several large corporations (within SWBT five-state area) have ISDN service, and this includes Caller ID. So just remember that even though they tell you it isn't available (to the home user) yet, someone you call might have Caller ID. (Or more likely, a corporation you call might have it) An example is the AAA (American Automobile Club) regional headquarters in St. Louis, MO. SWBT provides them with Caller ID. (I noticed it when I was in getting some travelers' checks I was pretty surprised to see the LCD displays on the phones.) David Lemson U of Illinois Computing Services Student Consultant Internet : lemson@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu University of Illinois, Urbana ------------------------------ Subject: Re: MCI Starts 900 Service; Limits Charges to $4.00 Organization: Sun, Surf 'n Sushi, San Diego, CA Date: 11 Dec 90 05:36:23 PST (Tue) From: Bill Cerny In article <15345@accuvax.nwu.edu> TELECOM Moderator writes: >MCI announced recently they will be starting to offer 900 service >after the first of the year. MCI's 900 service has been available since May from service bureaus. In fact, ValueLine (Amarillo, TX) is reselling MCI 900 service, and providing it on a switched termination basis from the DSC DEX 400 (but the per minute costs to the information provider are too high: $0.65!) This announcement concerns general availability to non-service bureaus (e.g., boiler rooms and garage operations). >A variety of programs will be available from a variety of >information providers, making their 900 service similar to all the >others. Variety, indeed! Since May, MCI has provided the greatest number of new dial-a-porn programs (and you thought Telesphere was sleazy). Check out all those ads in adult magazines with prefixes 226, 446, 776, 980 and 990. >There is one exception: MCI has said they >will arrange to limit charges to $4.00 on services pertaining to >children, in an effort to anticipate and limit losses to parents whose >children call without permission, i.e. Santa Claus messages, etc. This will apply to a narrow segment of programs, as you pointed out. At one time Sprint said they wouldn't bill more than $10 per call, but gave out waivers freely to information providers. >MCI is to be congratulated for making this responsible effort to >mitigate the expense otherwise incurred by unwitting users of 900 >services. MCI has a black eye from their adult programs, and is trying to mend their sullied reputation. >If one of our MCI readers has more information, they might like to >pass it along. Rather, if any of the MCI information providers have any more actual proof of MCI's arbitrary doubling of uncollectible withholdings from 10% to 20% (initially 4% in May), please post. Rumor: MCI is providing a twelve second grace period during which you can hang up and avoid all charges for the call. I'll find out when my phone bill arrives in a couple weeks... ;-) Bill Cerny bill@toto.info.com | attmail: !denwa!bill ------------------------------ From: "H.Shrikumar" Subject: Re: EED Caller ID Specs Date: 12 Dec 90 05:55:42 GMT Reply-To: "H.Shrikumar " Organization: National Centre for Software Technology, Bombay, INDIA In article <15217@accuvax.nwu.edu> m21198@mwunix.mitre.org (John McHarry) writes: >sounds to me like an opportunity to add a feature to the clid box: If >the caller is blocking, don't even ring, or better yet, answer with an >announcement that you don't take such calls. In the latter case, the >caller has to pay for the announcement, if the call was toll or >message unit. And (shudder!) if I were to call from here in India, to such a number. Surely my caller id will not show up, so will all my calls be diverted to a bit-bucket ? And I'd pay toll too !! .. at about a day's pay per such a call !!! Please do remember the rest of the world :-) shrikumar ( shri@ncst.in ) [Moderator's Note: The distinction would be in the phrasing on the read out: 'ID refused' would be an entirely different scenario than 'ID not available' or 'ID not provided by other telco', etc. I think almost any of us would accept the latter type of call in good faith where we might be inclined to reject the first type. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "H.Shrikumar" Subject: Re: Switching Office Open House Date: 12 Dec 90 06:22:29 GMT Reply-To: "H.Shrikumar " Organization: National Centre for Software Technology, Bombay, INDIA In article <15250@accuvax.nwu.edu> rees@citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) writes: >I just went to an open house at the Ann Arbor office of Michigan Bell. >were! The 5ESS has a capacity of 160,000 subscriber lines (not all on >local loops, most come in on SLC-96) and would almost fit in my living >room. Well, maybe my basement. Does some one have figures in re the economics of the SLC-96 ? I don't remember having seen any hard numbers in TELECOM Digest. I mean, how much does a SLC-96 cost (equipment + installation + maintenance) to the telco? And more to the point, how does this cost compare with (equipment+installation+maintenance) cost of 96 local-loop pairs ? Or perhaps, at what point does this break even ... a community of 96 subscribers X (??) miles away are better served by SLC-96 than 96 pair cable. Another question, I recently read about an SLC-120 in an Indian telecom magazine. They were referring to the US. Any SLC-120s in service ? shrikumar ( shri@ncst.in ) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Dec 90 10:15:45 PST From: Eric Black Subject: Re: What is MFJ a TLA For? In TELECOM Digest V10 #867, I wrote: >I always thought it [MFJ] was "Mother F****** Judge" :-) And the Moderator wrote: >[Moderator's Guffaw: Whew! I hope you don't mind the asterisks in your >message, but this is a family Digest -- I have to keep it clean. I'd like it noted that my original posting indeed had the asterisks (and the smiley). Contrary to the impression given by the Moderator's comment, no editing of my message was required, and none was made. I assumed that TELECOM readers could count asterisks as needed. Also, the "J" could stand for either "Judge" or "Judgment", depending on the listener/reader... Eric Black "Garbage in, Gospel out" Atherton Technology, 1333 Bordeaux Dr., Sunnyvale, CA, 94089 Email: ericb@Atherton.COM Voice: +1 408 734 9822 [Moderator's Confession: Mr. Black is correct. No editing was required of his earlier message, but I couldn't resist the temptation for a little fun. Actually, everyone knows MFJ means Modified Final Joke. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bill Berbenich Subject: Colonial Data Technologies Date: Tue, 11 Dec 90 21:34:07 EST Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu Anyone got a location and/or phone number for Colonial Data Technologies, makers of the Call Identifier (tm), which is used with Caller-ID? Either e-mail or a reply here is acceptable. If you reply by e-mail, please use the address given below in my .sig. Bill Berbenich bill@eedsp.gatech.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #879 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09741; 13 Dec 90 5:18 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab12232; 13 Dec 90 3:53 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14738; 13 Dec 90 2:49 CST Date: Thu, 13 Dec 90 1:56:22 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #880 BCC: Message-ID: <9012130156.ab26822@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 13 Dec 90 01:56:00 CST Volume 10 : Issue 880 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Future High-Speed Transmission/Switching Standards [Robert Jacobson] Old Telecom Archives Located on Tape! [TELECOM Moderator] Auto-Call Back [Roy Smith] NCR and AT&T [Ed Hopper] Call Setup With Sprint [Dennis G. Rears] A Problem With C & P [Dheeraj Sanghi] Modem vs LD Carrier; a Data Point. [Tony Olekshy] Beware! MCI 800 Inquiry Causes Switch [Paul Schleck] "Mary had a Little Lamb" [Paul Schleck] MCI Conks Out [John R. Levine] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Jacobson Subject: Future High-Speed Transmission/Switching Standards Date: 10 Dec 90 06:30:15 GMT Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab, Univ. of Wash., Seattle I have heard word, rumor mostly, that 1992's T3 standard will be implemented much sooner than that, on a North American basis; and that future services of many tens of times faster will be implemented by 1993-4. Is this true? And, if so, what type of switches will be necessary to handle such high loads of traffic? I'm astounded by this prediction. Bob Jacobson Human Interface Technology Laboratory Seattle ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Dec 90 2:34:21 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Old Telecom Archives Located on Tape! Long time readers will recall that the archives for TELECOM Digest used to be located at Boston University when Jon Solomon was the Moderator here and an employee of BU. About the time of his departure from BU, the archives were moved to MIT where they are presently housed. The problem that came up was in the compression/uncompression of the old files to save space at BU, where space was at a premium. During 1988, Volumes 1 through 7 were compressed to save space on bu.edu. Later, in early 1989, the first part of Volume 8 was also compressed *at bu.edu*. For some reason, the compression technique was faulty, and we were unable to satisfactoily uncompress much of the old stuff. What we were able to get was put up at MIT, and you will note in your index to the Archives that Volumes 1 through 8 are spotty; various issues are missing. In addition, Volumes 4 and 5 were poorly handled from the start, and numerous issues never made it to the Archives, or got there in a bizarre, mixed up order. As my late friend, Gabriel Heater would say, "There is good news tonight!" ... for some long-forgotten backup tapes were found at waterloo.edu which filled in many of the gaps in Volumes 4 and 5. The same tapes had stuff from Volumes 2 and 3 also, but unfortunatly it was duplicated with what I already had on file. The main thing is, Volume 4 has been almost doubled in size. Many missing issues from Volume 5 have been restored. In addition, there were (as you very, very old timers will know) a number of messages sent out loose, in non-digest format during the fall of 1985, during a period when Jon Solomon was unable to care for the Digest due to some personal problems. Changes in mailing procedures, digesting procedures and other kinks also made Volumes 4 and 5 sort of messy, but at least we now have almost all the missing issues in custody once again from 1984 and 1985. Over the next month or so, as time permits, I will go through and try to weed out the duplicates, and organize the remainder into some kind of logical order. For now, you'll see some duplicate and overlapping files if you visit the Archives. We still need help from backup tapes with some of the old issues: Volumes 1, 2, and 3 are missing some issues. Volume 8 is missing quite a few from early in 1988. Of particular interest is Volume 1, issues 1 through 3, most of which is lost, except for the file 'first.issue.cover'. My very grateful thanks to waterloo for keeping those old tapes all this time! Anyone else have any dusty issues of TELECOM Digest in storage at their site? Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Dec 90 09:17:20 EST From: Roy Smith Subject: Auto-Call Back I'm not sure I have the right name, but I'm referring to the (new?) service whereby if somebody calls you and you don't get to the phone before it stops ringing, you can just press some code to automatically generate a call back to the person who called you. My question is, does the system filter out any numbers? If somebody from Europe called me, will it dial back an international call for me? What if some slimey 900-type called me? Neither of the above scenarios would be appreciated. ------------------------------ Subject: NCR and AT&T From: Ed Hopper Date: Mon, 10 Dec 90 06:40:13 CST Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Texas 713-997-7575 Pat was sharp in noticing my humorous "ehopper@ncr.att.com" mail routing. A few thoughts on that subject from someone sure to be affected. I am part of AT&T's Computer Systems Division. NCR has done a lot of public posturing about how much they oppose the merger. Of course, as AT&T's offer price approachs $125, these objections will evaporate. Charles Exeley (NCR President) is doing his job correctly in assuring that NCR stockholders get the most possible $$$ out of AT&T. Until the deal is done, it's in NCRs interest to bellow long and loud about their objections. I should point out that the memoranda distributed on the subject and the external statements go out of their way to provide assurances to NCR employees of continued employment. No such assurances are offered to the AT&T employees, in fact, several statements presume fairly massive upheaval in the AT&T ranks. Certainly NCR employees are upset. I would be too, if the situation were reversed. For that matter, I feel, for various reasons I won't burden everyone with here, that the business was on track to success without the addition of NCR. If I had my choice, they would have left us alone. Of course, for those who assume automatically that AT&T will screw up anything it touches, this is another disaster. I don't think the situation was a disaster nor will it be one if the merger is consumated. My own prediction is that the deal will be done before the end of December for a price in the range of $100 to $110 a share. Ed Hopper BBS: 713-997-7575 ehopper@attmail.com ehopper@ehpcb.wlk.com coming soon:ehopper@ncr.att.com ????!!!!! :-) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Dec 90 12:30:04 EST From: "Dennis G. Rears (FSAC)" Subject: Call Setup With Sprint I have been a subscriber to Sprint for about a year now. I am generally satisified with their service but I have been having trouble with some things. First, it takes so long to set up a call. On calls to Austrailia, It takes 40-60 seconds from the time the last digit is dial until the connection is actually made. On stateside calls maybe a full 10 seconds. Is this normal? Also about 30% of the calls to Austrailia, the quality is terrible; there is a terrible echo. Is this the fault of Sprint or Austrailia Telecom? On bad calls, I hang up immediatley and call the LD operator. She reconnects me and the sound is great. How can the Sprint LD operator connect me so fast but I can do it myself. On a unrelated note ... Is there anyway I can get the local phone company (NJ Bell) or anyone to give me a list of all the unassigned numbers for a particular prefix? I actually need such a list for three prefixes. Failing that is there a service where I can get the assigned number for a particular prefix. dennis ------------------------------ From: Dheeraj Sanghi Subject: A Problem With C & P Date: 10 Dec 90 19:41:49 GMT Reply-To: Dheeraj Sanghi Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742 I am having a dispute with C & P) ?Bcregarding some credit that is due to me. I have tried to solve it with them for last one year, but to no avail. Would someone on the net-land suggest where all I can take my case so that a settlement is reached fast. Here is a description of my case: I was a C&P customer for 3 years until Dec. 89, when I asked them to disconnect my service. (I was moving out of that apt.) I kept getting bills for next six months. Currently, the situation is that they have removed charge for all the bills after Dec 89, but not given me credit of the amount I have paid them in advance. I have called them at least 25 times in the last one year, and I have heard all kinds of lies and excuses. For the first few months they maintained that their computers are having some problem, and as soon as that problem is rectified they will issue a final bill and a check for whatever is due to me. In fact, on an occasion, one representative asked me angrily why I keep wasting C&P's time when I have been told ample number of times that it is a computer problem. What I finally got was a threatening letter that if I did not pay the six month's telephone charges, I will be taken to court. When I called them after that, they started a pack of lies. In one day, I talked to this rep for FOUR hours (three of them on hold while she talks to her superviser, the billing dept. and whoever else), who first told me that I never gave any disconnect order. When I informed her that the number had been issued to another person, and that that person is also getting his regular bill for the same telephone number, and asked if C&P is so careless as to give an in-service number to another person, she immediately found the disconnect order on file. She then said that C&P cannot give credit for AT&T charges (Reach Out America charges for first hour every month for six months), even if it was C&P 's mistake. After a long while she agreed to remove all charges for the six months. Then she told me that even though I had service in Dec for only 2 days (and I had paid for whole 31 days), I would be charged for the whole month. In a very rude fashion, she asked me if I expected C&P to keep track of every hour of service provided. I reminded her that I was not asking for credit for hours, but for 29 days out of 31. Another of her lies was that since I had not called C&P for over six months and it was not possible to do anything about it now. I had kept a log of all calls and read that out to her, and she also found a similar log on her terminal now. Finally, she told me how much do I think C&P owes me. I said, a little over $24. She promised that I would get a check for 24$ in 5-6 weeks. This is when I did a few dumb things. I believed that representative. I did not call C&P for two months. I threw away the log of all calls. When I called again after two months, a similar set of lies were tried again, but finally they promised to "look into my complaint." I have kept calling them, but every time they are waiting for a duplicate copy of the bill from their archives. The amount is not a whole lot, and the recovery process has already cost me scores of hours. Is there some way I can get some payment for my time. Even at the minimum wage, it would be a handsome sum for a graduate student. Thanks in advance, dheeraj Dheeraj Sanghi (h):301-474-3592 (o):301-405-2723 Internet: dheeraj@cs.umd.edu UUCP: uunet!mimsy!dheeraj ------------------------------ Date: Mon Dec 10 06:58:38 1990 From: Tony Olekshy Subject: Modem vs LD carrier, a data point. Organization: Olekshy Hoover & Associates Ltd., Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. In message <326@comtst.UUCP>, mdv@comtst.UUCP (Mike Verstegen) writes: | On a related note, I recently did an experiment with our connection to | UUNET with respect to through-put rate. Previously we had been using | MCI and got throughput (logged by HDB uucp xferstats) of about 800 | bytes/sec. I then changed the UUNET number to include the 10288 AT&T | selection prefix, and now we're getting 1050 bytes/sec throughput. | The 30% increase certainly makes up for the few percent difference | in cost. Conclusion: when considering long distance carriers for data transmission using adaptive modems, you should to measure each carrier's success with the actual modem and factor it into the cost per unit time before sorting. Yours etc., Tony Olekshy. Internet: tony%oha@CS.UAlberta.CA BITNET: tony%oha.uucp@UALTAMTS.BITNET uucp: alberta!oha!tony Blowing is not playing the flute, you must make use of your fingers.--Goethe ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Dec 90 09:51:59 PDT From: Paul Schleck Subject: Beware! MCI 800 Inquiry causes switch! Reply-to: paul.schleck%inns@iugate.unomaha.edu A friend of mine called the 1-800 number to inquire about personal 1-800 service. At the end of the call, she clearly stated that she did NOT want to sign up for the service. A few days later, she tr--i6ed to place an operator-assisted call and got an MCI operator. Further inquiries and calling of the 1-700 number indicated that she had INDEED been switched from AT&T to MCI! The charges were about the same per call, so she didn't raise a stink about it after they graciously switched it back. Anyone else have any experience with this? Is this a deliberate effort, or simply some bungling MCI telemarketer putting her down for service? It is my understanding that you can wind up with any old carrier at the whim of the phone company, so one should be ever vigilant of what service is doing their long-distance and make damn sure it's the right one. This is just one more strike against MCI, in my opinion. First they come up with this screwy "Personal 800" service that THEY don't even completely understand, then they engage in other questionable marketing tactics (Is this called "slamming", or do I have the terminology confused?). My friend is quite happy with AT&T for its calling card and I am partial to Sprint for its audio quality. One thing we do agree on is that MCI stinks! Paul W. Schleck pschleck@alf.unomaha.edu --- Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.12 r.5 [1:285/27@fidonet] Neb. Inns of Court 402/593-1192 (1:285/27.0) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Dec 90 09:53:07 PDT From: Paul Schleck Subject: "Mary had a Little Lamb" Reply-to: paul.schleck%inns@iugate.unomaha.edu I'm sure we all remember from our elementary school "playing with the phone" dialing "Mary had a Little Lamb" i.e. 321-2333. In some area codes, it's a valid number, in others it connects to dead air. In yet others, you get a busy signal or a "not in service" intercept. Hmmm... assigning of numbers with obvious musical value? Did many recipients complain after getting *LOTS* of phone calls? Just curious (yeah, I know what you're thinking, GET A LIFE....). I guess my parents ignored me when I was young causing me to seek solace in the telcom equipment within my reach.....:) Paul Schleck --- Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.12 r.5 [1:285/27@fidonet] Neb. Inns of Court 402/593-1192 (1:285/27.0) ------------------------------ Subject: MCI Conks Out Date: Thu, 13 Dec 90 0:54:46 EST From: "John R. Levine" MCI is suffering from a service outage here in Cambridge Mass. Any attempt to make a call via 10222-1-number, call an MCI 800 number, or even get the MCI operator via 10222-00 fails either with a fast busy or a rather funky sounding recording saying that all long distance circuits are busy. I have two lines which happen to be on different switches in the same CO, on one I get mostly recordings, on the other I get either fast busy or silence. I can't call MCI customer service, since they only have an 800 number, and the local telco operator was clueless. AT&T and Sprint work fine. I don't much care whether 10222 works, but without their 800 service I can't get to MCI Mail. Anyone else have any idea what the problem is? Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #880 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27429; 15 Dec 90 0:20 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14420; 14 Dec 90 22:19 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08773; 14 Dec 90 21:12 CST Date: Fri, 14 Dec 90 20:14:31 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #881 BCC: Message-ID: <9012142014.ab13490@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 14 Dec 90 20:14:19 CST Volume 10 : Issue 881 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson AT&T, MCI and PTI Settle [William Degnan] Don't Pay For Slamming [Ed Hopper] Playing Songs on Tone Telephones [Jerry K. Wagner] The Wrong Way to Keep Phones on the Hook [David Leibold] What If? [Lou Judice] Still Another Phone Scam [David Ptasnik] Alarm Autodialers [Robert Wier] SID/BID List Now in Archives [TELECOM Moderator] NCR and AT&T: An NCR Employee's Perspective [Mike Wescott] Quick Word on the "Cellular Products Catalog" [Sam Lipson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 13 Dec 90 12:06:46 CDT From: William Degnan Subject: AT&T, MCI and PTI Settle We received the following news release concerning "slamming": Pioneer TeleTechnologies, Inc. For Immediate Release SERGEANT BLUFF, Iowa -- Pioneer TeleTechnologies, Inc. (PTI), and MCI Communications Corporation today announced that they have reached an out-of-court settlement with AT&T in a lawsuit involving telemarketing practices. Terms of the settlement agreement were not disclosed. The three firms also agreed to propose adoption by the FCC of mandatory industry standards to protect consumers against being switched to a long distance carrier without authorization. "With this agreement, the consumber benefits through standardized telemarking practices, and the industry benefits since both companies can get on with the business of serving consumers in a competitive marketplace," Bert C. Roberts, Jr., MCI president and chief operating officer, said. PITI, MCI and AT&T said they will urge the Federal Communications Commission to adopt mandatory telemarketing standards as quickly as possible to ensure that consumers are switched to a carrier only with their permission. Those standards would permit long distance carriers to confirm that a customer has agreed to a switch in anay one of four different ways. The four ways include: -a customer-initiated call to an 800 number of the carrier to which the customer is switching; -independent third party confirmation; -signed letter of authorization; -a call placed by the customer to their local or long distance telephone company. MCI and PTI said they plan to implement the safeguards as quickly as possible. "We view the proposal as extremely positive for consumers, the industry and everyone involved in these proceedings," said Jon Winkel, President and CEO of PTI. On October 10, 1989, MCI sued AT&T for false and deceptive advertising under the Lanham Act, and on October 26, AT&T counterclaimed with the same allegations. On January 10, 1990, AT&T sued MCI and PTI for false and deceptive telemarketing practices. PTI is a privately held corporation based in Sergeant Bluff, Iowa. ### (Special disclaimer: We have no connection with any of these firms although we know people who do.) 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 ------------------------------ Subject: Don't Pay For Slamming From: Ed Hopper Date: Fri, 14 Dec 90 05:58:08 CST Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Texas 713-997-7575 Paul.Schleck@iugate.unomaha.edu (Paul Schleck) writes: > A friend of mine called the 1-800 number to inquire about personal 1-800 > service. At the end of the call, she clearly stated that she did NOT > want to sign up for the service. A few days later, she tried to place an > operator-assisted call and got an MCI operator. Further inquiries and > calling of the 1-700 number indicated that she had INDEED been switched > from AT&T to MCI! The charges were about the same per call, so she > didn't raise a stink about it after they graciously switched it back. No, no, no! The fact that charges may be the same are irrelevant. These are ill-gotten gains. I cannot speak to the legalities, however, when I was slammed some years ago from AT&T to Sprint, I refused to pay for the Sprint portion of the bill AT ALL. I suspect that if one bellows long enough one can get the calls written off. In my case, I refused to even begin dealing with a service rep. Slamming me was a grevious wrong committed against me by Sprint. As such, I insisted in dealing with a management person. Keep going up the ladder until you are satisfied. Perhaps if everyone insisted on free service after slamming, the practice would stop. Ed Hopper BBS: 713-997-7575 ehopper@attmail.com ehopper@ehpcb.wlk.com coming soon:ehopper@ncr.att.com ????!!!!! :-) [Moderator's Note: They may be 'ill-gotten gains' to the slamming carrier as you point out, but your failure to pay *at least the amount you anticipated paying for the call you placed* is an unjust enrichment to yourself. Strictly speaking, you must pay for calls you place. This is required by tariff. But you also have the right to sue the carrier for tampering / interfering with your existing service. After all, they caused you to get disconnected from your long distance carrier of choice, did they not? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Dec 90 11:40:22 -0500 Reply-To: jkw@kodak.com From: "Jerry K. Wagner Internet: jkw@kodak.com" Subject: Playing Songs on Tone Telephones In V10 #880, Paul Schleck writes: >I'm sure we all remember from our elementary school "playing with the >phone" dialing "Mary had a Little Lamb" i.e. 321-2333. In some area >codes, it's a valid number, in others it connects to dead air. In yet >others, you get a busy signal or a "not in service" intercept. Hmmm... >Just curious (yeah, I know what you're thinking, GET A LIFE....). I >guess my parents ignored me when I was young causing me to seek solace in >the telcom equipment within my reach.....:) Does anyone remember {The Pushbutton Telephone Songbook}? This was published by Price/Stern/Sloan (Los Angeles), copyright 1972, ISBN: 0-8431-0258-6. I bought my copy about 1981 after my roommate made me aware of it. I don't know if it's still in print and whether they would be more in demand now that more people have "pushbutton" (shouldn't that be tone?) phones or if fewer people would play songs on them now that the novelty has worn off. The book contains about 36 songs, and, of course, says "to play pushbutton phone songs properly, always call up a nearby friend and tap out your songs to him or her." It warns, "If you just pick up the receiver and immediately begin tapping out Strangers In The Night, you might find yourself connected to someone in Nome, Alaska." This I doubt, since the first "notes" are 4-8-8. Jerry Wagner (716)722-9532, Fax: (716)477-0127 Internet: jkw@kodak.com ------------------------------ From: woody Subject: The Wrong Way to Keep Phones on the Hook Date: Wed, 12 Dec 90 23:22:59 EST Each year, the Thunder Bay (Ontario, Canada) telephone directory contains the following curious notice with the latest 90-91 directory being no exception: "THE WRONG WAY TO 'FOIL BURGLARS'" "Leaving the telephone off the hook may alert burglars that you're not home. A continual busy signal is a give-away. Lights activated or turned on and off by a timer are better ways to discourage break-ins." Now let's see if this comes through straight ... a "continual" busy signal (whatever that means) will indicate to someone that you're not home, as opposed to an unanswered series of rings on just one dial... does the average robber really think that a busy signal would indicate that someone is not home as opposed to having a conversation (or one in a series)? Is there a Deep Concept of logic at work here, or did I stumble onto something quite laughable? Needless to say, there are good technical reasons to discourage people from leaving their phones in an off-hook state, although one presumes that new electronic exchanges will counteract some of the problems of the past. However, there are more straightforward ways of getting that message across than the one above. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Dec 90 13:51:50 PST From: Peripheral Visionary 14-Dec-1990 1002 Subject: What If? The AT&T/NCR deal is an interesting development ... Wasn't the primary motivation behind AT&T's settlement of the antitrust suit a desire to enter the computer industry? AT&T is still a great company, but it's hardly made a ripple in the computer business since divestiture. I think it's pretty sad, again thinking back to the old AT&T ... Question - suppose AT&T had decided NOT to split up - and to remain the Great American Wire and Cable Co. (as some have called it). What would today's telecom domain be like in: long distance, local service, new technology, hardware (consumer and business), etc. Go on telecom-readers: oraculate! ljj ------------------------------ From: David Ptasnik Subject: Still Another Phone Scam Date: Fri, 14 Dec 90 16:46:13 PDT Heard on GMA - A California company called Flat Rate was offering long distance users unlimited long distance calling for a flat rate of $195.00 per month per line. They required a hefty advance payment and hookup charge (surprise, surprise) and for a while were actually placing calls. Presumably most of this money was going into some nice fat bank account, because the telqi pulled the plug fairly quickly. A legal document was shown, stating that Flat Rate owed Pac*Bell $300,000; GTE $140,000; and MCI $1,400,000 (ouch). GMA also stated that Flat Rate had applied for a business license in Florida, and had already received one in Georgia. They went on to hit small long distance companies pretty hard (there are a few good ones, but ...) and stated that the FCC really didn't have the time or staff to regulate companies smaller than AT&T, MCI, and Sprint. They ended with the standard warning - "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is!." *ARRRRRGH* I've been in a telecom career for several years now, and it really annoys me when jokers like Flat Rate pull a scam like this. I feel that the telecom industry is getting a real reputation for sleazy operations. I appreciate forums like the Digest. They seem one of the better ways for the industry to clean itself up, and help keep tabs on miscreants like the AOS's or Flat Rate. I don't really have a point with this last bit, just wanted to air some frustration. Stay vigilant. Don't let the bastards get you down. Crime doesn't pay, etc. etc. etc. davep@u.washington.edu [Moderator's Note: I agree with your premises. So what next? The industry will get a lot worse before it gets better, believe me. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Dec 90 01:35:49 -0700 From: Robert Wier Subject: Alarm Autodialers In article <15381@accuvax.nwu.edu>, William.Degnan@f39.n382.z1. fidonet.org (William Degnan) writes: > One of the toys with which I have played is the Sensaphone. When I > worked for an interconnect company, we sold some for vacation homes. > The homeowner could select four (I believe) telephone numbers, which > are called in sequence until somebody calls the unit back to > acknowledge the voice message. Heathkit (if they are still in business when you read this - one wonders). Sells a unit very similar to this. I have one in my house in Colorado (at 8000' in the winter, it gets COLD!). It monitors and alerts on high temp, low temp, excessive noise, power off, and include a connection to an alarm system. It will dial out up to four numbers to give an alert. My major gripe is that it's not remotely programmable. So, if I close up my house in September, and don't get back till Christmas I can't make any changes. The first winter I used it (last winter) I THOUGHT I was going to leave the heat on at 55 degrees. However, propane (my fuel) went up in price from about 82 cent/gal to $1.40 cents/gal, so I decided to shut the house down (off furnace, drain pipes, etc). Forgot to reprogram the low temp setting before I left. It was calling my real estate agent, insurance agent, et al. Finally just had to have them go over and shut the thing off. This winter, I have it on the line, but programmed NOT to call out. I periodically check it to make sure things are still working. It doesn't give the same security as the call out feature, but not being remotely programmable, it looks like the best compromise for now. The Heath units (not a kit - already assembled) run around $140 and are HARD to get - I had to place a backorder for about three months. If anyone knows of a similar unit which is remotely programmable and at a reasonable cost, I'd be very interested. Thanks, Bob Wier insert favorite standard disclaimers here College of Engineering Northern Arizona University / Flagstaff, Arizona Internet: rrw@naucse.cse.nau.edu | BITNET: WIER@NAUVAX | WB5KXH or uucp: ...arizona!naucse!rrw ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Dec 90 19:22:55 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: SID/BID List Now in Archives Randolph J. Herber has kindly passed along a very comprehensive listing of cellular carrier ID codes to us. These are the five digit codes programmed in the NAM of your cellular phone which identify the 'home' carrier, i.e. 00001 being Cellular One in Chicago, 00020 being Ameritech, etc. This list is far too long for a Digest, so it has been put in the Telecom Archives under the title 'cellular.carrier.codes'. Look for it there if you want a copy for reference purposes. My thanks to Mr. Herber for this donation to the archives. The Telecom Archives can be accessed by anonymous ftp at lcs.mit.edu. Once logged in, then 'cd telecom-archives'. The archives mail server method can also be used to access these files: bitftp@pucc.princeton.edu or bitftp@princeton.bitnet. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: sauron!micky!wescott@ncrcae.uucp Date: Fri, 14 Dec 90 07:47:21 PST Subject: NCR and AT&T: An NCR Employee's Perspective Organization: E&M-Columbia, NCR Corp, W Columbia, SC In article <15396@accuvax.nwu.edu> Ed Hopper writes: > I am part of AT&T's Computer Systems Division. I am part of NCR's Multi User Products Division. > I should point out that the memoranda distributed on the subject and the > external statements go out of their way to provide assurances to NCR > employees of continued employment. Common consensus around here is that those promises are good for about a year after takeover. But I figure that once a year has gone by those assurances will succumb to more and more overt meddling. > No such assurances are offered to > the AT&T employees, in fact, several statements presume fairly massive > upheaval in the AT&T ranks. Certainly NCR employees are upset. I would > be too, if the situation were reversed. All things considered, I'd rather be here at NCR than at AT&T's Computer Systems Division. > I don't think the situation was a disaster nor will > it be one if the merger is consumated. Possibly not. It depends on how much disruption this causes. There are definite market windows in this business which are catastrophic to miss. The transition period could be uncertain enough to delay development and product releases until they miss the window. > My own prediction is that the deal will be done before the end of > December for a price in the range of $100 to $110 a share. Rats... I was hoping to get a little more than that for my few shares of stock. Mike Wescott mike.wescott@ncrcae.Columbia.NCR.COM ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Dec 90 12:02:30 -0500 From: srl@osf.org Subject: Quick Word on the "Cellular Products Catalog" Patrick, I called the number you supplied (800-654-3050) - I just thought I'd share that these folks claim to be a wholesaler, which makes having a company name to ship the catalog to mandatory. They didn't seem to be enforcing wholesale type rules beyond that. Sam Lipson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #881 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05280; 16 Dec 90 13:57 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05977; 16 Dec 90 12:28 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12741; 16 Dec 90 11:23 CST Date: Sun, 16 Dec 90 11:00:03 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #882 BCC: Message-ID: <9012161100.ab07221@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 16 Dec 90 10:59:52 CST Volume 10 : Issue 882 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson On Who You Owe When Slammed [Jerry Leichter] Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed [TELECOM Moderator] Re: Don't Pay For Slamming [John G. Dobnick] Re: Phone Service in the UK Two Decades Ago [Mark Steiger] Re: How Does One Access a Hearing Impaired TTY [Toby Nixon] Re: Call Setup With Sprint [Nigel Allen] Re: Running Your Own Long Distance Company [Jeff Carroll] Re: Auto-Call Back [Dave Levenson] Re: Stupid AT&T Advertisements [Tony Olekshy] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 15 Dec 90 09:58:56 EDT From: Jerry Leichter Subject: On Who You Owe When Slammed The Moderator continues to opine that, even if you are "slammed", you still should have to pay for the calls you make, at least at the minimum of the rate charged by your chosen carrier and the one who slammed you. This is wrong. Let's consider a simple analogy: I have a Federal Express envelope that I want delivered overnight. I leave it on top of the nearest FedEx box - assume the box is full, or that what I'm sending doesn't fit inside. I include a billing number for FedEx to charge. You come along, see the envelope, pick it up, and deliver it to its destination; you get it there at least as early as FedEx would have. You now try to bill me for the delivery, at the same rate as FedEx would have. Your claim, of course, is that you provided exactly the same service as FedEx, so are entitled to the same fee. However, the claim is nonsense: I chose to use FedEx, rather than Pat's Delivery, because I have much greater confidence in them. Sure, this time Pat's Delivery got it there safely; but maybe next time Pat will get lost, or get delayed, or hit by a truck. Coverage for the things that might have happened, but didn't, is part of the service that I'm buying from FedEx. Pat's hasn't delivered that service. Now, you can argue that after all the service available from MCI or Sprint is really essentially the equal of that from AT&T. But that's not your argument to make. *I* am the one who has made the choice of services, and I am the one who is entitled to decide the value of the different services to me. Whether my decisions are rational or irrational is of no importance. The service I have contracted for is AT&T's, and no matter what MCI may be able to provide in the way of long-distance connections, they are inherently incapable of BEING AT&T. I owe MCI nothing. Jerry ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Dec 90 10:26:58 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed Jerry raises a good point in the message before this one, which if I understand correctly is that by paying the unauthorized carrier of your package or your phone call, you are in effect encouraging them to continue the act of diverting things not intended for themselves. This is only partly correct. There is a third party involved who actually caused the misdelivery, i.e. your local telco. In Jerry's example above, the analogy should be like this: You give a package to an employee and tell them to take it to the 'express office' for shipment. You neglect to say *which* express company, and your employee was under the impression -- because of instructions received at some time or another, or a misunderstanding of your instructions -- that you wanted the package delivered to Pat's Delivery Service instead of Federal Express. So, your employee drops it off at Pat's, and Pat delivers your package in good faith. After all, your package was brought to them by your agent/employee. When you get the bill from Pat, you can't refuse to pay because your employee/agent took the package to the wrong place. Get it straight with your agent/employee instead ... the interstate delivery service did as instructed. When calling long distance, your local telco uses a form of shorthand for your instructions: 1+ will be considered an abbreviation for the 10xxx of your choice until you tell them differently. Somehow or another they get those instructions incorrect. Maybe someone else did legitimatly ask to use Pat, but the telco got the digits transposed on the work order and mistakenly thought you wanted to use Pat. Maybe Pat mistakenly or deliberatly told them you wanted to use his service. If the carrier deliberatly did this, then we have different circumstances than if the local telco did it in error. In the latter case the LD carrier is not at fault and should be paid, and in fact under the law they can force you to pay if necessary by suing you, although it is unlikely one would do so for a few dollars. And although I am not certain, I think if Pat picked up your express package from a common drop off point where all tenants in your building left their express mail, and if precise routing instructions for your package were ambiguous, i.e. a 'generic' freight airbill as opposed to one specifically saying 'Federal Express' that Pat could also sue you to get paid if he took what he believed was an unrouted delivery. The answer lies in forcing the local telco to *confirm* these changes in writing or otherwise rather than by some petty method of withholding fees for services in fact rendered. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Dec 90 01:46:23 -0600 From: John G Dobnick Subject: Re: Don't Pay For Slamming ehopper@ehpcb.wlk.com (Ed Hopper): > No, no, no! The fact that charges may be the same are irrelevant. > These are ill-gotten gains. [...] > I refused to pay for the Sprint portion of the bill AT ALL. > [Moderator's Note: They may be 'ill-gotten gains' to the slamming > carrier as you point out, but your failure to pay *at least the amount > you anticipated paying for the call you placed* is an unjust > enrichment to yourself. Strictly speaking, you must pay for calls you > place. This is required by tariff. ... PAT] Why is "slamming" not considered, and treated, as theft? Theft of long distance business from one carrier by another? (In this case, theft of AT&T business by Sprint?) It seems to me that if anyone has a complaint here, it is AT&T -- they are the ones who lost business through what I would consider misrepresentation, if not outright fraud. (Anyway, why should I sue Sprint? AT&T has more lawyers that I do. :-) ) While I tend to agree that the caller owes *someone* for long distance service, it isn't Sprint. If this were my problem, I would be willing to pay AT&T (at AT&T rates) for the long distance service consumed, since that is what I originally expected to pay, but I would certainly resist paying Sprint one red cent. John G Dobnick (JGD2) Computing Services Division @ University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee INTERNET: jgd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu ATTnet: (414) 229-5727 UUCP: uunet!uwm!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!jgd ------------------------------ From: Mark Steiger Date: Thu Dec 13 90 at 15:37:40 (CST) Subject: Re: Phone Service in the UK Two Decades Ago Speaking on Pizza in Moscow, I tried some there and it left much to be desired. :) [ Mark Steiger, Sysop, The Igloo 218/262-3142 300/1200/2400/9600 (HST/Dual)] ProLine.:penguin@gnh-igloo America Online: Goalie5 UUCP....:crash!gnh-igloo!penguin MCI Mail......: MSteiger Internet:penguin@gnh-igloo.cts.com ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: How Does One Access a Hearing Impaired TTY Date: 14 Dec 90 10:29:56 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA In article <15335@accuvax.nwu.edu>, molloy@emerald.uucp (Phil Molloy) writes: > A friend of mine would like to be able to contact her brother who has > a TTY connected to his phone line. She has access to various modems > and computers to dial her bother's phone, but doesn't know if it is > possible to communicate with this piece of equipment. I don't know > what kind of modulation/demodulation scheme is used by the TTY. Does > anyone out there know if what she wants to do is possible or should > she simply by another TTY and do it that way? Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) are sometimes called "TTY" because the earliest ones were indeed based on Teletype hardware; the newer ones are sleek, compact, battery-powered, with LED or LCD displays and quite portable. TDDs use a special, unique half-duplex modulation scheme at 45.45 baud, which is unlike any that are used in commonly-available modems. The carrier is turned on and off for each character as it is typed, rather than being continuously on all the time, and both TDDs on the line use the same frequencies. Therefore, you can't use a standard modem to communicate with a TDD. Also, TDDs use five-bit Baudot code rather than 7- or 8-bit ASCII code, so most standard comm software won't work, either. There _are_ TDDs in existence which use Bell 103 modulation and ASCII code, but they aren't very common. And, you can also find special modems (from companies such as Krown and Ultratec) that support both Bell 103 and TDD modulation schemes and also automatically translate between ASCII and Baudot, but these cost as much as many 2400bps modems. Telecommunications Industry Association committee TR-30.1 has a project open to define a standard method for automatic interworking between data modems and TDDs. Once this standard is developed, we may see many more modem companies begin to include TDD modulation in standard PC-class modem products. Your friend will need to either buy a TDD (they're not all that expensive; $300-$500), or buy her brother a PC and a modem (which would be a nice Christmas gift, and open up to him the whole world of BBSing). Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice +1-404-449-8791 Telex 151243420 Hayes Microcomputer Products Inc. | Fax +1-404-447-0178 CIS 70271,404 P.O. Box 105203 | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon AT&T !tnixon Atlanta, Georgia 30348 USA | Internet hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net [Moderator's Note: For further information, readers are referred to the file on this subject in the Telecom Archives mentioned earlier. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Dec 90 20:07 EST From: Nigel Allen Subject: Re: Call Setup With Sprint Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada. drears@pica.army.mil (Dennis G. Rears (FSAC)) complains that call set-up time on calls to Australia is too high. This may not be Sprint's fault. The local telephone exchange is probably causing some of the delay, because it only forwards the dialled number to Sprint once it is convinced that all the digits have been dialled. This is not a problem with North American calls, since U.S. and Canadian telephone numbers are all the same length, but for overseas calls, the local switch waits until a few seconds have elapsed since the last number was dialled (this is called waiting for "time-out"). However, the local switch will recognize the # character as meaning that you have finished dialling, and will forward the number to Sprint immediately on receiving the #, assuming that you have dialled a plausible number of digits. (In other words, 011-44-71-xxx-xxxx # will go through, but 011-44-71 # may be rejected by the local switch as being too short. I realize that the example is for a number in London, England, not Australia.) This is not specific to Sprint. It should work with any long distance carrier with overseas calling facilities (or, strictly speaking, it should work with any sufficiently modern local switch, since you're talking to the facilities of the local carrier, not to Sprint.) ------------------------------ From: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: Running Your Own Long Distance Company Date: 14 Dec 90 18:40:28 GMT Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle In article <15114@accuvax.nwu.edu> phil@wubios.wustl.edu (J. Philip Miller) writes: >The {St. Louis Post Dispatch} this morning carries a story about >William Outten, the owner of an answering service in surburban St. >Louis who is now offering "free" long distance calls from Jefferson >county into St. Louis. An acquaintance of ours who is well known in the Seattle area as a telecom entrepreneur was recently unsuccessful in his efforts to lobby the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission for permission to operate this sort of business. I don't know the details. My wife speaks to this fellow much more often than I do, and she's not well versed in the technology. Jeff Carroll carroll@atc.boeing.com ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Auto-Call Back Date: 14 Dec 90 13:36:35 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <15395@accuvax.nwu.edu>, roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: > I'm not sure I have the right name, but I'm referring to the > (new?) service whereby if somebody calls you ... > automatically generate a call back to the person who called you. My > question is, does the system filter out any numbers? If somebody from > Europe called me, will it dial back an international call for me? For today, the calling number is available for automatic call-back (I think they call the service Return*Call here in NJ) only on intra-LATA calls between SS7-connected central offices. This limits your liability to the maximum rate for a call within your LATA. 900 numbers only allow inbound calls -- if they called you, then the calling number is not their 900 number but some other number (which may or may not be equipped to receive incoming calls). In the far future, when SS7 connectivity includes the inter-LATA carriers, you'll probably be able to Return*Call places more distant. The best defense, probably, is Caller*ID. It will show you the number you're about to call with Return*Call, if the last call you received was from a properly-connected CO. If the number was not available for display, it probably won't be available for Return*Call, either. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ From: Tony Olekshy Subject: Re: Stupid AT&T Advertisements Date: 14 Dec 90 16:34:42 GMT Organization: Olekshy Hoover & Associates Ltd., Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. In message <15367@accuvax.nwu.edu>, john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > Steve Thornton writes: > > I specifically changed service *from* AT&T because of their stupid, > > insulting ads. > I agree that some of AT&T's advertisements (as well as many others, > including other LD companies) are stupid and somewhat insulting. But > never lose sight of the purpose of advertising: the sale of products. John then goes on to write a set of items I agree with. Now, on to advertising. I used to complain about it, until a friend with a graphics arts and literature background asked me why I didn't "study" it, instead. After all, this would give me something to do while waiting for the commercials to end. With a little help, I was on my way. The AT&T advertisement campaign of the last two or three years has, as you know, consisted of a series of phased advertisements on particular themes. When the campaign summary spot came out a few months ago, and I saw it for the first time, I was awestruck by the technique: slowly builing a public image, responding to market shifts and competitor's counter-attacks, challenging competitor's counter-claims, and then pulling it all together. You (the reader of this group) know way to much to be softsoaped by these ads, but their *purpose* is *not* to sell more telephony to comp.dcom.telecom readers. I doubt that any other LD ad campaign is as familiar to the average USA consumer. The ad campaign, is, IMHO, a candidate for an advertising award. Disclaimer: I tend to watch only PBS and CNN from the USA, except for Letterman, of course. This posting is an amateur's opinion. Yours etc, Tony Olekshy Internet: tony%oha@CS.UAlberta.CA BITNET: tony%oha.uucp@UALTAMTS.BITNET uucp: alberta!oha!tony ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #882 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06519; 16 Dec 90 15:01 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19556; 16 Dec 90 13:32 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab05977; 16 Dec 90 12:28 CST Date: Sun, 16 Dec 90 11:58:40 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #883 BCC: Message-ID: <9012161158.ab17992@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 16 Dec 90 11:58:36 CST Volume 10 : Issue 883 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Some Missing Archives Issues Restored [TELECOM Moderator] Information Needed About Cellular Antennas [Scott R. Myers] Non-Payment Disconnects [Andy Jacobson] Looking for Programmable Dialer [MISS026@bogecnve.bitnet] Re: Alarm Autodialers [Mike Olson] Re: Alarm Autodialers [John Higdon] Re: Playing Songs on Tone Telephones [Floyd Davidson] Re: A Problem With C & P [William Degnan] Query About Answering Machines in Greece [David Durand] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 14 Dec 90 20:49:24 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Some Missing Archives Issues Restored Long time readers of the Digest will recall that the Archives (and the Digest) were formerly located at Boston University. During 1988, because the archives was beginning to grow quite large (but only about one-third as large as it is now!) Jon Solomon was requested by management at bucs.bu.edu to compress the archives as much as possible. We did this on all the very old issues. When the archives was moved to MIT last year, many of the old files which had been compressed at bucs.bu.edu were somehow damaged, and we were unable to uncompress them. We were able to only recover about half of the old issues. Beginning late in 1988, the method of storage was changed, and all issues from the last part of Volume 8, plus all of Volumes 9 and 10 are intact. Through trial and error since, several more old issues have been reconstructed, but the early issues from Volumes 1 through 6 (and part of 8) are still spotty, with several missing issues. I am happy to announce the recovery of several more issues from Volume 4. It turns out that a reader, Ken Dykes had a lot of the old issues on tape storage from Volumes 2, 3 and 4. I've scanned through those and picked out several dozen issues mostly from Volume 4 which we had not previously been able to reconstruct. They are now filed away for your reference. Volume 5 was kind of messy in the way it was archived to begin with, and it has also been reconstructed where possible. My thanks to Ken Dykes for this contribution to the Archives. Still needed are copies of issues from Volume 1 (especially issues 1, 2, and 3), and copies of issues from Volume 2, 3 and 8. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: "Scott R. Myers" Subject: Information Needed About Cellular Antennas Date: 16 Dec 90 05:01:17 GMT Organization: Rutgers University I need an education on antennas. I'm purchasing a transportable and want to install an antenna on my car for greater signal strength when driving. I have a fair understanding of the different types (roof mount, trunk mount, glass mount, etc.). What I want to know is the layman's explanation of Db's. I see ads for 3db trunk mounts and 5db glass mounts. The impression I'm given is the 5db glass mounts are very acceptable for signal strength. How do they compare to roof and trunk mounts? Just what are Db's anyhow? I have a second part to this question. I have read about the cabling used in antenna installs (RG-58). Based on what I'm reading, there is significant signal loss with that type of coax run long distances (ie. trunk to front passenger side seat.). Would using another guage of coax reduce the amount of signal loss from the cable? Any other recommendations to cut down on signal loss as well as the best antenna configurations. Thanks in advance. Scott R. Myers Snail: 26 Stiles Street Phone:(201)352-4162 Apartment 18 Elizabeth, NJ 07201 Arpa: srm@dimacs.rutgers.edu Uucp: ..!dimacs!srm [Moderator's Note: In any form of radio service, antennas are 'where it is at' when discussing the overall performance of the radio. Antennas are, IMHO, 75 percent of the radio's performance. The least expensive radio will talk like a million dollars when the antenna is properly tuned. In long-ago days, when I ran, again IMHO, a *very good* CB site involved with Northern Illinois REACT, I fretted about the antenna constantly. With cellular though, and the saturation of cell-sites in metro areas, I dunno how much you need to worry. I had a 5db antenna on my handheld (which could easily be used on the bag phone also) and it poked me in the ribs constantly, and was always getting bent and banged around. I swapped it for a tiny little 1/8 wave antenna which is barely noticeable. The difference is miniscule, but that is the Chicago cellular scene. Where you're at may be a lot different. Reader comments? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Dec 90 05:59 PST From: Andy Jacobson Subject: Non-Payment Disconnects Two days ago one of my POTS lines was disconnected by GTE California for supposed non-payment. Generally when this happens anywhere else I've encountered, the line still has DC on it, but no dial tone. All incoming calls reach a recording explaining that the number has been temporarily disconnected, and you have to go deal with the service office. Here however, GTE does things differently. You have dial tone, and can dial any number you want. As you enter the last digit though, instead of a pause or a ring (if the same switch), you instantly get this stern but mellow low key recording saying something to the effect that "Your number has been temporarily disconnected. Please call the GTE billing office at 1- 800-223-6177" Click. Dialing in to my number, you get the standard GTE "The number you have reached is not in service, please check the number ..." No mention of it being temporary, or ever having been in service for that matter. Well I tried a few things out. You can call 611, and also get your number read back to you (1223), but you can't call 0, 411, or any seven or 10 digit number except the one for their billing office. I decided to try 611, as they seem to have access to at least read your service records, and they don't suffer from additude problems like the service office people. The operator explained that I could also have gotten 911 if needed, and explained they have been doing things this way for at least four years. When he explained the problem, and I explained that the bill had been paid promptly, over two weaks before (I got no warning written or otherwise that there was any problem at all). He seemed to actually believe me! "...Um....er....can you hold on a minute?...." After a brief delay, he returned and said the problem had been taken care of and said the service would be back on by 8:00 pm. It was 5:00 at the time, and it was back on by 6:30. No further explanation. Though I found it interesting to deal with GTE's sort of soft disconnect, I wonder how many people get put through this by them. Maybe they're fishing for added revenue with reconnect charges. I really think common carriers should be licensed by the FCC like broadcasters are. If they were subject to periodic license renewal reviews, both technical and operational, they would probably have quite a different additude about performance for their captive customers. Andy Jacobson or [Moderator's Note: I've never had my phone disconnected in that manner, but IBT leaves battery on the line and nothing else. You can always distinquish a credit disconnect from other types here by the intercept message. For a credit disconnect the message says, "The number you dialed, ABC-DEFG has been temporarily disconnected." If the temporary disconnect is due to a customer request, then the phrase "at the customer's request" is prepended to the above message. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Dec 90 03:43:38 -0600 From: MISS026@bogecnve.bitnet Subject: Looking for Programmable Dialer Hi all, I was wondering if anyone knows where I could acquire a simple dialer with wait-for-dialtone/pause capabilities. I plan to install an alarm system soon, which will trigger a relay when the alarm is "set off". The alarm dialer should be set up so that it detects the relay trip, and dials a phone number, waits for a second or so, blasts out a code I specify, and hangs up. Oh yeah, it *has* to be touch tone (tm), because I plan to have the alarm system page me. And yes, I know that most good alarm panels have built in dialers, but they all want to connect to a central station's receivers, and as such speak some type of "modem-type" protocol, and my pager ain't gonna like that! Please respond directly, as I dont get to read this list all that often. Greeny BITNET: MISS026@BOGECNVE Internet: MISS026@VE.BOGECN.EDU GEnie: GREENY (about once a week) AOL: GREENY1 (whenever) Disclaimer: #include ------------------------------ From: Mike Olson Subject: Re: Alarm Autodialers Date: Sat, 15 Dec 90 12:14:17 PST In <15409@accuvax.nwu.edu>, Bob Weir notes that environmental monitors like the Sensaphone are not remotely programmable. I am moving out of the domain of telecom, here, but thought you might be interested in a solution I have used to this problem. We used a Sensaphone in a computer room that had to be online for about 48 hours at the end of every month to print bills and paychecks. During the 48 hours, a sequence of programs ran on a tight timeline -- they took about 45 hours to run, so any delays were a major problem. We bought a Sensaphone, pulled the speaker out of a terminal connected to one of our computers, and wrote a daemon program that would watch the active process table and compare it to a list that we prepared of what should be going on at any time. The speaker wires were connected to one of the three "external alarm sensor" inputs on the Sensaphone. If anything funny happened, the daemon program would ring the terminal bell, the Sensaphone would trigger, and the operations staff would get woken up by the Sensaphone's voice synthesizer reporting that ALARM CONDITION ONE EXISTS ALARM CONDITION ONE EXISTS. We could generally dial up and fix whatever was broken (although groggy naked programmers making software changes to production code at 3AM did give my boss the screaming heebie-jeebies). For under a hundred bucks, this Rube Goldberg solution was a major win. We went from an average of 1.5 days late to 0.5 hours early with the end of month-end processing. Granted, we didn't make the Sensaphone itself remotely programmable, but with a cheap computer and a screwdriver you can pull off some pretty remarkable things. Mike ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Alarm Autodialers Date: 15 Dec 90 00:02:43 PST (Sat) From: John Higdon Robert Wier writes: > In article <15381@accuvax.nwu.edu>, William.Degnan@f39.n382.z1. > fidonet.org (William Degnan) writes: > > One of the toys with which I have played is the Sensaphone. > My major gripe is that it's not remotely programmable. It does have a couple of other drawbacks. It is rotary dial only, the "acknowledgement" comes, not from the callee entering TT, but from him calling the unit right back after being called. Being called by one of these units was quite a treat, which reminds me of an amusing incident I had with one. The Sensaphone monitored temperature, ambient sound level, if the AC was on, and a two sets of contacts. None of these conditions could be "bypassed". You could set ridiculous temperature limits and you could bypass the contacts, but the built-in microphone was nasty. I set one of these things up in my living room behind my left speaker. I put four numbers in it to call friends, but hadn't informed them of this device yet. The next day, during a Shostakovich symphony the my phone kept ringing. Finally, I couldn't ignore it any longer. It was my business partner (at the time) who asked how I was enjoying my music. It seems the Sensaphone was triggered by the stereo system and called the list, announcing to all that "the sound level is HIGH", and then played a fifteen second realtime sample. At least that was amusing. What my friends didn't seem to think was funny was the 3:30 AM call announcing that "the power is OFF"! That thing soon found its place in a big box in the garage. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Floyd Davidson Subject: Re: Playing Songs on Tone Telephones Organization: University of Alaska, Institute of Marine Science Date: Sat, 15 Dec 1990 07:53:00 GMT In article <15405@accuvax.nwu.edu> jkw@kodak.com writes: >In V10 #880, Paul Schleck writes: >>I'm sure we all remember from our elementary school "playing with the >>phone" dialing "Mary had a Little Lamb" i.e. 321-2333. In some area >>codes, it's a valid number, in others it connects to dead air. In yet >>others, you get a busy signal or a "not in service" intercept. Hmmm... >It warns, "If you just pick up the receiver and immediately begin >tapping out Strangers In The Night, you might find yourself connected >to someone in Nome, Alaska." This I doubt, since the first "notes" >are 4-8-8. Well that isn't that far off. 488-nnnn might get you... North Pole! For Nome try a 443-nnnn number. (The area code is 907.) I don't mean to be commercial about it (heh heh) but if a few thousand call records show on account of this I may ask for a raise. Floyd (Fairbanks Toll Center, Alascom, Inc.) Floyd L. Davidson floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu Salcha, AK 99714 paycheck connection to Alascom, Inc. When I speak for them, one of us will be *out* of business in a hurry. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Dec 90 11:01:43 CDT From: William Degnan Subject: Re: A Problem With C & P On Dheeraj Sanghi (dheeraj@cs.umd.edu ) writes to All: DS>I am having a dispute with C & P) ?Bcregarding some credit that DS>is due to me. I have tried to solve it with them for last one year, DS>but to no avail. Would someone on the net-land suggest where all I DS>can take my case so that a settlement is reached fast. You can write to John Glynn, Office of People's Counsel, American Building - 9th fl., 231 East Baltimore St., Baltimore, MD 21202. The phone number is (301) 333-6046. However I suspect that a letter will actually be faster. This is an agency of your state goverment that acts as a consumer advocate for residential and small-business utility ratepayers. I suspect that the C&P will dread a call from the OPC almost as much as they would a call from me. Let us know how you make out. 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 [Moderator's Note: Mr. Degnan is generally correct that 'commission complaints' get relatively fast resolution with telco. Many telcos have a representative working full time with the state commission; or they may have a telex/fax linked to the commission at all times. For many years, maybe still, IBT's order of priorities was (1) commission complaints, (2) management complaints, (3) walk-in and telephoned customer complaints. I'd say try contacting the commission. PAT] ------------------------------ From: David Durand Subject: Query About Answering Machines in Greece Date: 16 Dec 90 01:07:53 GMT Reply-To: David Durand Organization: Computer Science Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA I need to know if American answering machines will work in Europe, specifically Greece. From experience. We know the that normal instruments will work, but not whether ring detection would be the same. Please reply via mail to dgd@cs.bu.edu, as I do not normally read this list. Thanks for any help you can offer. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #883 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18352; 17 Dec 90 3:10 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02521; 17 Dec 90 1:39 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27713; 17 Dec 90 0:34 CST Date: Mon, 17 Dec 90 0:17:56 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #884 BCC: Message-ID: <9012170017.ac15371@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 17 Dec 90 00:17:40 CST Volume 10 : Issue 884 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Boss Fined for Wiretapping Employees [Dave Levenson] Sun Devil Article in _Reason_ Magazine [Stephen J. Friedl] COCOT's on the Corner [John Stanley] Pac*Bell Delivers (Well, Almost) [John Higdon] Pac*Bell's Advertised Refund [John Higdon] Telecom News From Washington State [Peter Marshall] Re: Payphones in Australia (and Elsewhere) [Colum Mylod] Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers? [Larry Rachman] Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers? [Marc C. Poulin] Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed [Evelyn C. Leeper] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dave Levenson Subject: Boss Fined for Wiretapping Employees Date: 15 Dec 90 17:16:33 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA Exceprted from the {Newark Star-Ledger} December 15, 1990 H. J. Koehler, owner of an Elizabeth [NJ] armored car service who pleaded guilty to illegally wiretapping his employees, yesterday was placed on probation for five years, fined $25,000 and ordered to perform 250 hours of community service. ... Koehler, 61, his brother and New York electronics consultant Robert Scios all pleaded guilty last September. Scios is awaiting sentencing. ... Assistant U.S. Attorney John Lacey said the government found "a pattern of illegal wiretaps over two decades by Koehler and people entrusted to him." ... Rodriquez pointed out that "corporate America" must be told that illegally wiretapping employees is a crime for which they will be punished. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ Date: 15 Dec 90 00:54:01 PST (Sat) From: "Stephen J. Friedl" Subject: Sun Devil Article in _Reason_ Magazine Date: 15 Dec 90 08:53:58 GMT Organization: VSI*FAX Tech Ctr, Tustin, CA Hi folks, The latest issue of _Reason_ magazine (Jan 1991) has an article entitled "Closing The Net" with a subtitle called "Will overzealous investigations of computer crime render freedom of the press technically obsolete?", and I found it very well done. The article, written by Greg Costikyan, mentions the case of Steve Jackson Games, Len Rose and that of Neidorf/Riggs, all with the angle of freedom of speech and goverment gone overboard. _Reason_ is a monthly magazine promoting free markets and free minds; *highly* recommended reading for all lovers of freedom. Disclaimer: I have no connection with free speech except as a very satisfied customer :-) Stephen J. Friedl, KA8CMY / 3B2-kind-of-guy / Tustin, CA / 3B2-kind-of-guy +1 714 544 6561 / friedl@mtndew.Tustin.CA.US / {uunet,attmail}!mtndew!friedl ------------------------------ Subject: COCOT's on the Corner From: John Stanley Date: Sun, 16 Dec 90 20:02:17 EST Organization: One Man Brand I have just had the amazing experience of seeing the birth of a COCOT. From a hole in the ground, to a slender metal pole, to the cozy blue box with magic inside. At first glance, it looks just like a NY Tel payphone. Nowhere does it say NY Tel. The top insert has all the normal info, with the additional "For emergencies, dial 911". Syracuse does not have 911 service implemented, even though we pay a surcharge for it. I didn't try it to see if the phone was programmed. The insert where the phone number goes is blank. The lower insert, where the info on who provides what LD service is supposed to be, is a generic panel with fill in the blanks. Directory assistance. Emergency. Operator. Repair. The only two blanks filled in are the Emergency number (211, different than the upper insert says), and Operator. There is nothing for repair, nothing that says the LD carrier. Nothing that says who the owner of the phone is. Aha! I will dial the operator and see who the AOS is. I pick up the handset, and hear, in addition to dialtone, McGruff the Crimefighting Dog talking about neighborhood watch and taking a bite out of crime. How unique -- PSA's on COCOT's. I dial 0. Country music comes on. So does the operator. She shouts at me. I shout back. The country music plays on. "What number are you at" she shouts. "Don't know". "What city are you in?" "Syracuse." "What state is that?" How convenient in an emergency, dial the operator. I find out she works for Oasis. She asks me the number I was calling. I wasn't, just her. Why she thinks I would try to complete a call with Kenny Rogers playing loud enough that I have to shout is beyond me. She wrote a trouble ticket. How they will find the phone, I don't know. There are a lot of them in Syracuse. I think I know who owns the phone. I am going to call him tomorrow. ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Pac*Bell Delivers (Well, Almost) Date: 15 Dec 90 12:05:42 PST (Sat) From: John Higdon Remember back around August of 1989 when Pac*Bell hustled its new "regulatory" package through the CPUC? Among other things, in exchange for what is euphamistically described as "streamlined regulation" the company promised a wider local calling area and the elimination of touch tone charges. Oh, you notice that you are STILL paying for touch tone? And you notice that you STILL pay through the nose for calls in the 9-12 mile department? That's not a mistake; you are still paying. And you will continue to pay for touch tone until February of 1991. And you will still continue to pay for "Zone 2" calls until June of 1991, nearly two years after Pac*Bell got what it wanted from the PUC. Just keep all this in mind the next time Pac*Bell wants something from the PUC and promises something in return. Except for the billing department, things have a tendancy to move quite slowly at the living telephone museum. 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: Pac*Bell's Advertised Refund Date: 15 Dec 90 22:27:47 PST (Sat) From: John Higdon It turns out that the refund in the {San Jose Mercury} promised to subscribers served out of SXS offices is real. And it further shows how slimy Pac*Bell really is. There have been a number of Pac*Bell COs located in out-of-the-way places (such as Felton and Boulder Creek in this region) that were never equipped for touch tone. No receivers or converters were ever installed. This did not stop our wonderful telephone company from CHARGING many of these customers for touch tone service (you know, that charge that Pac*Bell promised to remove a year and a half ago and haven't yet for people that actually have touch tone service). Well, it appears they got caught. And now they have to give back all the money they collected for non-existant service. Of course, only a fraction of the people ripped off will respond. Looks like the scam will have at least netted Pac*Bell a small windfall, no? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Dec 90 14:05:15 -0800 From: Peter Marshall Subject: Telecom News From Washington State The WA Utilities and Transportation Commission, often considered "progressive" in various areas, issued a statement 11/30, disagreeing in large measure with recently-released recommendations by its staff. E.g., a recommendation not to allow Caller ID for the time being, which was based on a legal analysis and a sampling of public opinion. The Commission initiated neither a rulemaking nor legislative recommendations; instead, inviting telcos to propose trials, to include both per-call and line blocking. The first such is expected from a Pacific Telecom subsidiary, at the apparent instigation of Northern Telecom. On the other hand, a formal complaint at the WUTC against US West for allegedly "selling" an unlisted number to entities including a Sprint 900 service, is thought likely to provide more focus here on IXC use of ANI in the state. WA also apparently has its first e-mail privacy case, via a legal action filed several months ago by the WA Federation of State Employees against the state Dept. of Labor and Industries. With no relevant state policies in place, and with this suit still in process, new policy being developed via the Governor's Cabinet is expected to be reflected in a forthcoming Executive Order. Another possible "first" for WA, under its still relatively new and largely untested Computer Trespass statute, is the recently-concluded case in Kitsap County of State v. Riley. In the first case of its kind in this county, tried by a new judge and a controversial and outspoken prosecutor, yet remininiscent of other such cases discussed in the Digest, the defendant, a 41-year-old neurosciences Ph.D., was convicted on charges of computer trespass and possession of stolen access devices, for allegedly entering several LD reseller systems, and elements of sentence very similar to what has occurred in more well-known cases. The case is now in appeal, with a jail sentence stayed pending appeal. Interestingly, the EFF seems interested in both this case the e-mail privacy case above. ------------------------------ From: Colum Mylod Subject: Re: Payphones in Australia (and Elsewhere) Date: 14 Dec 90 09:53:40 GMT Reply-To: Colum Mylod Organization: Oracle Europe In article <15349@accuvax.nwu.edu> brendan@munnari.oz.au writes about Aussie payphones. Seems theft there of the whole box is not unusual... >After a few years of increasing vandalism levels (especially in >Sydney) around 1986, the coin payphones were completely redesigned to >make them vandal proof. The public payphones in Syndey are now made >of 243 Stainless Steel, with the coin box door milled out of a solid >plate, and is 30 mm thick. The locking mechanism has an industrial >drill proof guard around it and has a failsafe chamber mechanism such >that any mechanism tampering results in an irreversible mechanical >lockout. The payphones in Holland are operated by the monopoly PTT Telecom, come in green boxes and work! My first experience of them was having to collect lots of one guilder coins for international calls before getting a private phone. What I will never forget is the sound made after the call was finished. To prevent the criminal element from making a living by extracting coins from the phone, all coins collected are piped down to a coinbox under the payphone. This occurs on hangup. So after a long international call all coins collected are dropped down, resulting in an audible feedback on how much the PTT has made on the call. It's also quite a shock to hear the first time. >Telecom Australia plans to introduce pre-paid card phones, similar to >those used in Europe and the UK. ^^^^^^ ^^ As Mrs T. is now out to pasture and the channel tunnel has linked up, we can now speak of the above two as one item! The cardphones in NL are also the magnetic variety with a visual indication burned in giving a %age used on the front. Personal experience of these is bad. Mostly I've found that units "disappear", i.e. an international call runs up most of the card but time*cost calculation indicates the card was eaten faster than should be the case. Payphones taking credit cards are now in use in the main airport. Usage of payphones here is quite low as private phones are much cheaper: a local call is 15ct against 20ct in a payphone. For one call a 25ct coin is the minimum you can pay. The excess doesn't go to charity... Does any country other than Switzerland charge equally for payphone and private phone calls? Colum Mylod cmylod@oracle.nl The Netherlands Above is IMHO ------------------------------ Date: 16 Dec 90 09:21:04 EST From: Larry Rachman <74066.2004@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers? A few earlier entries in telecom have speculated on why 555-1212 is often used as the equivalent of 'foo'. Well, back when I was a kid, all the Bell System (!) ads that showed a phone showed the phone number: 311-555-2368 I remember a pre-DDD advertisement that just showed the NNX, and someone told me about an *old* phone book that gave as an example: "...ask the operator for MAIN 2368" At the ripe old age of 12 or so, a friend and I spent hours in his photo darkroom, creating the perfect -------------------------- | AREA CODE | | 311 555-2368 | -------------------------- dial cards for our phones. It seemed like a good idea at the time. Larry Rachman 74066.2004@compuserve.com [Moderator's Note: '2368' with variations was always the number used for example purposes in advertising, along with 'area code 311'. There were a few ads which also made use of QUincy as an exchange. You know how far people got calling that! I think one of the very old ads I remember had Mr. Jones at QUincy 2368 trying to make a long distance call to Mr. Smith at ZEigfield 8632. It explained how he would go about doing it, and what to tell the operator. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Marc C. Poulin" Subject: Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers? Date: 17 Dec 90 05:43:48 GMT Organization: University at Buffalo, Biophysics Dept. In article <15341@accuvax.nwu.edu> SABAHE@macalstr.edu (Arun Baheti) writes: |I'm glad that they at least use 555- numbers now. I remember about |ten years ago when a muscial group (the B-52s?) did a song about |someone's phone number. All over the country, the poor owners of |xxx-xxxx were driven batty by fans just trying out the number to see |if anything would happen. I'm not sure how the phone company (at |that time it was just Ma Bell) dealt with it. Actually, the B-52's song in question is "6060-842", which is from their first, self-titled album, which came out in 1979. Back then, I don't believe there were any valid seven-digit numbers of the form N0N-XXXX. Marc poulin@{acsu.buffalo.edu|softvax.radc.af.mil} ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Dec 90 20:12:54 GMT From: Evelyn C Leeper Subject: Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <15416@accuvax.nwu.edu>, telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: > When calling long distance, your local telco uses a form of shorthand > for your instructions: 1+ will be considered an abbreviation for the > 10xxx of your choice until you tell them differently. Somehow or > another they get those instructions incorrect. Maybe someone else did > legitimatly ask to use Pat, but the telco got the digits transposed on > the work order and mistakenly thought you wanted to use Pat. Maybe Pat > mistakenly or deliberatly told them you wanted to use his service. > If the carrier deliberatly did this, then we have different > circumstances than if the local telco did it in error. In the latter > case the LD carrier is not at fault and should be paid, and in fact > under the law they can force you to pay if necessary by suing you, > although it is unlikely one would do so for a few dollars. No, in the latter case, the local telco can damn well pay the LD carrier. As an example, my parents have AT&T as their LD carrier because I work for AT&T. (Whether this is a good reason is not at issue.) They authorize their local telco to pay AT&T for default LD calls. If their local telco screws up and routes their calls via Sprint, why the hell should my parents have to pay Sprint -- the "competition" -- money for the telco's mistake -- particularly since the telco is a monopoly?! The break-down in the employee analogy is that if the employee screws up enough, you can dump him. You're stuck with your local telco. Evelyn C. Leeper | +1 908-957-2070 | att!mtgzy!ecl or ecl@mtgzy.att.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #884 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20640; 19 Dec 90 13:26 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06507; 19 Dec 90 11:44 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01403; 19 Dec 90 10:38 CST Date: Tue, 18 Dec 90 1:52:41 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #885 BCC: Message-ID: <9012180152.ab09291@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 18 Dec 90 01:52:34 CST Volume 10 : Issue 885 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed [Bob Yazz] Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed [Patrick Tufts] Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed [John Higdon] Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed [U5434122@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au] Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed [Mike McNally] Re: Don't Pay For Slamming [Ed Hopper] Re: Don't Pay For Slamming [Charles Hawkins Mingo] Re: Don't Pay For Slamming [Michael P. Deignan] So What Next? [David Barts] AT&T : The Wrong Choice [NCR Advertisement in WSJ via Werner Uhrig] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bob Yazz Subject: Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed Date: 17 Dec 90 01:32:33 GMT I'm the kind of person who will allow a waiter or waitress's tip in a restaurant to be affected (up or down) by, for example, how good the food tasted (which is the cook's job) rather than isolating just the waitress's actions to guage her tip. A crummy dining experience doesn't put anyone in a generous mood; perhaps I'm more honest than most in my admission. Then again, maybe I'm just an SOB. If I'm ever slammed, I'm NOT paying for a SINGLE second of the stolen calls. If no one else did either, slamming would stop pretty quick. Relevant catch-phrase: "Taking the profit out". Another simple anti-slamming idea is to have all long distance companies announce their name as each call is completed, like AT&T and maybe some others do when credit card calls are placed. Relevant catch-phrase: "Early detection". Bob Yazz -- yazz@lccsd.sd.Locus.com ------------------------------ From: Patrick Tufts Subject: Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed Date: 17 Dec 90 15:48:10 GMT Organization: Brandeis University In article <15416@accuvax.nwu.edu> telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: > This is only partly correct. There is a third party involved who > actually caused the misdelivery, i.e. your local telco. [local telco as employee analogy] > When you get the bill from Pat, you can't refuse to pay because your > employee/agent took the package to the wrong place. Get it straight > with your agent/employee instead ... the interstate delivery service > did as instructed. The problem with this analogy is that the local carrier is _not_ your employee - you are not responsible for its mistakes. If the long distance carrier slammed you without your consent, you owe them nothing. If the local telco switched your carrier without your consent, _they_ should foot the bill. If you ask for carrier X to handle your LD calls, you want the rates and the _service_ of that carrier. Just because Y got the job done does not matter. You wanted X, asked for X, and expected X. Pat ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed Date: 17 Dec 90 10:33:51 PST (Mon) From: John Higdon Evelyn C Leeper writes: > No, in the latter case, the local telco can damn well pay the LD > carrier. As an example, my parents have AT&T as their LD carrier > because I work for AT&T. Ok, what about this situation (a real one, only the names are changed, etc.)? You are a high-ranking executive with XYZ Enterprises. Your company, which is among other things a long distance carrier, provides your home long distance for you at no charge. You make calls, and you never get the bill. Then one day, you get an MCI bill, either as part of your local statement or a separate bill in the mail. You have been slammed. Now, who owes who what? Do you expect your company to pay the MCI bill when the deal was that IT provided your long distance? Do YOU pay MCI when you expected not to pay for LD at all? Do you pay MCI what you would have expected to pay your selected carrier ($0)? In this case, I would very much expect that the slammee would tell the slammer to take a hike. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: U5434122@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au Subject: Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed Date: 18 Dec 90 11:21:05 +1100 Organization: The University of Melbourne In article <15415@accuvax.nwu.edu>, leichter@lrw.com (Jerry Leichter) writes: > The Moderator continues to opine that, even if you are "slammed", you > still should have to pay for the calls you make, at least at the > minimum of the rate charged by your chosen carrier and the one who > slammed you. Jerry goes on to give an example of why you owe the unauthorized carrier nothing. Legally, in at least English and Australian law, since you have no contract with the unauthorized carrier, they cannot enforce charges for unsolicited services rendered. Perhaps the best way to meet one's "moral obligation" to pay someone for services rendered, and at the same time rile the slammer, is to pay your chosen carrier for the calls and tell the slamming carrier that you have done so. Let the default carrier accept it as a donation, or whatever, but at least you have paid for your calls, to the person you *thought* was providing them, and you don't let the slammer get away with it. What does US law have to say on payment for unsolicited services? Danny u5434122@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au ------------------------------ From: mcnally@wsl.dec.com (Mike McNally) Subject: Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed Reply-To: mcnally@wsl.dec.com Organization: DEC Western Software Lab Date: Mon Dec 17 18:04:55 1990 GMT In article <15415@accuvax.nwu.edu>, leichter@lrw.com (Jerry Leichter) writes: |> The Moderator continues to opine that, even if you are "slammed", you |> still should have to pay for the calls you make |> This is wrong. . . . I agree with Jerry, primarily on the basis of laws in existance covering un-ordered packages delivered to one's door. If Sears sends me a new refrigerator without my asking for it, my understanding is that I get to store twice as many Tupperware containers full of slowly rotting leftovers and I don't owe them a dime. I don't know why slamming is really any different. I am of course a non-lawyer, and even if I weren't there's in general little relationship between rational lines of thought and what is decided in a civil suit. Mike McNally mcnally@wsl.dec.com [Moderator's Note: The point is, your long distance connection through the public switched network was NOT unsolicited. You solicited the service as soon as you went off hook and started dialing the number. Granted, it was not delivered by the carrier you thought you had requested to do it, but you did solicit the connection and you did, I assume, benefit from the connection. I think your hassle is with the local telco for making the change without confirming it with you. You can always ensure your call is routed as desired by using the 10xxx codes when dialing. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Don't Pay For Slamming From: Ed Hopper Date: Mon, 17 Dec 90 06:09:54 CST Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Texas 713-997-7575 Understand that I do not advocate blithely failing to pay the bill. Rather, to contact a management person at the offending carrier and demand that the calls be written off as compensation for the wrong of improperly assigning the line to the carrier. Hence the reason that I advocate *IMMEDIATELY* dealing with a management person who has the authority to negotiate compensation. Should such negotiations fail, I would explore the disputed charges options available under local PUC rules and finally court action. Admittedly, in my own case, I had the additional lever of being an AT&T employee. I could accurately claim that I anticipated paying nothing due to AT&T management benefits. This arguement, plus possibly some sense of "professional courtesy" undoubtedly motivated Sprint to write off the calls. However, I believe that any slammee is entitled to this form of compensation. One should, at least, attempt to receive it. Ed Hopper BBS: 713-997-7575 ehopper@attmail.com ehopper@ehpcb.wlk.com coming soon: ehopper@ncr.att.com ????!!!!! :-) [Moderator's Note: I left Ed's cute pseudo address attached again this time for one reason: As a plug for the final message in this issue dealing with 'The Wrong Choice'. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Charles Hawkins Mingo Subject: Re: Don't Pay For Slamming Date: 17 Dec 90 23:04:16 GMT Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA In article <@accuvax.nwu.edu> jgd@convex.csd.uwm.edu (John G. Dobnick) writes: >ehopper@ehpcb.wlk.com (Ed Hopper): >> These are ill-gotten gains. [...] >> [Moderator's Note: They may be 'ill-gotten gains' to the slamming >> carrier as you point out, but your failure to pay *at least the amount >> you anticipated paying for the call you placed* is an unjust >> enrichment to yourself. PAT] >Why is "slamming" not considered, and treated, as theft? Because AT&T doesn't "own" the right to do business with you. (No property right --> no theft.) >While I tend to agree that the caller owes *someone* for long distance >service, it isn't Sprint. At least you agree you shouldn't get service for free! There is a well-established contracts doctrine, known as quantum meruit, covering exchanges of services in the absence of a contract. For example, if a doctor renders aid to an unconscious person, the beneficiary of the aid must pay for the reasonable value of the services received. Somewhat closer to our case, if you had arranged to have your gall-bladder removed by Surgeon X, and (owing to hospital oversight) it was removed by Surgeon Y, you would still have to pay Y for her services. Paying Surgeon X for an operation performed by Y would only shift the unjust enrichment, without paying the person who did the work. Charlie Mingo Internet: mingo@well.sf.ca.us 2209 Washington Circle #2 mingo@cup.portal.com Washington, DC 20037 CI$: 71340,2152 AT&T: 202/785-2089 ------------------------------ From: "Michael P. Deignan" Subject: Re: Don't Pay For Slamming Date: 17 Dec 90 12:09:12 GMT Organization: Small Business Systems, Inc., Esmond, RI 02917 (Moderator says unjust enrichment if you fail to pay what you anticipated paying for the calls.) I'm not sure I'd agree entirely with this. I'd much rather agree with Ed's statement of not paying for calls at all, but... For example, if I have AT&Ts ROA program, and am paying $8.50/hr., then MCI slams me, and I place two hours of calls at their rates (say it comes out to $9.00/hr,) I believe that the individual should only have to pay the cost that s/he would have incurred under their existing carrier. The difference, if any, should be eaten by the slamming company. In my example, MCI would only get $8.50/hr from me, and they would have to eat the difference (one dollar). Michael P. Deignan, President -- Small Business Systems, Inc. Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com -- Box 17220, Esmond, RI 02917 UUCP: ...uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd -- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 XENIX Archives: login: xxcp, password: xenix Index: ~/SOFTLIST [Moderator's Note: This has been the point I've been trying to make all along. You cannot profit from the mistakes and/or crimes of someone else. As in your hospital example, if the switch was in error and accidental, then you still owe for services rendered if you benefitted from them. If the switch was done fraudulently, then you need to deal with the fraud as a separate issue. Of course every carrier and every telco is going to claim it was a clerical error, and I have no reason to doubt the telcos, since what does it profit them either way? What ahout those folks who call 700-555-4141 and know for a fact that their service was changed, so they run up a big bill on purpose and then later claim the switch was unauthorized? When you find out about a fraud or some other crime committed or in progress, you have some obligation to stop it or notify others who can stop it, but you cannot go along for a free ride. Isn't the real solution and the ethical way to pay *what you expected to pay* and at the same time continually confront the regulators to obtain relief from this problem in the future? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Dec 90 15:58:58 pst From: David Barts Subject: So What Next? The Moderator writes: > [Moderator's Note: I agree with your premises. So what next? The > industry will get a lot worse before it gets better, believe me. PAT] Hmmm. How about: Slimy AOS's getting even slimier. Now they're in on the slamming game too. Charges even more inflated than before. "Yes, Mr. Barts, we realize that you deny calling our 800 number and requesting our service. However our records show that we followed FCC-approved telemarketing practices and that you did." "But 29.73 for a five minute call from Seattle to Pasadena?!? I could call *JAPAN* for five minutes on ATT and pay less than that!!" "Sorry, our records show you requested our service. The moment you picked up your phone and dialled `1` you entered into a voluntary contract for long distance service with us. Now send us the check for last month's charges of $256.34 if you wish to protect your credit rating. >click<" An AOS calling itself the "Emcee Eye Service Corp." They specialize in slamming MCI customers. Naturally, their 1-700-555-4141 recording sounds just like MCI's (surprise, surprise, isn't it a shame that MCI subscribers have to wait for sticker shock in the phone bill before they can tell they've been slammed). The local telco selling an "insert caller ID of your choice" service. So I get a harassing call at 3am, and do a return*call and get connected to 1-900-TOO-MUCH. Ding, $75.00 please. I agree that the old Bell System needed some reforming. However IMHO the MFJ was blindfolded surgery with a chainsaw when a simple appendectomy was all the patient needed. Silly me, I keep forgetting. The purpose of the US phone system is no longer to provide the best service to the greatest number of people, its goal is now to maximize profits, and no more. Guess I need to reform these outdated, deviant opinions of mine ;-). David Barts Pacer Corporation, Bothell, WA davidb@pacer.uucp ...!uunet!pilchuck!pacer!davidb [Moderator's Note: Like yourself, I quite agree the MFJ (whatever that means around here :) wink! wink! ) was a bit of an overkill. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater, one might say. The judge would have been more ethical had he allowed AT&T to stay intact while at the same time authorizing unlimited competition *in all forms of phone service* -- local, long distance and equipment sales -- and ordering AT&T/Bell to interconnect with all competitors fairly. An impartial panel would ajudicate disputes regards technical standards or other reasons AT&T might resist interconnection. It was completely unfair of the judge to rip off AT&T of a century's worth of experience and investment in telephony. He should have said to the others, "Yes, you may compete, and AT&T is forbidden to refuse interconnection at any level. Spend a hundred years in the business as they have done and see if you can do as well or better." *That* would have been the fair way. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Dec 1990 19:17:54 CST From: Werner Uhrig Reply-To: Werner Uhrig Subject: AT&T : The Wrong Choice [full page ad, page 13 in WSJ of Dec 17] AT&T: The Wrong Choice NCR's Board of Directors has unanimously rejected AT&T's predatory attempt at a hostile takeover because it is grossly inadequate and NOT in the best interests of our shareholders and other important stakeholders. Now, we'd like to be left alone so that we can continue to develop and deliver the leading-edge products and responsive support programs you have come to expect from us. Apparently, the folks at AT&T can't recognize a busy signal when they hear one. NCR [ gee, Ma, what do you mean "No Chrismas for YOU this year"... ? ;-)] Internet: werner@rascal.ics.utexas.edu werner@astro.as.utexas.edu werner@cs.utexas.edu BITnet: werner@UTXVM UUCP: ...!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!werner OR ...!utastro!werner ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #885 ******************************  ISSUES 886 AND 887 WERE REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. 886 WILL FOLLOW AFTER 887 WHICH COMES NEXT IN THIS ARCHIVES.  Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20657; 19 Dec 90 13:27 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac06507; 19 Dec 90 11:49 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac01403; 19 Dec 90 10:38 CST Date: Wed, 19 Dec 90 0:30:39 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #887 BCC: Message-ID: <9012190030.ab10608@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 19 Dec 90 00:30:28 CST Volume 10 : Issue 887 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: 900 Number Sweepstakes (Yeah, Right) [Cliff Olling] Re: 900 Number Sweepstakes, Space Flight is Prize! [Syd Weinstein] Re: 900 Number Sweepstakes, Space Flight is Prize! [Mike Newton] Still Another Phone Scam [William Degnan] Bang, Zoom! (Was Space Flight) [Dave Levenson] Re: 900 Number Sweepstakes, Space Flight is Prize! [Chris Ambler] Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed [Eric Hughes] Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed [Avi E. Gross] Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed [Ron Heiby] Re: Don't Pay For Slamming [John Stanley] Re: Don't Pay For Slamming [Robert E. Stampfli] Fuzzy Logic [Aaron Paul Williams] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cliff Olling Subject: Re: 900 Number Sweepstakes (Yeah, Right) Date: 19 Dec 90 02:39:54 GMT Reply-To: Cliff Olling Organization: Japan National Oil Corporation, Chiba City, Japan In article <15465@accuvax.nwu.edu> Arora@uh.edu writes: > The company has a contract with the Soviet space bureau to put an >American aboard a Soyuz space capsule with two cosmonauts and fly him >or her to Mir, the [Soviet] space station... Hmm, I believe it was just a week or two ago that Tokyo Broadcasting System Corporation did just that for one of their journalists. They reportedly paid between $12-15 million to get him up to Mir for eight days. They showed lots of real-time video from the space station (at least I think it was real-time). For example, I saw the docking of the journalist's Soyuz with the space station live after dinner one evening. Funny how the other networks in Tokyo never mentioned a peep about any of this :-). So at $3 per call, Space Travel Services will break even after they receive about five *million* calls :-) :-). I'd say this means "keep dreaming". Clifford Olling Japan National Oil Corporation $@@PL}8xCD(J Technology Research Center $@@PL}3+H/5;=Q(J Chiba City, Japan olling@jnoc.go.jp $@KkD%K\6?1X(J 24hrs/day=>81+472-73-5831 ------------------------------ From: Syd Weinstein Subject: Re: 900 Number Sweepstakes, Space Flight is Prize! Reply-To: syd@dsi.com Organization: Datacomp Systems, Inc. Huntingdon Valley, PA Date: Tue, 18 Dec 1990 15:36:09 GMT Before everyone enriches them with 2.99, be aware, that to meet many state laws, they also allow mail entries. (At no charge except the 25 cents postage to mail the entry.) Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP Elm Coordinator Datacomp Systems, Inc. Voice: (215) 947-9900 syd@DSI.COM or dsinc!syd FAX: (215) 938-0235 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Dec 90 04:39:38 -0800 From: Mike Newton Subject: Re: 900 Number Sweepstakes, Space Flight is Prize! Remember that for the offer to be valid in most states, a way of entering that does not cost money (except for postage -- and with that going to 30 cents, well ...) must be offered. Time to buy up a stack of postcards! Lost in Space and Time, mike newton@csvax.cs.caltech.edu Caltech 256-80 Pasadena CA 91125 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Dec 90 12:26:20 CDT From: William Degnan Subject: Still Another Phone Scam On David Ptasnik (davep@u.washington.edu ) writes to All: DP>A California company called Flat Rate was offering long distance DP>users unlimited long distance calling for a flat rate of $195.00 per DP>month per line. A similarly named company in Texas had an interesting operation. They had DIDs in Austin, Houston, Dallas/FtWorth and San Antonio which went via tandem switching and T-1 to those cities. You could get a virtual FX from them. They also had store-and-forward dialers which were installed on their customers' outgoing lines to capture traffic to the local calling areas of their served cities. Sure looked like a narrow "window of opportunity" to me. It was. The price reflected their low overhead and as I understand it, did not permit them to continue those rates when SWB told them they were violating the access tariffs (a lot). I keep asking, "What ever happened to Flat Rate Communications?". They seem to have quietly dissappeared. 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 ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Bang, Zoom! (Was Space Flight) Date: 18 Dec 90 23:55:53 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <15465@accuvax.nwu.edu>, Arora@uh.edu writes: > [Moderator's Note: Sorry folks, I just couldn't resist printing this ... > you? This guy is gonna get a lot of calls, for sure! PAT] Tonight's broadcast of "All Things Considered" (on National Public Radio, as heard from WNYC, New York) included a story about the folks in Texas who are using a 900 number to raffle off a trip to Space Station Mir with some comrades from the Russian space program. According to the story, the Russian Space Agency has never heard of these guys, and claims to know nothing about their 'prize' being available to them to raffle off. > [Moderator's Note: For the first time in a long time, I'm actually > tempted to call a 900 number. Either this is a fantastic scam or there > is a glorious day ahead for some lucky person. PAT] Pat: Do let us know what you find ... but be warned -- ATC seemed to be implying that this may be a scam. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 [Moderator's Note: Indeed, a scam is what it appears to be. Read the next message and my footnote. PAT] ------------------------------ From: cambler@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Fubar's Carbonated Hormones) Subject: Re: 900 Number Sweepstakes, Space Flight is Prize! Date: Wed, 19 Dec 90 3:19:55 GMT Whoooa, Pat, it's a SCAM. Moscow reported this afternoon that they don't know who these people are, but there is NO PLAN to send anyone to Mir, through a sweepstakes or otherwise. Please check this out further if you can. Christopher(); --- cambler@polyslo.calpoly.edu --- chris@erotica.fubarsys.com [Moderator's Note: Consider it done. About 4 AM Tuesday morning I put in a phone call to Moscow and spoke with a public relations person in the responsible agency. He said exactly what you said, and was pleased that the 'American media' (who me? !) was calling to find out '.. the truth about that rumor some Americans have started ...' The phone call cost me about twenty dollars, but I'd rather spend it on that call than give $2.99 to those greedy con-artists in Texas who are perpetrating this scam. The Moscow person said he believed it had been or was being brought to the attention of the (United States) Federal Bureau of Investigation by his superiors. That's all those vultures need: a visit from the Federal Bureau of Inquisition! :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: hughes@maelstrom.Berkeley.EDU (Eric Hughes) Subject: Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed Organization: ucb Date: 9 Apr 08 12:46:31 In article <15456@accuvax.nwu.edu> Pat the Moderator writes: > [Moderator's Note: The point is, your long distance connection through > the public switched network was NOT unsolicited. You solicited the > service as soon as you went off hook and started dialing the number. This confuses the service as a whole, as a contractable object, and an instance of the fulfillment of that service. You do not solicit service from a company by dialing a phone; you do, however, avail yourself of a previously agreed to service when you so dial. Eric Hughes hughes@ocf.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Dec 90 15:04:56 EST From: Avi E Gross Subject: Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <15454@accuvax.nwu.edu>, john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > Ok, what about this situation (a real one, only the names are changed, > etc.)? You are a high-ranking executive with XYZ Enterprises. Your > company, which is among other things a long distance carrier, provides > your home long distance for you at no charge. You make calls, and you > never get the bill. Then one day, you get an MCI bill, either as part > of your local statement or a separate bill in the mail. You have been > slammed. Actually, this is very close to the truth. As a Bell labs employee, I get reimbursed for the first $35.00 of my long distance phone bill within the continental USA, and half of the next $65.00. So, if I got slammed by another company, I would be asked to pay for something I usually got for free! Since I rarely go over $40.00 per month, I certainly have no motivation to not use AT&T, especially when I find the service to be great. Avi E. Gross @ AT&T LZ 3B-211 (201) 576-3218 attmail!avigross or att!pegasus!avi ------------------------------ From: Ron Heiby Subject: Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed Date: 18 Dec 90 21:54:30 GMT Organization: Motorola Computer Group, Schaumburg, IL Patrick raises a few good points in pointing out that there's that pesky third party in there. I think he's still missing the central point, though. >package to an employee and tell them to take it to the 'express >office' for shipment. You neglect to say *which* express company, and Ah, but we all chose a particular LD company to be our one + default carrier, so the local operating company *has* been told how to direct our calls. If the LOC uses the wrong LD company, then one of two things happened. 1) They made a mistake. 2) Some LD company slammed the customer. >When you get the bill from Pat, you can't refuse to pay because your >employee/agent took the package to the wrong place. Get it straight >with your agent/employee instead ... the interstate delivery service >did as instructed. Ok, let's examine each of the two possibilities. I say that in case number 1, the LOC owes the LD carrier for the entire amount of the LD calls improperly placed. Routing of my LD calls is part of what I'm paying outrageous monthly sums to the LOC for, anyway. I say that in case number two, the LD carrier shouldn't get paid by anybody. >case the LD carrier is not at fault and should be paid, and in fact >under the law they can force you to pay if necessary by suing you, As I say above, if the LD carrier is not at fault, then the LOC *is*, and it is *they* who should pay for their mistakes. If LD carriers had to eat the cost of their slamming, they would find that it was no longer profitable to slam. If the LD carriers are "victims" of their direct marketing companies, then they should fire those companies that are slamming and seek to recover the lost LD revenues from the slime-balls. If the LOCs had to eat the cost when they made such mistakes, they would quickly figure out how to make fewer such mistakes. Ron Heiby heiby@chg.mcd.mot.com Moderator: comp.newprod ------------------------------ From: John Stanley Subject: Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed Date: Tue, 18 Dec 90 10:14:56 EST Organization: One Man Brand mcnally@wsl.dec.com (Mike McNally) writes: > I agree with Jerry, primarily on the basis of laws in existance > covering un-ordered packages delivered to one's door. If Sears sends > me a new refrigerator without my asking for it, my understanding is > that I get to store twice as many Tupperware containers full of slowly > rotting leftovers and I don't owe them a dime. I don't know why > slamming is really any different. > [Moderator's Note: The point is, your long distance connection through > the public switched network was NOT unsolicited. You solicited the > service as soon as you went off hook and started dialing the number. > Granted, it was not delivered by the carrier you thought you had > requested to do it, but you did solicit the connection and you did, I So, some wiseguy lives down the street from you, and hears you call Sears on your cordless phone. He calls Sears back and cancels your order with them, and then calls K-Mart and orders a cheap replacement refrigerator to be sent to you. The wiseguy is the, often third party, telemarketer who told your telco to switch service. The piece of junk (not to slam K-Mart, but you ordered the top-of-the-line Sears and got the bottom of the line K-Mart) shows up on your doorstep. It is not as pretty, and it has a shorter warranty, and a shorter mean time between failures, but it keeps just as much food just as cold as the Sears would i.e., this fridge provides the same service as the one you asked for. (The shorter MTBF does not mean this one will break down sooner, just like a high disconnect rate for a carrier does not mean this call will disconnect.) Who do you owe, and how much? 1) You owe K-Mart what you expected to pay Sears. This is the "owe the slammer what you expected to pay to your chosen LD carrier" argument. 2) You owe Sears what you expected to pay. This is the "pay your chosen LD carrier anyway" argument. 3) You owe K-Mart what K-Mart wants you to pay. This is the "telco is your employee argument." 4) You owe nobody anything. This is the "owe nobody anything" argument. The service was provided. The place you wanted to provide the service did not do it, they deserve nothing. You did not ask K-Mart to provide any service, but it did. If you think K-Mart should be paid for providing service you did not ask them to, then please provide me with your address and I will have a refridgerator there tomorrow. You will, of course, pay me what I want for it, even though you did not ask me to send you one. You owe K-Mart the chance to come pick its refridgerator up. That's all. If they choose not to pick it up, or are unable to, you have a free fridge. Yes, you indeed, legally and ethically, benefit from someone elses mistake. You owe the unchosen carrier the chance to retrieve its service. So, which payment option is correct? Only number 4. Now consider if the third party above was a K-Mart employee. How does this change things? K-Mart is now guilty of fraud. Other than that, who you owe for what does not change. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Dec 90 23:19:31 EST From: Robert E Stampfli Subject: Re: Don't Pay For Slamming Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories > Somewhat closer to our case, if you had arranged > to have your gall-bladder removed by Surgeon X, and (owing to hospital > oversight) it was removed by Surgeon Y, you would still have to pay Y > for her services. If Surgeon Y charged twice the fee that you had previously arranged with X, I would not think you liable for the difference (though perhaps the hospital might be). Furthermore, if there was substantial evidence that Surgeon Y had instigated the "oversight" for her own pecuniary interests, I would think this would not only represent an ample reason to refuse said payment, but would constitute an excellent reason to pursue other legal remedies against her. Rob Stampfli att.com!stampfli (uucp@work) kd8wk@w8cqk (packet radio) 614-864-9377 osu-cis.cis.ohio-state.edu!kd8wk!res (uucp@home) [Moderator's Note: If this last group of messages on slamming did not leave you as thoroughly confused on the subject of slamming as I am, then nothing printed here will do so. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Aaron Paul Williams Subject: Fuzzy Logic Organization: The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Date: Wed, 19 Dec 90 00:45:48 GMT Could someone either mail me or post what exactly is fuzzy logic. Thanks. Aaron P. Williams avenger@caen.engin.umich.edu [Moderator's Note: That's what they say is wrong with my thinking most of the time, particularly when discussing slamming. Care to come over and do a brain scan to get more background on the matter? The grey matter, that is. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #887 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20762; 19 Dec 90 13:29 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab06507; 19 Dec 90 11:47 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab01403; 19 Dec 90 10:38 CST Date: Tue, 18 Dec 90 2:26:45 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #886 BCC: Message-ID: <9012180226.ab07709@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 18 Dec 90 02:26:37 CST Volume 10 : Issue 886 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Information Needed About Cellular Antennas [Julian Macassey] Re: Information Needed About Cellular Antennas [Tad Cook] Re: Running Your Own Long Distance Company [Tad Cook] 900 Number Sweepstakes, Space Flight is Prize! [Rikhit Arora] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Julian Macassey Subject: Re: Information Needed About Cellular Antennas Date: 17 Dec 90 14:21:00 GMT Reply-To: Julian Macassey Organization: Politically Correct Thought Division U.S.A. In article <15427@accuvax.nwu.edu> srm@dimacs.rutgers.edu (Scott R. Myers) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 883, Message 2 of 9 >I need an education on antennas. I'm purchasing a transportable and >want to install an antenna on my car for greater signal strength when >driving. I have a fair understanding of the different types (roof >mount, trunk mount, glass mount, etc.). What I want to know is the >layman's explanation of Db's. I see ads for 3db trunk mounts and 5db >glass mounts. The impression I'm given is the 5db glass mounts are >very acceptable for signal strength. How do they compare to roof and >trunk mounts? Just what are Db's anyhow? First of all, 'Db' is a Deci-Bell. Simply speaking 3dB represents a doubling of power. When discussing antennas (or anything else for that matter) you need to know "dB over what?" A half decent antenna can be 12dB better than a wet noodle. So to put it another way, a three watt cellular phone has 3dB more output. So yes, with 3dB more antenna, you could get away with a 1.5 watt output radio. But now consider that antenna gain (what the Db thing is discussing) applies to reception too. So a gain antenna will hear the site better too. Same goes for coax loss which is also measured in dB. If I had some coax that had a loss of 3dB per hundred foot at 800 Mhz (Cellular frequencies), then if I pumped three watts in one end, only 1.5 watts would come out the other. Alas coax loss is much higher than those figures which are just an illustration. I assume that the cellular industry judges its antennas as dB over a 1/4 wave ground plane antenna. But there are already several "fudge factors" in here. First of all, there is loss caused by coupling an antenna to the feed coax through a glass window, that is worth a few dB. Next there is the feeder loss (long run of RG-58. Then crummy connector assembly can loose some more. But the biggy is antenna position. If you put the antenna on the trunk, especially with a wimpy "no holes" mount, and the cell site is in front of the car, you are going too loose even more dB (power loss). The stickum on the glass antennas are often below the roof line of the car and so also exhibit loss. What I am leading up to is this: If you want maximum signal out of your antenna, bite the bullet, drill a hole in the middle of the car roof and put a real antenna in there. That way, you will have an antenna that does not have its own vehicle shadow it. You will also have the most height so it will see the cell site better. I realise you may be shunned by yuppies for not having a trendy stickum on the glass antenna, but that is the price you pay for performance. You may have to go to a real two-way radio shop to get this done. Many of the "cellular to go" shops don't have the tools or expertise to do this. They will waffle and lie telling you that their 10dB licky sticky special is much much better than a real antenna in the middle of the roof. >I have a second part to this question. I have read about the cabling >used in antenna installs (RG-58). Based on what I'm reading, there is >significant signal loss with that type of coax run long distances (ie. >trunk to front passenger side seat.). Would using another gauge of >coax reduce the amount of signal loss from the cable? Any other >recommendations to cut down on signal loss as well as the best antenna >configurations. Thanks in advance. Yes, coax matters, but usually in a car you do not have long runs. The guts of the radio are usually in the trunk - that is just the control head up front - so a run to the roof is six to ten feet. Also cable with better loss characteristics is thicker and stiffer so harder to route to the antenna. Yes, you can check it out, look at RG-8 and Belden 9913. Belden 9913 is like a garden hose full of ice. RG-8 can bend to a radius of maybe nine inches - the specs are available. One final thing: The cell site will adjust the power it sends to you depending on its received signal strength. So you with your 100% super duper install may be doing no better into a nearby cell site than the guy using a hand held unit next to you. Where you will notice the difference is in the fringe areas. It is because of the power adjustment circuitry and density of cell sites that so many poor installations work "good enough". How bad can they get? A friend had an installation done where the antenna connector was shorted, he put up with it for months. What told him that something was wrong was poor performance in the suburbs. Sorry it rambles, there is much to say on this subject, I have tried to be brief. I wish we could get questions like this in rec.ham-radio. Julian Macassey, n6are julian@bongo.info.com ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian N6ARE@N6YN (Packet Radio) n6are.ampr.org [44.16.0.81] voice (213) 653-4495 ------------------------------ From: hpubvwa!ssc!Tad.Cook@cs.washington.edu Subject: Re: Information Needed About Cellular Antennas Date: Mon, 17 Dec 90 10:24:32 PST In article <15427@accuvax.nwu.edu>, srm@dimacs.rutgers.edu (Scott R. Myers) writes: > I need an education on antennas. I'm purchasing a transportable and > want to install an antenna on my car for greater signal strength when > driving. I have a fair understanding of the different types (roof > mount, trunk mount, glass mount, etc.). What I want to know is the > layman's explanation of Db's. I see ads for 3db trunk mounts and 5db > glass mounts. The impression I'm given is the 5db glass mounts are > very acceptable for signal strength. How do they compare to roof and > trunk mounts? Just what are Db's anyhow? 'Dbs' are decibels. It is an expression of a ratio of two power levels. The db gain figure is against a reference antenna, which is probably a 1/4 wave (about three inches long at cellular freqs) ground plane. Decibels are on a logarithmic scale. For power, you can figure it as decibels = ten times the log of the ratio of the two powers. So 3 db gain is the same as doubling your power output. 5 db is the same as multiplying your power by about 3.16. But remember that antenna gain also helps the received signal. There is quite a bit of loss through the glass on the glass mounted type, particularly if it is near any defrosting elements. The best mount is in the center of the roof with a hole drilled in the roof. The worst is when you use a glass mount on one of those side windows on a van, so that the antenna is below the roof line. I like the looks of these trunk mount ones that are on a long sleeve, that puts them high above the trunk of the car. > I have a second part to this question. I have read about the cabling > used in antenna installs (RG-58). Based on what I'm reading, there is > significant signal loss with that type of coax run long distances (ie. > trunk to front passenger side seat.). Would using another guage of > coax reduce the amount of signal loss from the cable? Any other > recommendations to cut down on signal loss as well as the best antenna > configurations. Thanks in advance. RG58 has quite a bit of loss at 900 MHz. RG8/U would be better, although it is larger and harder to install. There is a mil spec grade of RG8 that is best, although with just a few feet of line it may not make much difference. At 900 MHz there can be a lot of loss in improperly installed fittings and antennas, so best to use a professional installer. I wonder about some of these deals that I see for phones "$200, installed" at the local auto supply. 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 ------------------------------ From: hpubvwa!ssc!Tad.Cook@cs.washington.edu Subject: Re: Running Your Own Long Distance Company Date: Mon, 17 Dec 90 9:44:56 PST In article <15421@accuvax.nwu.edu>, bcsaic!carroll@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Carroll) writes: > In article <15114@accuvax.nwu.edu> phil@wubios.wustl.edu (J. Philip > Miller) writes: > >The {St. Louis Post Dispatch} this morning carries a story about > >William Outten, the owner of an answering service in surburban St. > >Louis who is now offering "free" long distance calls from Jefferson > >county into St. Louis. > An acquaintance of ours who is well known in the Seattle area > as a telecom entrepreneur was recently unsuccessful in his efforts to > lobby the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission for > permission to operate this sort of business. > I don't know the details. My wife speaks to this fellow much > more often than I do, and she's not well versed in the technology. I know who this is. A local dial-a-porn operator (in fact, they are one of the largest in the USA) was operating a service that was very popular with folks in the suburbs. Seattle has very wide Extended Area Service. From my house in the city I can call almost to Tacoma and Everett, and many miles east, at no charge. But folks outside of the city who I can call, many of whom are served by GTE, have very limited calling. So what this "telecom entrepeneur" did was start charging for a service that I have done casually for my friends ever since I got residential Centrex. What he did was ordered up a few lines in the city that had the ability to do Call Transfer. He sells account numbers to folks in the suburbs. They call his number, his box answers with a tone, they dial their PIN followed by the number they want to call (which is non-toll from the box, but toll from the suburbs). Then the box does a hookswitch flash, gets second dial tone, dials the number and hangs up, and bills the account 10 cents for the call attempt. When he started this service, customers got billed for each attempt. I heard that after awhile the box was modified to listen for ringback and busy tone, and stayed on the line long enough to determine whether or not to bill. This must have been a little tricky, because what does it do if the called party answers before the first ring? Of course this was a goldmine for our friend, and hell for the telco. With only one line, the box could process LOTS of calls, because the calls do not tie up the line. As soon as one call is transferred, the line is ready for the next call. GTE hated it because they were losing toll from the suburbs. US West hated it, because this thing was tieing up one incoming and one outgoing trunk with each call. Eventually they got the PUC to change the tarrif so that they were paying for each call on these lines. You can still do this without paying the new tarrif, as long as you are not selling the service. Which makes me wonder ... could I legally set up a CO-OP here in the city to help my friends in the suburbs with this? 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 ------------------------------ From: Arora@uh.edu Subject: 900 Number Sweepstakes, Space Flight is Prize! Date: 18 Dec 90 00:35:02 CST Organization: University of Houston [Moderator's Note: Sorry folks, I just couldn't resist printing this one. Do any of you watch the old Honeymooner's shows on TV? Do you remember all the times Ralph Kramden would point his finger skyward and say, "The moon, Alice ... I'll send you to the moon ... bang!" and he would slap his fist, scream and carry on? Well, the message which follows is almost as funny. And yet -- yet, there is something sort of exciting about it. I'd *dearly love* to be on a space flight, wouldn't you? This guy is gonna get a lot of calls, for sure! PAT] THE ULTIMATE For immediate release: 10 am Mon. Dec 17 1990 ADVENTURE 1-900-258-2MIR THREE TEXANS SEND "ORDINARY AMERICAN" TO SOVIET SPACE STATION Less than a year from now, someone will get the word he or she has been selected to go into space to visit Mir, the Soviet space station orbiting the Earth. It's the first time virtually everyone has a chance to become an astronaut. The astronaut doesn't have to be a test pilot ... or a scientist ... or compete against other candidates. It could be almost anyone from almost anywhere. It could be you. The three men who've made it happen are Texans, all from suburban Houston. Their company, Space Travel Services Corp., is headquartered in the Clear Lake area of Houston, right across NASA Road 1 from the Johnson Space Center, where the US manned space program is planned and managed. All three have close ties to the space program and share it's commitment to putting and keeping people in space. David J. Mayer, president and chief executive officer of Space Travel, studied physics at the University of Houston, where he was president of both the University Space Society and University of Houston Students for the Exploration and Development of Space. David has worked in computer system development and construction in the NASA area. He lives in Webster, adjacent to the NASA complex. His Space Travel co-founder, Howard L. Stringer, of Stafford, also has a background in computer systems and other high-tech fields. He graduated cum laude from the University of Texas and his Masters of Business Administration is from UH. Howard, too, is active in organizations which support space programs. He's a director of the Houston Space Society and has served as its president, secretary and treasurer. The third member of Space Travel's management team is James E. Davidson, senior vice president for marketing and business development, of Friendswood. Jim graduated from Columbia University, then earned his MBA from Rice. He's been working for companies planning commercial launches of space vehicles. Davidson shares Mayer's and Stringer's commitment to keeping men and women in space. He is, like Howard, a former treasurer and president of the Houston Space Society and serves as a director of the group. Jim's a former director of the National Space Society and is a senior associate of the Space Studies Institute. The company has a contract with the Soviet space bureau to put an American aboard a Soyuz space capsule with two cosmonauts and fly him or her to Mir, the space station in orbit 400 kilometers above the Earth. (400 km is about the distance from Space Travel's office to Dallas, but without the traffic.) Anyone interested in the trip to space can call the Space Travel information number, 1-900-258-2MIR for details. There is a $2.99 charge per call. Callers who wish to be considered as potential guest astronauts for the flight may stay on the line and register at no additional charge. The selection will be made next December, when an independent judging organization selects one person at random from among the registrants. That person will have the option of taking a million-dollar cash prize or, sometime in late 1992 or early 1993, riding a Russian rocket to the space station, Mir. He or she will spend about a week in orbit and then return ... a permanent part of space history. "We don't know who that person will be," Mayer said, "and we've turned over complete control of the selection to an outside firm. But it sure wouldn't disappoint us any if that person turned out to be a fellow Texan." ............. | Rikhit Arora And, while with silent, lifting mind I've trod | cheehh@uhupvm1.bitnet The high untrespassed sanctity of space, | Arora@uh.edu Put out my hand, and touched the face of God. | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [Moderator's Note: For the first time in a long time, I'm actually tempted to call a 900 number. Either this is a fantastic scam or there is a glorious day ahead for some lucky person. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #886 ******************************  ISSUES 886 AND 887 WERE REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. 887 APPEARS BEFORE 886 IN THIS ARCHIVES. ISSUE 888 FOLLOWS NEXT.  Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20870; 19 Dec 90 13:35 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad06507; 19 Dec 90 11:51 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad01403; 19 Dec 90 10:39 CST Date: Wed, 19 Dec 90 1:49:19 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #888 BCC: Message-ID: <9012190149.ab14867@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 19 Dec 90 01:49:09 CST Volume 10 : Issue 888 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Southwestern Bell Tidbits [Eric Dittman] Re: Last Four Digits of Phone is '0000' [David Schachter] Phony Sounding Named Exchanges [Jack Winslade] Re: MCI Conks Out [John David Galt] Printed Telephone Number Format [Peter G. Capek] Information Needed on AT&T Select Saver Plan [Dan Veeneman] New Area Code for New York City - Plans Change [Eduardo Krell] Re: Stupid AT&T Advertisements [Scott Coleman] Let Your Modem do the Walking [malcolm@apple.com] Unanswered Trunk 'Enhancement' in Southern Bell [John Boteler] Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers? [John David Galt] Re: Alliance Teleconferencing [Ken Jongsma] Voice Mail vs Message Center [John Higdon] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eric Dittman Subject: Re: Southwestern Bell Tidbits Date: 16 Dec 90 16:11:49 CST Organization: Texas Instruments Component Test Facility In article <15387@accuvax.nwu.edu>, lemson@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (David Lemson) writes: > SWBT does provide caller ID on their tens of thousands of ISDN lines > that they provide to corporate clients. Several large corporations > (within SWBT five-state area) have ISDN service, and this includes > Caller ID. I guess I forgot to point out that I was talking residential and not corporate. Eric Dittman Texas Instruments - Component Test Facility dittman@skitzo.csc.ti.com dittman@skbat.csc.ti.com Disclaimer: I don't speak for Texas Instruments or the Component Test Facility. I don't even speak for myself. ------------------------------ From: david@llustig.palo-alto.ca.us (David Schachter) Subject: Re: Last Four Digits of Phone is '0000' Organization: Greenwire Consulting Date: Sun, 16 Dec 90 23:32:56 GMT A long time ago (1982), +1 203 226 0000 was a realtor in Westport or Weston, Connecticut, USA. They were surprised I thought their number was "special", even though they had purchased a advertisement on the spine of the local non-Telco phone directory. David Schachter voice phone: +1 415 328 7425 internet: david@llustig.palo-alto.ca.us uucp: ...!{decwrl,mips,sgi}!llustig!david ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Dec 90 22:20:58 PDT From: Jack Winslade Subject: Phony Sounding Named Exchanges Reply-to: jack.winslade%drbbs@iugate.unomaha.edu Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537 In a message of <16 Dec 90 09:21:04>, Pat writes: >There were a few ads which also made use of QUincy as an exchange. >I think one of the very old ads I remember had Mr. Jones at QUincy 2368 >trying to make a long distance call to Mr. Smith at ZEigfield 8632. It >explained how he would go about doing it, and what to tell the operator. In the 60's, prior to the conversion to all digits, for a while they had some new prefixes with made-up letter combinations that did not correspond to any name or familiar word. The worst I remember was a Bronx prefix beginning with XX (XX7, I think ???). The most publicized was probably WABC's at LT1-7777. They made no sense at all, and didn't have that air of normalcy that was found in such things as PLaza, MUrrayhill, SPring, CIrcle, BUtterfield, and even some of the out-of-the-way ones such as GEdney and ULster. (Imagine the scenario. Young man asks young lady for phone number. She replies with '..yeah, call me at XX7-9901'. That sounds almost as phony as KLondike 5-2368. ;-) BTW: Pat, on this old set I have here, it's quite possible to dial the ZEigfield prefix. Good Day! JSW [Moderator's Note: Several points: There were some 'out-of-the-way' named exchanges here also. How about RODney, MULberry, INTerocean, FINancial, HOLlycourt and GRAceland (named after the cemetery by that name here, not Elvis' home). BITtersweet was another good one. I've also got an old 1930's phone with a 'Z' on the final hole on the dial, sharing space with the Operator. But no, ZEigfeld was not and could not be valid simply because a zero as the first pull *always* meant the operator. There were brief experiments in those days with exchanges like EZra, allowing the zero to be the second pull, however. I guess it was not a very popular idea at the time since I have not seen 'Z' on any phones manufactured in the past fifty years. This old phone of mine by the way has the staight (not curled) *brown cloth* cord from the receiver to the base of the phone and from the back of the phone to the wall jack. Two thin 'fingers' on each side of hook serve as cradle to hold the handset; the base is oval with no bell inside, meaning a side-ringer had to be used. The bottom is completely covered with the brown felt they used to use, and a peek inside shows a stenciled notation: Manufactured by Western Electric Hawthorne Works, 5-1-1930". And it still works just fine with a modern microphone / earpiece. PAT] ------------------------------ From: portal!cup.portal.com!John_David_Galt Subject: Re: MCI Conks Out Date: Sun, 16 Dec 90 10:22:34 PST To my knowledge, 10222 has never worked for MCI. It may be theoretically "assigned" to them, but their instructions tell you to use 950-1022 (or if that fails, 800 950-1022). [Moderator's Note: Funny you should say that. 10222 works just fine all over this area, as does 950-1022, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Dec 90 11:24:26 EST From: "Peter G. Capek" Subject: Printed Telephone Number Format Is there a CCITT or other recommendation about how the printed form of a telephone number should indicate -- (a) Pause and wait for dial tone or other signal before dialing the next digit. (b) Ask operator orally for the extension whose number follows. Peter Capek ------------------------------ From: Dan Veeneman Subject: Information Needed on AT&T Select Saver Plan Date: Mon, 17 Dec 90 10:35:15 CST Netters, Recently I received in the mail a "Request for Change in Billing" from AT&T (my default LD carrier), and would like to get the opinion of the readers of TELECOM Digest. The letter begins: "A review of your AT&T account indicates that you could save money by choosing an alternate AT&T billing plan. This package includes your opportunity to do so. Your present AT&T Long Distance accounts shows that you are currently being charged standard prices for your out-of-state, direct-dialied AT&T Long Distance calls, and that you frequently make calls to area code (301) in Maryland. We recommend that you consider the AT&T Select Saver(TM) Plan. For just $1.90 per month, this plan will provide with low per minute rates each and every time you call anywhere in the (301) area code. 24 hours a day. 7 days a week." The letter goes on to explain the 12 cents/minute rate effective M-F 5pm to 8am and weekends, and 20 cents/minute rate M-F 8am to 5pm. They'll also throw in a 5% discount on all LD calls to other area codes. There is an 800 number for me to call to sign-up, and if I order now, they'll waive the normal $5 sign-up fee. Gee ! My questions are: 1. If I sign up for this, am I making it easier for AT&T in the future to get a different (and more expensive) LD rate structure approved ? 2. If not, why is AT&T so wont to help me save money ? 3. When 301 splits, my calls may go to both 301 and 410. How will this effect the rates ? 4. More generally, what can I expect as far as rate increases under this plan ? I have two lines coming in to my house, a main line and another line I use for intra-LATA data calls (i.e. no LD, but AT&T is listed as the default carrier). This letter lists my home number as the data line number, *not* the line on which I make (301) calls. Dan veeneman@mot.com ------------------------------ From: ekrell@ulysses.att.com Date: Tue, 11 Dec 90 09:17:14 EST Subject: New Area Code for New York City - Plans Changed New York Telephone changed its mind and it's now saying that it won't assign the 917 area code to the Bronx, but instead the Bronx will join the 718 area code (Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island), leaving area 212 for Manhattan only. The 917 area code will be used for cellular and paging devices. About 20% of the 2.5 million numbers in the 212 area code are used for these purposes. A task force will study whether to extend the 917 area code to fax machines and whether such services from the sorrounding 516 and 914 area codes should also be assigned to 917. Eduardo Krell AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ UUCP: {att,decvax,ucbvax}!ulysses!ekrell Internet: ekrell@ulysses.att.com ------------------------------ From: scott Subject: Re: Stupid AT&T Advertisements Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Tue, 11 Dec 90 19:02:44 GMT In article <15367@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: >Steve Thornton writes: >> I specifically changed service *from* AT&T because of their stupid, >> insulting ads. >I agree that some of AT&T's advertisements (as well as many others, >including other LD companies) are stupid and somewhat insulting. >I can accept that. But you don't really believe that your reaction to >these spots make AT&T's service bad and wrong do you? >Also it is discovered in a good many cases that people hold prejudices >for or against a particular company's goods or services. When they see >advertisements for those goods or services, the reaction that ensues >becomes justification for those preconceived notions. >Someone please tell me that readers of the Digest base purchasing >decisions on price, service, quality, suitability for intended use, >and value and not on what some ad agency produces to brainwash the How about this: In the minds of many people, AT&T provides service which is essentially equivalent to MCI and/or Sprint. AT&T costs more than either. AT&T has to resort to insulting advertising to woo customers. Perhaps it's little things like this which "break the camel's back," and provide just enough weight on AT&T's "disadvantages" column to cause people to switch to another LD carrier. As you point out, it would be stupid to base a purchasing decision solely upon the advertising. However, I strongly suspect that nobody intelligent enough to subscribe to this digest would ever do such a thing! ;-) Scott Coleman tmkk@uiuc.edu University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ------------------------------ Subject: Let Your Modem do the Walking Date: Mon, 17 Dec 90 09:01:13 -0800 From: malcolm@apple.com Excerpts from an article in the {San Jose Mercury} published on December 12: Let your modem do the walking; Computer Directory has all listed phones in US. "Compuserve Information Services, a consumer-oriented electronic data base in Columbus, Ohio, has introduced the first computerized national phone book. It includes the name, address, ZIP code and phone number of everyone in the country with a listed number -- more than 80 million households in all. The directory, called Phonefile, offers the 725,000 Compuserve subscribers unprecedented access to information about others, including powers that surpass those of directory assistance operators, such as the ability to search by last name and state, by ZIP code and by phone number." The article goes on to discuss the privacy issues and claims that the directory was designed to "discourage the compiling of marketing lists". Malcolm [Moderator's Note: Compuserve also noted this new service in a recent issue of their magazine. I've tried it and it is quite good. 'Privacy issues' are a nice red-herring here, but since all they do is list numbers already listed in public records elsewhere, i.e. telephone directories and courthouse records, privacy is not a consideration. The proprietors of the service being sold through Compuserve have stated they will remove your phone number and address from their data base on your request if it is *non-published* and unavailable to them in public records elsewhere. They will not remove it from their data base if you are listed in a telephone directory somewhere and/or in some other public records. You can search three ways through the data base when using Compuserve: Put in a phone number and get the name and address it is associated with; put in an address and get the phone number(s) and names; or put in a name and address to get the phone number listed. So finally, a single national electronic cross reference directory. About time! CIS gets a hefty surcharge to use it though; about ten bucks an hour in addtion to regular charges. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Unanswered Trunk 'Enhancement' in Southern Bell Date: Wed, 12 Dec 90 4:06:33 EST From: John Boteler David Lesher, et al note: Lu reports from West Palm Beach that they, too, now have Unanswered Trunk Enhancement (I love that kind of talk!). He just discovered it very recently, say within the last week. Your first call must supervise before you can flash, or you will be arrested for flashing. :? John Boteler bote@csense {uunet | ka3ovk}!media!csense!bote SkinnyDipper's Hotline: 703 241 BARE | VOICE only, Touch-Tone(TM) signalling ------------------------------ From: portal!cup.portal.com!John_David_Galt Subject: Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers? Date: Sat, 15 Dec 90 22:05:00 PST I have seen several things done with 700 numbers. My understanding is that, unlike all other phone numbers in the US/Canada system, 700 numbers are not unique. That is, when you dial 1-700-xxx-xxxx, what you get (if anything) depends on your long distance carrier as well as on the number itself; different carriers can use the same 700 number for different things. The original 700 number, of course, was 700 555-4141, which is free and gets you a recording telling you what LD carrier you are on. If you get any other 700 numbers, check them out with your LD company before using them. Not all of them are free on all carriers. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Alliance Teleconferencing Date: Mon, 17 Dec 90 13:09:09 EST From: Ken Jongsma I just got off the phone after setting up an Alliance Teleconference with two sites in the United States, one in England and one in Saudi Arabia. This was the first time I had a chance to use the automated version of Alliance. To say I was impressed with the sound quality would be an understatement. All parties could hear each other at an equal volume. The Saudi connection was a little lower volume than the others, but no different than when I call them direct. The key procedure was a bit awkward, but I had one of those cards AT&T has been attaching to Forbes & Bus Week advertisements that helped a lot. Very impressive... Ken Jongsma ken@wybbs.mi.org Smiths Industries ken%wybbs@sharkey.umich.edu Grand Rapids, Michigan ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Voice Mail vs Message Center Date: 17 Dec 90 10:10:39 PST (Mon) From: John Higdon From the Pac*Bell Upsell(tm) department: Falling prey to the major advertising campaign Pac*Bell has been running in print, radio, and TV ads, I inquired of my business office regarding the MessageCenter(tm). This is $5/month voice mail for the very small user, available to businesses and residences. Bzzzzzt. Sorry. "Not available in your area." Not really surprising since my CO equipment survived the quake (1906, not 1989). However, I was offered an alternative: Voice Mail (at $20/month). Now how do you suppose Pac*Bell can provide $20/month Voice Mail out of an office that can't provide MessageCenter (a voice mail-type product)? Is the MessageCenter real? Or is it a way to get the telephonic foot in the door for Voice Mail? I didn't bite. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: For the difference they are asking, you could get a nice voice mail box from Centel here and call LD each day to get your messages. For details on Centel voicemail: 1-708-518-6000. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #888 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01699; 20 Dec 90 0:25 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11037; 19 Dec 90 22:58 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31425; 19 Dec 90 21:54 CST Date: Wed, 19 Dec 90 21:42:27 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #889 BCC: Message-ID: <9012192142.ab18044@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 19 Dec 90 21:42:00 CST Volume 10 : Issue 889 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: How Does One Access a Hearing Impaired TTY [Tad Cook] Pac*Bell Delivers (Well, Almost) [Charles Buckley] 410 Area Code [Craig Myers] Phone Call -> Involuntary Contract? [Jay Vassos-Libove] Re: The Wrong Way to Keep Phones on the Hook [Clayton Cramer] Re: Payphones in Australia (and Elsewhere) [David Leibold] Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers? [juggler@hale.uucp] Re: Modem Recognizes Boing? [Toby Nixon] Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers? [Carl Moore] Problems with Southern Bell [Bill Huttig] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: hpubvwa!ssc!Tad.Cook@cs.washington.edu Subject: Re: How Does One Access a Hearing Impaired TTY Date: Mon, 17 Dec 90 10:04:31 PST In article <15419@accuvax.nwu.edu>, hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net (Toby Nixon) writes: > Your friend will need to either buy a TDD (they're not all that > expensive; $300-$500), or buy her brother a PC and a modem (which > would be a nice Christmas gift, and open up to him the whole world of > BBSing). I have found that several of my hearing impaired friends have TDDs from Krown and UltraTech which will support 300 bps ASCII. They tell me that many of the newer Terminal Devices for the Deaf have an "ASCII switch." I helped a hearing impaired friend shop for a computer, and I installed a 2400 bps modem and terminal software for her. She found modem communications in the chat mode quite liberating. With a TDD, it is really a simplex operation. At the end of your thought, you type "GA" (for go ahead), and the other party starts typing. Then when they are through, they type GA and you type. In chat mode with the computer, the screen was divided with the sending end displayed on the bottom, and the receiving end on the top. Not only that, but you get a full character set, rather than Baudot code with caps only. We could both type at the same time, and we soon found ourselves having more of a "normal" conversation ... interrupting each other and everything. 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: Mon, 17 Dec 90 20:41:24 PST From: Charles Buckley Subject: Pac*Bell Delivers (Well, Almost) John Higdon wrote: >Remember back around August of 1989 when Pac*Bell hustled its new >"regulatory" package through the CPUC? In another bit of PacBell stupidity, I recently tried to get distinctive ringing on my single line (no, it's too much trouble to get two) so people could send me faxes. Found the detector box and all that, and I call up PacBell, where I am told that I can't get distinctive ringing unless I get a service package called ComStar Plus (or something like that), which required, in addition to buying speed dial and other things I don't want, that I get two lines (not two numbers, but two lines!). Is this Catch-22 idiocy nationwide, or is it only PacBell that has this problem? [Moderator's Note: ComStar, also known as Intellidial in some areas and Starline in others is tariffed as a service for 2 or more actual lines in a group. Many or most of the features in ComStar would not work with just one line. In fact having only two lines makes ComStar a little bit of an overkill. It may be that PacBell only has Distinctive Ringing available through ComStar at present. I know Illinois Bell could not offer Distinctive Ringing until recently when they upgraded their software. They did offer it in Centrex and Starline service, but not on single residential lines until ahout two months ago. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Craig Myers Subject: 410 Area Code Prefix Locator Service Date: 17 Dec 90 21:44:03 GMT Organization: JHU/APL, Laurel, MD I have just found out about an interactive 800 number for information on the 301-410 split: 800.477.4704, but I don't know if it is available outside of Maryland. It offers general information about the split and will tell you which area code an exchange will reside in. Craig Myers craig@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Dec 90 11:15:06 -0500 From: Jay Vassos-Libove Subject: Phone Call -> Involuntary Contract? In several articles seen here discussing whether one should pay for services rendered but unsolicited we've seen an interesting opinion come from the Moderator - that you are entering in to a contract, that is, soliciting service, just by picking up the telephone and dialing. Quoth: >[Moderator's Note: The point is, your long distance connection through >the public switched network was NOT unsolicited. You solicited the >service as soon as you went off hook and started dialing the number. Now the problem comes in here: When you pick up the telephone and start dialing, you are soliciting service from the vendor that you expect to be connected to your dial-1 service. You requested that vendor and that is the vendor you expect to get. If someone else, anyone at all, changes that vendor on your dial-1 service, then that someone is indeed providing an unsolicited service. When I pick up my telephone and dial 1 ... I am soliciting an AT&T call. If MCI slams me and I pick up my phone and dial 1 ... and get MCI, they have provided an unsolicited service. Look at it this way: you drive up to a McDonald's restaurant drive-thru window and order some food. The competitor has tapped in to the wires running from that drive-up ordering station and promptly fills your order, shoves the McDonald's employee out of the way at the order-fulfillment window, and expects payment. Would you take that Hardees' hamburger and pay that Hardees' employee? Of course not! You ordered McDonald's food from a McDonald's employee! But in the case of telephone service slamming, you aren't told that Hardees' has just usurped your dial-1 service at the order-taking station, and by the time you figure it out, you are ten miles down the road having taken the first bite of that hamburger ... which you didn't order and don't want. I don't see why this is any different? If you didn't contract with XYZ to carry your long distance, and they place theirself on your dial-1 service without your permission, they have provided unsolicited service, and you need not pay them for it. To quote one more message giving an example of this: | minutes on ATT and pay less than that!!" "Sorry, our records show you | requested our service. The moment you picked up your phone and | dialled `1` you entered into a voluntary contract for long distance | service with us. Now send us the check for last month's charges of Yeah, right. Jay Vassos-Libove libove@libove.det.dec.com Digital Equipment Corporation decwrl!libove.det.dec.com!libove Detroit ACT/Ultrix Resource Center Opinions? They're mine, mine, all mine! Farmington Hills, Michigan and D.E.C. Can't have 'em! ------------------------------ From: Clayton Cramer Subject: Re: The Wrong Way to Keep Phones on the Hook Date: 18 Dec 90 18:48:21 GMT Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA In article <15406@accuvax.nwu.edu>, djcl@contact.uucp (woody) writes: > "THE WRONG WAY TO 'FOIL BURGLARS'" > "Leaving the telephone off the hook may alert burglars that you're not > home. A continual busy signal is a give-away. Lights activated or > turned on and off by a timer are better ways to discourage break-ins." > Now let's see if this comes through straight ... a "continual" busy > signal (whatever that means) will indicate to someone that you're not > home, as opposed to an unanswered series of rings on just one dial... I used to see it claimed that professional burglars (of which there are darn few -- most are teenagers supporting drug habits) would call a home they intended to burgle to see if anyone was home. A busy signal, of course, would be interpreted as, "Someone's home -- let's not break in." I can see how a permanent busy might be interpreted by a burglar as "No one's home, and the phone's off the hook", but it could also be interpreted as "teenager at home". My solution? Well, you can always leave the following message on your answering machine: "Hi, we're not home right now, or if you're a burglar, we might be home, sitting in the living room in complete darkness, with a shotgun. 'Do you feel lucky today, punk?'" (Not applicable in Canada or Britain). Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer You must be kidding! No company would hold opinions like mine! ------------------------------ From: woody Subject: Re: Payphones in Australia (and Elsewhere) Reply-To: djcl@contact.UUCP (woody) Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada. Date: Tue, 18 Dec 90 05:23:51 GMT My sister went to Australia not too many months ago and reported that payphones in certain areas could place overseas calls for free, or something to that effect. This hole in the fabric of Australia's payphones was fixed up sometime during her stay, though. ------------------------------ From: juggler@hale.UUCP (The Juggler) Subject: Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers? Date: 18 Dec 90 01:21:59 GMT Organization: Hale Telecommunications San Diego CA > |I'm glad that they at least use 555- numbers now. I remember about > |ten years ago when a muscial group (the B-52s?) did a song about > |someone's phone number. All over the country, the poor owners of > |xxx-xxxx were driven batty by fans just trying out the number to see > |if anything would happen. I'm not sure how the phone company (at > |that time it was just Ma Bell) dealt with it. > Actually, the B-52's song in question is "6060-842", which is from > their first, self-titled album, which came out in 1979. Back then, I > don't believe there were any valid seven-digit numbers of the form > N0N-XXXX. I remember another "phone" song by an artist I have forgotten the name of. I believe the title of the song was "Jenny", and they kept repeating her supposed phone number, which was 867-5309. This was from the early 80's ... [Moderator's Note: One example which has stuck in my mind since this thread began was the use of BOWery 9-1000. A 'crime on the waterfront' type movie from the 1940's (title long forgotten -- anyone remember it?) has a closing scene in which we see a dimly lit, very cluttered office in the wee hours of the morning. The area is deserted, and a phone on the desk is ringing incessantly. After it has rung perhaps a dozen times, from a distance we see the back of a man as he shuffles down the hall and goes up to the phone to answer it. He mumbles into the phone, "Bowery nine one thousand". An indignant woman is on the other end and her shrill voice demands, "Is Mr. Johnson there?". The man replies, "Yes, Mr. Johnson is here." (woman) "Put him on the phone this minute! That no-good husband of mine!" (man) "I'm sorry madame, he can't speak to you on the phone." (woman) "What! Did you hear me?" ... then suspicious, she demands, "Say! What tavern is this I have reached? You send my no-good husband home right now! I don't want to come there and get him myself!!!" (man) "This is not a tavern, madame." (woman) "What? What number is this?" (man) "Boweryp nine one thousand. You're connected with the city morgue. Your husband is dead, madame; you'll have to come and get him, I'm afraid." PAT] ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: Modem Recognizes Boing? Date: 17 Dec 90 10:47:10 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA In article <15386@accuvax.nwu.edu>, DEVEREJS%RTP@dupont.com (John S. DeVere) writes: > Re: Modem wait for Boing, Toby Nixon > writes: >> I will say that the current draft of SP-2120 [...] >> includes a proposal for a "$" dial modifier, defined as "Wait for >> Credit Card Prompt Tone". I wouldn't be at all surprised if one or >> more modem manufacturers took this cue and included such a feature in >> their modems. > Good idea, except maybe another character would be more compatible ... > US Robotics uses the $ for help screens on all (as far as I know) its > modems ... other "Made-in-Taiwan" modems use this symbol as well. USR has been an active participant in the drafting of this proposed standard since Day One, and has not objected. Why? Because there is a clear differentiation between command characters and dial-string modifiers. It's no problem to use the same character to mean two different things, because the context is different. There's already several characters that are "re-used": CHAR Command Dial-String A Answer DTMF "A" tone B Select Modulation DTMF "B" tone C Carrier Control DTMF "C" tone D Dial DTMF "D" tone S Select Register Dial Stored Number W Extended Results Wait for Dial Tone Of course, some things mean the same in BOTH contexts, such as T, P, and comma; and some dial-modifiers causes ERROR results if used as commands, such as "@", "!", "*", "#", digits, etc. (but this depends on the manufacturer of the modem). Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice +1-404-449-8791 Telex 151243420 Hayes Microcomputer Products Inc. | Fax +1-404-447-0178 CIS 70271,404 P.O. Box 105203 | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon AT&T !tnixon Atlanta, Georgia 30348 USA | Internet hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Dec 90 9:40:05 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers? In 1979, the only possible N0N-XXXX phone numbers would be in area 213 (now 213/818, with 310 on the way). But back around 1962, there was a song BEechwood 4-5789, which turns up occasionally on oldies programs. [Moderator's Note: Back in the 1950's here, there was a rather famous bordello which specialized in servicing wealthy and influential citizens from out of town. Their number was HAymarket 1 - 5111. Around election time one year the cops raided the joint and shut it down for good. The phone was disconnected, but it remained in the little black books of unsuspecting out-of-towners for *years* afterward. IBT was unable to assign the number for ten years without having the new subscribers complain about wrong numbers and frequently lewd long distance calls. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: Problems with Southern Bell Date: 18 Dec 90 16:58:37 GMT Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL I have been having problems with my local phone service for six months now. Everytime I report it, it seems to get worse. The problem is that on outgoing calls (local, long distance, 800, etc) there is a two to five second period (no more than once per call) where I hear nothing (or a pop/click) and the person I am speaking with hears someone dialing (rotary phone). The phone company said it is my phone or answering machine (both Panasonic two-line units; the phone is cordless). I talked to a Maintanence Center Suprvisor today and she read back the reports that I phoned in since June (four of them) and they were all inaccurately written. I still think the problem is in Southern Bell's equipment ... one of the repair guys said that they have fiber from down the street to the main office ... they have (I think) a SLC-96 for the fiber. How can I get this problem fixed? Bill [Moderator's Note: First, isolate your answering machine and cordless phone from the network. Take them both off line and try making a few calls. If you do not have the disturbance, then chances are either your answering machine or cordless phone are at fault. Cordless phones tend to go off hook and talk to themselves and dial numbers randomly when someone with a strong CB or ham radio is nearby. If you still have the problem with those devices off line, then try isolating it by removing all phone instruments except one. By a process of elimination if you still get the disturbance and nothing else is on line call the telco and tell them you have tested at the demarc and it must be their problem, not yours since all other equipment has been removed. Let us know what happens. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #889 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02750; 20 Dec 90 1:39 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24439; 20 Dec 90 0:01 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab11037; 19 Dec 90 22:58 CST Date: Wed, 19 Dec 90 22:24:03 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #890 BCC: Message-ID: <9012192224.ab19075@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 19 Dec 90 22:23:50 CST Volume 10 : Issue 890 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed [tanner@ki4pv.compu.com] Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed [Jeff Sicherman] Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed [Charles H. Mingo] Slamming Technique? [Greg Hackney] Re: Don't Pay for Slamming [Peter da Silva] Re: Don't Pay for Slamming [Ed Hopper] Re: COCOT's on the Corner [Gary Segal] Re: How Does One Access a Hearing Impaired TTY [Mark Steiger] Re: Photonic Switching [Brian Daly] Re: Last Four Digits of Phone is '0000' [Subodh Bapat] Re: Fuzzy Logic [Bill Gundry] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 17 Dec 90 23:45:57 -0500 From: tanner@ki4pv.compu.com Subject: Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed Organization: CompuData Inc., DeLand The employee carrying the package to the express company is an excellent analogy. Instead of carrying it to Fred Ex, he carrys it to Pat's express, and now we must decide if we will pay Pat's bill. Similarly, the local phone co carries my call to the chosen carrier. If the employee went there at my (possibly unclear) direction, then it seems that I have very little cause for complaint. Not only did the package get there, but the service price is ``about'' what I expected, and Pat may have a cause of action if I fail to pay. Now, let us examine ``slamming'' : In the best light, someone slides my employee/agent $5 or local ``change default carrier'' fee to divert the package to Pat's express without my knowledge, after I have told that carrier to carry it to Fred Ex. That agent has behaved corruptly, disregarding my instructions. Should I pay for the shipping? We can take a more dim view of the situation. Let us say that Pat is hard up for business; his only phone line is clogged with complainers so no one can actually call and order his services. He sends a guy out with a fake note from me to my agent, saying that I decided that agent should use Pat's Express instead of Fred Ex. My agent believes him, and carrys the package to Pat. Now, Pat delivers the package. Pat has made a fraudlent representation (to my agent) in order to induce me to (unknowingly) buy his services. Should I pay for the shipping? {bikini.cis.ufl.edu allegra uunet!cdin-1}!ki4pv!tanner ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Dec 90 10:19:12 -0800 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed Organization: Cal State Long Beach Does anyone know what the position of the FCC or PUC's is on this issue ? Jeff Sicherman ------------------------------ From: portal!cup.portal.com!mingo Subject: Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed Date: Wed, 19 Dec 90 16:06:19 PST stanley@phoenix.com (John Stanley) writes: > So, some wiseguy lives down the street from you, and hears you call >Sears on your cordless phone. He calls Sears back and cancels your >order with them, and then calls K-Mart and orders a cheap replacement >refrigerator to be sent to you. The wiseguy is the, often third party, telemarketer who told your telco to switch service. > Who do you owe, and how much? [...] > 4) You owe nobody anything. This is the "owe nobody anything" argument . > The service was provided. The "service" [i.e. the fridge] was *offered*, and you rejected it (as you were entitled to do because it wasn't what you asked for). Suppose, however, that you had *accepted* the fridge, and used it for its entire useful life (without noticing that it was K-mart). Or suppose, in a restaurant, the waitress delivers the wrong meal, which you consume without complaint. You can no longer reject something as not being what you wanted *after* you've consumed it. > You owe K-Mart the chance to come pick its refridgerator up. [...] >You owe the unchosen carrier the chance to >retrieve its service. You owe the restaurant the opportunity to pump your stomach? You asked for something, you got what appeared to be what you wanted, you consumed it without complaint, and now you won't pay anything for it? You won't even pay what you would have paid if they had served what you ordered? If you were unable to detect that the service wasn't AT&T when you consumed it, what reason do you have to complain now? If you had inadvertedly been served Folger's Crystals when you thought you were getting fresh-brew, how were you injured? A classic case of "pearls before swine." > So, which payment option is correct? Only number 4. ------------------------------ From: Greg Hackney Subject: Slamming Technique? Date: 18 Dec 90 17:10:43 GMT After reading in netnews and the newspapers about the 'slamming' wars going on, I felt a bit 'on the alert' when I got a phone call from Sprint, which went something like this: "Sir, do you know that your local telephone office is NOW providing the capability of long distance service for you via U.S. Sprint?" They have always provided options to all the carriers, but I figured that if I said "yes", that would be taken as an affirmative to slam. So, to make it *perfectly* clear, I said: "No! I do not want U.S. Sprint service. I have AT&T service, and I DO NOT want it changed. I DO NOT want U.S. Sprint service. I want AT&T service". "But, sir, do you know that your local telephone office is NOW providing the capability of long distance service for you via U.S. Sprint?" "Did you hear me?" "But, sir, do you know that your local telephone office is NOW providing the capability of long distance service for you via U.S. Sprint?" "DID YOU HEAR ME!!! ?" "Thank you." click. ------------------------------ From: peter da silva Subject: Re: Don't Pay For Slamming Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Date: Tue, 18 Dec 90 13:34:32 GMT In article <15458@accuvax.nwu.edu> well.sf.ca.us!well!mingo (Charles Hawkins Mingo) writes: > >Why is "slamming" not considered, and treated, as theft? > Because AT&T doesn't "own" the right to do business with you. Like hell they don't! They have a contract with you, via your local phone company. Peter da Silva +1 713 274 5180 peter@ferranti.com ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Don't Pay for Slamming From: Ed Hopper Date: Tue, 18 Dec 90 22:18:09 CST Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Texas 713-997-7575 I promise, this is my last post on this! well.sf.ca.us!well!mingo (Charles Hawkins Mingo) writes: > services received. Somewhat closer to our case, if you had arranged > to have your gall-bladder removed by Surgeon X, and (owing to hospital > oversight) it was removed by Surgeon Y, you would still have to pay Y > for her services. Paying Surgeon X for an operation performed by Y > would only shift the unjust enrichment, without paying the person who > did the work. I would only point out one thing, if there had been a continuing pattern of "Doctor slamming" at that hospital, and the same doctor continued to receive the benefits of these little accidents, you might view the situation differently. There has been a pattern of fraud in relation to slamming and *THAT* is a highly relevant factor in my position. Also, remember that I pointed out that one should demand an adjustment from the slamming carrier as compensation for being slammed. I think they DO owe you something for your trouble. In my case, it was poorer quality (even with those MAGIC fibers!) and the inability to reach Disneyland East (Basking Ridge) on the phone. True, there is a potential for abuse, but that's the risk that carriers run when they don't get written documentation. Ed Hopper BBS: 713-997-7575 ehopper@attmail.com ehopper@ehpcb.wlk.com ------------------------------ From: Gary Segal Subject: Re: COCOT's on the Corner Date: 18 Dec 90 19:05:52 GMT Organization: Motorola INC., Cellular Infrastructure Division stanley@phoenix.com (John Stanley) writes: > Aha! I will dial the operator and see who the AOS is. I pick up the >handset, and hear, in addition to dialtone, McGruff the Crimefighting >Dog talking about neighborhood watch and taking a bite out of crime. >How unique -- PSA's on COCOT's. I dial 0. Country music comes on. So >does the operator. Is this a case of YASC (Yet Another Slimey COCOT :), or could there actually be another type of problem? A former friend of mine in Bloomingdale Illinios had the unfortunate problem being served by a CO that is close to the transmit tower for a FM radio station. Somehow the radio program found it's way into the local loops. Don't ask me how; I haven't been able to figure it out either. All I know is that when I called, I would hear the radio station very faintly in the background (My guess would be about 8-10dB below talk level.) Apparantly Illinios Bell claimed that this was a problem for the FCC, but the bureaucrats had been taking years to sort out the problem. I haven't called the line recently, but I doubt if it has been fixed. But did Mr. Stanley experience a case of COCOTery gone bonkers, or did the phone get bitten by it's proximity to someone's transmitter? I'd love to blame the COCOT too, but don't forget that there could be something else wrong outside of the phone. Gary Segal ...!uunet!motcid!segal +1-708-632-2348 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. [Moderator's Note: Sometime take a drive out near Wheaton, IL where two powerhouse radio stations (WGN - 720 AM and WBBM - 780 AM) have their transmitters within about a quarter-mile of each other. The area is *so saturated* with RF that no matter where you tune the radio dial all you hear is those two for a half mile in any direction. All the telephones in the area have special filters on them provided by IBT. The hetrodyne from those two beating each other constantly is something to hear! And the harmonics are incredible. I've picked up WBBM at 2x (1560 kilocycles), 3x (2340 kilocycles) and even 4x (3120 kilocycles) just as plain as at 780. No one lives very close; they'd go crazy if they did. Probably the COCOT is getting the same thing. Either that or the serving CO has some Muzak circuits which need a little cleaning up. A grocery near me several years ago had some problem with their Muzak circuits once. For a couple days it was bleeding all over the CO. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Mark Steiger Date: Mon Dec 17 90 at 20:16:25 (CST) Subject: Re: How Does One Access a Hearing Impaired TTY The old Apple-Cat modems can also be used to connect to TTY machines. Also to TDD machines. [ Mark Steiger, Sysop, The Igloo 218/262-3142 300/1200/2400/9600 (HST/Dual)] ProLine.:penguin@gnh-igloo America Online: Goalie5 UUCP....:crash!gnh-igloo!penguin MCI Mail......: MSteiger Internet:penguin@gnh-igloo.cts.com [Moderator's Note: Do you mean they had a switch-selectable setting allowing them to work both ways? I had one and don't remember it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Brian Daly Subject: Re: Photonic Switching Date: 18 Dec 90 16:05:56 GMT Organization: gte In article <15337@accuvax.nwu.edu>, MZAKI@egidscvm.bitnet writes: > I am interested in the subject of photonic switching on academic > level. Could any one tell where to get more info about the subject? > (papers, periodicals, books, etc.) GLOBECOM 90 had several papers presented on photonic switching. Each paper also has a list of other references. Check the proceedings from GLOBECOM 90; you might also want to check the GLOBECOM proceddings from other years. Also look at the International Switching Symposium (ISS) proceedings, or the ICC proceedings. Brian K. Daly WB7OML @ AG Communication Systems, Phoenix, Arizona UUCP: {...!ames!ncar!noao!asuvax | uunet!zardoz!hrc | att}!gtephx!dalyb Phone: (602) 582-7644 FAX: (602) 582-7111 ------------------------------ From: Subodh Bapat Subject: Re: Last Four Digits of Phone is '0000' Date: 18 Dec 90 20:10:53 GMT Organization: (I don't speak for) Racal-Milgo, Ft Lauderdale, FL In <15360@accuvax.nwu.edu> john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: >If you try to get a '0000' assignment, every excuse >in the book will be trotted out to keep from giving it to you. >"This is a special-case number and cannot be assigned." >"This is a test number and you will receive many wrong numbers from >telco personel." >"We are not assigning numbers in the oh-thousands." >"This is part of a DID assignment." It's not just 0000 numbers, they'll make excuses if they don't want to assign you just any number you ask for. When I added two additional numbers on my residential line for Southern Bell's distinctive calling service, I wanted to pick the numbers I added. (Southern Bell's charge for doing so: $5 to search for up to three numbers, then $20 if you pick one of them). Since one of the prefixes available in my area was 305-384, I asked for 305-384-3763 (my trusty "telefun" program told me that 305-ETHERNET was one of the words I could make up with from the 305-384 prefix!). Of course, to maximize my chances, I had called this number ahead of time and made sure I got a "not-in-service" intercept. Much to my chagrin, however, Southern Bell told me I couldn't have this number because it was "reserved for business use". The same was true of some of the other numbers I asked for. In fact, the only numbers that seemed to be available were in the 7000-8000 range. My question is: how do the LECs decide what range of numbers in each prefix to reserve for whom? Are there different blocks of numbers in each prefix pre-reserved for, say, residential, business trunks, DID, and Centrex (even if such services aren't actually connected)? 305-384 is a new prefix in the rapidly expanding West Broward county area, and it's not even clear that the demographics have developed enough to the point of presenting a well-defined customer mix profile. Can anyone with any LEC background or knowledge shed any light on such number allocation policies? Subodh Bapat bapat@rm1.uu.net OR ...uunet!rm1!bapat MS E-204, PO Box 407044, Racal-Milgo, Ft Lauderdale, FL 33340 (305) 846-6068 ------------------------------ From: Bill Gundry Subject: Re: Fuzzy Logic Date: 19 Dec 90 18:22:52 GMT Organization: Hitachi America - Semiconductor & IC From article <15480@accuvax.nwu.edu>, by avenger@caen.engin.umich.edu (Aaron Paul Williams): > Could someone either mail me or post what exactly is fuzzy logic. > Thanks. > [Moderator's Note: That's what they say is wrong with my thinking most > of the time, particularly when discussing slamming. Care to come over > and do a brain scan to get more background on the matter? The grey > matter, that is. PAT] Fuzzy Logic is design methodology originated at UC Berkeley. It basically attempts to solve problems by making decisions based on input's value "degree of membership" in a defined set. An example is that of an air conditioning system. The input value, temperature, would be evaluated as HOT, COLD or WARM, not so much as a absolute value above or below a set point. The designer defines the parameters of HOT, COLD, and WARM using the X axis for the input value and the Y axis as the "degree of membership" of the value for the particular set on a scale of zero to 1. An input value of 68F may evaluated as .9 in the WARM set, and a control condition may then be activated. These rules are usually "anded" together for different input values to evaluate and respond to conditions. Proponents of fuzzy claim faster and smoother response to stimula resulting in better system effeciency, less energy, smoother operation etc. There is much more to it, but I don't think this is the right group for detailed discussion(as much as I enjoy reading it!). As this is more popular in Japan than in the US I don't think that there is newsgroup for it, perhaps comp.misc. Bill Gundry Hitachi America - Semiconductor & IC Div. ...uunet!hitachi!billg ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #890 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03709; 20 Dec 90 2:35 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30586; 20 Dec 90 1:05 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab24439; 20 Dec 90 0:02 CST Date: Wed, 19 Dec 90 23:13:47 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #891 BCC: Message-ID: <9012192313.ab20971@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 19 Dec 90 23:13:04 CST Volume 10 : Issue 891 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Information Needed About Cellular Antennas [Brian Daly] Re: Information Needed Ahout Cellular Antennas [Lou Judice] Re: For Telecom-ers Who Live up North [Jeff Carroll] Re: Questions About the GTE Airfone [Jeff Carroll] Re: Let Your Modem do the Walking [John Ruckstuhl] Re: So What Next? [John Higdon] To the Moon, Alice.... [Ed Hopper] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brian Daly Subject: Re: Information Needed About Cellular Antennas Date: 18 Dec 90 17:14:02 GMT Organization: gte In article <15427@accuvax.nwu.edu>, srm@dimacs.rutgers.edu (Scott R. Myers) writes: > I need an education on antennas. I'm purchasing a transportable and > want to install an antenna on my car for greater signal strength when > driving. I have a fair understanding of the different types (roof > mount, trunk mount, glass mount, etc.). What I want to know is the > layman's explanation of Db's. I see ads for 3db trunk mounts and 5db > glass mounts. The impression I'm given is the 5db glass mounts are > very acceptable for signal strength. How do they compare to roof and > trunk mounts? Just what are Db's anyhow? > I have read about the cabling > used in antenna installs (RG-58). Based on what I'm reading, there is > significant signal loss with that type of coax run long distances (ie. > trunk to front passenger side seat.). Would using another guage of > coax reduce the amount of signal loss from the cable? First, let's tackle the dB question: Say I have two radio transmitters. Transmitter A has an output power of ten watts, and transmitter B has an output power of one watt. One way of representing the ratio of transmitter A 's power to transmitter B's is using the decibel. The decibel is defined as: db = 10 log (P2/P1) So, in my example, the ratio of transmitter A's power to B's is: db = 10 log (10/1) = 10 db (note that the log is to the base 10) So, a 10db ratio represents a 10:1 power ratio. Now suppose transmitter A had a power output of two watts; now the db power ratio is 10 log (2/1) or 3db. thus a 2:1 power ratio represents a 3db power ratio. If I do this for other values of transmitter A power, I find that every time I double transmitter A's power (keeping B constant), I increase the db ratio by 3 db. Thus, doubling the power is the same as a 3db increase. Now, how does this apply to antennas? A measure of antenna efficiency is the gain (which is a power quantity). To identify the gain of a particular antenna, you have to have something to compare it to; as the above example demonstrated, the db is a measure of power ratios. Usually we refer to the gain of an antenna as compared to an isotropic source (an isotropic source is a lossless antenna that radiates power uniformly in all directions). The isotropic source has a unity power gain, or 0db. This is the reference. Looking at the two antennas you mentioned, a 3 db trunk mount and a 5 db window mount -- these measurements are against the same reference. From the above discussion, the 3 db antenna has twice the gain as the reference, and the 5 db has 3.16 times the gain. How are db's used? Let's say your transmitter (cellular phone) has a 5db power output, and you have 2 db loss in the coax running from the phone to the antenna. With the 3 db antenna, your overall system performance is: 5db - 2db + 3 db = 6 db. With the 5 db antenna: 5 db - 2 db + 5 db = 8 db. So, keeping everything else constant, the 5 db antenna will give better performance than the 3 db. Another important factor with the antenna is the placement of the antenna on the car. This will have an effect on the antenna pattern -- the pattern is a "picture" of how the electromagnetic energy is transmitted. An antenna will not radiate uniformly in all directions; the antenna might transmit better in one direction, and worse in another. This pattern is affected by the metal body of a car. To get the best pattern, I've usually had success with placing the antenna directly in the center of the roof. Placing the antenna on the rear window or trunk will change the pattern. On the subject of coax, you need 50 ohm cable for your cellular system. RG58 is by far the most common, and least expensive. It has an attenuation of about 20db per 100 feet, which is not great. However, the distance from the trunk to the front passanger side of a car is less that ten to fifteen feet, so you should be OK. There are better cables available, but these are usually larger in diameter which might not be good for automotive installations. I'd recommend RG-58A/U (specify this type -- it contains not only a copper braid, but an aluminum foil shield). At 900MHz, it has a loss of 13.8 db per 100 feet. There is one possible flaw in this however. I assume that both antennas in question were measured against an isotropic source. However, as one of my colleagues here at AGCS pointed out, you need to make certain of that fact.... > Looking at the two antennas you mentioned, a 3 db trunk mount and a > 5 db window mount -- these measurements are against the same > reference. From the above discussion, the 3 db antenna has twice the > gain as the reference, and the 5 db has 3.16 times the gain. Ah, but therein lies the rub - sometimes these AREN'T measured against the same reference. Sometimes dBi (dB gain relative to an isotropic point source) are used, and sometimes it's dBd (dB gain relative to a dipole at that frequency). I believe a dipole has about 1 dB gain over a point source. So it's more attractive for manufacturers to quote dBi if others quote dBd. I've seen this with ham and CB antennas, don't know if the cellular folks are doing it or not. Thus, when you read antenna specifications, make certain you are comparing apples to apples! Brian K. Daly WB7OML @ AG Communication Systems, Phoenix, Arizona UUCP: {...!ames!ncar!noao!asuvax | uunet!zardoz!hrc | att}!gtephx!dalyb Phone: (602) 582-7644 FAX: (602) 582-7111 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Dec 90 08:20:11 PST From: Peripheral Visionary 19-Dec-1990 1050 Subject: Re: Cellular Antennas Clever antenna designs produce radiation characteristics better than a vertical piece of wire cut to the proper length. This is essentially what the dB figures indicate - 3dB gain would be an antenna with a radiation pattern three times more powerful than "unity gain". However, there are tradeoffs, and 5dB gain antennas have a radiation pattern that's wider and closer to the ground - perfect for a desert, but not so good for hilly or mountainous areas. Since the base note was written from here in hilly New Jersey, I would suggest sticking with 3dB gain antennas, mounted as high as possible on the car. I'd point out that my experience with through-the-glass window mounts is as good as body/trunk mounted (drilled hole). The best antenna/installation would be a permanent mount in the center of yonur car's roof (see any NJ State Police car - their radio system is in a band near cellular). But then who wants to drill a hole in their roof? ljj [Moderator's Note: My thanks for the several good messages on antennas which have appeared recently. I think it is important to remind our less techically sophisticated readers who are considering their first cellular phone purchase for use in a metro area that any of the several antennas available commercially should work okay. Don't get too bogged down with antenna and coax considerations. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: For Telecom-ers Who Live up North Date: 18 Dec 90 20:17:14 GMT Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle In article <15307@accuvax.nwu.edu> brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor) writes: >Hook one of those $99 radio shack alarm dialers to a thermostat and >water sensor. If a pipe breaks or the heat fails, you'll get called. For not much more than $99 you can get the guts of a complete burglar alarm system that will provide the functionality you describe. I paid $140 for an Arrowhead Spartan alarm controller that is capable of running six alarm "zones", one of which could easily be connected to pipe freeze sensors. Of course, you can't get them at Radio Shack, and they aren't meant to be installed by consumers (though anyone who graduated from the fifth grade has the requisite technical skills). Jeff Carroll carroll@atc.boeing.com ------------------------------ From: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: Questions About the GTE Airfone Date: 18 Dec 90 20:09:51 GMT Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle In article <15300@accuvax.nwu.edu> rees@citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) writes: >In article <15223@accuvax.nwu.edu>, seanp%undrground@amix. >commodore.com (Sean) writes: >>The transmitter section of the setup is IMPRESSIVE. Everyone could >>concievably use thier phone at the same time, as there are 400 >>channels available for use. >I doubt very much that the airplane is able to transmit on 400 >channels, or even 56 channels, at once. I would also doubt that you could operate 400, or even 56, independent radio channels from the same bird. Even doing 25 (as we have on AWACS) results in horrendous self-jamming and elaborate frequency allocation software, not to mention hundreds if not thousands of pounds of antenna couplers. On the other hand, a recent conversation with the manager responsible for integrating the equivalent of AirFone into our next generation airplane left me with the impression that there was quite a big chunk of bandwidth required. One obvious solution would be an onboard DS1 mux which performs upconversion at its output to an IF frequency of the UHF set (most likely 70 MHz). I don't know whether such a beast exists today, but I doubt that that's what is used in most AirFone installations (i.e. one phone in the back of the plane). Jeff Carroll carroll@atc.boeing.com ------------------------------ From: John Ruckstuhl Subject: Re: Let Your Modem do the Walking Date: 19 Dec 90 22:33:25 GMT Organization: UF CIS Dept. In article <15489@accuvax.nwu.edu> malcolm@apple.com writes: > The directory, called Phonefile, offers the 725,000 Compuserve > subscribers unprecedented access to information about others, > including powers that surpass those of directory assistance operators, > such as the ability to search by last name and state, by ZIP code and > by phone number." > [Moderator's Note: > some other public records. You can search three ways through the data > base when using Compuserve: Put in a phone number and get the name and > address it is associated with; put in an address and get the phone > number(s) and names; or put in a name and address to get the phone > number listed. So finally, a single national electronic cross Wouldn't it be easy for them to define another key? Some (geneologists? detectives? credit bureaus?) would want to search by name or lastname only. I am unfamiliar with CompuServe -- could you submit a request, direct output to a personal file, logoff while request is processed, then download output during another session? Best wishes for the holiday season, John R Ruckstuhl, Jr University of Florida ruck@cis.ufl.edu, uflorida!ruck [Moderator's Note: And my best wishes to you and other readers also. I received a couple other lengthy replies in this thread today and because they are primarily privacy issues rather than telecom issues I passed them along direct to the Telecom Privacy mailing list. I have not plugged that list in a while, so here goes: For a continuing discussion on Caller*ID and other matters concerning privacy and the use of the telephone, subscribe to our companion journal which was established just for the purpose of handling the overflow of messages on these controversial topics. To subscribe, write to the moderator at 'telecom-priv-request@pica.army.mil'. And for discussions pertaining to the social and legal aspects of computer piracy, hacking and phreaking, subscribe to our other related mailing list, 'Computer Underground Digest' by writing the moderartors: 'tk0jut1@miu.bitnet'. CuD, as it is known for short, is also available as an altnet news group if you prefer. PAT] ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: So What Next? Date: 19 Dec 90 12:36:54 PST (Wed) From: John Higdon On Dec 18 at 1:52, TELECOM Moderator writes: > [Moderator's Note: Like yourself, I quite agree the MFJ (whatever that > means around here :) wink! wink! ) was a bit of an overkill. Throwing > the baby out with the bathwater, one might say. The judge would have > been more ethical had he allowed AT&T to stay intact while at the same > time authorizing unlimited competition *in all forms of phone service* > -- local, long distance and equipment sales -- and ordering AT&T/Bell > to interconnect with all competitors fairly. This is where your argument falls apart, Pat. I challenge you to name one single problem with the MFJ that isn't a result of improper or inadequate regulation. You say that AT&T should have been left intact and that some regulatory board would "make" them treat competitors fairly? Would it also "make" it release all specifications, practices, procedures, and technical standards so that the competition (and we ordinary folk) could make best use of the telephone network? I give you a living, contrary example. Pac*Bell. In every area that Pac*Bell has been allowed to compete with others, the company has pulled out every sleazy stop and managed to skirt the regulators. In cellular, Centrex marketing, equipment vending, you-name-it, I could give you a list of borderline tactics that unfairly harm its competition. IMHO, Pacific Telesis should be absolutely and positively prevented from participating in any business activity other than providing local exchange service. Owning that network gives it a supreme advantage in almost any technical arena you can name. > An impartial panel would > ajudicate disputes regards technical standards or other reasons AT&T > might resist interconnection. Oh, you mean something like the CPUC? We in CA can daily see how it would be if Mother still owned the local exchange system. Pacific Telesis has become the new AT&T, and the CPUC seems to be completely powerless to do anything about it. The company sells Centrex by messing up the prospective victim's trunks on its PBX and then claiming that "Centrex is maintain in OUR office and never has these problems." They provide free landline calls to Cellular One (partially owned by PT), while denying them to GTE Mobilnet. PacTel intimates that if equipment comes from them, somehow the customer's exchange service will be a little more reliable. The list (of verifiable case histories) goes on. Instead of blaming the MFJ for all of these inconveniences, why not ask why the appropriate regulatory board isn't doing its job? AOS, COCOTs, 900 IP, all of these things fall under someone's jurisdiction. So seeing how these boards are falling down on the job, what makes you believe that your "impartial panel" would do any better? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Subject: To the Moon, Alice.... From: Ed Hopper Date: Tue, 18 Dec 90 22:03:33 CST Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Texas 713-997-7575 Tonight, the day after the "to the Moon via 900 Service" Press Conference, the local district attorney and grand jury have decided to have a chat with these "entrepenuers". They claim they're on the up and up, TASS (the Soviet press agency) says they've never heard of these guys and the DA says it sounds like an illegal lottery to him. Ed Hopper (PS: The ncr.att.com sig goes away tomorrow, I promise.) BBS: 713-997-7575 ehopper@attmail.com ehopper@ehpcb.wlk.com coming soon:ehopper@ncr.att.com ????!!!!! :-) [Moderator's Note: But John Higdon begs your pardon: He says the local radio station in his town confirmed it is for real. We are out of space in this issue, so in 892, John will lead off and tell us what is really going on. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #891 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05053; 20 Dec 90 3:41 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa32166; 20 Dec 90 2:09 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab30586; 20 Dec 90 1:05 CST Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 0:50:04 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #892 BCC: Message-ID: <9012200050.ab25181@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 20 Dec 90 00:49:59 CST Volume 10 : Issue 892 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: 900 Number Sweepstakes, Space Flight is Prize! [John Higdon] Re: New Area Code for New York City - Plans Changed [Carl Moore] Re: Information Needed on AT&T Select Saver Plan [Carl Moore] 215 Area Code Loses "1" says Newspaper 'Reporter' [Bill Berbenich] Caller ID in Atlanta [Bill Berbenich] Collect Call from AT&T to: AT&T Employees [Werner Uhrig] Call for Discussion: comp.org.Boston Computer Society [Barry M. Porter] Payphones and DTMF Dialling [U5434122@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au] Visual Telephone Needed [Shyue Chin Shiau] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: 900 Number Sweepstakes, Space Flight is Prize! Date: 19 Dec 90 17:33:50 PST (Wed) From: John Higdon On Dec 19 at 00:30, TELECOM Moderator writes: > [Moderator's Note: Consider it done. About 4 AM Tuesday morning I put > in a phone call to Moscow and spoke with a public relations person in > the responsible agency. He said exactly what you said, and was pleased > that the 'American media' (who me? !) was calling to find out '.. the > truth about that rumor some Americans have started ...' The phone call > cost me about twenty dollars, but I'd rather spend it on that call > than give $2.99 to those greedy con-artists in Texas who are > perpetrating this scam. Looks like you might not have received your money's worth. Just five minutes ago, KGO (TV) News reported that THEY had checked with Moscow and received confirmation that the Soviet space agency had indeed contracted with an American firm regarding a contest to send a lucky winner into space. I suspect that even in this Post Cold War era, one must still be a little skeptical about any information casually obtained from unidentified spokespeople. Remember, the Soviets invented bureaucracy and it is most likely that the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. In any event, KGO cautioned viewers that each call (number posted on screen) cost $2.99. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: Well now I don't know what to think. The {Chicago Sun-Times} in the Wednesday editions had a picture of the men involved with the firm and a short story saying the Soviets had DENIED the report that arrangements had been made to take an American with them on the trip and that the men involved were under investigation for starting a scam. So now we have KGO saying it is true and a couple of government investigators saying it is false and they are investigating the fellows involved. I'm told it is false in a phone call and a message here yesterday made similar claims. Wait and see, I guess. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Dec 90 15:49:45 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: New Area Code for New York City - Plans Changed Questions: Are there prefix duplications between the Bronx and the current 718 area (Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island)? You have written that about 20% of the 2.5 million numbers in area 212 are used for cellular and paging. How much of that 2.5 million is taken up by the Bronx? When is it proposed to put the Bronx in 718 (which obviously must have the room to add the prefixes used by the Bronx)? And how does that push back the 212/917 split (given the recovery of the prefixes now used in the Bronx)? The change means that the Bronx-Westchester line will become the border between 718 and 914. Putting Bronx in 917 would have put 914 and 917 along that line instead. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Dec 90 16:00:09 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Information Needed on AT&T Select Saver Plan My understanding is that long-distance rates are not changed by an area-code split (but that is based on my reading the {Washington Post} 1973 article -- now long ago -- about the 703/804 split in Virginia). I am still assuming that recent splits would be taken into account, say, for the upcoming Maryland split; and I have read in this Digest a while back that there was some sort of charge waiver for directory assistance calls between two area codes (one of which areas just having been formed by splitting the other). You might also consider where in Maryland you are calling. [Moderator's Note: In Chicago, the 312/708 split had no affect on billing whatsoever. Local calls remained local. PAT] ------------------------------ From: bill Subject: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' Date: Wed, 19 Dec 90 11:48:31 EST Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu [Moderator's Note: I realize this next article sounds stupid. But do not blame Bill ... don't flame the messanger; but rather, the message itself and the original author. Read it and we'll chat about it afterward. PAT] UPma 12/12 1156 215 area code loses ``1'', gains millions of numbers By SUE MORGAN PHILADELPHIA (UPI) -- Telephone numbers aren't a limitless resource, and phone customers in eastern Pennsylvania will soon feel the consequences of that fact of life, Bell of Pennsylvania said Wednesday. Beginning Jan. 14, customers in the 215 dialing area -- which includes Philadelphia and its suburbs, Reading, and Allentown -- will no longer have to dial a "1" before dialing a long-distance number in that area. The elimination of the digit will allow Bell to squeeze another 1.6 million new telephone numbers in to the growing area, said Bell spokesman Tom Duddy. "People used to think that this (telephone numbers) was a bottomless resource, like the ocean or the sky, and we're finding out that's not true," Duddy said. "You use enough of something and you can run out of it, whether it be the ocean or the sky or telephone numbers." There are already about 6.4 million telephone numbers assigned in the 215 area, Duddy said. He said the ubiquitous fax machine and cellular telephone are partly to blame for the number crunch. "If you look four or five years ago, how many people had fax machines? Now everybody has a fax machine. The same thing with cellular telephones. All these things add more telephone numbers." The elimination of the "1" for long-distance numbers in the 215 area will only forestall the inevitable -- creation of a new area code in eastern Pennsylvania, possibly as soon as the mid-1990s. A new area code was created earlier this year in New Jersey, where a chunk of the 201 area was split off to form area code 908. Duddy said the governing body which oversees area codes will not grant new area codes to local telephone companies until they take all possible steps, including eliminating the "1." Customers in the 215 area will be able to dial with or without the "1" between Jan. 14 and Sept. 23, when the change will become mandatory. The spokesman said the phone company is hoping the long transition period will make customers comfortable with the change. Letters will be going out next week to residential customers, and the company plans to do other advertising. Bell will spend about $1 million to make the change. Duddy said customers in Pennsylvania's other three calling areas don't have to worry -- there are plenty of numbers to go around in the 717, 412 and 814 areas. "Most of those are good way into the 21st century and we don't foresee having to do anything with those," Duddy said. ----- end of article ----- I've heard of ADDING a "1" to dialing in order to create more NXX possibilities, but ELIMINATING it to create more numbers? How can this be? Not long ago, Southern Bell started to require 1 + 404 for long-distance calls within the same area code. This allowed them to use NXX prefixes which were once "area codes" (i.e. 607, 415...). They were able to get many thousands more numbers. But taking the "1" out???? Sign me "puzzled", Bill Berbenich bill@eedsp.gatech.edu [Moderator's Note: Dear Puzzled -- so am I. If there was ever a dumber article in the papers I have not seen it, except possibly the stuff Joe Abernathy writes about the Internet. Talk about misleading and false information! I wonder how she could have gotten so mixed up in her report? Assuming that it was a 'typographical error' (ha ha, blame it on printer's deviltries!) I guess what she was trying to say was that '1' would be required henceforth in order that area codes could be used as prefixes. I guess ?? Hopefully the paper will run a correction soon, but knowing how most papers operate they will probably brazenly ignore it. Geeze, even I devote entire issues to correcting my mistakes sometimes. PAT] ------------------------------ From: bill Subject: Caller ID in Atlanta Date: Wed, 19 Dec 90 16:14:22 EST Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu I had a chance to speak with the Southern Bell PR folks earlier and have some word of note to pass on. Mention may have been made here on Telecomm Digest about Ga. Public Service Commission approval to Southern Bell for the implementation of Caller ID for a one-year trial period. According to SBT&T, "Caller ID is expected to be on-line for SS7-equipped COs no later than February 14 for the metropolitan Atlanta area. Outlying areas of Georgia are expected to be on-line by mid-1991." The monthly charge will be $6.00 for residential customers (I have no word on the rate for a business line). By granting approval for a one-year trial period, the Georgia PSC has permitted Southern Bell to get on-line with the service with a minimum of pre-deployment wrangling in the courts. Others' personal opinions notwithstanding, I think this is a wise and prudent decision. The "trial" period will bear out whether or not any of the alleged shortcomings of Caller ID will actually emerge. I'll encourage others to respond to the moral/ethical/other implications of Caller ID by way of the Telecom-Privacy mailing list. Bill Berbenich Georgia Tech Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu [Moderator's Note: Telecom Privacy can be subscribed by writing to the Moderator: telecom-priv-request@pica.army.mil PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Dec 1990 18:17:28 CST From: Werner Uhrig Reply-To: Werner Uhrig Subject: Collect Call from AT&T to: AT&T Employees [ ad in WSJ of 12/18 ] Has AT&T management told you what will happen to AT&T if its acquisition of NCR succeeds? They have said they would shut down AT&T's computer operations, after NCR hand-picked the best employees. Frankly, WE are loathe to participate in that kind of a process. And we told them so. Evidently, they weren't listening to us. Perhaps they ought to hear from YOU. We told your Board and management that the combination they propose does not make sense. They simply cannot expect NCR to salvage AT&T's computer business without AT&T employees and AT&T customers and AT&T shareholders getting hurt in the process. How many AT&T employees would be disposed of? 1,000? 3,000? 5,000? Then ask yourself: Why has AT&T launched its $6.2 billion hostile takeover bid for NCR? They can arrange financing, but, in the end, WHO WILL REALLY PAY? The question is: WILL YOU ACCEPT THE CHARGES? IF NOT, LET AT&T KNOW. CALL: ....... NCR [ I told them in 1985 to buy Apple, but they wouldn't listen to me ... ] [Moderator's Note: I am sorry the phone number was not sent along with the article. I didn't remove it ... I did not receive it! Please send this number so that AT&T employees and stockholders who read the Digest can use if if they wish. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Barry M Porter Subject: Call for Discussion: comp.org.Boston Computer Society Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die Date: Thu, 20 Dec 1990 00:30:01 GMT This is the second call for discussion on creating a newsgroup for the Boston Computer Society. The name of the group was tentitively to be comp.org.bcs, but the name is up in the air so the group will not be confused with the British Computer Society. The group will be unmoderated, and will serve as a focal point for the BCS to communicate with computer users world wide. The BCS has interest groups for most PCs (both current and orphan) and many other special interest groups covering topics like ham radio to database to email. It would be a place for meeting notices, meeting transcripts, minutes of important committee meetings and on line newsletters to be sent and shared with all interested. In February, if the group gets created, we will possibly be able to take on line membership info ... There are many other interesting things, like live meetings on line that can be done on internet and discussed in this group. If you are interested and would like to support this effort, please post your comments to news.groups with a copy to: BPorter@world.std.com Thanks! ------------------------------ From: U5434122@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au Subject: Payphones and DTMF Dialling Date: 20 Dec 90 12:35:20 +1100 Organization: The University of Melbourne As I described earlier, Telecom Australia has begun installing debit card telephones, which have fancy LCD displays and pushbutton keypads, instead of rotary dials (my, we are backward, aren't we.) I have been trying to discover why these payphones do not have DTMF dialling enabled. I accosted an installer yesterday and grilled him as much as he could take. The payphones *do* have DTMF capability (I saw the internal switch) but orders are that all are to be left on 'pulse'. I asked for a reason. First reason was that the exchange did not have DTMF enabled. I pointed out that the phone was connected to the 899 exchange which is totally computerised, and thus DTMF was available on all lines. The installer answered that it is there "at customer request, and we (TA), as the customer, don't want it." On further grilling, it appeared that TA was afraid of fraud, and so disables DTMF from all payphone lines (except those of COCOTS whose owners ask for it.) The latest COCOT, the Blue Phone, apparently has some sort of device which prevents fraud from being perpetrated whether DTMF is enabled or not. Or perhaps TA just charges the owner for all calls anyway. What TA is afraid of, I believe, is someone (lots of people) with tone senders, available from the major banks, coming along and bypassing the payphone's dialling system to place calls. What I would like to know is: How do the American and Swedish telcos avoid fraud of this type? (They are the only two countries I personally know to have DTMF payphones. Comments from elsewhere are also welcome.) Is it possible to use a tone-sender to dial from a payphone in USA or Sweden or elsewhere? If this is indeed TA's worry, how effective would such a simple fix as disabling the handpiece microphone until answer supervision be? The phones *do* listen for answer supervision: they must as they don't take your money or card-credits until the call is supervised. Help appreciated, (I shall summarise and post e-mail in the New year.) Thanks, Danny u5434122@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au Above is IMHO. Nothing to do with Telcom Australia, or Uni. of Melbourne [Moderator's Note: Disabling the mouth until supervision would prevent the phone from being used to call directory enquiries or the operator; both of whom answer unsupervised, no? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Shyue Chin Shiau Subject: Visual Telephone Telephones Date: 20 Dec 90 02:12:00 GMT Reply-To: Shyue Chin Shiau Organization: NOVELL, Inc., San Jose, Califonia I don't know if this is the right group to post this inquiry. But seems you people in this group are the best resources I can bet on. I need one PAIR of: BLACK/WHITE STATIC SCREEN VISUAL TELEPHONES Any party interested in this inquiry can reach me by E-mail or call 408-473-8240 between 10-5 Pacific Time. Engineering Dept, NOVELL, 2180 Fortune Dr., San Jose, CA 95131 UUCP: {ames,sun,apple,mtxinu,cae780,sco}!novell!shiau Chin Shiau BARRNet/Internet: shiau@xlnvax.novell.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #892 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27869; 21 Dec 90 3:49 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20362; 21 Dec 90 2:20 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07878; 21 Dec 90 1:15 CST Date: Fri, 21 Dec 90 0:46:02 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #893 BCC: Message-ID: <9012210046.ab05627@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 21 Dec 90 00:45:08 CST Volume 10 : Issue 893 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' [Gihan Dias] Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' [Scott Barnes] Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' [Syd Weinstein] Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' [Carl Moore] Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' [A. Alan Toscano] Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' [Leland F Derbenwick] Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' [Randal L. Schwartz] Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gihan Dias Subject: Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' Date: 20 Dec 90 22:13:25 GMT Reply-To: Gihan Dias Organization: E.E.C.S. Dept. - U.C. Davis. In article <15527@accuvax.nwu.edu> bill@eedsp.gatech.edu writes: > Beginning Jan. 14, customers in the 215 dialing area -- which >includes Philadelphia and its suburbs, Reading, and Allentown -- will >no longer have to dial a "1" before dialing a long-distance number in >that area. >The elimination of the digit will allow Bell to squeeze another 1.6 >million new telephone numbers in to the growing area, said Bell >spokesman Tom Duddy. >I've heard of ADDING a "1" to dialing in order to create more NXX >possibilities, but ELIMINATING it to create more numbers? How can >this be? > Not long ago, Southern Bell started to require 1 + 404 for >long-distance calls within the same area code. This allowed them to >use NXX prefixes which were once "area codes" (i.e. 607, 415...). >They were able to get many thousands more numbers. But taking the "1" >out???? What's the problem here? It sounds like what most area codes have to go through before introducing NXX prefixes. For example, when I was in 805-land a few years ago, local calls were seven-digit, long distance calls within the area code were 1 + 7-digit and LD calls outside the area code were 1 + 10 digit. Then GTE (and I presume PacBell) changed the rules so that long distance calls within the area code were no longer preceeded by 1 but consisted of just the seven digits. This seems to be exactly what is happening in 215 now. I assume that this was to allow N [01] X prefixes in the area code to be distinguished from area codes. If a dialled number begins with a 1 then the switch expects 10 more digits, and if it begins with 2-9 then it expects seven more digits for either a local call or a LD call within the area code. The main loss is to subscribers, since now we can no longer distinguish a long distance call within the area code from a local call. Gihan ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Dec 90 00:02:28 EST From: Scott Barnes Subject: Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' > [Moderator's Note: Dear Puzzled -- so am I. If there was ever a > dumber article in the papers I have not seen it, except possibly the > stuff Joe Abernathy writes about the Internet. Talk about misleading > and false information! I wonder how she could have gotten so mixed up > in her report? Assuming that it was a 'typographical error' (ha ha, > blame it on printer's deviltries!) I guess what she was trying to say > was that '1' would be required henceforth in order that area codes > could be used as prefixes. I guess ?? Hopefully the paper will run a Sorry, Pat, but I believe the newspaper reporter was correct. Allow me to quote from an article that appeared here in the Digest three months ago (Volume 10, Issue 685): > The {Philadelphia Daily News} reports on Sept. 18 (and Bell of PA's > Newsline confirms today) that 1+ will be prohibited within 215 after > May 20, 1991. You all know the rest of the story - running out of > prefixes, needing to use prefixes that look like area codes, > forestalling the introduction of a new area code. And, of course, > after 5/20/91 we won't know if we're making a toll call within 215 or > not. I have heard from a different source that Bell of PA intends to implement exchange codes of the type "XXX", so that exchanges such as 131 will now be possible. It is certainly not a case where 1+ dialing is being more stringently enforced. Scott Barnes sba8_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu [Moderator's Note: Where the problem comes up is that for many of us, we never used one plus at all until the need for additional prefixes came up, then we had to start using it on long distance calls in order that area code number combinations could be used as local prefix number combinations. Think of it that way and see how dumb it sounds to say 'forbidding the use of 1' rather than 'you must now use 1'. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Syd Weinstein Subject: Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' Reply-To: syd@dsi.com Organization: Datacomp Systems, Inc. Huntingdon Valley, PA Date: Thu, 20 Dec 1990 15:38:56 GMT The Inky (local name for it) is not know for its technical savvy, but, in one case she's right. In B of PA 215 land, any call with a 1 was a toll call and without a 1 a local (free or metered as message units call). Ok, now not all of 215 was in your local area. (In fact the map is so lopsided I can call 30 miles south or 2 miles north and stay free, more than 2 miles north is toll). Anyway if I were to dial to that toll it would have been 1+7digits, thus their software treated the N0/1X as a/c and no N[^01]X as non area code. The in 215 no N0/1X exchanges were possible. Now, they are changing to 1+ = 11 digits and no 1 = 7 digits, and thus by dropping the 1, we gain more numbers in 215. Gee, didn't she make that hard. Don't worry, on the Inky could have told us in a Major story that no wonder we feel poor, food prices have been rising at the rate of 7.7% per month since 1982. You figure what rate of inflation that is. Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP Elm Coordinator Datacomp Systems, Inc. Voice: (215) 947-9900 syd@DSI.COM or dsinc!syd FAX: (215) 938-0235 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 10:59:56 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' Puzzled? Should not be. When an area has prefixes of NXX form instead of NNX (as has happened with 404 etc., and is to happen in 1991 with area 215), long distance calls take this form: Within that area: 7D or 1 + NPA + 7D (yes, your own NPA) to other areas: 1 + NPA + 7D. 1 + 7D and NPA + 7D can no longer be used in such cases. They would require timeout. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 19:43 GMT From: "A. Alan Toscano" <0003382352@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' In TELECOM Digest Vol 10, Issue 892, bill quotes from a UPI article written by Sue Morgan... >Beginning Jan. 14, customers in the 215 dialing area -- which >includes Philadelphia and its suburbs, Reading, and Allentown -- will >no longer have to dial a "1" before dialing a long-distance number in >that area. Subsequent comments by bill and our Moderator suggest that the article should have said that a '1' would now be REQUIRED instead of being NO LONGER ALLOWED. I disagree. It's my recollection that most, if not all, of Pennsylvania is accustomed to prefixing *ANY* long distance call with a '1' prefix. The article refers to the elimination of a '1' prefix on *INTRA-NPA* calls only. It's confusing because of the vagueness permitted by our English language. "In that area" refers not to the callers location, but to the destination long-distance number. Inter-NPA dialing will not change. A '1' will still be required. Let's recall that in many areas once populated by Step-by-Step switching, a '1' prefix has been used to access equipment able to complete a long distance call. In these areas, the '1' has, over time, taken on the meaning "indicates a Long Distance toll call." Or, to put it another way: "I agree to pay extra money for this call, which I realize is to a location outside of my toll-free calling area." This way of thinking is so deep rooted in my home state of Texas, that, when Southwestern Bell began charging for Directory Assistance, they changed its access number from 411 to 1411. And, subscribers here have complained, after being billed for rather excessive 976 charges, that the Phone Company should require a '1' if it's going to cost extra. The new meaning of '1' as "an area code will follow" will take some getting accustomed to in much of America. A. Alan Toscano Voice: 713 236 6616 MCI Mail: ATOSCANO 0003382352@mcimail.com Telex: 6975956AAT UW CIS: 73300,217 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 12:58:35 EST From: Leland F Derbenwick Subject: Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Apparently, neither "Puzzled Bill" nor our Moderator has ever lived in an area where an initial "1" meant _any_ toll call. That is, where a "1" would be followed by 10 digits for numbers in another area code, or by 7 digits for toll numbers in your own area code. A straight 7 digit number, with no leading "1", was a local, free call. The advantage of this scheme is that you could never make a call that you thought was free, talk for an hour, and then find out on your bill that you were being charged by the minute. Of course, this has the exact same problem as _never_ having to dial "1": the the first 3 digits after the "1" must distinguish an area code from an exchange, so exchanges must all be of the pattern NNX (in regular expression form, [2-9][2-9][0-9]). So dropping the "1" before 7-digit toll calls allows a "1" to be interpreted as "10-digit number follows", which means that "1" always precedes an area code, and a dialed string without a "1" is always a 7-digit. This allows exchange prefixes to use the NXX pattern, adding all the exchanges with a 0 or 1 in the second digit. Speaking strictly for myself, Lee Derbenwick, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Warren, NJ lfd@cbnewsm.ATT.COM or !att!cbnewsm!lfd [Moderator's Note: That's right, I have never lived in such a place. Here in Chicago, what is local to me is toll to a person a few miles away but still within the city. There is no longer any local free calling zone which takes in the whole city. We never could have used the '1 means toll charge' arrangement here since who is to say ahead of time which prefixes would have a '1' in front. The difference between a free call and toll call here is entirely dependent on which central office area you live in. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Randal L. Schwartz" Subject: Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' Reply-To: "Randal L. Schwartz" Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 19:42:29 GMT In article <15527@accuvax.nwu.edu>, bill@gauss (bill) writes: | [Moderator's Note: I realize this next article sounds stupid. But do | not blame Bill ... don't flame the messanger; but rather, the message | itself and the original author. Read it and we'll chat about it | afterward. PAT] It makes perfect sense to me. If I "lose" the "1" for long-distance, I can have a number within 215 that has an exchange that looks like an area code (has 0/1 for second digit). Old system (trying to call 516-7772 number as long distance). 1-516-7772 = system waits for rest of number, thinking it is the beginning of 1-516-777-2nnn, so this number is illegal. New system (still trying to call 516-7772 long distance). 516-7772 = system now knows that this is a complete number. See, I've "lost" the "1" for "long distance". And gained it for "area code follows". I guess living in an area where 1 means long distance gives me the advantage at understanding these statements. For those of you who haven't had "1" mean long distance, taking those statements out of context from the newspaper article must have looked really funny. And since the general population *for that area* has it firmly entrenched that "1 means long distance"... that's indeed what they are losing! (I'm still baffled at what the "1 means long distance" people do when a differing area code is *not* long distance. Do you dial the "1" or not? Around here, if it's a different area code, it's definitely long distance.) Just another person who dials 1 for long distance still, 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: Is Portland, OR to Vancouver, WA a long distance call? What about Troutdale, OR to Camas, WA? What about Ontario, OR to Fruitland, ID? And yes, we dial 1 whenever we change area codes, even though several suburban 708 points are local to me in 312, and are part of my 'eight mile from CO to CO' local free calling area. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Dec 90 0:03:59 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' Listen, all you people are doing it exactly the *opposite* of what happened here in Chicago ... For all the years I can remember we did not have to dial '1' before anything we did. Our prefixes were always of the form: (2 through 9) (2 through 9) (1 through 9) Area codes were the same everywhere: (2 through 9) (0 or 1) (2 through 9) Special codes were 211 - long distance operator 411 - directory service 611 - repair service 811 - long distance from PBX's, hotels, etc. 911 - Chicago Emergency Services There was no conflict since a second digit of zero or one was always a long distance call or a special code. A second and third digit of one was always a special code. A second and third digit of zero was always for services like 700, 800 and 900 calls. Then they decided they wanted an extra 130 or so prefixes so they said we would ADD the digit 1 at the start of a call when calling long distance -- not just any old call within 312 regardless of what it cost -- but only outside of 312. Immmediatly after starting 'you must dial one plus the area code' we began seeing odd prefixes like 606 and 415 (which serves my cell phone). We must dial 1-708 or 1-312 when crossing the line from city to suburbs although it may in fact remain a local toll-free call if that is what it was before the split. I guess since the reporter was writing mainly for the Philadelphia readers her story sort of makes sense. But generally you ADD 1 -- not delete it -- in order to gain more prefixes, since by using 1 in front of an area code you are able to recycle area codes into local area prefixes without having to time out the dialing after the last digit is entered. I still think she should have done a better job on that story, and explained what was going on. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #893 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04683; 21 Dec 90 11:20 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04860; 21 Dec 90 9:32 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02985; 21 Dec 90 8:26 CST Date: Fri, 21 Dec 90 7:44:04 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #894 BCC: Message-ID: <9012210744.ab29489@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 21 Dec 90 07:44:02 CST Volume 10 : Issue 894 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Help Wanted at the FCC [Nigel Allen] Mysterious Item Found on Phone Bill [Dave Burke] Radio Saturation (was: COCOT's on the Corner) [Peter Anvin] Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed [Norman Yarvin] Information Needed About TeleFiberNet [Bill Huttig] Re: Last Four Digits of Phone is '0000' [Christopher Ambler] Re: Last Four Digits of Phone is '0000' [John Higdon] System-X Exchanges [Andrew Morley] Re: Questions About the GTE Airfone [Mike Riddle] Distinctive Ringing [Pete Ahrens] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 19 Dec 90 18:32 EST From: Nigel Allen Subject: Help Wanted at the FCC Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada. {Communications Week}, December 17, 1990 reports that the Federal Communications Commission plans to hire "at least 20 people during the next few months" for its Common Carrier Bureau. "The agency is looking for junior-level and senior-level lawyers, engineers, and computer programmers to serve in all the bureau's divisions. Resumes should be sent to Bureau Chief Richard Firestone." I won't be applying. I assume that FCC salaries are significantly lower than what good people can make elsewhere, but the question is probably academic since I don't have U.S. citizenship or a "green card" (authorization to live and work permanently in the U.S. I think the FCC's address is Washington, D.C. 20554, but that's from memory. ------------------------------ From: "VAXB::DBURKE" Subject: Mysterious Item Found on Phone Bill Date: 15-DEC-1990 15:03:49 After three years of reviewing telco bills, I've been calling for info on a semi-annual basis about a $60 monthly charge from AT+T. Every time I call, I get someone (usually different) that explains to me that without this $60 "rental" equipment, I wouldn't have long distance. The other day, I made my semi-annual call, but this time I was told the installation address of the termination. We moved out of there over five years ago. This part was easy. Now the hard part. The rental charge was for equipment on three in-state FX lines, serviced by NYNEX (NET) from the start. I have a number for the gear (obviously an AT+T #) but no onw I've spoken to yet can tell me exactly what the box does. We had three FX trunk lines going into a ROLM switch back then, and when we moved, we took them with us. I've hunted around, and have yet to find anything that looks like a trunk termination box. To compound this problem, AT+T says the install date was 3/86. We moved out in 5/85. I'm currently awaiting a decision from AT+T (they are researching it), but I would like responses from other to see how they handle things like this. BTW - in 1985 when we moved, we also switched LD to MCI. Comments? Dave Burke dburke%vaxb@nusc-npt.navy.mil ------------------------------ From: Peter Anvin From: hpa@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Peter Anvin) Subject: Radio Saturation (was: COCOT's on the Corner) Date: 20 Dec 90 05:41:32 GMT Organization: Northwestern University >A former friend of mine in >Bloomingdale Illinios had the unfortunate problem being served by a CO >that is close to the transmit tower for a FM radio station. Somehow >the radio program found it's way into the local loops. >[Moderator's Note: Sometime take a drive out near Wheaton, IL where >two powerhouse radio stations (WGN - 720 AM and WBBM - 780 AM) have >their transmitters within about a quarter-mile of each other. WMAQ-AM (670 kHz) has their tower in Glendale Heights, IL, next town from Bloomingdale. I never had any problems while living in Bloomingdale, but every time I call my girlfriend in Itasca, IL (about eight miles from WMAQ) I get WMAQ in the background. She has two phones (on the same line). If both are unhooked for some reason (e.g. family gettign annoyed over the phone line beig tied up), the interference gets so powerful I can hear nothing *but* the radio. When only one phone is off-hook, it is bearable, probably around the 8-10 dB under voice level you mentioned. H. Peter Anvin +++ A Strange Stranger +++ N9ITP/SM4TKN +++ INTERNET: hpa@casbah.acns.nwu.edu FIDONET: 1:115/989.4 BITNET: HPA@NUACC RBBSNET: 8:970/101.4 ------------------------------ From: Norman Yarvin Subject: Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed Date: 20 Dec 90 06:38:54 GMT > If you were unable to detect that the service wasn't AT&T when >you consumed it, what reason do you have to complain now? The possibility that you might not detect the change, but still not have received equal service, is is not nonexistent. You might have been using a Trailblazer, and getting 30% lower transmission rates on newsfeeds. You might have had to spend more time on a conversation, because of crosstalk, and written it off to the rainy weather. You might have been overheard, because of crosstalk or because of bad security practices on the part of the long distance company. ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: Information Wanted on TeleFiberNet Date: 18 Dec 90 17:07:15 GMT Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL Has anyone heard of the Long Distance Company TeleFiberNet? Their 10xxx code is 10008. Causual calls get blocked. If anyone has a Customer Service Number for them please let me know. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Dec 90 22:58:55 -0800 From: Fubar's Carbonated Hormones Subject: Re: Last Four Digits of Phone is '0000' >If you try to get a '0000' assignment, every excuse >in the book will be trotted out to keep from giving it to you. Really? I have a relative with a 0000 number... then again, he works for the phone*company. But he assures me he pays the personalized number fee and applied for it just like a subscriber. >It's not just 0000 numbers, they'll make excuses if they don't want to >assign you just any number you ask for. When I added two additional >numbers on my residential line for Southern Bell's distinctive calling >service, I wanted to pick the numbers I added. (Southern Bell's charge >for doing so: $5 to search for up to three numbers, then $20 if you >pick one of them). >Much to my chagrin, however, Southern Bell told me I couldn't have >this number because it was "reserved for business use". The same was >true of some of the other numbers I asked for. In fact, the only >numbers that seemed to be available were in the 7000-8000 range. When I wanted my current BBS number (805) 54-FUBAR, I called the number to see if it was available. It was not. I asked the party at the other end, after explaining that my company is "Fubar Systems", if they would give up the number, perhaps for a small gift (read: I'll bribe you with $50 if you let me have your number). No go. So I waited until it was available. The first day that it was available, I *grabbed* it. (Of course, it's off right now because of the inanity of the phone*entities and their inability to understand that I ordered call*waiting on the OTHER line (no, not THAT one, the OTHER OTHER line [we have 4])). But at least I got it. No hassle. >My question is: how do the LECs decide what range of numbers in each >prefix to reserve for whom? I've always been told it's random ... they'll take what they need from where they have it available ... in Santa Maria, all numbers 97xx and 98xx are pay phones. Trivia. Christopher(); --- cambler@polyslo.calpoly.edu --- chris@erotica.fubarsys.com ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Last Four Digits of Phone is '0000' Date: 20 Dec 90 01:26:48 PST (Thu) From: John Higdon Subodh Bapat writes: > It's not just 0000 numbers, they'll make excuses if they don't want to > assign you just any number you ask for. Ok, here are the legitimate reasons for refusal to assign numbers: In mechanical offices (through #5 Crossbar), the following may apply: 1. The number falls in a thousands group that simply isn't equipped. Mechanical switches assign numbers by physical positions on the equipment. If the equipment doesn't exist, you can't assign a number on it. For instance, years ago in West Yellowstone there was one SXS prefix for the whole town. It had two thousands groups installed, 9000 and 4000. If you wanted a number other than 9XXX or 4XXX, it was sorry Charlie. 2. The number falls in an anticpated hunting growth area of a large customer. If XYZ Corporation has been adding many lines per year in its incoming hunt group and the number you want is right in the middle of where telco expects it to expand, they will withhold the number from assignment to others. This only applies to mechanical switches (don't let them trot this out if you are dealing with an ESS). 3. The number falls within a bank of test numbers reserved for telco use. For all switches, reasons for denial include the following: 1. The number falls within a DID group, current or anticipated. 2. The number falls within an exchange that is GENERALLY used for DID or other large-user specialty use. 3. The number is actually reserved by a business for future use (yes, large customers can get away with this). 4. The number is in an electronic switch and you have ordered service that can be provided on a mechanical one (and numbers on the electronic one are in short supply). Tip: If this is the case, ask for 900/976 blocking. This can only be done (in Pac*Bell Land anyway) on electronic switches and they have to give it to you if requested -- free. 5. The number falls in an exchange that is about to cut to new equipment and number assignments are frozen. 6. The number, while out of service, may have only recently been disconnected and the "dead" time has not expired. If you agree to accept any wrong numbers, this can be negotiated. The above are the legitimate reasons. Nonsense reasons include: 1. That number is reserved for business. (There is no functional difference between a business line and a residential line.) 2. That number is reserved by telco. (Telco can "unreserve" any number it likes.) 3. That number is in a reserved hunt group (in an electronic switch). (An electronic switch can jump-hunt anywhere it likes.) John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: abm88@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Morley A.B.) Subject: System-X Exchanges Date: 20 Dec 90 17:35:13 GMT I have found a new command on my local system-X exchange: 175 Does anyone know what it does? I get a message telling me what number I'm calling from then some sort of test starts. Replies via email if possible, thanks! I'll summarise if anyone wants. On another note, I ordered a couple of star services (by phone of course!) and got then in under an hour! Well done BT! Andrew Morely ------------------------------ From: riddle@hoss.unl.edu (Michael H. Riddle) Subject: Re: Questions About the GTE Airfone Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 11:16:13 GMT In <15520@accuvax.nwu.edu> bcsaic!carroll@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Carroll) writes: > I would also doubt that you could operate 400, or even 56, >independent radio channels from the same bird. Even doing 25 (as we >have on AWACS) results in horrendous self-jamming and elaborate >frequency allocation software, not to mention hundreds if not >thousands of pounds of antenna couplers. > On the other hand, a recent conversation with the manager >responsible for integrating the equivalent of AirFone into our next >generation airplane left me with the impression that there was quite a >big chunk of bandwidth required. One obvious solution would be an >onboard DS1 mux which performs upconversion at its output to an IF >frequency of the UHF set (most likely 70 MHz). I don't know whether >such a beast exists today, but I doubt that that's what is used in >most AirFone installations (i.e. one phone in the back of the plane). When I flew on the SAC airborne, we had UHF mux with 15 channels, and it was /old/ technology. While I agree that 400 would be overkill, I'd think standard telephone switch-sizing techniques would lower the anticipated service requirements down considerably. A designer might want to adjust for projected load-mix, such as a business shuttle vs vacation charters. Back in the old step-by-step telephone days, most installations only had line-finders for 10-15% of the phones in service. My guess is that for airfones, something less than that would be adequate. Ever had to wait for dialtone on your regular phone? It /does/ happen occasionally. <<<< insert standard disclaimer here >>>> riddle@hoss.unl.edu | University of Nebraska postmaster%inns@iugate.unomaha.edu | College of Law mike.riddle@f27.n285.z1.fidonet.org | Lincoln, Nebraska, USA ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 11:04:13 -0800 From: pacbell!pb2esac!prahrens@mips.com Subject: Distinctive Ringing Organization: Pacific*Bell ESAC, San Francisco, Ca. Recent dicussion has produced: >In another bit of PacBell stupidity, I recently tried to get >distinctive ringing on my single line... >Is this Catch-22 idiocy nationwide, or is it only PacBell that has >this problem? >[Moderator's Note: ComStar, also known as Intellidial in some areas and >Starline in others is tariffed as a service for 2 or more actual lines >in a group. Many or most of the features in ComStar would not work >with just one line. In fact having only two lines makes ComStar a >little bit of an overkill. It may be that PacBell only has Distinctive >Ringing available through ComStar at present. I know Illinois Bell >could not offer Distinctive Ringing until recently when they upgraded >their software. They did offer it in Centrex and Starline service, but >not on single residential lines until ahout two months ago. PAT] Once again, I write as an interested reader of your newsgroup, not as a representative of any telecommunications company. Your note is essentially correct. The intended purpose of "Distinctive Ringing" is to provide a difference in the alerting of intragroup vs. intergroup (i.e., incoming from the outside world) calls, together with bells and whistles* -- actually additional ringing patterns -- to distinguish attendant calls, etc. This is implemented in 1/1A ESS via Centrex, so calls from outside the Centrex group are distinguished from those from within. The current generation of digital switches require a different strategy to obtain this business objective. The RBOC's are making a serious effort to deliver "Centrex-like" services to smaller users. Commstar (and I presume Intellidial) were the earliest efforts to accomplish this. Now RBOC's are making a business decision to make Centrex available to POTS customers ... even when the transition is transparent to the user, this usually entails assigning the formerly POTS line to a Centrex group. (As an aside, I expect that ISDN will experience a similar "downward evolution" by the turn of the century.) In the case of your poster, notice he has only one line. The presence of an intragroup call is thus illogical (from this feature's point of view) and there is no basis for distinctive ringing as the vendors have defined it. I would humbly like to point out that the RBOC's do not in general design these features. Rather, the features are the result of consultation, discussion, and review among the Bellcore Client Companies, vendors such as Northern Telecom and ATT, and so on. Quite often, the feature the user "sees" is a set (some would say "kludge") of these design-by-committee features. *Pun intended. Merry Christmas, Pete Ahrens ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #894 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21138; 22 Dec 90 5:14 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04989; 22 Dec 90 3:41 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21958; 22 Dec 90 2:34 CST Date: Sat, 22 Dec 90 1:43:35 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #895 BCC: Message-ID: <9012220143.ab16446@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 22 Dec 90 01:43:00 CST Volume 10 : Issue 895 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson TELECOM-PRIV Mailing List [Telecom Privacy List Moderator] The MessageCenter [Kenny J. Hart] Re: Don't Pay For Slamming [Rick Ace] Phones and Radio Broadcasting [David E. Bernholdt] Re: Payphones and DTMF Dialling [John Higdon] Telebit T1000 For Sale [Eric C. Bennett] Re: Non-Payment Disconnects [Andy Jacobson] Re: Information Needed About Cellular Antennas [Gary Skaggs] Distinctive Dialing Plus Call Fwd - How do They Combine? [Jerry Leichter] Re: Last Four Digits of Phone is '0000' [Jim Rees] Re: Information Needed on AT&T Select Saver Plan [Carl Moore] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 17:48:21 EST From: Telecom Privacy List Moderator Subject: TELECOM-PRIV Mailing List Pat: Can you relay the following message to readers of the TELECOM Digest: Due to your recent plugs in the Digest I have recieved a lot of requests to be added. I have recently received about forty requests to be added to the telecom-priv list. I am in the process of doing it. I do list maintenance on my own time not company time so there might be a day or two delay due to the Christmas holidays. If you don't receive a message from me within a seven day period please resubmit. I have recieved one request with the address of "attmail!internet!bcm1a09!rborow" which I can not respond to. Will the sender please send me an alternate path. [Telecom Moderator's Note: try using bcm1a09!rborow@attmail.com PAT] For those readers who haven't heard of telecom-priv, it is an off shoot of the TELECOM Digest. It was originally set up to handle the topic of Caller-ID and has been expanded to discuss topics dealing with telecom privacy issues. Next week I will introduce a thread that scared me when I found out how to do it; which is getting (legally) unlisted phone numbers for fun and profit :-). There are two ways to receive it, the normal way is through a digest each day or directly recieving each message as they come in. I prefer that people get it in a digest form but some people gateway it into their local news system. If you want each article individually you get everything including the misdirected requests to be add/deleted from the list. To subscribe send to telecom-priv-request@pica.army.mil. If you want to receive it as individual articles, please state that you want telecom-priv-news instead of telecom-priv. Dennis INET: drears@pica.army.mil UUCP: ...!uunet!fsac1.pica.army.mil!drears ALT: drears@pilot.njin.net Home: 201-989-5272 AT&T: 201-724-6639 USPS: Box 210, Wharton, NJ 07885 Work: SMCAR-FSS-E, Bldg 94, Picatinny Ars, NJ 07806 ------------------------------ From: "Kenny J. Hart" Subject: The MessageCenter Date: 20 Dec 90 15:01:33 GMT Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA I would like to respond to some of Mr. Higdon's remarks: The five dollar/month voice mail is residential *only*, not both business and residential. The $20/month VM was business VM. We offer two different voice mail packages. Also, the residential VM boxes would reside in your CO, but the business VM is not located in your CO, thus the offer you received was for business VM. Yes, Mr. Higdon it is for real, and an excellent product, and you should bite. The thing I can't understand is why you have to continually think Pac*Bell is out to screw you!! BTW, I work in the non-reg arm of Pac*Bell that offers the MessageCenter along with other innovative, enhanced services product. Kenny Hart ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 14:08:39 PST From: Rick Ace Subject: Re: Don't Pay For Slamming > [Moderator's Note: They may be 'ill-gotten gains' to the slamming > carrier as you point out, but your failure to pay *at least the amount > you anticipated paying for the call you placed* is an unjust > enrichment to yourself. Does this mean one would have to haul out the tariffs and calculate by hand what the bill would have been with the correct long distance company? That's quite a bit of work for Joe Customer. Someone else screwed up and that someone else should do the work. I wouldn't pay the part that is in dispute until the problem was resolved to my satisfaction. > Strictly speaking, you must pay for calls you > place. This is required by tariff. But you also have the right to sue > the carrier for tampering / interfering with your existing service. > After all, they caused you to get disconnected from your long distance > carrier of choice, did they not? PAT] You forgot the :-). Didn't you? No? You can't be serious about suggesting that we clog the already overburdened courts with a lawsuit of such little importance. Rick Ace ucbvax!pixar!rick ------------------------------ From: "David E. Bernholdt" Subject: Phones and Radio Broadcasting Date: 20 Dec 90 17:46:13 GMT Reply-To: "David E. Bernholdt" Organization: University of Florida Quantum Theory Project In article <15512@accuvax.nwu.edu> motcid!segal@uunet.uu.net (Gary Segal) writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 890, Message 7 of 11 >A former friend of mine in >Bloomingdale Illinios had the unfortunate problem being served by a CO >that is close to the transmit tower for a FM radio station. Somehow >the radio program found it's way into the local loops. >[Moderator's Note: Sometime take a drive out near Wheaton, IL where >two powerhouse radio stations (WGN - 720 AM and WBBM - 780 AM) have >their transmitters within about a quarter-mile of each other. >All the telephones in the area have special filters on them provided by IBT. There is also a WBBM/AM transmitter in Elk Grove Village, IL. A friend of mine lived (essentially) across the street from it. When you picked up his phone, you heard WBBM instead of a dial tone, but once you dialed an made a connetion, the line was quite clear. Can anyone tell me why once the connection was completed the line would be so clear? I have no idea if there were any special filters on the phone or anything like that. This was about ten years ago, if that makes any difference in technology/equipment. P.S. He could also get WBBM on his toaster. Lots of RF around there! David Bernholdt bernhold@qtp.ufl.edu Quantum Theory Project bernhold@ufpine.bitnet University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 904/392 6365 ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Payphones and DTMF Dialling Date: 20 Dec 90 02:02:32 PST (Thu) From: John Higdon U5434122@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au writes: > Is it possible to use a tone-sender to dial from a > payphone in USA or Sweden or elsewhere? > If this is indeed TA's worry, how effective would such a simple fix as > disabling the handpiece microphone until answer supervision be? > [Moderator's Note: Disabling the mouth until supervision would prevent > the phone from being used to call directory enquiries or the operator; > both of whom answer unsupervised, no? PAT] Remember, we're talking COCOTs here. They GUESS at supervision, so while DA, Repair, or the Operator do not supervise, this is irrelavent to the COCOT. It hears a voice and then assumes supervision. Also, most COCOTs don't present "real" dial tone to the user, but an internally generated one. The user dials the number and the COCOT uses its internal ARS tables to redial the call, sometimes adding codes to use an AOS. The fact of the matter is, virtually all COCOTs in the US are installed on DTMF equipped lines. While it is possible to spoof most of them in manners not to be mentioned here, the straightforward use of a hand dialer is not one of them. Either the COCOT equipment is weenie, or the owners/installers are ignorant to the built in security it employs. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: "Eric C. Bennett" Subject: Telebit T1000 For Sale Date: 20 Dec 90 09:10:35 GMT Reply-To: eric@abode.wciu.edu (Eric C. Bennett) Organization: Abode Xenix Restricted Access System Lines: 12 The above title says it all. The modem is around one (1) year old. It does have MNP 5 (it is not one of the older ones that just has MNP 4). It also has the manual. Asking price is $450 (obo). Please send Email if interested. Eric C. Bennett uucp: {elroy|cit-vax}!wciu!abode!eric El Monte, Ca Internet: eric@abode.wciu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 03:50 PST From: Andy Jacobson Subject: Re: Non-Payment Disconnects Just a brief addendum to my note in Vol. 10, #883: I had a chance to play with this non-payment disconnect a little further with a friend's line. It seems that calls are not limited to one number, but to two 800 prefixes. You can call to 800-223, and 800-482, which are both used as far as I can tell only by GTE for various customer service type lines (local in NPA 213). From what I surmise from talking to reps at the residential service office, the customer service numbers are and handled by some kind of ACD, and translated to regular seven digit numbers at the locations of their various service centers. For West L.A./Santa Monica, its in prefix 310, (which is definitely used only by GTE, kind of like 312-727 with IBT). You can not call these directly as 310- XXXX, only as the 800 numbers. You can get ring back (195n-nnnn), and as mentioned previously, you can get your number read back to you (1223) and call 611, 911 (supposedly), but not 411, or any operator. Our esteemed Moderator writes: >intercept message. For a credit disconnect the message says, "The >number you dialed, ABC-DEFG has been temporarily disconnected." If the >temporary disconnect is due to a customer request, then the phrase "at >the customer's request" is prepended to the above message. PAT Not that I need to reinforce the sleaziness of GTE's image, but when you disconnect, move, or change your number they will _not_ put a "The number you dialed, ABC-DEFG has been ... " type message on your line at all unless you beg and plead with them, (They strongly discourage this sort of thing), and then you only get thirty days. If you raise absolute hell, you might get sixty days, but that's only for the extremely persistent. You can get more of course, but they charge you a price comparable to regular service! When your time is up, no matter how long, you get the "I'm sorry, the number you have dialed is not in service, please check the number and dial again... " recording. When I left Evanston, Il. (IBT) I had a forwarding message on my line (312-492) for _4_years_! I never asked for it, but I sure appreciated it! Andy Jacobson or ------------------------------ From: Gary Skaggs Subject: Re: Information Needed About Cellular Antennas Organization: National Severe Storms Laboratory Date: Thu, 20 Dec 1990 14:18:46 GMT In article <15517@accuvax.nwu.edu> asuvax!godzilla!dalyb@ncar.ucar.edu (Brian Daly) writes: >In article <15427@accuvax.nwu.edu>, srm@dimacs.rutgers.edu (Scott R. >Myers) writes: >> I have read about the cabling >> used in antenna installs (RG-58). Based on what I'm reading, there is >> significant signal loss with that type of coax run long distances (ie. >> trunk to front passenger side seat.). Would using another guage of >> coax reduce the amount of signal loss from the cable? >First, let's tackle the dB question: An excellent discussion of db by Brian deleted ... Brian metions the use of RG-58A/U cable in the installation. In fact, the Larsen 800-900 Mhz antennas use a double copper braid in their coax. If you were going to do it yourself, I would recommend Belden 9311. It has a layer of "Duobond(r) II" (aluminum foil) with a braid of coax around it. Its loss is much less compared to standard RG-58A/U. My Belden book says: RG-58A/U (Tinned copper braid, 96% shield coverage) 20.0 db/100ft @900 Mhz. This is Belden code 8259: RG-58A/U (Duobond, etc, 100% shield) 12.5 db/100ft @900 Mhz. One caveat: 9311 is cellular polyethylene. Be careful with heat, do your soldering hot and FAST. And don't run it through door seals, trunk lip seals, etc. It will compress more easily than standard and cause an impendance 'bump' at that point. Gary Skaggs - WB5ULK skaggs@nssl.gcn.uoknor.edu DOC/NOAA/ERL/NSSL ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 09:17:33 EDT From: Jerry Leichter Subject: Distinctive Dialing Plus Call Fwd - How do They Combine? If I have both distinctive dialing (two or more numbers ring my single line, with different rings) and call forwarding, does forwarding apply to all the numbers on the line? Just the primary number? Can I choose? Jerry [Moderator's Note: I have the situation you describe here in Chicago. When you order distinctive ringing here you choose one or two additional numbers to be associated with the main number. You can either have the main and additional numbers move together on call forwarding or you can have the main number only on call forwarding with the additional line 'ringing through'. This is not a subscriber programmable option. It has to be done in the CO when you order it. My service is set up so that the main or primary number forwards as I set it, but the auxiliary number always overrides call forwarding and rings here. We also get distinctive call waiting tones to tell us if the waiting caller has dialed the main number or the other ones(s). I have my 800 numbers come in via the auxiliary line so that I get a distinctive ring letting me know who is paying for the call. Otherwise, calls on either number work the same: calls screened are blocked from entering either way; return last call returns calls to either number. PAT] ------------------------------ From: rees@pisa.ifs.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Subject: Re: Last Four Digits of Phone is '0000' Reply-To: rees@citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 16:05:01 GMT In article <15515@accuvax.nwu.edu>, mailrus!uflorida!rm1!bapat@ uunet.uu.net (Subodh Bapat) writes: >Much to my chagrin, however, Southern Bell told me I couldn't have >this number because it was "reserved for business use". The same was >true of some of the other numbers I asked for. In fact, the only >numbers that seemed to be available were in the 7000-8000 range. Last time I ordered a phone line (residential), I tried to get the suffix 7337 (spells my last name), in any prefix. The agent was very nice about it, said there was no charge, but that this suffix was not available in any of the local prefixes. I found this hard to believe since there are about a dozen prefixes serving this area. Then I did some math. Out of about 10000 numbers in any given prefix, only about 4000 (8^4) will be "desirable" (in the sense that you can spell something with them). Of these, not all are really usable, since you need a certain number of vowels, for example. Two possibilities come to mind. Either the phone company reserves these numbers, or they have all been snatched up by businesses. It would be interesting to find out whether business users pay extra for vanity phone numbers. I'm in Michigan Bell land, NOrmandy-5 exchange. On a completely unrelated subject -- in the mux room of our local CO there are three BBN C-30s sitting in one corner. Any idea what they might be doing? Did BBN have a clearance sale when the Arpanet went out of business? Are my phone calls being routed by IMPs? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 11:02:46 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Information Needed on AT&T Select Saver Plan To respond to Moderator's Note: I was not talking about local calls. Yes, local calls are NOT affected by an area code split -- except that some of them may have to be dialed differently. (That toll free number regarding 301/410 split said that local calls across 301/410 boundary will require ten digits, as is the case with local calls to DC and Virginia suburbs of DC.) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #895 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23056; 22 Dec 90 7:19 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13432; 22 Dec 90 5:48 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10322; 22 Dec 90 4:42 CST Date: Sat, 22 Dec 90 3:41:05 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #896 BCC: Message-ID: <9012220341.ab16156@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 22 Dec 90 03:40:57 CST Volume 10 : Issue 896 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' [Steve Schallehn] Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' [David Cornutt] Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' [Bob Goudreau] Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' [Lyle A. McGeoch] Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' [Leland F Derbenwick] Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' [Randal L. Schwartz] Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' [Michael S. Baldwin] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Schallehn Subject: Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' Organization: Kansas State University Date: Fri, 21 Dec 90 10:42:12 GMT merlyn@iwarp.intel.com (Randal L. Schwartz) writes: >(I'm still baffled at what the "1 means long distance" people do when >a differing area code is *not* long distance. Do you dial the "1" or >not? Around here, if it's a different area code, it's definitely long >distance.) Southwestern Bell provides the answer in Kansas City (a 1+ "toll call" area). Kansas City is situated right on the boarder of Kansas (913) and Missouri (816). In Kansas City, you can call free to anywhere else in the Greater Kansas City area. A seven digit telephone number is all that is required for any call in the Kansas City Area. For long distance calls in your home state, 1+ 7 digits works fine, and for in the adjacent state, the normal 1+ area code + 7 digits. I have often wondered about the wizardry in assigning prefixes. Prefixes have to be unique for the entire Kansas City area. You can't have a 262 prefix on the Kansas side as well as a second 262 prefix on the Missouri side. Steve Schallehn | Internet : steve@matt.ksu.ksu.edu Kansas State University | UUCP : ..!rutgers!ksuvax1!ksuvm.bitnet!steve Manhattan, Kansas 66506 | Bitnet : STEVE@KSUVM ------------------------------ From: David Cornutt Subject: Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' Organization: MSFC Date: Fri, 21 Dec 90 13:54:30 GMT This sounds like it's just a variation on the rule, which is becoming standard in a lot of places, that you must dial 1 + areacode for *all* long distance calls, and all calls that are not in your areacode (whether toll or not). The difference here is that they are allowing abbreviated dialing within the areacode by just dialing the 7-digit number; if the equipment sees a number 2-9 as the first digit, it assumes that the number begins with "1-215". It was confusing the way the newspaper article worded it. BTW, there's a twist to the 1 + areacode rule that I don't recall seeing discussed here. If a leading 1 means that "area code follows" for all numbers, then presumably, in addition to making NNX-style number available as exchange numbers, it would make NXX-style numbers available as area codes, provided that the whole NANP area could be switched over to this style of dialing. This would seem to solve our areacode shortage problem for many years. Does anyone know if this has been considered? David Cornutt, New Technology Inc., Huntsville, AL (205) 461-6457 (cornutt@freedom.msfc.nasa.gov; some insane route applies) "The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of my employer, not necessarily mine, and probably not necessary." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Dec 90 15:54:23 est From: Bob Goudreau Subject: Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' In article <15537@accuvax.nwu.edu>, sba8_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Scott Barnes) writes: > I have heard from a different source that Bell of PA intends to > implement exchange codes of the type "XXX", so that exchanges such as > 131 will now be possible. I think you must have mis-heard this one. NXX, yes; but I won't believe XXX. Using your "131" example above, there would be ambiguity when the telco received the dialling sequence 1312555. Unless it used a timeout (yuck!), the switch would be unable to distinguish between a local call to 131-2555 and a LD call to Chicago of the form 1-312-555-XXXX. The whole point of cleaning up dialling rules (as Bell of PA is doing now in 215) is to allow NXX exchanges *without* ambiguity or timeouts. Bob Goudreau +1 919 248 6231 Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!goudreau Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ From: "Lyle A. McGeoch" Subject: Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' Date: 21 Dec 90 03:44:32 GMT Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Bell Atlantic is clearly going to be using the same dialing rules in 215 as it currently uses in North Jersey (201 and 908). All calls within 215 will be dialed with seven digits. All calls to other area codes will use a 1+ prefix. So the reporter is right ... 215 is losing 1+ dialing on long distance calls within the area code. This change will allow N0N and N1N exchanges within 215. If someone in 215 dials 1+N0N or 1+N1N, the call will be routed to the appropriate area code. Without the 1+ prefix, the call will go to the right exchange in 215. I don't like this system very much ... it makes it too easy to make toll calls that you think are local. Of course the local phone company doesn't mind that. The alternative system, using the area code on all long distance within your own area code, isn't so great either. The newspaper article certainly wasn't very clear. Lyle McGeoch Rutgers University lyle@dimacs.rutgers.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Dec 90 09:41:26 EST From: Leland F Derbenwick Subject: Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <15541@accuvax.nwu.edu>, I wrote (and the moderator commented): > Apparently, neither "Puzzled Bill" nor our Moderator has ever lived in > an area where an initial "1" meant _any_ toll call. ... > [Moderator's Note: That's right, I have never lived in such a place. > Here in Chicago, what is local to me is toll to a person a few miles > away but still within the city. There is no longer any local free > calling zone which takes in the whole city. We never could have used > the '1 means toll charge' arrangement here since who is to say ahead > of time which prefixes would have a '1' in front. The difference > between a free call and toll call here is entirely dependent on which > central office area you live in. PAT] That's exactly the sort of situation where 1+7 digits can be very helpful. You've stopped off at a friend's house, and decide to call another friend. Both of them are in _your_ local calling area, but friend two is (unbeknownst to you) a toll call from friend one. With just a seven-digit number, you only find out that it was a toll call when ex-friend one tells you to pay up. With 1 + 7 digits, you know immediately: the 7-digit call gets a "your call cannot be completed as dialed" message. If you still want to call, you put the "1" in front, but you _know_ that it's being charged by the minute. (Admittedly, this sort of thing was a _lot_ more important back when I was a teenager. :-) So how you have to dial a given number will vary depending which central office's area you're in, but it always is based on what's a toll call from there. Perhaps it's an east/west split? This is how it was in Southern New England Telephone territory (Connecticut) and it's just being changed in Pennsylvania. But when I lived in California, it took me a while to get used to _not_ dialing a 1 first. Speaking strictly for myself, Lee Derbenwick, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Warren, NJ lfd@cbnewsm.ATT.COM or !att!cbnewsm!lfd ------------------------------ From: "Randal L. Schwartz" Subject: Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' Reply-To: "Randal L. Schwartz" Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA Date: Fri, 21 Dec 90 16:18:41 GMT In article <15542@accuvax.nwu.edu>, merlyn@iwarp (Randal L. Schwartz) writes: | (I'm still baffled at what the "1 means long distance" people do when | a differing area code is *not* long distance. Do you dial the "1" or | not? Around here, if it's a different area code, it's definitely long | distance.) | [Moderator's Note: Is Portland, OR to Vancouver, WA a long distance | call? What about Troutdale, OR to Camas, WA? What about Ontario, OR | to Fruitland, ID? And yes, we dial 1 whenever we change area codes, | even though several suburban 708 points are local to me in 312, and | are part of my 'eight mile from CO to CO' local free calling area. PAT] Yes, Portland OR to Vancouver WA has *always* been an LD call. And Troutdale OR to Camas WA (and I suspect Ontario to Fruitland, although I don't know that for a fact). I mean, it makes sense to me. It crosses an Area Code Boundary, therefore I have to dial 1, therefore it is long distance! (The thought of someday having no correlation between 1 and long distance still shocks me as bizarre.) A while back, there was talk of putting Vancouver in the 503 area code so that we Oregonians could call it locally. And, in another message, you speak of "local to me is LD to some guy next to me" as a justification for "why 1 means toll is dumb". That happens all the time in Portland. I can call local from Beaverton to Portland. Portland can call local to Gresham and Oregon City. But it's LD for me from Beaverton to Gresham or Oregon City. So the people in Portland know they can call Beaverton, Gresham, or OC directly, and the people in the suburbs have learned more or less what "too far away" is. I'm *glad* I have the "1 means toll", or I'd probably be shocked by my phone bill each time I had to return a call to an unknown number. (They've added a lot of prefixes in the last five years.) "Hmm... return this call to 526-9922. Wonder where it is ... 5-2-6-9-9-2-2 ... [boop bop beep... please dial 1]. Aha. Long distance. Better call it from my client's phone. :-)". Pat, what do you do when returning a call? Do you have all the local prefixes memorized? Do you call the operator each time for a name-place and LD rate? See, it's much simpler here in Oregon. :-) Just another native Portlander, 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: Surprisingly, I do know a few hundred 312/708/815 prefixes in my head. But until your call goes to somewhere outside northern Illinois there is no 'toll charge' as such. Everything here is northern Illinois is rated as 'minutes of use'. Local calls -- that is, calls within your switching center and the switching center immediatly next to yours on any side make up your local 'free' calling area. Regardless of the total minutes used, you are charged only about +/- five cents for the call. Calls to other switching centers in northern Illinois are timed, and 'minutes of use' cost anywhere three or four cents per minute. When you get your bill, you see the total number of minutes tallked during the month. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Dec 90 17:35:54 EST From: Michael Scott Baldwin Subject: Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories This discussion is rather amusing because it shows how ingrained the two different meanings of "1" are. I happen to be at an advantage because I grew up in Maryland (1 == long distance) and live in New Jersey (1 == 10 digits), both of which are going through area code splits (201/908, 301/410) and changing from NNX to NXX. I've had intimate contact with all possible permutations, I think! Here's the deal: Ten years ago, this was the situation: Maryland New Jersey Local nnx-xxxx nnx-xxxx Long, same npa 1-nnx-xxxx nnx-xxxx Long, another npa 1-npa-nxx-xxxx npa-nxx-xxxx In NJ you never dialed "1" and in MD you dialed it for *all* long distance calls, in or out of your area code. As in other areas "1 == toll" became very ingrained in Maryland. NOTE: you simply had to know which exchanges in MD (area 301) were local and which were long, because you could *not* dial them the other way. For instance, 721 and 490 are long distance, but 721 and 224 are not. If I dialed "490-xxxx" from 721, I got a recording ("dial 1"). If I dialed "1-224-xxxx" from 721, I also got a recording ("don't dial 1"). If presented with a number (301) 892-3423, you would typically dial "1" if you didn't recognize the exchange ("must be far away" you thought). If that was wrong, well, you tried again without the "1". There were not that many exchanges in the local area, even though it was quite large, so it wasn't a big deal. However, I can imagine lots of simple folk getting confused by this. MAJOR ANOMALY: Maryland (301), DC (202) and Virginia (703) are all very close, and they had overlapping local calling areas. and yes, you guessed it, to dial a local (202) exchange from (301), you JUST DIALED 7 DIGITS! No 1, no area code. And to further hose things up, that same exchange might be used elsewhere in (301)! You see, if 301-335 were really far away from DC, then I would have to dial "1-335-xxxx" to get it. So "335-xxxx" could be reused, but only near DC, to mean "202-335-xxxx". So if I were 301-255-xxxx (near DC) and needed to dial 301-335-xxxx, if I just dialed 335-xxxx, I might accidentally get DC (but it was free!). Also, if I needed to dial 202-342-xxxx, I COULD NOT dial 1-202-342-xxxx, because it was local! I had to dial just 342-xxxx. Bleah! Now, when the time came to use NXX exchanges, New Jersey had a simple job: simply force "1" for long distance calls. It didn't mean anything particular, so nobody cared. This caused some unfortunate confusion. A friend of mine visited from Maryland and asked if they had to dial "1" to call (201) 234-1234 (whatever it was). Well, since it was in area code 201, of course you don't. So my friend called and talked for a while. *I* knew it was a long distance call (quite far away), so when he hung up I mentioned this -- he was shocked. He equated "dial 1" with "toll call" so he thought he was talking for free. Oops for me. Here's NJ now: New Jersey same npa 1-npa-nxx-xxxx or nxx-xxxx another npa 1-npa-nxx-xxxx Note how it is pleasant that I can *always* dial 1-npa in front of any number. This is nice for autodialing modems that you have to carry around with you. In Maryland the situation, unfortunately, has gotten even more hosed. still clinging to the "1 == toll" philosophy, but needing more exchanges, this is the "compromise": Maryland Local, same npa nxx-xxxx Local, another npa npa-nxx-xxxx Long, any npa 1-npa-nxx-xxxx So now you dial "1-301-335-xxxx" to dial your own area code, a '1' 202-335-xxxx" to get the local DC number. How extremely gross. Now people in Maryland are so confused they (and even I) can't dial anyone anymore. I had friends try to call my Baltimore number from Gambrills. It is long distance, but they didn't dial 1-301. They got some recording that didn't tell them to dial 1-301, so they gave up. And I was in Virginia (703) trying to call DC. Well, the hotel phone said "8" for long distance and "9" for local. 8-1-201-nxx-xxxx worked for New Jersey, but 8-1-202-966-xxxx failed for DC (remember I'm in NPA 703). I try 9-966-xxxx: it fails. Finally, 9-202-966-xxxx works. I was about to puke. Note that this new "scheme" actually opens up lots of exchanges. I presume they'll start using NXX exchanges where NXX != 301/410/703/202 because the only conflict is in local calling, and there are only four NPA's in the area. Of course, your poor autodialing modems are seriously out of luck. You move it a few miles and you might need to totally reprogram it. (Those hand-held DTMF-ers are also hosed, of course. Oh well, I thought there were cute!) By the way, I'm strongly in favor of New Jersey's scheme and it's time for "1 == toll call" to die a timely death. I hope this long message was amusing (maybe horrifying) to some of you. michael.scott.baldwin@att.com (bell laboratories) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #896 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00983; 22 Dec 90 17:40 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12146; 22 Dec 90 16:00 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01533; 22 Dec 90 14:51 CST Date: Sat, 22 Dec 90 14:10:51 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #897 BCC: Message-ID: <9012221410.ab07475@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 22 Dec 90 14:10:08 CST Volume 10 : Issue 897 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Vacation Time: Stop Sending Messages Now [TELECOM Moderator] Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed [Paul Gauthier] Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed [Gordon Burditt] Re: Avoiding Slamming [Pat Barron] Re: Slamming Technique? [Roy Smith] Re: Don't Pay For Slamming Charlie Mingo] Re: Don't Pay For Slamming [Jeff Sicherman] MCI Tries to Slam US West Employee! [Jim Redelfs] Ill-Gotten Gains [Robert M. Hamer] Re: 410 Area Code Prefix Locator Service [Carl Moore] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 22 Dec 90 1:52:22 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Vacation Time: Stop Sending Messages Now Beginning at this time, the Digest will be winding down for about a week while I take a few days of needed rest and relaxation as the year comes to an end. The Digests you will receive from now through Christmas are made up of articles currently in the queue waiting for distribution. When those have been printed, I'll be off line for a few days. ** PLEASE DO NOT SEND MESSAGES TO COMP.DCOM.TELECOM / TELECOM DIGEST UNTIL THE START OF THE NEW YEAR. ** Messages received between Christmas and New Year's will be carefully screened and if they say something newsworthy and important will be held for the start of the new year. If not then I'll return them unused. Let's have all fresh topics to start the new year. No further 'Re' messages on existing subjects after this weekend please. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: Paul Gauthier Subject: Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada Date: Thu, 20 Dec 1990 13:13:09 -0400 > [many people offering parallels from fast food outlets, to refridgerators, > to the Folger's crystals taste test.] Let's assume that when a person places a slammed call that they can not tell the difference between the line quality of the slammer and that of their regular carrier. If they could decisively tell they were being slammed from the line quality they could hang up immediately and avoid all but minimal charges. (How much can the first minute cost you regardless of where and when you call?) All the parallels have assumed that you receive an almost identical product from a company/source other than that which you expected. The point missed in most of these analogies is the most important: The difference in costs. I assume that most people so loathe being slammed because they are getting a better price from their current carrier. These parallels also break down in that when you buy a burger, fridge, etc, you get billed up front and know the cost and the biller's identity BEFORE you can make use of their product. The parallel that is most accurate is the one mentioned in which you go into a restaurant, order a meal, receive one that seems to be what you ordered but costs much more. Say I order a hamburger and actually receive the wonder-super-steak-burger with escargot and truffles on the side. You may simply think "Wow, look at all I got and it was only $2.95 on the menu!" and happily chow down. When you go to pay your bill it rings up at $49.95 and you have a coronary. Almost any reputable restaurant would agree that if you ordered the cheapo-burger you should only pay for the cheapo-burger regardless of what your waitress decided to bring you. While in the case of LD carriers you might not receive a product which is really far superior to what you ordered, the rest of the parallel seems to apply. You should pay for the service at the rates which you expected to pay (those which you ordered) regardless of what the slammer wants to charge you. Who do you pay? The slammer, after all they _did_ provide the service. But _they_ should be willing to pay for any charges above and beyond those incurred for the call such as any costs to switch back to your proper carrier, etc. Since _they_ did incur those costs without your permission. It also seems fair that they should offer you some further compensation for the inconvienience they've caused you. Often times, in the run of a single monthly billing period, this compensation might cancel out the fair price you would have paid for the LD calls; in such cases you would be just in not paying the slammer for their service. Conversely, if you ring up $2,500.00 worth of LD calls while being slammed it is unreasonable to expect the slammer to give them to you as a freebie. Fine, you deserve to pay the price you expected to pay from your normal carrier minus reasonable compensation for your trouble, but chances are that would still leave you in a hefty bit of debt to the slammer. Think of the abuse if someone figured out they were being slammed early in the billing period and then went berzerk calling LD numbers knowing that it was expected that the slammer would have to waive all the charges. Just as an aisde: When ISDN comes in why not have your LCD screen show you which carrier is completing the call for you? Is this possible? Seems like this would close the door on slamming in a big way. Paul Gauthier | tyrant@ug.cs.dal.ca President, Cerebral Computer Technologies | tyrant@dalac.bitnet Phone: (902)462-8217 Fax: (send email first) | tyrant@ac.dal.ca ------------------------------ From: Gordon Burditt Subject: Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed Date: 21 Dec 90 08:14:09 GMT Organization: Gordon Burditt >When calling long distance, your local telco uses a form of shorthand >for your instructions: 1+ will be considered an abbreviation for the >10xxx of your choice until you tell them differently. Somehow or >another they get those instructions incorrect. Maybe someone else did >legitimatly ask to use Pat, but the telco got the digits transposed on >the work order and mistakenly thought you wanted to use Pat. Maybe Pat >mistakenly or deliberatly told them you wanted to use his service. What would it take to slam, say, 10288, over a large area (say, all of Pac*Bell territory) to route to the carrier normally specified as 10976 (International Pornophone and Pornograph - even 0, 411, 611, and 911 act like a 900 number)? for a major fraction of a month? Would this, done in a fairly simple way, also take everyone with AT&T as a default with it? (If the default carrier is stored as '288', it probably would). Do you still think I have to pay IPP for phone calls dialed with 10288 (assume that somehow I could prove it) but I got IPP instead of AT&T? Technically, how difficult would it be for a local phone company to do this by accident? How difficult would it be for an outsider employed by IPP to do this remotely from, say, West Germany, assuming somehow he managed to bribe someone for necessary numbers and access codes? How about using a midnight visit to a few (not all) CO's in the area? How about a carefully forged memo or piece of code supposedly from someone at PacBell or Bellcore? If local phone companies are so easily taken in by outsiders changing default carriers, they probably can be talked into re-arranging carrier codes by outsiders, too. I suspect that at least two weeks would pass before any customers got past Standard Customer Service Excuse #487 and any technical people would start investigating unauthorized programming changes. Part of that would be the delay before anyone got their bills and noticed the difference. >The answer lies in forcing the local telco to *confirm* these changes >in writing or otherwise rather than by some petty method of >withholding fees for services in fact rendered. The answer lies in requiring the local telco to accept change requests from the subscriber, only the subscriber, and no intermediaries claiming to act for the subscriber (allowance may be made for the legal representative with power of attorney to act for someone incompetent). AND they should confirm the changes. Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Dec 1990 11:57:49 -0500 (EST) From: Pat_Barron@transarc.com Subject: Avoiding Slamming This seems like the obvious solution for avoiding being slammed. I called up my LEC's customer service number, and told them that I *never* wanted to have my long distance carrier switched without *written* authorization from me, personally. They said "fine", and noted my records to that effect. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 13:08:05 EST From: Roy Smith Subject: Re: Slamming Technique? Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City I got an interesting call from Sprint a couple of weeks ago. One evening, a woman called to thank me for using my Sprint card. I informed her that I had never done so. The conversation went something like, "You do have a Sprint card, don't you?", "Yes, but I've never used it". "Do you ever use Sprint?". "No, never." "Have you ever used it in the past?" "No, never". Still very polite on both sides. Then, the really strange thing was she said in a puzzled voice, "Hmmm, that's very odd ..." and then, cheerfully, "Well, have a nice evening" and she hung up. Is this a first? A telemarketer voluntarily (and politely!) ending the phone call before you hang up on 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: ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com!mingo@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Don't Pay For Slamming Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 15:39:32 PST peter@ficc.ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes: >well.sf.ca.us!well!mingo (Charles Hawkins Mingo) writes: >> >Why is "slamming" not considered, and treated, as theft? >> Because AT&T doesn't "own" the right to do business with you. >Like hell they don't! They have a contract with you, via your local phone >company. The contract you have with AT&T governs *how* you will pay for service *if* you place LD calls using AT&T. You never agree to place *all* your calls with AT&T. In fact, you don't even have an operative contract *until* you place a call. (Why? In order to have a contract, each side must, at the very least, promise to do something specific. Since you haven't promised to make any specific level of calls (or indeed any calls at all) you have no performance obligation WRT AT&T. And if you don't have any obligation WRT them, they don't WRT you -- this is known as mutuality of obligation.) I don't think you want to claim that consumers shouldn't have the *right* to switch carriers (which they wouldn't, if AT&T "owned" the right to their business). You're upset because some incompetent or evil third- party has usurped the consumer's right to choose. But from AT&T point of view, it matters little whether the decision to switch originated with the consumer or someone else. Charlie Mingo mingo@cup.portal.com mingo@well.sf.ca.us ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Dec 90 10:53:14 PST From: JAJZ801@calstate.bitnet Subject: Re: Don't Pay For Slamming >> Strictly speaking, you must pay for calls you >> place. This is required by tariff. But you also have the right to sue >> the carrier for tampering / interfering with your existing service. >> After all, they caused you to get disconnected from your long distance >> carrier of choice, did they not? PAT] >You forgot the :-). Didn't you? No? You can't be serious about >suggesting that we clog the already overburdened courts with a lawsuit >of such little importance. The other problems with a suit is the amounts are rather trivial, suitable mostly for small claims court (are regulated operations immune from suits in that venue ?) where you generally can get compensation only for actual losses plus costs (usually minimal - your lost time in resolving and correcting the matter, mostly). In this case, the financially most agrieved 'person' is the carrier who was removed from your 1+ service. They would be the most likely one to sue but of course that's unlikely since they all participate in the borderline marketing activities to one degree or another. They would *all* get tarred by the discovery process and publicity if it were taken to court. Therefore, the most likely legal solution is a class-action suit by the people who have been slammed, where some of the other issues of fraudulent marketing can be raised and the court can be used in an efficient manner collectively, rather than individually. Jeff Sicherman ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Dec 90 21:18:34 PDT From: Jim Redelfs Subject: MCI Tries to Slam US West Employee! Reply-to: jim.redelfs%inns@iugate.unomaha.edu They tried to SLAM me! HA! I am a Network Technician for US WEST Communications in Elkhorn, NE (just outside of Omaha). Part of my job involves low-level Central Office work in my HOME exchange (Elkhorn), including wiring on the MDF and "babysitting" the paper-spewing Service Order printer. Not too long ago, as I sorted the orders, I came across one bearing my service. It was a PIC change order, removing me from AT&T to MCI! I never received a call from MCI prior to the order. Since I have tried in the past to trace the origin of such bogus orders, I did not bother in this case. I just cancelled the order! What a bunch of bums! JR Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.12 r.5 [1:285/27@fidonet] Neb. Inns of Court 402/593-1192 (1:285/27.0) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Dec 90 14:33 EDT From: "Robert M. Hamer" Subject: Ill-Gotten Gains Ed Hopper wrote: >> calling of the 1-700 number indicated that she had INDEED been switched >> from AT&T to MCI! The charges were about the same per call, so she >> didn't raise a stink about it after they graciously switched it back. >No, no, no! The fact that charges may be the same are irrelevant. >These are ill-gotten gains. I cannot speak to the legalities, to which the Moderator replied: >[Moderator's Note: They may be 'ill-gotten gains' to the slamming >carrier as you point out, but your failure to pay *at least the amount >you anticipated paying for the call you placed* is an unjust >enrichment to yourself. Strictly speaking, you must pay for calls you Pat, you've taken this position before, and I have had trouble understanding it before, and am still having trouble. If I am slammed without my knowledge, and get a phone bill from some company I've not given permission to carry my calls, I would like the legal situation to be such that I owe them no money for the calls. I did not give them permission to carry my traffic. I would consider it analogous to a situation in which some company delivered an unrequested product to my door and presented me with a bill. U.S. mail regs say I am entitled to keep the package and pay nothing for it as I did not ask for it. Not being a lawyer, and not being familiar with the tariffs, I can't address whether or not the tariffs allow it. If one were being really fussy, I would consider it more morally defensible for me to be required to pay the company I was slammed _FROM_ the money they would have charged me had they carried my calls, and owe the company slamming me nothing. If I got slammed, I would in fact refuse to pay and let them take me to court. I suspect that even if they had the legal backing to force me to pay, they would choose not to because of bad publicity. (Of course, I only make $10 or so long distance calls a month, so they wouldn't be losing lots of money.) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 14:36:42 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: 410 Area Code Prefix Locator Service I checked out some prefixes in the Columbia & Laurel areas: 596 Columbia (Laurel local service) stays in 301 792 Laurel (Baltimore-metro local service) goes into 410 776 Laurel (the "default" local service, which includes DC but not Va.) stays in 301 992 Columbia (the "default" local service, which includes Baltimore city but not all of Baltimore metro) goes into 410 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #897 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01054; 22 Dec 90 17:47 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab12146; 22 Dec 90 16:07 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab01533; 22 Dec 90 14:51 CST Date: Sat, 22 Dec 90 14:44:15 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #898 BCC: Message-ID: <9012221444.ab15445@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 22 Dec 90 14:44:06 CST Volume 10 : Issue 898 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Vacation Time: Stop Sending Messages Now [TELECOM Moderator] Re: 900 Number Sweepstakes, Space Flight is Prize! [Randal L. Schwartz] Re: 900 Number Sweepstakes, Space Flight is Prize! [Steven King] Re: To the Moon, Alice... [Ed Hopper] Re: Payphones and DTMF Dialling [Tom Gray] Re: System-X Exchanges [Martin Harriss] Re: Switching Office Open House [Kevin W. Williams] Re: Last Four Digits of Phone is '0000' [John Higdon] Re: Last Four Digits of Phone is '0000' [Ed Hopper] Re: Phone Service in the UK Today [Ian Phillipps] Carrier Code 10207 [Carl Moore] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 22 Dec 90 1:52:22 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Vacation Time: Stop Sending Messages Now Beginning at this time, the Digest will be winding down for about a week while I take a few days of needed rest and relaxation as the year comes to an end. The Digests you will receive from now through Christmas are made up of articles currently in the queue waiting for distribution. When those have been printed, I'll be off line for a few days. ** PLEASE DO NOT SEND MESSAGES TO COMP.DCOM.TELECOM / TELECOM DIGEST UNTIL THE START OF THE NEW YEAR. ** Messages received between Christmas and New Year's will be carefully screened and if they say something newsworthy and important will be held for the start of the new year. If not then I'll return them unused. Let's have all fresh topics to start the new year. No further 'Re' messages on existing subjects after this weekend please. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: "Randal L. Schwartz" Subject: Re: 900 Number Sweepstakes, Space Flight is Prize! Reply-To: "Randal L. Schwartz" Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 19:44:16 GMT In article <15524@accuvax.nwu.edu>, john@bovine (John Higdon) writes: | [Moderator's Note: Well now I don't know what to think. The {Chicago | Sun-Times} in the Wednesday editions had a picture of the men involved | with the firm and a short story saying the Soviets had DENIED the | report that arrangements had been made to take an American with them | on the trip and that the men involved were under investigation for | starting a scam. So now we have KGO saying it is true and a couple of | government investigators saying it is false and they are investigating | the fellows involved. I'm told it is false in a phone call and a | message here yesterday made similar claims. Wait and see, I guess. PAT] And today's edition of the {Oregonian} said that Soviets admit that they do indeed have a contract with the company. But now the controversy is over Texas State Law about charging $2.99 for entrance into a lottery. Just another space ace, 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: Steven King Subject: Re: 900 Number Sweepstakes, Space Flight is Prize! Date: 20 Dec 90 14:21:56 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL My local radio station confirms John's report. Apparently the Soviets have confirmed this sucker. Of course, this is a local rock station (WABT) and their news source is unknown; they're probably just pulling KGO's report off the wire. They also noted that there's some question of violation of Texas law. Me, I'm gonna wait another day or two and see which way this thing falls. If it falls jelly-side-up, you better believe I'll be calling and/or writing in! Steven King, Motorola Cellular (...uunet!motcid!king) ------------------------------ Subject: Re: To the Moon, Alice... From: Ed Hopper Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 20:21:09 CST Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Texas 713-997-7575 ehopper@ehpcb.wlk.com (Ed Hopper) writes: > [Moderator's Note: But John Higdon begs your pardon: He says the local > radio station in his town confirmed it is for real. We are out of > space in this issue, so in 892, John will lead off and tell us what is > really going on. PAT] True enough, however, statements were accurate *WHEN THEY WERE WRITTEN*. However, the investigation continues despite the new Soviet affirmation of the deal with these guys. A grand jury is looking into it. Ed Hopper BBS: 713-997-7575 ehopper@attmail.com ehopper@ehpcb.wlk.com [Moderator's Note: And the last word I've heard on this as of late Friday night was that the grand jury concluded there were no violations and that the sweepstakes was valid. Apparently everything is okay. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tom Gray Subject: Re: Payphones and DTMF Dialling Date: 21 Dec 90 13:47:34 GMT Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada. In article <15531@accuvax.nwu.edu> U5434122@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au writes: >As I described earlier, Telecom Australia has begun installing debit >card telephones, which have fancy LCD displays and pushbutton keypads, >instead of rotary dials (my, we are backward, aren't we.) >I have been trying to discover why these payphones do not have DTMF >dialling enabled. I accosted an installer yesterday and grilled him >[Moderator's Note: Disabling the mouth until supervision would prevent >the phone from being used to call directory enquiries or the operator; >both of whom answer unsupervised, no? PAT] Disabling the mouth piece would prevent the customer from placing an operator assisted call or conversing with an intercept operator. In any event supervision is provided to the originating office by the CAMA office. The CAMA office does this to instruct the originating office to perform the ANI spill. Only then will the customer be connected to the operator. Thus a local office has no way of knowing that the call has been completed. Operators may converse with a payphone before or after supervision is given. Operators may have to request extra payment on an existing call etc. Fraud is prevented by disablng the DTMF pad when the customer is connected to an operator. This is done by either reversing the battery to the set or by providing +48v supervision. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Dec 90 14:11:26 -0500 From: "Martin Harriss (ACP" Subject: Re: System-X Exchanges In article <15551@accuvax.nwu.edu> abm88@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Morley A.B.) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 894, Message 8 of 10 >I have found a new command on my local system-X exchange: 175 On BT's mechanical exchanges, 175 is the code for the Subscribers Automatic Line Test (SALT). You have stumbled on the System-X equivalent of this. The way it works for mechanical exchanges is this: Dial 175 X(XX) YYYY where YYYY is the last four digits of your number. You may also need the access code X(XX), depending on where you're doing this from. Possible codes are 1, 2, 3,... 8, 9, 01, 02,... 09, 001, 002,... 005. (Yes, the SALT machine counts pulses on a 25-position uniselector!) Wait for the announcement "Start Test". Hang up and wait for the phone to ring you back. Pick up the phone and dial 1305. You will now hear an announcement of the test result. If all is ok, you will hear "Testing OK". There are other announcements if something is wrong. Other 130X combinations will do things like switch you to the test desk or to the regional repair centre. The reason for the access code and the last four digits of your number is to tell the SALT machine which exchange and line you want tested. (One SALT machine does for many echanges.) Since System-X is electronic, that information is available to the switch. I suggest you try the following: Dial 175, wait for the "Start test" announcement. Hang up, wait for the phone to ring. Pick up, dial 1305. Let me know if this works. Note: In director areas you don't need the access code, since the director generates it for you as part of the translation. However, some director exchanges use 185 or some other 17X or 18X as their SALT code to distinguish between two or more exchanges using the same director. Martin Harriss martin@cellar.bae.bellcore.com ------------------------------ From: "Kevin W. Williams" Subject: Re: Switching Office Open House Date: 22 Dec 90 00:52:40 GMT Organization: gte In article <15390@accuvax.nwu.edu>, shri@ncst.ernet.in (H.Shrikumar) writes: > Does some one have figures in re the economics of the SLC-96 ? I don't > remember having seen any hard numbers in TELECOM Digest. > I mean, how much does a SLC-96 cost (equipment + installation + > maintenance) to the telco? And more to the point, how does this cost > compare with (equipment+installation+maintenance) cost of 96 > local-loop pairs ? You won't see numbers, because there are no numbers. If you are serving a rural area, a mode 2 SLC-96 running in 2:1 concentration becomes economical at a fairly close range (2-miles or so). If you are serving a major metropolitan area, and are weighing the difference between digging up multiple millions of dollars worth of real estate to lay in new facility, or reusing a few old analog pairs to do T1 over, the crossover point can be 50 or 60 feet. I have heard of SLC-96s being used in the upper floors of buildings just to save on premises wiring costs. > Another question, I recently read about an SLC-120 in an Indian > telecom magazine. They were referring to the US. Any SLC-120s in > service ? I find it difficult to believe that there are SLC-120s in the U.S. The SLC-120 is based on the European 30+2 scheme (4*30=120, just like 4*24=96). Kevin Wayne Williams UUCP : ...!ames!ncar!noao!asuvax!gtephx!williamsk ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Last Four Digits of Phone is '0000' Date: 20 Dec 90 01:26:48 PST (Thu) From: John Higdon Subodh Bapat writes: > It's not just 0000 numbers, they'll make excuses if they don't want to > assign you just any number you ask for. Ok, here are the legitimate reasons for refusal to assign numbers: In mechanical offices (through #5 Crossbar), the following may apply: 1. The number falls in a thousands group that simply isn't equipped. Mechanical switches assign numbers by physical positions on the equipment. If the equipment doesn't exist, you can't assign a number on it. For instance, years ago in West Yellowstone there was one SXS prefix for the whole town. It had two thousands groups installed, 9000 and 4000. If you wanted a number other than 9XXX or 4XXX, it was sorry Charlie. 2. The number falls in an anticpated hunting growth area of a large customer. If XYZ Corporation has been adding many lines per year in its incoming hunt group and the number you want is right in the middle of where telco expects it to expand, they will withhold the number from assignment to others. This only applies to mechanical switches (don't let them trot this out if you are dealing with an ESS). 3. The number falls within a bank of test numbers reserved for telco use. For all switches, reasons for denial include the following: 1. The number falls within a DID group, current or anticipated. 2. The number falls within an exchange that is GENERALLY used for DID or other large-user specialty use. 3. The number is actually reserved by a business for future use (yes, large customers can get away with this). 4. The number is in an electronic switch and you have ordered service that can be provided on a mechanical one (and numbers on the electronic one are in short supply). Tip: If this is the case, ask for 900/976 blocking. This can only be done (in Pac*Bell Land anyway) on electronic switches and they have to give it to you if requested -- free. 5. The number falls in an exchange that is about to cut to new equipment and number assignments are frozen. 6. The number, while out of service, may have only recently been disconnected and the "dead" time has not expired. If you agree to accept any wrong numbers, this can be negotiated. The above are the legitimate reasons. Nonsense reasons include: 1. That number is reserved for business. (There is no functional difference between a business line and a residential line.) 2. That number is reserved by telco. (Telco can "unreserve" any number it likes.) 3. That number is in a reserved hunt group (in an electronic switch). (An electronic switch can jump-hunt anywhere it likes.) John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Last Four Digits of Phone is '0000' From: Ed Hopper Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 07:24:54 CST Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Texas 713-997-7575 mailrus!uflorida!rm1!bapat@uunet.uu.net (Subodh Bapat) writes: > My question is: how do the LECs decide what range of numbers in each > prefix to reserve for whom? Are there different blocks of numbers in > each prefix pre-reserved for, say, residential, business trunks, DID, > and Centrex (even if such services aren't actually connected)? 305-384 > is a new prefix in the rapidly expanding West Broward county area, and > it's not even clear that the demographics have developed enough to the > point of presenting a well-defined customer mix profile. > Can anyone with any LEC background or knowledge shed any light on such > number allocation policies? Well, my LEC background is getting ancient (1982), but here goes. Assume that Megacorp's DID PBX uses NNX-1000 to NNX-2500. You want NNX-2754. The next 500 numbers could easily be "reserved" for Megacorp. I know I made exactly those sorts of "reservations" for my customers several times. Mountain Bell (now AKA US West) did not charge for these, of course, that was a simpler time. Ed Hopper BBS: 713-997-7575 ehopper@attmail.com ehopper@ehpcb.wlk.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 17:01:41 GMT From: Ian Phillipps Subject: Re: Phone Service in the UK Today >When I lived in England in 1970 .... A telephone >number (area code, etc) was not the same throughout the country. From >one city, your home number would be something totally different from >what it would be in another city. The result being that if you were >out of your home town and wanted to call home, you couldn't just dial >it from memory ... you had to find a local telephone book with all the >right codes. Well, that's what they want you to believe. Just dial the code, as given with a leading "0", and one of two things happen: (1) you get through - and I'm told aren't charged any more. (2) in the "big city" areas with 3+3+4 pattern numbers (e.g. London, Manchester, Glasgow), you may get a rcorded message telling you to leave off the area code. You can ignore the "dial 9 for Clacton" instructions if you like. It's an interesting fact that eight out of ten Americans are confused by telephone numbers being different lengths. If you're one of these, don't even try to talk to Germany (W) where numbers differ by several digits on a single exchange! >I don't know if they have updated the system since then ... yes - >It's noticably improved in the last five years or so. >and North America. Where else can you order a pizza from a cellular >phone while driving home ... ? Well, in Cambridge, England for one - call Flying Pizza on 0223 244874. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 16:02:57 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Carrier Code 10207 While I was in New Market, Va. recently (served by 703-740, along I-81 in the Shenandoah Valley area), I stopped in a restaurant and looked at a 1989 call guide for that area. There were a few long-distance carrier codes listed there, and I noticed 10207 listed as "Shenandoah". I don't know if that's available anymore; I tried it on a call from a pay phone on 703-896 (nearby Broadway, Va. exchange) and got a message saying that that carrier code was not in service. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #898 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01984; 22 Dec 90 18:55 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac01807; 22 Dec 90 17:15 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac12146; 22 Dec 90 16:07 CST Date: Sat, 22 Dec 90 15:20:45 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #899 BCC: Message-ID: <9012221520.ab18676@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 22 Dec 90 15:20:38 CST Volume 10 : Issue 899 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Vacation Time: Stop Sending Messages Now [TELECOM Moderator] Re: Phones and Radio Broadcasting [John Higdon] Re: NCR and AT&T: An NCR Employee's Perspective [Ken Thompson] Re: Collect Call from AT&T to: AT&T Employees [Ed Hopper] Re: The MessageCenter [John Higdon] Re: Voice Mail vs Message Center [John Temples] Re: COCOT's on the corner [Marc T. Kaufman] Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed [Peter da Silva] Re: Don't Pay For Slamming! [John Stanley] International Commercial E-Mail Connectivity [Artch Griffin] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 22 Dec 90 1:52:22 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Vacation Time: Stop Sending Messages Now Beginning at this time, the Digest will be winding down for about a week while I take a few days of needed rest and relaxation as the year comes to an end. The Digests you will receive from now through Christmas are made up of articles currently in the queue waiting for distribution. When those have been printed, I'll be off line for a few days. ** PLEASE DO NOT SEND MESSAGES TO COMP.DCOM.TELECOM / TELECOM DIGEST UNTIL THE START OF THE NEW YEAR. ** Messages received between Christmas and New Year's will be carefully screened and if they say something newsworthy and important will be held for the start of the new year. If not then I'll return them unused. Let's have all fresh topics to start the new year. No further 'Re' messages on existing subjects after this weekend please. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Phones and Radio Broadcasting Date: 22 Dec 90 10:05:19 PST (Sat) From: John Higdon "David E. Bernholdt" writes: > Can anyone tell me why once the connection was completed the line > would be so clear? I have no idea if there were any special filters > on the phone or anything like that. This was about ten years ago, if > that makes any difference in technology/equipment. Mechanical switching equipment (particularly crossbar) is notorious for imbalancing the customers line while accepting digits. When the call completes, the customer is connected to an intra or inter CO trunk unit which presents the proper load and longitudinal balance to the line. A properly balanced audio line is much less suceptible to any type of external interference (including RF). That is why radio stations are very careful to use balanced audio circuits if the studio is co-located at the transmitter. (And why consumer audio gear is so suceptible with its unbalanced audio cables.) I remember some relatives that lived some distance out of Bellevue, WA, that had a phone served out of a #5 crossbar office. The hum on the line was deafening during dialing, but it would go away with the "ka-plunk" that came after dialing. Originating registers are apparently a very bogus termination. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Ken Thompson Subject: Re: NCR and AT&T: An NCR Employee's Perspective Date: 20 Dec 90 16:05:47 GMT Reply-To: Ken Thompson Organization: NCR Corporation, Wichita, KS Hmmm NCR & ATT? Need a name.. hmmm... C ash R egisters A nd P hones ! If I wanted to work for the ding-a-lings, ..... Ken Thompson N0ITL NCR Corp. 3718 N. Rock Road Wichita,Ks. 67226 (316)636-8783 Ken.Thompson@wichita.ncr.com ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Collect Call from AT&T to: AT&T Employees From: Ed Hopper Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 20:48:24 CST Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Texas 713-997-7575 werner@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (Werner Uhrig) writes: > [ I told them in 1985 to buy Apple, but they wouldn't listen to me ... ] There were serious discussions with Apple, and: Atari, DEC, DG, Unisys and pretty near everyone else except IBM. (Hmmm..buy IBM, combine bureaucracy and cock-eyed technology!) The DEC deal almost happened. Olsen said no deal at the end. > [Moderator's Note: I am sorry the phone number was not sent along with > the article. I didn't remove it ... I did not receive it! Please send > this number so that AT&T employees and stockholders who read the > Digest can use if if they wish. PAT] They (NCR) listed the office numbers of all AT&T board members (including the ones who are officers of other corporations and not full-time AT&T employees). I don't have the original ad, hence no phone numbers. At least two of the numbers were wrong. The press (USA Today) reported that very few (i.e., under five per board member) calls were received. The CWA is deeply involved in fighting this. Being a UNIONIZED computer company has been a massive handicap. Good people get laid off because they are young, older, former PBX installers, who often can't spell "C", are retained. After a VERY poor start, AT&T-CS management has made a major (internal) public relations effort to alleviate sagging morale in Computer Systems. The continued cheap shots from NCR, the press, and our "friends" in other AT&T departments are hard to take. We know better, but still. Last week, in an Alliance call with the Southern Region sales staff, our VP told us "We don't think every NCR employee walks on water and our people are pond scum." Last Friday, Allen, Kavner and Rich McGinn (president of Computer Systems) held a 2 1/2 hour live video teleconference with all CS employees. They aren't promising everyone a job, they are promising to be fair. One bright spot: in 1990, AT&T hired 22,000 people. Total AT&T Computer Systems employment is 7,000. There is a corporate wide restriction on hiring now in order to manage this situation. We'll see. Personally, I'm not going to worry about it. I've been through this before and it isn't worth wasting your stomach lining on. I figure that when I reach the Pearly Gates, I can say "I'm an AT&T employee who's been through divestiture and the NCR merger, I've spent my time in hell." Ed Hopper BBS: 713-997-7575 ehopper@attmail.com ehopper@ehpcb.wlk.com ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: The MessageCenter Date: 22 Dec 90 10:24:05 PST (Sat) From: John Higdon "Kenny J. Hart" writes: > Yes, Mr. Higdon it is for real, and an excellent product, and you > should bite. The thing I can't understand is why you have to > continually think Pac*Bell is out to screw you!! Well, you sort of asked, so I'll tell you. When the non-reg arm of Pac*Bell offers a product that depends on CO access, doesn't that sort of tilt the playing field for that product's competitors? What service bureau would be able to compete with MessageCenter? Now the reasonable person would ask, "Why not just use Pac*Bell's product and forget the competition?" Well, for one thing, if there was competition to the MessageCenter, I could have it now. As it is, Pac*Bell can't even give me a date when it might be available in my area. And what happens when Pac*Bell decides to raise the (non-reg) price? If you're hooked on the service, they have you by the bells. Like many who read the Digest, I am a service junkie. But everytime I call my friendly rep about this new service or that, it's, "I'm sorry, that service is not available in your area." There is no SS7 in my CO, so that automatically excludes CLASS. "*70" gets a recording on my line with Call Waiting. In short, I'd love to check some of this new stuff out but living in the only CO in the Bay Area that doesn't offer ANYTHING makes one wonder. Ok, I know Pac*Bell didn't plan it that way just to get back at me, but really... John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: John Temples Subject: Re: Voice Mail vs Message Center Organization: Private System -- Orlando, FL Date: Fri, 21 Dec 90 02:25:00 GMT In article <15493@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: >I inquired of my business office >regarding the MessageCenter(tm). This is $5/month voice mail for the >very small user, available to businesses and residences. I'm not sure if this would be of any help to you, but United Telephone has a low-cost voice mail system. Their basic package offers a mailbox with seven message capacity and four day retention for $4.45 per month. Here in Orlando, we are served by both United Telephone and Southern Bell. I've got a United message line even though I'm a Southern Bell customer. There was no setup fee, and the first three months were only $3.00 each. United's number is 1-800-347-9990. John W. Temples -- john@jwt.UUCP (uunet!jwt!john) ------------------------------ From: "Marc T. Kaufman" Subject: Re: COCOT's on the Corner From: kaufman@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Marc T. Kaufman) Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 05:30:36 GMT In article <15512@accuvax.nwu.edu> motcid!segal@uunet.uu.net (Gary Segal) writes: >stanley@phoenix.com (John Stanley) writes: ->How unique -- PSA's on COCOT's. I dial 0. Country music comes on. So ->does the operator. -A former friend of mine in -Bloomingdale Illinios had the unfortunate problem being served by a CO -that is close to the transmit tower for a FM radio station. Somehow -the radio program found it's way into the local loops... -Apparantly Illinios Bell claimed that this was a problem for the FCC, -but the bureaucrats had been taking years to sort out the problem. Radio amateurs are particularly sensitive to the charge of interference, so we try to keep up with the regs. To my knowledge, if a device which was not designed to be a radio receiver is receiving and demodulating radio signals, then it is NOT the responsibility of the radio station to fix it. It is the responsibility of the manufacturer or user (in this case, the phone company) to use "good engineering practice" to insure that their lines do not receive radio. Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Neon.stanford.edu) ------------------------------ From: peter da silva Subject: Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 18:31:47 GMT > [Moderator's Note: The point is, your long distance connection through > the public switched network was NOT unsolicited. You solicited the > service as soon as you went off hook and started dialing the number. That sounds a *lot* like that particular perversion of contract law, the infamous shrink-wrap license. What's the latest on the validity of shrink wrap licenses? Peter da Silva +1 713 274 5180 peter@ferranti.com ------------------------------ From: John Stanley Subject: Re: Don't Pay For Slamming! Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 14:23:54 EST Organization: One Man Brand news@accuvax.nwu.edu (USENET News System) writes: Fascinating. A News System is WRITING news. > stanley@phoenix.com (I) write: > > Who do you owe, and how much? [...] > > The service was provided. > The "service" [i.e. the fridge] was *offered*, and you > rejected it (as you were entitled to do because it wasn't what you > asked for). The fridge is sitting on your front porch. Why? The delivery people left it there. Were you aware that UPS leaves packages at rural destinations without obtaining signatures? (The fridge was a small, dorm sized one.) How about this -- the box says refridgerator on it, but not K-Mart, and you know you ordered one, and you have no way of knowing it is K-Mart until you opened the box. > Or suppose, in a restaurant, the waitress delivers the wrong > meal, which you consume without complaint. You can no longer reject > something as not being what you wanted *after* you've consumed it. She will set the plate in front of you. (The box arrives on your porch.) If you do not complain (you just open the box and use the fridge) you owe the bill. If you complain as soon as you know the error, you do not. When you get slammed, you do not know the error until several months later. If the food is not cooked properly, you will probably not know it until you start to eat it. If the middle is still raw, you will have to eat at least half to find that out. Do you think you owe half the bill? And actually, there is a good argument that you do, indeed, owe nothing even after eating the food. You are allergic to specific foods, or are prevented from eating them by religious fiat. You specify this to the waitress. The food arrives. You believe it to be free of allergen, or prohibited contents. It is a soup, or exists in some state that it is impossible from looking at it to tell exactly what it contains. She leaves the check, and you see that what she charged you for was exactly what told her you could not consume. You are either bound for the hospital or (insert unhappy afterlife of your choice). There is a very good chance that not only do you not owe them for the food, but that they may be open to a hefty lawsuit. (I.e. they owe YOU money.) > > You owe K-Mart the chance to come pick its refridgerator up. [...] > >You owe the unchosen carrier the chance to > >retrieve its service. > You owe the restaurant the opportunity to pump your stomach? You owe the restaurant the chance to pick up the wrong order when you notify them of the mistake. Do you expect them to ask to pump your stomach when you complain of uncooked food? > You asked for something, you got what appeared to be what you wanted, > you consumed it without complaint, You have consumed nothing in the fridge example. It is sitting happily, still in most of the box (you cut a corner to look at it), waiting for pick up. If K-Mart declines the chance to pick it up, it belongs to you, you may use it as you wish, and you owe K-Mart nothing. And, since telecom is a renewable resource, you consume nothing there, either. The slammer is perfectly able to sell the same service you used to someone else. > If you were unable to detect that the service wasn't AT&T when > you consumed it, what reason do you have to complain now? The service was provided from a source from which it was not ordered. The payment will go to enrich the source, whom you will be involuntarilly enriching. You have made a choice of product, based on price or other consideration (e.g. political activity), and have received a product which you consider inferior, without any way of telling. > If you had inadvertedly been served Folger's Crystals when you > thought you were getting fresh-brew, how were you injured? If you caught a restaurant advertising "fresh-brewed coffee" and serving Folger's Instant, that is certainly a case of false advertising and fraud. You were injured in that you were paying for one product and receiving another. Did you notice, when some of the major restaurants changed brands of cola, how they bent over backwards to make sure you knew what you were going to get? "Give me a large Coke." "Will Pepsi be ok?" Of course, I don't expect a computer to understand the differences. ------------------------------ Date: Thursday, 20 Dec 1990 13:54:35 EST From: Artch Griffin Subject: International Commercial E-Mail Connectivity I would like to informally test the international connectivity of commercial E-mail systems, e.g., AT&TMail to any of several European or Asian PTTs. However, I do not know any non-internet international addresses. If some European or Asian readers of this would be willing to let me attempt to send them an E-mail test message between commercial systems, please reply to artch@mwvm.mitre.org with their commercial mail address. If any one else would like to comment on their experience, I will summarize and post. Thanks. Artch ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #899 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02794; 22 Dec 90 19:53 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20205; 22 Dec 90 18:21 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01807; 22 Dec 90 17:08 CST Date: Sat, 22 Dec 90 15:55:04 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #900 BCC: Message-ID: <9012221555.ab03904@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 22 Dec 90 15:54:37 CST Volume 10 : Issue 900 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Vacation Time: Stop Sending Messages Now [TELECOM Moderator] Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' [Dave Close] Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' [Paul Fuqua] Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' [Dave Levenson] Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' [Scott D. Green] Distinctive Ringing, Another Application Appropos FAX [Pete Ahrens] Re: Distinctive Ringing [Charles Buckley] Re: Running Your Own LD Copmpany [Peter Marshall] Re: Caller ID in Atlanta [Robert Jacobson] Re: Caller ID in Atlanta [Peter Marshall] Ohio's Caller ID and Call*Trace [Stan Brown] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 22 Dec 90 1:52:22 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Vacation Time: Stop Sending Messages Now Beginning at this time, the Digest will be winding down for about a week while I take a few days of needed rest and relaxation as the year comes to an end. The Digests you will receive from now through Christmas are made up of articles currently in the queue waiting for distribution. When those have been printed, I'll be off line for a few days. ** PLEASE DO NOT SEND MESSAGES TO COMP.DCOM.TELECOM / TELECOM DIGEST UNTIL THE START OF THE NEW YEAR. ** Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: Dave Close Subject: Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' Date: Sat, 22 Dec 90 05:36:09 GMT Organization: Shared Financial Systems, Dallas, TX In article <15542@accuvax.nwu.edu> Randal L. Schwartz writes: >I guess living in an area where 1 means long distance gives me the >advantage at understanding these statements. For those of you who >haven't had "1" mean long distance, taking those statements out of >context from the newspaper article must have looked really funny. And >since the general population *for that area* has it firmly entrenched >that "1 means long distance"... that's indeed what they are losing! >(I'm still baffled at what the "1 means long distance" people do when >a differing area code is *not* long distance. Do you dial the "1" or >not? Around here, if it's a different area code, it's definitely long >distance.) This relates to a message I posted a month or two back. Here in DFW (north Texas), toll calls always start with a 1, free calls always start without a 1. This includes inter-area code calls: a free call from Dallas to Fort Worth is dialed 817-xxx-xxxx, NOT 1-817-xxx-xxxx which is only used for toll calls. Obviously this reduces the number of possible exchanges in each area slightly. SWB's solution to the problem in PA: Instead of dropping the 1 for intra-area code calls, they require you to dial your OWN area code. A toll call from Dallas to a far suburb in the same area is dialed 1-214-xxx-xxxx. Personally, I prefer the PA solution, but SWB's works. My primary complaint is that I have no way to determine --reliably-- before calling, if a number is a toll call. Therefore, I dial 1+number (with or without area code) and hear, "We're sorry, it is not necessary to dial a one or zero when dialing this number." Sorry, indeed! Why not let the call go through anyway? -- Dave Close, Shared Financial Systems, Dallas davec@shared.com vmail +1 214 458 3850 uunet!shared!davec fax +1 214 458 3876 My comments are my opinions and may not be shared by Shared. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Dec 90 13:25:01 CST From: Paul Fuqua Subject: Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' merlyn at iwarp.intel.com (Randal L. Schwartz) writes: > I'm still baffled at what the "1 means long distance" people do when > a differing area code is *not* long distance. Do you dial the "1" or > not? Around here, if it's a different area code, it's definitely long > distance. Well, I'm a "1 means long distance" person, living in Dallas (214-340), and the article totally confused me. Here, to call a local number in a different area code, one dials ten digits -- no 1+. If it's a long-distance number, it's always eleven digits. (Actually, I only know this to be true for the 214/817 boundary; I don't know what is done about local cross-area-code calls elsewhere in the state, or even if there are any.) It wasn't always this way -- until a couple of years ago, certain exchanges were reserved for "metro" service, and these numbers were local to both Dallas and Fort Worth. They started the ten-digit hack to free up those exchanges for duplication along the boundary. SWBell printed a notice on top of every page in the phone book, listing the affected exchanges. Well, it listed most of them: they left out the GTE exchanges. Area-code-split note: A couple of months ago, there was a newspaper article describing the 214/903 area-code split. It contained one odd fact: there are more than two dozen phone companies serving the area now in 903. Paul Fuqua pf@csc.ti.com, ti-csl!pf Texas Instruments Computer Science Center, Dallas, Texas ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' Date: 22 Dec 90 20:42:15 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <15571@accuvax.nwu.edu>, cornutt@freedom.msfc.nasa.gov (David Cornutt) writes: > BTW, there's a twist to the 1 + areacode rule that I don't recall > seeing discussed here. If a leading 1 means that "area code follows" > for all numbers, then presumably, in addition to making NNX-style > number available as exchange numbers, it would make NXX-style numbers > available as area codes, provided that the whole NANP area could be > switched over to this style of dialing. This would seem to solve our > areacode shortage problem for many years. Does anyone know if this > has been considered? It has not only been considered, it's been planned. It appears in the Bellcore "Notes on the Intra-LATA Networks". The plan is that all intra-NPA calls will be dialed with seven digits, whether or not a toll charge applies. Moreover, all inter-NPA calls will be dialed as 1 + 10 digits. Non-conforming areas are expected to implement these procedures during the 1990's. It would seem that the 215 area code has just announced such an implementation. In NJ, we've had this in effect for several years. When it has become universal, then there need be no distinction between area codes and 'office' prefix codes. That will allow many existing NPA's to be further sub-divided without exhausting the supply of possible area codes. Note that this numbering plan has worldwide consequences: Any country which permits customer-dialed calls to the US or Canada must implement changes in its dialed-number validation translations before we can move forward with this. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 12:54 EDT From: "Scott D. Green" Subject: Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' It's true. I believe I reported it to the Digest when the story first broke several months ago. The issue, of course, is using NPA-appearing prefixes. If one uses 1+N0/1X-xxxx the switch needs to time-out to realize it's not getting another three digits (and an inter-NPA call), right? So, the 1+ will only be used for inter-NPA; anything within 215 (local or long-distance) will be seven digits only. I assume that to place 0+ calls within 215 will require 0+215+xxx-xxxx for a similar reason. Scott ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Dec 90 14:47:39 -0800 From: pacbell!pb2esac!prahrens@mips.com Subject: Distinctive Ringing, Another Application Appropos FAX Organization: Pacific*Bell ESAC, San Francisco, Ca. For the sake of completeness, I would add to my remarks of 12-20-90 in my reply to you that there is a way to obtain distinctive ringing on a single line (other than "Home Intercom" or "Intercom Plus" where the line is calling itself - revertive trunking - in order to ring distinctively another extension; this feature probably goes by other names in other RBOC's). This would be a feature known as "Multiple Directory Number" or "Teen Service", where supplementary directory numbers are assigned to a master directory number (the original LDN). This application would be ideal for FAX, etc. It is offered in some RBOC's; Bellsouth, I believe. One tariff issue would be whether the feature would be available to business lines as well as residence. Alas, it is not currently available in Pacific Bell's serving area -- so your correspondents from California do have a point when they complain about a certain lack of robustness in feature offerings. I have often made this very point in discussions formal and informal with my colleagues. I wholeheartedly sympathize with and understand their complaints, but I, to quote Mongo, "am only a pawn in the game of life." Merry Christmas, Pete Ahrens ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Dec 90 01:08:37 PST From: Charles Buckley Subject: Re: Distinctive Ringing Recently I wrote: >In another bit of PacBell stupidity, I recently tried to get >distinctive ringing on my single line... >Is this Catch-22 idiocy nationwide, or is it only PacBell that has >this problem? To which Pat Townson, the mMderator, replied: >[Moderator's Note: . . . [IBT] >could not offer Distinctive Ringing until recently when they upgraded >their software. They did offer it in Centrex and Starline service, but >not on single residential lines until ahout two months ago. PAT] And to which Pete Ahrens of PacBell, wrote (ex-officio), that Distinctive Ringing was part of a market strategy aimed at Centrex customers, to distinguish outside calls from within. He then went on at length, essentially about RBOC's like PacBell making serious efforts to bring Centrex to the masses. He finished by writing: "In the case of your poster, notice he has only one line. The presence of an intragroup call is thus illogical (from this feature's point of view) and there is no basis for distinctive ringing as the vendors have defined it. "I would humbly like to point out that the RBOC's do not in general design these features. Rather, the features are the result of consultation, discussion, and review among the Bellcore Client Companies, vendors such as Northern Telecom and ATT, and so on. Quite often, the feature the user "sees" is a set (some would say "kludge") of these design-by-committee features." To which I respond: Well gee, let's all just wallow in apologism! Seriously, do you think anyone ever imagined that anything else was going on? What you're saying is that PacBell depends primarily on Bellcore and their hardware vendors to describe consumer demand to them. This is like collecting military intelligence by waiting for history books to be published, and then reading them. Any army that does this will lose. You won't even catch Saddam doing something so dumb. The only reason PacBell gets away with it is that it is a protected monopoly. If the Japanese could sell dial tone here, PacBell would fare even worse than GM and Ford have. PacBell should clean up its act, and be responsive to customer requests, period. Sandbagging with saccharine politeness and browbeating the customer by defining his requests as illogical are no substitute, especially when others are willing to (but barred by law from) fulfilling them. These blocking strategies seem particularly misplaced when they exist only to protect intra-organizational political traditions. Merry Christmas to you too. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 10:57:30 -0800 From: Peter Marshall Subject: Re: Running Your Own LD Company Seattle does not have "very wide Extended Area Service" as such. In doesn't need it, as in fact what Seattle does have is an extensive local calling area. Unaware of "local telecom entrepreneur" effort to lobby the WA PUC in this regard as such, but we did have a collection of now-concluded cases with US Metrolink, etc. squaring off against GTE-NW and US West, where those coming out on the short end were these so-called "EAS resellers." Since then, the PUC, like some others, has redone their EAS policies, a long- overdue step, and now the state "independents" association is said to be considering a bill for the upcoming legislative session here that would deal with local exchange boundary questions and suchlike. ------------------------------ From: Robert Jacobson Subject: Re: Caller ID in Atlanta Date: 21 Dec 90 21:01:39 GMT Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab, Univ. of Wash., Seattle A one-year trial will not be enough to expose the profound effects of Caller ID...for example, building telemarketing lists, getting enough customers on the system to build these lists, their use by telemarketers for return calls, etc. I suggest that separating "moral/ethical/other" issues in another conference caters to technological determinism: implement the technology, then let others try to fix things in its aftermath. But there is active discussion in both Risks and the new eff.org.talk newsgroups. Bob Jacobson [Moderator's Note: And don't forget the discussion going on in the Telecom-Priv Digest as well. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Caller ID in Atlanta From: Peter Marshall Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 11:40:32 PST Organization: The 23:00 News Re: Bill Berbenich's 12/19 post in Digest #892-- "Getting online with a minimum of pre-deployment wrangling" seems euphemistic and equally problematic. Such a notion of Caller ID trials also seems to be premised on an all-too-unsceptical assumption about trials in general, and this kind in particular. It might also be observed that PUC approvals of this kind can involve an interest in ultimate buck-passing to the courts anyway. Thus, so much for the evils of "pre-deployment wrangling." ------------------------------ Date: 21 Dec 90 09:41:00 EDT From: "CONTR BROWN,STAN" Subject: Ohio's Caller ID and Call*Trace I was intrigued to hear how far one regulatory agency appears to be in bed with a regulated utility. Ohio Bell (part of Ameritech, an RBOC) wants to offer caller ID. I'm told that Ohio Bell has inserted things in bills asking people to write to the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) supporting caller ID. (I don't know that for sure because the first thing I do with the phone bill is throw away the advertising inserts.) In Ohio, the Consumers Counsel is a publicly funded watchdog agency. I sent them a copy of my letter to the PUCO against caller ID as proposed. They called me to verify that I truly had sent the original to the PUCO, because the PUCO haad not logged it. According to the Consumers Counsel, this appears to be a widespread pattern. I mentioned to the officer I talked to that I wouldn't have thought the PUCO to be so biased, but perhaps I was naive. His response, "You're naive." So, if you have written to the PUCO about any telecom-related issue, you may want to send a copy to: Mr. Robert Ceisler Consumers Counsel 77 South High Street/15th floor Columbus OH 43266 (+1 800 282 9448). Other telecom-related tidbits: Last summer the Consumers Counsel proposed requiring phone companies to offer subscribers a free listing indicating "telemarketers don't call". The PUCO has taken no action, and the Consumers Counsel is considering proposing legislation at the state level. Call*Trace (if I've got the right name) is also not available. It was proposed last summer but the PUCO is sitting on it too. (Whatever the name, this is the service where you get a harassing call and punch a few numbers to lock it into the phone company's computers but you yourself don't get the number.) Please do not attribute these remarks to any other person or company. Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio, USA +1 216 371 0043 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #900 ******************************